街道办事处是中国城市基层治理的毛细血管和末梢机构，是行政管理和基层自治的重要衔接纽带。街道办事处的地位和职能反映着政府、市场和社会群体之间的权力安排和互动关系。上有掌握行政管理权的区政府，下有享有基层自治权的社区，左右各有众多企业和社会力量，街道这一层级在“上下左右”之间发挥重要价值。管理转治理、单向转协同的基层体制改革，化解了国家与社会、行政与自治的矛盾，基层治理的纵向和横向协同治理过程，搭建起以街道为中心的协同治理之景。然而，在中国基层之治的复杂实践中，交织着差异化的协同治理模式。研究将“2×2”协同治理作为分析框架展现基层治理体制，从宏观和微观、结构和运作四个维度分析我国城市基层治理多层级和多主体间的合作关系、行动逻辑和协同机制。根据北京市多个街道的调研结果，基于“结构弹性”和“运作时限”的双变量，归纳出中国基层实际运作过程中自上而下“金字塔型”、自下而上“汲水型”、结对竞赛“亮点型”和扁平共建“网络型”的四种协同治理模式。其中，社区工作者的管理因结构刚性和运作时限短的特征呈现出自上而下的“金字塔型”治理模式；北京“接诉即办”改革结构稳定、运作时限长，人民“吹哨”街道“报道”的方式是自下而上“汲水型”协同模式的代表；辖区禀赋、领导偏好和非正式关系等多种因素提升了组织结构的弹性，但年度微创新的激励安排缩短了运作时限，街道与上级部门的纵向协同形成了结对竞赛“亮点型”模式；扁平共建“网络型”通过扩张资源的方式增加结构的弹性，较长的运作时限打下了信任基础，演化出社会工作服务中心多元共治的实践。研究发现：基层协同治理方式的差异化源自组织结构的弹性差异和运作事项的期限；传统的科层关系和新兴的协同关系交织共生，多种协同治理模式存在着一定的互补性和增益性；治理过程在基层复杂的场域下呈现出灵活性适应和多形态嵌入的规律，国家和社会、管理和自治的边界逐渐模糊，演化和融合成为新的发展趋势。在此基础上提出推进城市街道协同治理现代化的相关政策建议。

Sub-district are the capillaries and peripheral institutions of grassroots governance in Chinese cities, and are an important link between administrative management and grassroots autonomy. The status and functions of sub-district reflect the power distribution and interaction between the government, market, and social groups. There are district governments with administrative management power at the top, communities with grassroots autonomy at the bottom, and numerous enterprises and social organizations on both sides. The sub-district plays an important role in the relationship between the top, bottom, left, and right. The grassroots system reform of transforming management into governance and one-way into collaboration has resolved the contradictions between the state and society, as well as between administration and autonomy, and established a collaborative governance landscape centered on sub-district. However, in the complex practice of grassroots governance in China, there are intertwined differentiated collaborative governance models.The research has implemented “2×2” Collaborative Governance as an analytical framework to showcase grassroots governance systems, analyzing the cooperative relationships, action logic, and collaborative mechanisms between multi-level and multi-agent urban grassroots governance in China from four dimensions: Macro and Micro, Structure, and Operation. Based on the results of multiple sub-districts in Beijing, and based on the dual variables of "structural elasticity" and "operating time limit", four collaborative governance models have been summarized in China: top-down "pyramid type", bottom-up "water drawing type", paired competition "highlight type", and flat "network type". Among them, the management of community workers presents a top-down "pyramid" governance model due to their rigid structure and short operational time limit; The reform of "Swift Response to Public Complaints" in Beijing has a stable structure and a long operating time limit. The way people "whistle" and "report" on streets is a representative of the bottom-up "water drawing" collaborative model; Various factors such as jurisdictional endowments, leadership preferences, and informal relationships have enhanced the flexibility of organizational structure. However, the incentive arrangement for annual micro innovation has shortened the operating time limit, and the vertical collaboration between streets and higher-level departments has formed a paired competition "highlight type" model; The flat "network type" co construction increases the flexibility of the structure by expanding resources, laying a trust foundation for a longer operating time, and evolving into the practice of diversified co governance in social work service centers.The research has figured out that the differentiation of grassroots collaborative governance methods stems from differences in organizational structure and the duration of operational matters; Traditional hierarchical relationships and emerging collaborative relationships are intertwined and symbiotic, and multiple collaborative governance models have certain complementarity and benefits; The process of governance presents a pattern of flexible adaptation and multiple forms of embedding in complex grassroots fields. The boundaries between the state and society, management, and autonomy are gradually blurred, and evolution and integration have become new development trends. On this basis, relevant policy recommendations were proposed to promote the modernization of urban street collaborative governance.