廉洁治理现代化是国家治理体系与治理能力现代化的题中之义。党的十八大以来，我国反腐败工作领域形成了顶层设计引领与基层实践创新、局部试点先行与整体凝练推进双向对话、交织并行的有序格局。与中央层面的强势话语相比，地方层面的探索却相对处于“话语迟滞”与“经验沉积”的状态。实践与理论的张力呼唤基层廉洁治理经验话语的发现与建构。作为辐射义乌农村整体治理的廉洁岛，“村务清廉钉办”勾画出一条以技术驱动廉洁创新的有效路径。义乌基层公权力监督数字化转型的关键在于技术与组织的适配耦合与良性互动，二者协同于基层廉洁治理实践。基于田野调查与个案发掘，本文提出，廉洁岛的涌现过程在特定侧面上可被理解为技术与组织的互动过程，该过程是由“技术进场-技术嵌入-技术赋能”与“组织选择-组织调适-组织赋权”交织辐合而成的双螺旋结构。在技术进场阶段，包含价值合法性、任务合法性、绩效合法性在内的组织合法性体现出组织对技术的选择性意志与能动性主张，是“客观的技术”成为“被执行的技术”之转化阶段。在技术嵌入阶段，包括结构调适、过程调适与结果调适在内的组织调适内含了技术对组织的自主性要求与使动性塑造，是传统科层组织向技术适应型组织的转身阶段。技术与组织经由自组织阶段的双向接近与自生长阶段的相互适应达致适配耦合状态，彼此借力，同向作用于基层廉洁治理：技术强化了组织的协同能力、监督能力与处置能力，组织则赋予技术主体话语、制度准入与流程再造的权力刚性。二者的结合达到了仅凭技术或组织均无法独力实现的效果，推动了地区廉洁岛的涌现。这种涌现表现为基层监督效能、廉洁效能与治理效能的层级跃迁。技术与组织的适配耦合并非一蹴而就，二者在多轮次重复互动的动态调整过程中也面临着异步性难题，具体表现为技术指向与组织目标的错位、技术运转与组织制度的脱节以及技术执行与组织人员的不相适应。技术-组织异步性制约了廉洁岛成效的完全发挥。为了提高技术-组织适配性与耦合度，可以从系统性顶层设计引领技术目标、全周期制度管理保障技术运转以及复合式人才培养支撑技术执行三方面破题发力，由此推动基层廉洁治理提质增效。
The modernization of national governance system and capacity contains the connotation of modernization in clean governance. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, China’s anti-corruption arena takes on an ordered pattern featuring mutual dialogue and interleaved parallel between top-level design and grassroots innovation, regional pilot and nationwide promotion. Compared with the strong discourse at the central level, exploration from the local level has yet been relatively in a state of “discourse lag” and “experience deposition”. Tension between practice and theory calls for discovery and construction in empirical discourse of grassroots clean governance. As an “integrity island” that actuates the systemic governance in Yiwu’s rural area, “DingTalk for Clean Village Affairs” sketches an effective path to integrity innovation driven by technology. The key to the digital transformation in public power supervision at grassroots level in Yiwu lies in the adaptive coupling and constructive interaction between technology and organization, which work in concert under the course of grassroots clean governance practices. Based on field investigation and case study, it is proposed that the emergence of “integrity island” can be interpreted as an interactive process between technology and organization from a particular perspective. This process can be seen as a double-helix structure interlacedly combined with “technology appearance-technology embedment-technology enablement” and “organization selection-organization adjustment-organization empowerment”. In the phase of technology appearance, organizational legitimacy including value legitimacy, assignment legitimacy and performance legitimacy indicates selective will and conscious claim from organization towards technology, which turns “objective technology” into “enacted technology”. During the process of technology embedment, organization adjustment involved with structural adjustment, procedural adjustment and outcome adjustment demonstrates technology’s autonomous demand and moulding on organization, which cultivates the transformation from traditional bureaucracy to technology-adaptive organization. Technology and organization as a whole is brought to the doorstep of adaptive coupling through mutual approaching during self-organizing followed by mutual adaptation during self-growing. They leverage from each other and function in the same direction towards grassroots clean governance. Technology strengthens organization’s collaborative, supervision and disposal ability, while organization endows technology with the power of subject discourse, institutional accessibility and process reengineering. The combination of the two achieves effects that cannot be realized by either of them alone and promotes the emergence of “integrity island” in the region. Such emergence is manifested by the progressive leap from supervision, integrity to governance.The coupling between technology and organization cannot be achieved overnight. Asynchrony also occurs during dynamic adjustment and repeated interaction between the two, which might refer to dislocation between technological direction and organizational goal, disconnection between technology operation and organization system, and mismatch between technology implementation and organization personnel. Such asynchrony obstructs the full release of “integrity island” effect. To promote the quality and efficiency of clean governance at the grassroots level, measures aimed at improving compatibility and coupling between the two can be taken as follows: to lead technological objective with systematic top-level design, to guarantee technological operation with whole-cycle institutional management, and to support technology implementation with composite personnel training.
