《公共管理专业英语》Unit4 textB翻译

Recent Transformations Administration Theory：

a revolution in public management？

近代的变革管理理论：公共管理的改革

Since the early１９８０s much work has been conducted in public administration theory and practice that claims to go beyond the conservative approach in the field．This “liberalization” of public administration is recognized today as the NPM trend．The self-identity problem of public administration was greatly aggravated by the launching of the idea of NPM．As noted by Kettl and Mitward，“public management is neithe r traditional public administration nor policy analysis since it borrows heavily from a variety of disciplines and methodological approaches．”Mainly drawing on the experience of the business／industrial／private sector，scholars have suggested taking a more demanding attitude to the dynamics，activity，and productivity of public organizations：however，“competing academic disciplines dueled to establish bridgeheads or，worse，virtually ignored each other as they developed parallel tracks on related problems”．Consequently， a cross-fertilization，which could have accelerated learning and improved performance of public systems，was delayed．

自20世纪80年代初以来，很多工作都已经在公共行政理论和实践中开展，主张要超越公共行政领域的保守研究方法。这种“自由主义化”的公共行政在今天被认为是新公共管理的发展趋势。公共行政的认同问题大大促进了新公共管理理念的产生。正如凯特尔和米尔瓦德所提到的：“公共管理既不是传统的公共行政，也不是政策分析，因为它大量地借用了不同的学科和方法论的方法。”主要吸收和借鉴了商业、工业和私营部门的经验，学者们建议在公共组织的动力、活动和生产效率上采取更高的要求：然而，“相互竞争的学术科目争抢去建立优势地位，更槽糕的是，他们在相关问题上各行其是地发展，几乎忽略了彼此。”因此，一个可以促进学术交流和提高公共系统绩效的跨领域合作，被延迟了。

What are the roots of NPM，and in what way is it actually a new arena in the study of the public sector？Several theoretical foundations，as well as practical factors，can answer these questions．The first，and probably the deepest source of NPM，emerges from the distinction between two proximate terms or fields of research：administration and management．As noted earlier，since the late １８８０s the monopoly on the term administration has been held by

political scientists．Such scholars as Goodnow and Wilson were those who perceived public administration as a separate and unique discipline that should consist of independent theory，practical skills，and methods．The term management，however，referred to a more general arena，used by all social scientists and mainly by those who practice and advance theory in organizational psychology and business studies．Consequently，conservative administration science tends to analyze the operation of large bureaucratic systems as well as other governmental processes aimed at policy implementation．Management，on the other hand，refers to the general practice of empowering people and groups in various social environments and in handling multiple organizational resources to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in the process of producing goods or services．

新公共管理的根源是什么，以及以何种方式进行，实际上是公共部门研究的一个新领域吗？个别的理论基础和实践事实可以回答这些问题。首先，新公共管理的最根本来源，可能从对两个相近的术语或领域研究中的区别显现出来：行政和管理。如前所提，自19世纪80年代末开始，行政术语的垄断已经被政治学家所把持。像古德诺和威尔逊这些把公共行政作为一个单独的和独特的学科的学者认为，这个学科应由独立的理论、实践技能和研究方法所组成。然而，管理这一术语，被看作是更一般的领域，为所有的社会学家和主要被那些实践和发展组织心理学与商业研究的学者使用。因此，传统的行政科学趋向于分析大的官僚体制的运作以及其他针对政策执行的政府议程。另一方面，管理是指被授权的组织和个人在不同的社会环境下，运用组织的各种资源，尽可能去提高物品的生产或提供服务过程的效率和效益的实践活动的综合。

A consensus exists today that NPM has become extremely popular in the theory and practice of public arenas，but can we define it as a long-range revolution in public administration theory？No comprehensive answer exists to this question．Some will say that NPM has only revived an old spirit of managerialism and applied it in the public sector．Others will argue that this in itself has been a momentous contribution to public administration as a discipline in decline．Relying on an extensive survey of public management research in America，Garson and Overman argued that this increasing popularity was due to the more virile connotation of the term management than administration．Over the years，a growing number of political scientists have perceived public administration as an old and declining discipline；it was unable to provide the public with adequate practical answers to its demands，and moreover it left theoreticians with epidemic social

dilemmas waiting for exploration．Interesting evidence of this process could be found in many schools of public administration，which during the１９８０s and １９９０s decided to become schools of public management．Looking for alternative ideas，management theory was proposed as the source for a new and refreshing perspective．It was suggested that public management rather than public administration could contribute to a new understanding of how to run the government more efficiently and thereby to surmount some of its pandemic ailments．

今天存在一个共识，新公共管理在公共领域的理论和实践中已非常普遍，但我们可以把它定义为公共行政理论的长期革命吗？这个问题不存在统一的回答。有的人认为，新公共管理仅仅对旧管理主义精神的恢复和把它应用在公共部门。其他人则提出，这本身就已是一个对公共行政的重大贡献，当这门学科正在衰退中。依据在美国的公共管理研究广泛的调查，加森和欧尔曼认为，新公共管理的日益盛行，是因为管理这一术语比行政更具雄浑的内涵。多年以来，越来越多的政治科学家们认为，公共行政是一门陈旧的和衰退的学科；它不能在需求方面为公众提供充足的实践性回答,而且它给理论家留下了以待探索的极为盛行的社会困境。这个过程在许多公共行政学院中被有趣地证明了，它们（公共行政学院）在20世纪的80年代至20世纪90年代决定改名为公共管理学院。为了寻找替代性思想，管理理论被提出作为一个新的和令人耳目的观点。有人认为，公共管理而不是公共行政被认为有助于促成一个新的理解，即如何让政府能更有效地运作，从而克服它的一些通病。

In an attempt to more fully understand and advocate this inclination，Perry and Kraemer proposed that a greater impact of new ideas and methods from the field of public management on the administrative science was essential and natural．It reflected a special focus of modern public administration that was not to be ignored．Rainey claimed that this process was a result of the growing unpopularity of government during the１９６０s and１９７０s．Ott et al．also stated that public management was a major segment of the broader field of public administration since it focused on the profession and on the public manager as a practitioner of that profession．Furthermore，It emphasized well accepted managerial tools，techniques，knowledge，and skills that could be used to turn ideas and policy into a （successful）program of action．为了更充分地理解和提倡这种倾向，佩里和克拉默提出，来自行政学科的公共管理领域的具有重大影响力新思想和方法是必要的和自然的。它反映了对现代公共行政的特别关注是不会被忽视的。雷尼声称，这个过程是在20世纪60年代至70年代政府越来越不受欢迎的结果。奥特等人也认为，公共管理是广义的公共行政领域的一个重要部分，自从它将重点放

在这个专业和在公共管理专业上作为一个从业者开始。此外，它着重的是那些能够用于将理念和政策转换为一个（成功的）行动计划的广为接受的管理工具，技术，知识和技巧。

During the last two decades many definitions have been suggested for NPM．Nothing seems wrong with the relatively old perception of Garson and Overman，however，who defined it as“an interdisciplinary study of the genetic aspects of administration．．．，a blend of the planning，organizing，and controlling functions of management with the management of human，financial，physical，information and political resources．” As further discussed by other scholars，six differences exist between public administration and public management that make the former a new field of study and practice．These are：(1)the inclusion of general management functions such as planning，organizing，control，and evaluation in lieu of discussion of social values and conflicts of bureaucracy and democracy；(2) an instrumental orientation favoring criteria of economy and efficiency in lieu of equity，responsiveness，or political salience；(3) a pragmatic focus on midlevel managers in lieu of the perspective of political or policy elites；(4) a tendency to consider management as generic，or at least，to minimize the differences between public and private sectors in lieu of accentuating them；（5）a singular focus on the organization，w ith external relations treated in the same rational manners internal operations in lieu of a focus on laws，institutions，and political bureaucratic processes；and（6）a strong philosophical link with the scientific management tradition in lieu of close ties to political science or sociology．在过去的二十年，新公共管理被提出了很多的定义。加森和欧尔曼所提的比较旧的看法，看似没有什么错误，然而，他们将它定义为“公共管理是行政遗传方面的跨学科研究，将人力、财务、物资、信息和政治资源的规划、组织功能和管理控制功能相协调。”随着其他学者的进一步讨论，在公共行政和公共管理之间存在六个不同的观点，这使得前者成为一个新的研究和实践领域。它们分别是:(1)综合管理功能，包括计划、组织、控制和评估，是替代来讨论社会价值观和官僚主义与民主主义之间的冲突问题；(2) 一个对经济和效率有帮助的标准的定位工具，用以代替公平、回应或政治特色；(3)一个有实用性的，着重于以中层管理者的角度来代替政治或政策精英的角度的观点；(4)倾向于认为管理是一般的,或者至少使公共和私营部门的管理差异性最小化，而不是夸大(5)像关注组织内部运行那样的理性态度去关注组织的外部环境，而不是过于关注法律、制度和政治过程;(6) 一个与传统的科学管理强力的哲学联系，来代替与政治学或社会学紧密联系。

While the emergence of NPM is frequently related to the increasing impact of positivist behavioral science on the study of politics and government，the practical aspect of this process should also be considered．Practical public managers as well as political scientists will refer to the difficulties in policy making and policy implementation that confronted many western societies in Europe，America，and elsewhere during the １９７０s．These practical difficulties are viewed today as an important trigger for the evolution of NPM．Reviewing two recent books on NPM，Khademian argues that American and British advocates of the field find common ground in explaining why such reforms are necessary．The problem of an inflexible bureaucracy that often could not respond efficiently to the public needs conflicted with some basic democratic principles and values in these countries．Peter Aucoin elegantly summarizes a “trinity” of broa dly based challenges with which western democracies have struggled and probably continue to struggle in the future，partly through management reform．These are：（1）growing demands for restraint in public-sector spending, (2)increasing cynicism regarding gove rnment bureaucracies’ responsiveness to citizen concerns and political authority and dissatisfaction with program effectiveness，and（３）an international，market-driven economy that does not defer to domestic policy efforts．It seems that these challenges have led many western governments in America，Britain，New Zealand，Canada，and elsewhere to the recognition that sound reforms and changes should be made in the public service．

然而新公共管理的出现，是经常地与不断增加影响力的实证主义行为科学在政治和政府研究方面的相互影响，这个过程的实用层面也应被考虑。实践的公共管理者和政治学者一样也会遇到在制定政策和执行政策的困难，像许多西方社会如欧洲、美国和其他国家在20世纪70年代所遭遇的困难一样。这些实践困难在今天被认为是新公共管理改革的重要触发器。回顾最近出版的关于新公共管理的两本书籍，凯迪米恩认为，美国和英国的提倡者在解释为何这样的改革必要性时找到了共同点。僵化的官僚机构问题，往往不能有效地回应在这些国家里的公众需求和一些基本的民主法则与价值的冲突问题。彼得·奥库安典雅地总结“三位一体”基础广泛的挑战，(这些挑战是)西方民主政治已经在努力和很可能一直在未来的努力奋斗去解决的。这些挑战是：（1）不断增加对公共部门支出的抑制；（2）关于政府官僚机构在公民关注、政治权威和令人不满的程序效率的回应力的不足而导致的不满情绪的增加，和；（3）国际的、市场化的经济不会遵从国内政策施加的压力。这些挑战似乎已经让许多西方国家政府如美国、英国、新西兰、加拿大和其他地方的政府承认应该在公共服务中进行彻底

有效地改革和改变。

Scholars agree today that at least some of the accumulated wisdom of the private sector in these countries is transferable to the public sector．In an attempt to liberate the public sector from its old conservative image and tedious practice NPM was advanced as a relevant and promising alternative．New Public Management literature has tried to recognize and define new criteria that may help in determining the extent to which public agencies succeed in meeting the growing needs of the public．New Public Management has continuously advocated the implementation of specific performance indicators used in private organizations to create a performance-based culture and match compensatory strategies in these systems．It has recommended that these indicators be applied in the public sector since they can function as milestones on the way to better efficiency and effectiveness for public agencies．

今天的学者们同意，至少在这些国家的一些私营部门所积累下来的智慧是可以转移让公共部门借鉴的。为了使公共部门从保守的形象和繁文缛节中解放出来，新公共管理被提出是一个有用的和有前途的选择。新公共管理的著作试图明确和界定新的标准，这可能有助于确定公共机构能在多大程度上成功满足公众不断增长的需求。新公共管理不断主张具体性能指标的执行，这些指标能适用于私人组织建立一个以绩效为基础的企业文化和在这些体制中匹配补偿性策略。它建议将这些指标应用到公共部门，因为它们可以成为公共机构运作更有效率和效益的一个里程碑。

Moreover，citizens’ awareness of the performance of public services was suggested as a core element of NPM since it can increase the political pressure placed on elected and appointed public servants，thereby enhancing both managerial and allocative efficiency in the public sector．Scholars who advocate NPM liken this process of public accountability to stakeholders／citizens to the role adopted by financial reporting in the private／corporate sector．As in the private sector，increasing exterior-related outcomes can have a profound impact on internal control mechanisms，as managers and public servants become more sensitive to their duties and highly committed to serve their public customers．

此外，公民对公共服务绩效意识被认为是新公共管理的一个核心要素，因为它可以在选选和委任的公职人员时增加政治压力，从而增强公共部门管理和配置的效率。学者们提倡将新公共管理比拟为对利益相关方/公民在私营/企业部门的财务申报所采用角色时的公众问责的过程。在私营部门，不断增加的外部相关成果可以对内部控制机制产生深远的影响，作

为管理者和公职人员，他们对于自己的责任变得更敏感和高度致力于为他们的公共顾客提供服务。

In view of the above，and looking toward the future，Lynn suggested that the NPM of the late１９９０s had three constructive legacies for the field of public administration and for democratic theory and practice．These were：（１）a stronger emphasis on performance-motivated administration and inclusion in the administrative canon of performance-oriented institutional arrangements，structural forms，and managerial doctrines fitted to particular context；in other words，advances in the state of the public management art；（２）an international dialogue on and a stronger comparative dimension to the study of state design and administrative reform；and（３）the integrated use of economic，sociological，social-psychological，and other advanced conceptual models and heuristics in the study of public institutions and management，with the potential to strengthen the field’s scholarship and the possibilities for theory-grounded practice．While the first two “legacies” are widely discussed in contemporary literature，the third is much understudied and needs further theoretical development，empirically guided research，and practical implementation．

借鉴以上的观点，和展望未来，林恩认为，20世纪90年代末，新公共管理在公共行政和民主政治理论与实践的领域有三个建设性的遗产。它们是：（1）一个更注重绩效激励行政和包括以绩效为导向的制度安排、结构形式与适应特定情况的管理学说的行政规则，换句话说，改进国家的公共管理艺术；（2）一个国际对话和在国家设计和行政改革研究上较强的维度；（3）综合运用经济、社会学、社会心理学和其他先进的概念模型和启发式教学法去研究公共机构和管理，有加强该领域学术知识的潜能和进行有理论依据实践的可能性。当前两个“遗产”在现代文学中广泛地讨论时，第三个遗产被充分地演习而且需要进一步发展其理论，以经验为主地指导研究，和实际执行。

Kettl and Milward argue that one of NPM’s most significant contributions to public administration as a discipline in transition is the focus on the performance of governmental organizations．According to their analysis，this scientific orientation needs to draw on “a wide variety of academic disciplines for the full and richly textured picture required to improve the way government works．Only through interdisciplinary cross-fertilization will the picture be rich enough to capture the enormous variety and complexity of true public management （and administration）puzzles”．

凯特尔和米尔瓦德指出，新公共管理对公共行政的一个最重要的贡献就是，作为一门学科，它转变了政府组织的绩效着重点。根据他们的分析，这一科学定位需要利用“一个广泛的各种各样的学术科目去充足的和丰富的构想来改进政府运作方式。只有通过不同学科之间的相互交流才能使这个构想变得足够丰富去获得种类繁多的、真正的公共管理（行政）谜题。