公共事业管理外文翻译
公共事业管理专业英语(42520)部分中文翻译

2.2 The Essence of Classics in Public Administration 2.2.1 The Study of Administration1公共行政研究EssenceNecessity 必要性I suppose that no practical science is ever studied where there is no need to know it.我认为决没有任何一门实用科学,当还没有了解它的必要时,会有人对它进行研究。
Administration is the most obvious part of government; it is government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government itself.行政是政府最明显的部分,它是行动中的政府;它是政府的执行者,是政府的操作者,是政府的最显著的方面,当然,它的历史也和政府一样悠久。
No one wrote systematically of administration as a branch of the science of government until the present century had passed its first youth and had begun to put forth its characteristic flower of systematic knowledge.在本世纪度过它最初的青春年华,并开始吐放它在系统知识方面独特的花朵之前,谁也没有从作为政府科学的一个分支的角度来系统地拟定过行政学著作。
The functions of government are every day becoming more complex and difficult.The idea of the state and the consequent ideal of its duty are undergoing noteworthy change; and “the idea of the state is the conscience of administration”.Seeing every day new things which the state ought to do, the next thing is to see clearly how it ought to do them.政府的职能在逐日变得更加复杂和更加艰难。
公共事业管理外文翻译

公共事业管理外文翻译河南理工大学公共事业管理专业2009级外文翻译姓名:冯明雷学号:310919010220班级:事管09-2班From Crisis to Opportunity: Human Resource Challenges for the PublicSector in the Twenty-First CenturyVidu Soni Central Michigan UniversityAbstractA great deal of attention has been focused on the human capital crisis in the public sector since the mid-1990s. Experts and practitioners give many reasons why the current crisis emerged. This article examines the important factors that led to the crisis, what is being done about them through presidential agendas, legislators, oversight agencies, professional societies, and public policy think tanks. Concerns are many in terms of a large number of upcoming retirements, early retirements, unplanned downsizing, difficulty in attracting new generations to public service, and the changing nature of public service. However, the human resource crisis also presents an opportunity to fundamentally change those features of public sector human resource management practices that have become outdated for contemporary organizations and position government agencies for the twenty-first century by meaningfully reforming the civil service. This transformation would require public sector organizations to take a more strategic view of human resource management and to give greater policy attention to human capital issues.IntroductionIn 1989, the National Commission on the Public Service (commonly referred to as the Volcker Commission) issued a report on the state of public service characterizing it as a “quiet crisis,” which referred to the slow weakening of the public service in the 1970s and 1980s. This period was marked by loss of public confidence in its elected and appointed officials, heightened bureaucrat bashing by the media and political candidates, and a distressed civil service. For different reasons, the quiet crisis of earlier decades continued through the 1990s and is present today. The current crisis is building as large numbers of government workers are expected to retire in the coming years and not enough younger people are in the pipeline for government jobs. Adding to the crisis is understaffed government agencies, a skills imbalance, and a lack of well-trained supervisors and senior leaders. These concerns are reinforced by a preliminary report of the second National Commission on Public Service (Light, 2002), which paints a more dire picture and foreshadows a more pronounced crisis. Light contends that “the United States cannot win the war on terrorism or rebuild homeland security without a fully dedicated federal civil service” (p. 2). Millick and Smith (2002, p. 3) have a similar reaction when they state “while the first National Commission on Public Service referred to a ‘quiet crisis’ in the civil service, the second Commission is facing what can only be called an imminent catastrophe.”Scholars and practitioners alike have been projecting serious shortages in qualified workforce in federal government (Light, 1999; Voinovich, 2000; Walker, 2000).These trends in public service partly reflect the generational shift in attitudes toward government itself. The younger generation tends not to choose public service careers because of the negative reputation of government’s hiring process, lack of challenging work, and its system of rewards. These concerns led the General Accounting Office (GAO) to add human resources management to the government wide “high-risk list” of federal activities in 2001. Similarly, inspectors general at nine major agencies have listed workforce problems among the top ten most serious management challenges that their agencies face (General Accounting Office [GAO], 2001). The federal government’s human resource crisis threatens its ability to serve the public well and meet theexpectations of the American people. Federal agencies must respond by publicizing job opportunities more aggressively, including offering younger workers interesting and challenging work and the potential for advancement. Light (2002) argues that a strong civil service has five characteristics: it is (1) motivated by the chance to accomplish something worthwhile on behalf of the country, (2) recruited from the top of the labor market, (3) given tools and organizational capacity to succeed, (4) rewarded for a job well done, and (5) respected by the people and leaders it serves. However, Light also point out that “by all five measures, the federal service has lost ground since September 11” (p. 2).This article examines the context and nature of the impending workforce crisis in federal government and discusses various areas of change that must be addressed to avert the crisis or, at least, minimize its impact. The issues related to recruiting and developing public sector human resources in the twenty-first century not only require consideration of the traditional remedies such as civil service reform, political support, and more managerial flexibility, but also, consideration of the changing nature of public service (Light, 1999) and the world of work across all sectors (Spiegel, 1995). Many external and internal organizational forces such as workforce demographics, technology, and privatization, as well as eroding trust in government institutions have drastically altered the environment of government service. Accordingly, traditional human resource (HR) management approaches no longer work. The HR supply and demand problem must be addressed at multiple levels. Educating people about government service, raising the image of government workers, providing competent and reliable leadership in government agencies, conducting career development and training of existing personnel, and actively recruiting, particularly in technological and scientific fields, all will have to be done simultaneously to adequately respond to the human resource crisis in the public sector.Next, the article documents and discusses some of the actions that various federal agencies have taken in response to the crisis. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) have conducted numerous surveys, issued reports on causes of the problems, and have developed tools, techniques, and resources to assist the federal agencies in solving the problems. Lastly, the paper outlines recommendations and strategies that can lead the federal government to turn this HR crisis into an opportunity for systematic reform, modernization, and revitalization of public sector human resources practices and systems. The recent coalescence of interest in addressing the HR crisis and recognizing its urgency is demonstrated by the inclusion of discussion of workforce problems in congressional hearings, presidential priorities, and reports issued by oversight agencies and public sector think tanks. This heightened attention to the human resources crisis in government represents a promising opportunity to improve and strengthen public service.Initiatives Taken in Response to the CrisisThe federal government has taken several initiatives to help minimize the negative impact of the human capital crisis. Se nator Voinovich’s Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital (2000) makes several recommendations that fall in two categories. The first category includes recommendations that do not require legislation such as, urging agencies to conduct workforce planning and automating hiring systems to speed up the process. The second category requires legislative action such as making the pay system more flexible by allowing broad banding, or obtaining special hiring authority when needed. Several agencies such as the Forest Service, GAO, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have requested and received special wavers to set pay deviating from the General Schedule pay structure and conduct direct hiring. Following is a discussion of some of the important administrative and legislative initiatives introduced by GAO, OPM, and Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB).Leadership ImprovementCompliance with Congress’ directive that agencies measure and demonstrate results made it necessary that agency leaders have proven managerial competence and leadership skills. To facilitate strategic management of human resources so that agencies can accomplish their policy and programmatic goals, Senator Voinovich asked the GAO to develop two types of management questionnaires that could be used for confirming presidential nominees to administrative positions (GAO,2002b, p. 35). “It is clear that federal agency leaders must create an integrated, strategic view of their human capital—and sustain that attention to create real improvements in the way they manage their people,” argues the senator. The first questionnaire is intended for those appointees who will have significant program management responsibilities, and their responses will inform the Senate of their management experience and preparedness for addressing the current and future top management challenges facing federal agencies. The second questionnaire includes questions on agency-specific management problems drawn from sources such as the High-Risk series (GAO, 2001). The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve the quality of federal programs by improving the quality of people appointed to manage them. Political appointees must be prepared to substantively address the problems at their agencies, not just give policy direction to the career civil servants. The questionnaires convey the message that the Senate considers effective managerial skills to be a priority for all nominees to senior agency positions.Presidential Management AgendaThe President’s Management Agenda (OMB, 2002) has identified several government reform goals that will address the human capital crisis. Among its goals are:(1) workforce planning and restructuring undertaken as part of “strategic management of human capital” that will be defined i n terms of each agency’s mission, goals, and objectives, (2) agency restructuring is expected to incorporate organizational and staffing changes resulting from “competitive sources” and expanded E-government, (3) as part of the 2003 budget process, OMB has asked departments and agencies to identify statutory impediments to good management, (4) agencies will strengthen and make the most of knowledge, skills, and abilities of their people in order to meet the needs and expectations of “their ultimate clients—the American people.” These reforms are expected to create long-term results that will allow agencies to build, sustain, and effectively deploy the skilled, knowledgeable, diverse, and high-performing workforce needed to meet the current and emerging needs of government and its citizens. These reforms will also allow the work-force to adapt quickly in size, composition, and competencies to accommodate changes in mission, technology, and labor markets and will contribute to increasing employee satisfaction.Understanding New Public ServiceLight (1999) argues that the end of twentieth century marks the end of government- centered public service and brings a multispectral service in its place. This means the labor market from which government workers will be drawn has also been altered significantly. “The government-centered public service has been replaced by a new public service in which government must compete for talent,” states Light (p. 1). His study of the graduates of the top twenty schools of public administration and public policy shows that the new workforce is likely to change jobs and sectors frequently, as well as be more focused on challenging work than on job security. Light argues that to seriously address this crisis, public organizations and graduate schools of public administration need to understand the changing nature of public service. The new public service is shaped by blurring of the lines between sectors, developing trends toward changing sectors during one’s career, worker preference for jobs that provide flexibility and an opportunity for growth, and the new types of skills required for public sector employees and managers. This greater uncertainty and job movement will make it increasingly difficult for the government to hold on to its talent and prevent agencies from building the kind of expertise needed for an effective publicservice.According to Light, higher pay and aggressive recruitment alone will not solve government’s problem; it must also offer challenging work, flexible organizations, and broader career paths. He suggests a variety of steps for the government to become competitive. First, agencies need to develop new recruitment programs more appropriate for today’s workforce. Second, agencies need to create new entry points for replacing people in mid- and top-level jobs. Instead of reserving the vast majority of promotions for internal candidates, government must open the career paths to outside competition. Third, the government must recognize career development and job enrichment as an ongoing organizational obligation. Its utility is demonstrated by a case study (Kim, 2002) of the Nevada Operations office of the Department of Energy (DOE) that shows a statistically significant relationship between a supervisor’s support of career development and high levels of job satisfaction. To respond to challenges of this new responsiveness to employee development, the DOE introduced Individual Development Planning (IDP) in 1999. Supervisors were required to ensure that employees were provided the opportunity to have training plans that were subject to annual review and revision to ensure that these plans directly benefited the mission and employee development objectives.Developing Executive and Supervisory TalentIn a study conducted by Huddleston (1999), the presidential award recipient members of the SES (Senior Executive Service) identified several leadership skills necessary for top-level executives. They pointed out four qualities of outstanding senior leaders: (1) strategic vision, (2) ability to motivate others, (3) ethic of hard work, and (4) integrity. Effective senior executives emphasize the importance of articulating a vision, setting goals, having a performance orientation, and understanding what these concepts mean for the success of their agencies. These are commonsense approaches to them rather than management fads. For example, Huddleston writes that Thomas Billy, of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),stated that his strategic vision was to ensure that “the food Am ericans eat will pose no risk (p. 5).” He argues that while this may sound redundant at first, it gets the agency thinking about designing regulations and developing technologies to get there. Others attributed their success to nothing more than hard work. “You can’t be successful as an 85 per center,” says Paul Chistolini,GSA (p. 6).Current leadership selection practices in the federal government are completely at odds with the new leader competencies, that is, flexibility adaptability, accountability, strategic thinking, vision, and customer service, needed today and in the future. Supervisors are concerned that their agencies do not have selection standards and are inconsistent in the skills they seek for supervisory positions. This lack of consistency means that supervisory competencies and performance management skills may not be evaluated as thoroughly as needed. For example, performance management competency including measuring performance, monitoring performance, developing employees, rating performance, and rewarding good work are not assessed or measured in prospective leaders (OPM, 2001a).The job of leadership development rests both with the existing senior leaders and the organizations. Katter (1993, p. 139) argues that an environment that is supportive of the time and effort to grow leaders needs to be cultivated in organizations to fill the current leadership void. Blunt (2002a) suggests that launching a successful leadership development program is driven by five imperatives. First, the visibility of the number of managers and senior leaders who will retire in the next five years provides a succession imperative. Second, the decision to establish a leader development program is a strategic imperative and should be reflected in official strategic plans submitted with the annual budget. Third, the current dissatisfaction with organizational performance from external sources, e.g., the GAO,Congress, the OMB, and the public should provide a performance imperative to focus on developing leaders. Fourth, the changing landscape for performance requires a change in the type of leaders being developed; this is thecompetency imperative. Fifth, the organization champion imperative requires senior leaders willing to take the initiative to promote and sustain leadership development programs. Taken together, these offer organizations a beginning point for launching leadership development programs. Longitudinal research conducted by Center for Creative Leadership places leader learning in four broad categories: challenging job assignments, learning from others’ examples, hardships and setbacks, and education and training. Similarly, senior leaders can develop a new generation of leaders by serving as an exemplar, a mentor, and a coach, or organizations can create programs that would use such a learning model (Blunt, 2002b).Research provides evidence that a positive relationship exists between supervisory characteristics and levels of job satisfaction. Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that employees produced the most creative outcomes when they worked on complex, challenging jobs and were supervised in a supportive, no controlling way. Supportive supervisors encourage subordinates to voice their own concerns, provided positive and mainly informational feedback, and facilitated employee skills development. Supervisors also need skills in performance management, fair appraisals, and effective skill utilization as pointed out by an Office of Policy and Evaluation at the MSPB study (MSPB, 1998). The study suggested that when downsizing occurs, supervisors need to be much more concerned about how they use the talent they have on their staffs and that it is critical that any staffing, employee development, and performance management decisions be made with a long-term perspective in mind.Improved Skill in Managing a Diverse WorkforceWhile the workforce statistics (see Table 3 of the Appendix) show increasing diversity at all levels of government employment including diversity in contractors, very little attention has been focused on developing diversity competence of managers and employees as part of the government’s human capital strategy. Contrary to this, the private sector has made diversity management skills as one of the dominant issues for developing leaders for the twenty-first century. Diversity management skills have even greater significance for public sector leaders and organizations not only because the government workforce is changing, but also because of the increasingly diverse communities public administrators serve. Also, the sensitive nature of the current US foreign policy environment makes diversity competence an important priority. It is crucial to understand the implications of the workforce, community, societal, and global diversity means for public administration and take them into consideration as agencies develop their missions, strategic plans, and leadership training programs. Recognizing its importance, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) organized several panels on “managing community without majorities” in its 2002 National Conference (Conference Brochure).Research shows that in spite of the diversity initiatives in most federal agencies, underutilization and quality of work-life issues that exist for women and minorities remain unresolved. For example a study of a federal agency (Soni,2000,p. 401) revealed that 47% to 79% of women and minorities continue to feel that they “have to work harder than white males to prove themselves,” and only 29% of minorities believe that the agency “discourages comments or jokes that perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice.” Similar studies (Naff&Kellough,2002;Soni,1997) show that in spite of increased diversity in the workplace, organizational capacity to fully utilize and effectively manage diversity remains limited. There are many reasons for this limitation. For example, the inability and lack of willingness on the part of organizational leaders and members to recognize effective diversity management as a salient workplace issue or that institutional and cultural biases and barriers can limit agencies’ approaches to diversity.Successfully managing diversity is a challenging process, but with a clear vision, careful planning and a willingness and commitment to change, government can develop a competitive advantage as an employer and a producer of services to the American people. Riccuci (2002) argues that agencies need to develop the ability to address such challenges as communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, andeven hostilities that invariably result from working in an environment with persons from highly diverse backgrounds, age groups, and lifestyles. To the extent that the demographics of the workforce reflect that of the general population that it serves and it is effectively managed, the delivery of public service will be greatly enhanced. Public sector organizations must assess and understand the current demographic complexion of their workforce in conjunction with projected forecasts for change (Workforce 2020, 1997). “Public sector organizations that perfunctorily develop diversity programs solely for the purpose of avoiding liability in potential lawsuits completely miss the point about the importance of diversity programs. They will fail to adequately plan for their own successful performance as well as the future governance of American people,” notes Riccucci (2002, p. 31).Improving Human Resource Management Practices Proposals to reform civil service and public sector human resource management (HRM) in the twenty-first century fall into three categories. The first proposal advocates cutting costs and downgrading the career workforce (Klingner&Nalbandian,2003; Levine &Klee man,1992). This approach reflects the antigovernment values prominent in the late 1990s. Advocates of this approach criticize public sector HR management as being rule-bound, inflexible, driven by legal mandates, risk averse, and a constraint on managers. They see little connection between HR management and organizational mission and recommend eliminating the in-house HR department and outsource the majority of its functions. The second proposal calls for upgrading the compensation, status, and responsibilities of the career civil service employees. This approach emphasizes the strong oversight role of OPM to preserve the merit principles and ensure consistency in HR management in the federal government. Advocates of this approach value expertise embodied in HR professionals and consistency in personnel polices, as well as the necessity and importance of compliance with legal mandates. This approach is based upon the traditional principles of merit, that is, personnel practices based on knowledge, skills, and abilities, fairness, and social equity. The third proposal argues that the essence of modern human resources management is workforce planning. This strategy recommends that federal agencies’ human resource activities should be guided by long-term planning rather then short-term problems. This approach advocates the importance of identifying and connecting present and future competencies with the outcomes identified in an organization’s strategic plan. It includes taking an inventory of what is available in the current workforce and what is needed, and how to close the gap.Spiegel (1995) argues that there are two primary drivers of workplace transitions. Technological changes stimulate the demand side of work—what needs to be done and in what form. Demographic and social changes, the supply side, influence the kinds of workers available to assume work roles and the nature of their interface with the institutions at work. Information technology, along with the growth of knowledge and global competition has created boundary-less organizations removing intermediaries and distributing power. In such an environment, the ability of an organization to acquire or create knowledge has become an important requirement for its survival. However, achievement of this goal is often difficult because organizations tend to replicate their past responses when confronted by new stimuli and allow their past successes to restrain their future choices (March& Simon, 1958). Thus, in the face of new challenges, the federal government must reframe its HR issues, and not rely solely on past approaches to solve the current crisis.Reestablishing a Public Service EthicResearchers have long studied the motivational characteristics of public service and how it affects the quality and content of public output. Perry and Wise (1990) argue that public service motives fall into three analytical categories: rational, norm based and affective. Rational motives involve actions that are grounded in an individual’s desire to maximize utility. Norm-based motives refer to actions generated byefforts to conform to norms. Affective motives refer to triggers of behavior that are grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts. Public service motivation is seldom defined by utility maximization; however, an ethic of public service can be dictated by rational motives such as participation in the process of policy formulation or commitment to a public program. One can also be driven to public service by affective motives such as personal identification with a program based on an individual’s conviction about its social importance, service to society, or patriotism, which brings with it a willingness to sacrifice for others. The public service ethic has significant behavioral implications. The level and type of an individual’s public service motivation influences his or her job choices and job performance. Public organizations that attract members with high levels of public service motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to manage individual performance effectively.Millick and Smith (2002, p. 3) argue that in the post-9/11 environment, government should sell people on public service, “OPM should spearhead a public campaign aimed at informing the public . . . and capitalizing on the patriotic sentiments in the country.” The great risk in the current trend of treating the public service like a private enterprise is that it fails to acknowledge unique motives underlying public sector employment and the critical linkage between the way agencies operate and the advancement of social and democratic values. More than a decade ago, the Volcker Commission also recommended strengthening the public service ethic to improve public service. Among its recommendations were initiating a campaign of public education in the media and schools and colleges, and reaffirming the merit principle, professionalism, and public service orientation of the career workforce.ConclusionUsing Kingdom’s argument, problems are brought to the attention of public policymakers by systematic indicators. However, indicators do not always make the problems clear, and frequently need a little push to get their attention. This push is provided either by a focusing event like a crisis, or by feedback from the operation of current programs. This feedback brings to the policymakers’ attention information related to whether the programs are working as planned, whether the implementation is consistent with the legislative mandate, or any unanticipated consequences that may surface. Crises and other focusing events are reinforced by a preexisting perception of a problem. Sometimes, subjects also become prominent agenda items partly because important policymakers have personal experiences that bring the subject to their attention. All of these factors have contributed to calling attention to the current human capital crisis as the above discussion points out.According to Kingdom (2003), the chances of certain items rising on a decision agenda on which action must be taken are enhanced when the problems, polices, and politics all come together at a critical time. Kingdom refers to this as the opening of a “policy window.” The policy window is an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their solutions and draw attention to their specific problems. Advocates need to “soften up the system, to have a given proposal worked out, discussed, amended, and ready to go long before the window opens” (p. 170). Now that the human resource management crisis has found a place on policymakers’ agenda, federal agencies must have their reform proposals ready and be prepared to seize the opportunity when the problem, political, and policy streams come together. Thus, whether agencies can continue improving human resource management depends on the priorities of the Bush Administration and Congress, or, to paraphrase Kingdom, when the problem stream is joined by the policy and political streams. Walker (2000) believes human capital management’s placement on GAO’s high-risk list will provide incentive for change:History has shown that when something appears on our high-risk list, that generated heat, action usually follows . . . Successfully addressing the human capital crisis and empowering federal employees。
外国公共事业管理制度

外国公共事业管理制度IntroductionPublic service management in foreign countries is a complex and multifaceted system that involves the coordination and delivery of public services to citizens. It encompasses a wide range of activities, such as health care, education, transportation, social welfare, and environmental protection. The management of public services is crucial for the well-being and development of any country, as it directly affects the quality of life of its citizens. In this paper, we will explore and analyze the public service management systems of several foreign countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, to gain a better understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and best practices.United StatesThe United States has a federal system of government with three levels of government: federal, state, and local. This structure presents a unique challenge for public service management, as the responsibilities for delivering public services are shared among these different levels of government. The federal government is primarily responsible for national defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce, while state and local governments are responsible for delivering public services such as education, health care, and transportation. The management of public services in the United States is characterized by a high degree of autonomy and decentralization. This means that state and local governments have a significant amount of flexibility in how they design and deliver public services to their citizens. However, this also leads to a lack of coordination and consistency in service delivery across different jurisdictions. In addition, the United States has a fragmented system of public service management, with many different agencies and organizations responsible for delivering different aspects of public services. This can often lead to duplication, inefficiency, and waste.To address these challenges, the United States has implemented several strategies to improve the management of public services. One such strategy is the use of performance measurement and accountability systems to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery. Many states and local governments have implemented performance measurement systems to track key performance indicators and report on the results to the public. This allows for greater transparency and accountability in the management of public services.Another strategy the United States has adopted is the use of public-private partnerships to deliver public services. Public-private partnerships involve collaboration between government agencies and private sector organizations to design, finance, and deliver public services. This has been particularly successful in areas such as transportation, infrastructure, and social welfare, where the private sector can bring innovative solutions and efficiencies to the delivery of public services.United KingdomThe United Kingdom has a centralized system of government, with most public services being delivered by the national government and its various agencies. The management of public services in the United Kingdom is characterized by a strong focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. The government has implemented several reforms in recent years to improve the management of public services, including the introduction of performance-based contracting and the use of market mechanisms to deliver public services.One of the key features of public service management in the United Kingdom is the use of performance-based contracting. This involves setting clear performance targets and standards for the delivery of public services and using competitive tendering to award contracts to private sector organizations based on their ability to meet these standards. This has led to greater competition and innovation in the delivery of public services, as well as improved accountability and transparency.In addition, the United Kingdom has also implemented market mechanisms to deliver public services, such as the use of vouchers and direct payments to citizens to purchase services from private sector providers. This has led to greater choice and flexibility for citizens in accessing public services, as well as increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness in service delivery.GermanyGermany has a federal system of government, with responsibilities for delivering public services shared among the federal government, 16 states, and local governments. The management of public services in Germany is characterized by a high degree of coordination and cooperation among the different levels of government. This has led to a more integrated and cohesive approach to the delivery of public services, as well as greater consistency and standardization in service delivery across different jurisdictions.One of the key features of public service management in Germany is the use of benchmarking and best practices to improve the delivery of public services. This involves comparing the performance of different public service organizations and identifying best practices that can be replicated and scaled up across different jurisdictions. This has led to greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public services, as well as improved coordination and collaboration among different levels of government.In addition, Germany has also implemented a strong focus on citizen participation and engagement in the management of public services. This includes the use of citizen panels, public consultations, and feedback mechanisms to involve citizens in the design and evaluation of public services. This has led to greater accountability, transparency, and responsiveness in the delivery of public services, as well as improved citizen satisfaction and trust in government.ConclusionIn conclusion, the management of public services in foreign countries is a complex and multifaceted system that involves the coordination and delivery of public services to citizens. The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany each have unique approaches to public service management, with different strengths, weaknesses, and best practices. By understanding and analyzing these different approaches, we can gain valuable insights into how to improve the management of public services in our own country. This includes strategies such as performance measurement and accountability, public-private partnerships, performance-based contracting, market mechanisms, benchmarking and best practices, and citizen participation and engagement. By implementing these strategies, we can improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of public service management, and ultimately better serve the needs of our citizens.。
《公共事业管理专业英语》课程教学大纲

公共事业管理专业英语Professional English一、课程基本情况课程类别:专业任选课课程学分:2学分课程总学时:32学时,其中讲课: 32学时,课程性质:选修开课学期:第6学期先修课程:管理学、公共事业管理学适用专业:公共事业管理教材:《公共管理专业英语》,上海人民出版社,顾建光主编,2003年版。
开课院系:公共管理学院公共事业管理系二、课程的目标和任务通过本课程的学习,使学生了解公共管理领域内一些常见的专业术语和概念,提高学生阅读、理解英语专业文献的能力;通过重点讲解英译汉的技巧,使学生能够准确、流畅地翻译英语文献。
同时安排适当的口语练习,使学生在未来的工作中能用英语进行基本的口头交流。
三、教学内容和要求1.Public Administration and Management (4学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)Why does each discipline of science have its big questions?(3)What are the big questions of public management?(4)How do you understand the big big questions of public management?2.International Economic Institutions (3学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)What kind of the policies shall the OECD promote?(3)What are the two main principles aimed at by GATT?(4)List the main agreements made by the Urugury Round Agreement.3.Information Technology and E-Government (5学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)What is the real task of Palmer and his teamwork in the story of the article?(3)Why now is the business of the computer-business prosperous?(4)What are the useful mersure for preventing a hack attacker?4.Reginal and Urban Development (5学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)Do you think it is possible to promote economic development while keeping its (3)environment impact at a minimum level?Why?(4)Please raise some factors which are constrainig the improvement of ubran environment management.Social Security and Community Development (6学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)What means by directive and non-directive approaches to community development?(3)What is the aim of community development and how can it be achieved?(4)What is the main reason of the failing in community development?6.Public Health (5学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)What is the role of public government in HNP sectors?(3)What can be done for enhancing performance of HNP services?7.Techonology and Education (4学时)(1)Questions and Topics for Discussion:(2)What is the core concept of a national policy when education is considered as a public good?(3)What are the main problem in education magament in your region or city?(4)How do you definite the role of the public and private sectors in education service provision?(5)What are being or will be brought about by ICT revolution in education sector?四、课程考核(1)教学方式:老师讲授、案例讨论与口语练习相结合。
公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)

公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)1900单词,1.1万英文字符,中文3030字文献出处:Frederickson H G. Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere[J]. The Oxford handbook of public management, 2021: 281-304./news/0706AF57C1E1A817.html原文WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? GOVERNANCE,GOVERNANCE EVERYWHEREH. George FredericksonFor at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill as the “regimes, laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goals and services,” holds strong interest for public administration scholars (2001,p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public administration; then, using regime theory from the study of international relations, the concept of governance as applied in public administration is analyzed, parsed, and framed.The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concept of governance inthe field tends to take one or more of the following forms: (1) It is substantively the same as already established perspectives in public administration, although in a different language, (2) It is essentially the study of the contextual influences that shape the practices of public administration, rather than the study of public administration, (3) It is the study of interjurisdictional relations and third party policy implementationin public administration, (4) It is the study of the influence or power of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives. Of these approaches topublic administration as governance, it is the third and fourth--governance as the public administration of interjurisdiction relations and third partypolicy implementation, and the governance of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives -- that form the basis of a usable theory of governance for public administration.It was Harlan Cleveland who first used the word “governance” as an alternative to the phrase public administration. In the mid-1970s, one of the themes in Cleveland's particularly thoughtful and provocative speeches, papers, and books went something likethis: “What the people want is less government and more governance” (1972). What he meant by governance was the following cluster of concepts.In all, Rhodes (2000, pp. 55-60) found seven applications of governance in the field of public administration: the new public management or managerialism; good governance, as in efficiency, transparency, meritocracy, and equity; international and interjurisdictional interdependence; non-government driven forms of socio-cybernetic systems of governance; the new political economy, including shifting from state service provision to the state as regulator; and networks. There are many more applications of governance to the subject once known as public administration, but these few illustrate the capacious rangeof concepts, ideas, and theories associated with it.There are as many definitions of the concept of governance as a synonymfor public administration as there are applications. Kettl claims an emerging gap between government and governance. \institutions. Governance is the way government gets its job done.如何翻译外文文献Traditionally, government itself managed most service delivery. Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, government relied increasingly on non-governmental partners to do its work, through processesthat relied less on authority for control\xi). To Kettl, governance, as an approach to public administration, has primarily to do with contracting-outand grants to sub-governments.As was noted at the outset, Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2001 p. 15) use a much bigger approach to governance as an analytic framework. Their model, intended to be a starting point for research, is: O = f [E, C, T, S, M] Where:O = Outputs/outcomes. The end product of a governance regime. E = Environmental factors. These can include political structures, levels ofauthority, economic performance, the presence or absence of competition among suppliers, resource levels and dependencies, legal framework, and the characteristics of a target population.C = Client characteristics. The attributes, characteristics, and behaviorof clients. T = Treatments. These are the primary work or core processes ofthe organizations within thegovernance regime. They include organizational missions and objectives, recruitment and eligibility criteria, methods fro determining eligibility, and program treatments or technologies.S = Structures. These include organizational type, level of coordination and integration among the organizations in the governance regime, relative degree of centralized control, functional differentiation, administrativerules or incentives, budgetary allocations, contractual arrangements or relationships, and institutional culture and values.M = Managerial roles and actions. This includes leadership characteristics, staff- management relations, communications, methods of decision-making, professional/career concerns, and mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.The problem is that it is difficult, following Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill,to conceive of anything involving government, politics, or administration that is not governance. That being the case, there appears to be little difference between studying the whole of government and politics and studying public administration. Put another way, public administration is ordinarily thoughtto have to do with “treatments,” “structures,” and “management” in the Lynn, et al. governance formula. They tuck the centerpieces of public administration into the broader context of governance. This chapter will later return to these distinctions and to a large-scale synthesis of governance research by Lynn, Heinrich and Hill.Concepts of governance as public administration reflect a long-standing theoretical debate in the field, the matter of distinctions between politics, and policy on one hand and policy implementation or administration on the other. Easy dismissal of the politics-administration dichotomy serves to focus the study of public administration, particularly by some governance theorist, on the constitutional and political context of the organization and management of the territorial state or jurisdiction. From this perspective governance becomes steering and public administration becomes rowing, a lesser phenomenon in the scholarly pecking order, not to mention a lesser subject in governance. Public administration, thus understood, is the work that governments contract-out, leaving governance as the subject of our study. Although the linesbetween politics, policy, and administration are often fuzzy and changing, and although we know, strictly speaking, there is not a politics- administration dichotomy, is nevertheless important to understand the empirical distinctions between political and administrative phenomena. Concepts of governance that advance our understanding of public-sector administrationand organization are helpful. Concepts of governance that simply change the subject of public administration to politics and policy making are not. In democratic government it is, after all, elected officials who govern. Bureaucrats have roles and responsibilities for governing or governance, butin democratic polities these roles and responsibilities are different than the roles and responsibilities of elected officials. Janet Newman says it well: “Neither”good governance“nor” well-managed government could resolve the contradictions around the popular role of government and the appropriate boundaries of governance” (2001 p. 170). In the name of stamping out bureaucracy and replacing it with what they describe as good governance, Osborne and Gaebler advocate a range of managerial prerogatives that would significantly intrude on the political and policy-making prerogatives generally assumed to belong to elected officials, and particularly elected legislators, in a democratic polity (1992).The second implication of the critique is that governance theoristspersist in looking for an all-pervasive pattern of organizational and administrative behavior, a \theory\that will provide an explanation for the past and a means to predict the future. Despite the accumulated evidence based on decades of work on theory and the empirical testing of theory in public administration, no such pattern has been found (Frederickson and Smith 2021). Does the governance concept beguile a generation of scholars to set off in the vain search for a metatheoretical El Dorado (Olsen 2021)?Constructing a Viable Concept of Governance for Public Administration Although the critique of governance is a serious challenge, does it render the concept useless? The answer is no. There are powerful forces at work in the world, forces that the traditional study of politics, government, and public administration do not explain. The state and its sub-jurisdictions are losing important elements of their sovereignty; borders have less and less meaning. Social and economic problems and challenges are seldom contained within jurisdictional boundaries, and systems of communication pay little attention to them. Business is increasingly regional or global. Business elites have multiple residences and operate extended networks that are highly multi-jurisdictional. States and jurisdictions are hollowing-out their organization and administrative capacities, exporting to contractors much of the work of public administration. Governance, even with its weakness, is the most useful available concept for describing and explaining these forces. But for governance to become anything more than passing fashion or a dismissive un-public administration, it must respond to the critique of governance. To dothis, governance scholars must settle on an agreed- upon definition, a definition broad enough to comprehend the forces it presumes to explain but not so broad as to claim to explain everything. Governance theorists must be ready to explain not only what governance is, but also what it is not. Governance theorist must be up-front about the biases in the concept and the implications of those biases.The lessons learned in the evolution of regime theory in international relations are relevant here because regime theory predates governance theory and because the two are very nearly the same thing. Summing-UpFrom its prominence in the 1980s, regime theory would now be described as one of many important theories of international relations. International relations is, of course, the study of relations between nation-states whereas public administration is the study of the management of the state and its subgovernments. It could be said that regime theory accounts for the role of non-state actors and policy entrepreneurs in the context of the modern transformation of the nation-state. In public administration it could be said that the modern transformation of states and their subgovernments explains the contemporary salience of theories of governance. Both regime theory and governance theory are scholarly responses to the transformation of states.Government in the postmodern state involves multiple levels of interlocked and overlapping arenas of collective policy implementation. Governments now operate in the context of supranational, international, transgovernmental and transnational relations in elaborate patterns of federated power sharing and interdependence. Therefore, it is now understood that public administration as governance is the best description of the management of the transformed or postmodern state (Sorensen 2021) Nationhood and community are transformed as collective loyalties are increasingly projected away from the state. Major portions of economic activity are now embedded in cross-border networks and national and local economies are less self-sustaining that they once were (Sorensen 2021, p. 162)Harlan Cleveland understood very early how governments, economies and communities were changing and how rapidly they were changing. His initial description of public administration as governance was designed to square the theory and practices of the field with the realities of a changing world. His governance model still serves as a感谢您的阅读,祝您生活愉快。
公共事业管理名词解释全

公共事业管理名词解释全公共事业管理名词解释全1、非市场中介组织;主要是指在市场经济中发挥保障、管理、法律服务等作用的组织,包括社会保障管理机构、技术研究、开发和咨询机构、服务机构以及法律服务机构。
2、公共物品是指无论个人是否想要购买,其利益不可分割地被扩散给社会全体成员的物品。
3、公共事务是生产公共物品的活动,是指涉及全体社会公众整体的生活质量和共同利益的一系列活动,其产品具有完全的“非排他性”。
4、准公共事务是生产准公共物品的活动,是指涉及部分社会公众的生活质量和共同利益的一系列活动,其产品具有部分的“非排他性”。
和公共事务及企业事务相比,准公共事务的特点是中介性。
5、公共事业管理是指公共事业组织在一定的环境和条件下,动员和运用有效资源,采取计划、组织、领导和控制等方式对社会准公共事务进行协调,实现提高生活质量,保证社会利益目标的活动过程。
6、公共组织是以实现公共利益为目标的组织,它一般拥有公共权力或者经过公共权力的授权,负有公共责任,以提供公共服务,包括管理公共事务、供给公共产品为基本职能的组织。
政府是典型的公共组织,此外,非营利性的公共组织也是现代社会公共组织的重要组成部分,后者形成了所谓的公共事业组织。
7、事业单位:国家为了社会公益事业目的,由国家机关或者其他组织利用国有资产举办的,从事教育、科技、文化、卫生等活动的社会服务组织。
8、社会团体:中国公民自愿组成,为实现会员共同意愿,按照其章程开展活动的非营利性社会组织。
9、民办非企业单位:企业事业单位、社会团体和其他社会力量以及公民个人利用非国有资产举办的,从事非营利性社会服务活动的社会组织。
10、公共事业管理中的沟通,不同公共事业管理主体(个人、群体、组织等)进行交流,互通情报,从而对彼此行为产生作用和影响的过程。
11、公共事业管理中激励:公共事业管理者针对成员的需要,采取某些手段,激发人们为实现公共事业管理目标积极自觉地行动的过程。
12、消极控制就是禁止或限制控制对象发生某些行为,既包括记过、降级、停职、判刑等正式的控制方式,也包括嘲讽、白眼等非正式方式。
新公共管理外文翻译文献

新公共管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文:New Public Management and the Quality ofGovernment:Coping with the New Political Governance in CanadaPeter AucoinDalhousie UniversityHalifax, CanadaConference on ‘New Public Management and the Quality of Government’,SOG and the Quality of Government Institute,University of GothenburgSwedenA tension between New Public Management (NPM) and good governance,including good public administration, has long been assumed by those who regard the structures and practices advocated and brought about by NPM as departing from the principles and norms of good governance that underpinned traditional public administration (Savoie 1994). The concern has not abated (Savoie 2008).As this dynamic has played out over the past three decades, however, there emerged an even more significant challenge not only to the traditional structures, practices and values of the professional, non-partisan public service but also to those reforms introduced by NPM that have gained wide, if not universal, acceptance as positive development in public administration. This challenge is what I call New Political Governance (NPG). It is NPG, and not NPM, I argue, that constitutes the principal threat to good governance, including good public administration, and thus the Quality of Government (QoG) as defined by Rothstein and Teorell (2008). It is a threat to the extent that partisans in government, sometimes overtly, mostly covertly, seek to use and override the public service – an impartial institution of government –to better secure their partisan advantage (Campbell 2007; MacDermott 2008 a, 2008b). In so doing, these governors engage in a politicization of the public service and its administration of public business that constitutes a form of political corruption that cannot but undermine good governance. NPM is not a cause of this politicization, I argue, but it is an intervening factor insofar as NPM reforms, among other reforms of the last three decades, have had the effect of publicly exposing the public service in ways that have made it more vulnerable to political pressures on the part of the political executive.I examine this phenomenon by looking primarily at the case of Canada, but with a number of comparative Westminster references. I consider the phenomenon to be an international one, affecting most, if not all, Western democracies. The pressures outlined below are virtually the same everywhere. The responses vary somewhat because of political leadership and the institutional differences between systems, even in the Westminster systems. The phenomenon must also be viewed in the context of time, given both the emergence of the pressures that led to NPM in the first instance, as a new management-focused approach to public administration, and the emergence of the different pressures that now contribute to NPG, as a politicized approach togovernance with important implications for public administration, and especially for impartiality, performance and accountability.New Public Management in the Canadian ContextSince the early 1980s, NPM has taken several different forms in various jurisdictions. Adopting private-sector management practices was seen by some as a part,even if a minor part, of the broader neo-conservative/neo-liberal political economy movement that demanded wholesale privatization of government enterprises and public services, extensive deregulation of private enterprises, and significant reductions in public spending –‘rolling back the state’, as it was put a at the outse t (Hood 1991). By some accounts, almost everything that changed over the past quarter of a century is attributed to NPM. In virtually every jurisdiction, nonetheless, NPM, as public management reform, was at least originally about achieving greater economy and efficiency in the management of public resources in government operations and in the delivery of public services (Pollitt 1990). The focus, in short, was on ‘management’.Achieving greater economy in the use of public resources was at the forefront of concerns, given the fiscal and budgetary situations facing all governments in the 1970s,and managerial efficiency was not far behind, given assumptions about the impoverished quality of management in public services everywhere.By the turn of the century, moreover, NPM, as improved public management in this limited sense, was well embedded in almost all governments, at least as the norm (although it was not always or everywhere referred to as NPM). This meant increased managerial authority, discretion and flexibility:•for managing public resources (financial and human);•for managing public-service delivery systems; and,•for collaborating with other public-sector agencies as well as with privatesector agencies in tackling horizontal – multi-organizational and/or multisectoral– issues.This increased managerial authority, flexibility and discretion was, in some jurisdictions, notably the Britain and New Zealand, coupled with increased organizational differentiation, as evidenced by a proliferation of departments andagencies with narrowed mandates, many with a single purpose. “Agencification’, however, was not a major focus reform in all jurisdictions, including Canada and Australia where such change, if not on the margins, was clearly secondary to enhanced managerial authority and responsibility (Pollitt and Talbot 2004).The major NPM innovations quickly led to concerns, especially in those jurisdictions where these developments were most advanced, about a loss of public service coherence and corporate capacity, on the one hand, and a diminished sense of and commitment to public-service ethos, ethics and values, on the other. Reactions to these concerns produced some retreat, reversals, and re-balancing of the systems in questions (Halligan 2006). Nowhere, however, was there a wholesale rejection of NPM, in theory or practice, and a return to traditional public administration, even if there necessarily emerged some tension between rhetoric and action (Gregory 2006). The improvements in public management brought about by at least some aspects of NPM were simply too obvious, even if these improvements were modest in comparison to the original claims of NPM proponents.At the same time that NPM became a major force for change in public administration, however, it was accompanied by a companion force that saw political executives seeking to assert greater political control over the administration and apparatus of the state, not only in the formulation of public policies but also in the administration of public services. Accordingly, from the start, at least in the Anglo-American systems, there was a fundamental paradox as political executives, on both the left and the right sides of the partisan-political divide, sought to (re)assert dominance over their public-service bureaucracies while simultaneously devolving greater management authority to them (Aucoin 1990).The impetus for this dynamic lay in the dissatisfaction of many political executives with the ‘responsiveness’ of public servants to the politi cal authority and policy agendas of these elected officials. Public choice and principal-agency theories provided the ideological justifications for taking action against what were perceived as self-serving bureaucrats (Boston 1996). Beyond theory and ideology, however, the practice of public administration by professional public servants in some jurisdictions, notably Australia, Britain and New Zealand, offered more than sufficient evidence topolitical leaders of a public-service culture that gave only grudging acceptance, at best, to the capacity of elected politicians to determine what constituted the ‘public interest’ in public policy and administration.The Canadian case is of interest, I suggest, for several reasons. In comparative perspective, Canada did not approach public management reform with much of an ideological perspective. When the Conservatives defeated the centrist Liberals in 1984, neither the new prime minister, Brian Mulroney, nor his leading ministers were hardcore neo-conservatives in the Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher mold. At that time, and until the end of the Conservative government in 1993, the party was essentially a centrist party in the Canadian ‘brokerage’ party tradition. While important aspects of neoliberalism unfolded, especially under the umbrella of economic deregulation that came with a free-trade agreement with the United States, there were no major administrative reforms that were politically driven. Pragmatism prevailed (Gow 2004). As a result, the reforms initiated during this period were essentially undertakings of the professional public-service leadership that sought to stay abreast with developments elsewhere. The scope and depth of these reforms were affected, however, by the extent to which ministers wanted to maintain an active involvement in administration (Aucoin 1995).By comparison to developments elsewhere, Canadian ministers were less inclined to worry about the professional public service being unresponsive to their political direction. Nonetheless, the Mulroney regime saw an expansion in the number, roles and influence of ‘political staff’ appointed to ministers’ offices, most notably in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). These staff, who have grown continuously in number over the past four decades, are not public servants, although they are employed on the public payroll. Unlike public servants, who are appointed independently of ministers, political staff are appointed and dismissed at the discretion of ministers and, of course, they have no tenure beyond their ministers. And, in official constitutional doctrine, they have no separate authority to direct the public service. In the Canadian tradition, moreover, they are appointed almost exclusively from partisan-political circles and appointees rarely possess any public service experience.For all these reasons, the Canadian government did not go as far down the NPMroad as its three major Westminster counterparts (Australia, Britain and New Zealand) in terms of such matters as ‘agencification,’ devolution, term contracts for executives, external recruitment, or contracting-out. And, the reforms that did occur did not fundamentally transform the traditional administrative architecture. Throughout, there was retained, and even further developed:•an integrated public service, with the most senior levels drawn from the career public service and managed and deployed as a corporate executive resource; •departmental organizations, structured hierarchically with the minister as political executive and combining public policy and operational/service delivery responsibilities; and,•public administrative structures for addressing both corporate or governmentwide concerns and horizontal policy and service delivery issues.These features were seen as strengths of the Canadian approach (Bourgon 1998; Lindquist 2006; Dunn 2002).At the same time, reforms were initiated to improve public management that followed the principal NPM script: some measure of devolution of management authority from central management agencies to the senior public-service executives of line departments for (a) achieving greater economy and efficiency in the use of public resources, (b) improving service delivery, and (c) enhancing collaboration across departments to address those wicked ‘horizontal’ problems that defy government’s organizational boundaries (Bakvis and Juillet 2004).Further, in addressing one major challenge that was critical in the first years of NPM, namely, the fiscal crisis of the state in the latter part of the 20th century, the record of Canada was at first dismal and then dramatically successful. While the Conservative government, in power from 1984-93, was unable to wrestle annual deficits to the ground, a major program-budget review initiated following the Liberal Party victory in 1993 resulted, in surprisingly short order, in annual multi-billion dollar budget surpluses for over a decade – the best record in the G-8 nations (a group that does not include Australia which has had a similar experience with very large budget surpluses). On this front, political will and discipline, but not ideology, was a decisive force.By the first decade of the 21st century, moreover, Canada also came to be ranked first both in E-Government and in Service Delivery on one major international scorecard. On this front, the fact that the public service has been able to operate essentially on its own has helped spur progress. The Canadian emphasis on citizen-centred service drew inspiration from the NPM foc us on ‘customers’ but, at the same time, paid serious attention to the priorities of citizens as defined by citizens –the outside-in perspective that enabled a significant advance in integrated service delivery structures and processes using multiple channels of service (Flumian, Coe and Kernaghan 2007). The Canadian methodology for this performance-based approach to service-delivery measurement and improvement is being adopted elsewhere in the Westminster systems.Finally, and clearly on a much less positive note, a good deal of attention has been required in Canada over the past decade to codes of ethics, public service values, transparency, comptrollership, and public accountability –thanks in large part to a series of alleged and real political-administrative scandals! Not surprisingly, this is where NPG and its effects on the quality of government can be witnessed in spades.译文:新公共化管理与政府质量:符合加拿大的新的政治治理彼得奥克达尔豪西大学哈利法克斯,加拿大在会议上发表“新公共管理与政府质量”SOG和政府机构的质量,哥德堡大学瑞典新公共管理(NPM)和良好的管理之间的张力,包括长期以来一直承担那些倡导结构和做法和把带来关于新公共管理作为善政的原则和传统的公共规范作为基础的良好的公共行政(萨瓦1994年)。
公共事业管理专业英语

Public Good DemandThe demand or benefit from a public good is the sum of the willingness-to pay or benefit by consumers for each unit of the good.Each consumer shares the benefit from each unit of the good.This is unlike a private good,where each consumer gets a private benefit from each unit the consumer purchases without sharing the purchase or benefit with other consumers.Therefore,with a public good the benefit is the sum of the benefits from each consumer that receives a benefit from the unit of output.This is illustrated in the table below:公共产品的需求和收益是消费者为每单位物品的支付意愿或收益的总和。
每一个消费者享有每一单位物品的收益。
这不像一个私人物品,在私人物品中,每一个消费者在不用与别人一起负担购买和分享收益的情况下,可以从每一单位的物品购买中得到得到每一单位的私人收益。
所以在公共物品中,收益是每个从单位产出得到收益的每个消费者的收益的总和。
这将会在下面表格陈述:In the fictitious(虚构的)example in the table,the three scientists share a laboratory and are considering jointly purchasing several journal subscriptions.The journal subscriptions would be shared among the scientists.The table simplifies this decision by assuming that the journal subscriptions are similar and the benefit they receive from the first is the highest for all three scientists.The three scientists have a common second choice that they value less,a third choice,etc.,for the five journals they are considering jointly purchasing subscriptions to.在表格里虚构的例子中,三个科学家共同享有一间实验室并考虑一起购买几种期刊订阅。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
公共事业管理外文翻译河南理工大学公共事业管理专业2009级姓名:冯明雷学号:310919010220班级:事管09-2班From Crisis to Opportunity: Human Resource Challenges for the Public Sector in the Twenty-First CenturyVidu Soni Central Michigan UniversityAbstractA great deal of attention has been focused on the human capitalcrisis in the public sector since the mid-1990s. Experts and practitioners give many reasons why the current crisis emerged. This article examines the important factors that led to the crisis, what is being done about them through presidential agendas, legislators, oversight agencies, professional societies, and public policy think tanks. Concerns are many in terms of a large number of upcoming retirements, early retirements, unplanned downsizing, difficulty in attracting new generations to public service, and the changing nature of public service. However, the human resource crisis also presents an opportunity to fundamentally change those features of public sector human resource management practices that have become outdated for contemporary organizations and position government agencies for thetwenty-first century by meaningfully reforming the civil service. This transformation would require public sector organizations to take a more strategic view of human resource management and to give greater policy attention to human capital issues.IntroductionIn 1989, the National Commission on the Public Service (commonly referred to as the Volcker Commission) issued a report on the state of public service characterizing it as a “quiet crisis,” which referred to the slowweakening of the public service in the 1970s and 1980s. This period was marked by loss of public confidence in its elected and appointed officials, heightened bureaucrat bashing by the media and political candidates, and a distressed civil service. For different reasons, the quiet crisis of earlier decades continued through the 1990s and is present today. The current crisis is building as large numbers of government workers are expected to retire in the coming years and not enough younger people are in the pipeline for government jobs. Adding to the crisis is understaffed government agencies, a skills imbalance, and a lack of well-trained supervisors and senior leaders. These concerns are reinforced by a preliminary report of the second National Commission on Public Service (Light, 2002), which paints a more dire picture and foreshadows a more pronounced crisis. Light contends that “the United States cannot win the war on terrorism or rebuild homeland securitywith out a fully dedicated federal civil service” (p. 2). Millick andSmith (2002, p. 3) have a similar reaction when they state “while the firstNational Commission on Public Service referred to a …quiet crisis? in the civil service, the second Commission isfacing what can only be called an imminent catastrophe.”Scholars and practitioners alike have been projecting serious shortages in qualified workforce in federal government (Light, 1999; Voinovich, 2000; Walker, 2000).These trends in public service partly reflect the generational shift in attitudes toward government itself. The younger generation tends not to choose public service careers because of the negative reputation of government?s hiring process, lack of challenging work, andits system of rewards. These concerns led the General Accounting Office (GAO) to add human resources management to the government wide “high-risk list” of federal activities in 2001. Similarly, inspectors general at nine major agencies have listed workforce problems among the top ten most serious management challenges that their agencies face (General Accounting Office [GAO], 2001). The federal government?s human resource crisis threatens its ability to serve the public well and meet the expectations of the American people. Federal agencies must respond by publicizing job opportunities more aggressively, including offering younger workers interestingand challenging work and the potential for advancement. Light (2002) argues that a strong civil service has five characteristics: it is (1)motivated by the chance to accomplish something worthwhile on behalf of the country, (2) recruited from the top of the labor market, (3) given tools and organizational capacity to succeed, (4) rewarded for a job well done, and (5) respected by the people and leaders it serves. However, Light also point out that “by all five measures, the federal service has lost ground since September 11” (p. 2).This article examines the context and nature of the impending workforce crisis in federal government and discusses various areas of change that must be addressed to avert the crisis or, at least, minimize its impact. The issues related to recruiting and developing public sector human resources in the twenty-first century not only require consideration of the traditional remedies such as civil service reform, political support, and more managerial flexibility, but also, consideration of the changing nature of public service (Light, 1999) and the world of work across all sectors (Spiegel, 1995). Many external and internal organizational forces such as workforce demographics, technology, and privatization, as well as eroding trust in government institutions have drastically altered the environment of government service. Accordingly, traditional human resource (HR) management approaches no longer work. The HR supply and demand problem must be addressed at multiple levels. Educating people about government service, raising the image of government workers, providing competent andreliable leadership in government agencies, conducting career development and training of existing personnel, and actively recruiting,particularly in technological and scientific fields, all will have to be done simultaneously to adequately respond to the human resource crisis in the public sector.Next, the article documents and discusses some of the actions that various federal agencies have taken in response to the crisis. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) have conducted numerous surveys, issued reports on causes of the problems, and have developed tools, techniques, and resources to assist thefederal agencies in solving the problems. Lastly, the paper outlines recommendations and strategies that can lead the federal government to turn this HR crisis into an opportunity for systematic reform, modernization, and revitalization of public sector human resources practices and systems. The recent coalescence of interest in addressing the HR crisis and recognizing its urgency is demonstrated by the inclusion of discussion of workforce problems in congressional hearings, presidential priorities, and reports issued by oversight agencies and public sector think tanks. This heightened attention to the human resources crisis in government represents a promising opportunity to improve and strengthen public service.Initiatives Taken in Response to the CrisisThe federal government has taken several initiatives to help minimize the negative impact of the human capital crisis. SenatorVoinovich?s Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital (2000) makes severalrecommendations that fall in two categories. The first category includes recommendations that do not require legislation such as, urging agencies to conduct workforce planning and automating hiring systems to speed up the process. The second category requires legislative action such as making the pay system more flexible by allowing broad banding, or obtaining special hiring authority when needed. Several agencies such as the Forest Service, GAO, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have requested and received special wavers to set pay deviating from the General Schedule pay structure and conduct direct hiring. Following is a discussion of some of the important administrative and legislative initiatives introduced by GAO, OPM, and Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB).Leadership ImprovementCompliance with Congress? directive that agencies measure and demonstrate results made it necessary thatagency leaders have proven managerial competence and leadership skills. To facilitate strategic management of human resources so that agencies can accomplish their policy and programmatic goals, Senator Voinovich askedthe GAO to develop two types of management questionnaires that could be used for confirming presidential nominees to administrative positions(GAO,2002b, p. 35). “It is clear that federal agency leaders must create anand sustain that attention to create real improvements in the integrated, strategic view of their human capital—way they manage their people,” argues the senator. The first questionnaire is intended for those appointees whowill have significant program management responsibilities, and their responses will inform the Senate of their management experience and preparedness for addressing the current and future top management challenges facing federal agencies. The second questionnaire includes questions on agency-specific management problems drawn from sources such as the High-Risk series (GAO, 2001). The purpose of this questionnaireis to improvethe quality of federal programs by improving the quality of people appointed to manage them. Political appointees must be prepared to substantively address the problems at their agencies, not just give policy direction to the career civil servants. The questionnaires convey the message that the Senate considers effective managerial skills to be a priority for all nominees to senior agency positions.Presidential Management AgendaThe President?s Management Agenda (OMB, 2002) has identified several government reform goals thatwill address the human capital crisis. Among its goals are:(1) workforce planning and restructuring undertaken as part of “strategicm anagement of human capital” that will be defined in terms of each agency?s mission, goals, and objectives, (2) agency restructuring is expected to incorporate organizational and staffing changes resulting from “competitive sources” and expanded E-government, (3) as part of the 2003 budget process, OMB has askeddepartments and agencies to identify statutory impediments to good management, (4) agencies will strengthen and make the most of knowledge, skills, and abilities of their people in order to meet the needs and expectations of “their ultimate clients—the American people.” These reforms are expected to create long-term results that will allow agencies to build, sustain, and effectively deploy the skilled, knowledgeable, diverse, and high-performing workforce needed to meet the current and emerging needs of government and its citizens. These reforms will also allow the work-force to adapt quickly in size, composition,and competencies to accommodate changes in mission, technology, andlabor markets and will contribute to increasing employee satisfaction.Understanding New Public ServiceLight (1999) argues that the end of twentieth century marks the endof government- centered public service and brings a multispectralservice in its place. This means the labor market from which government workers will be drawn has also been altered significantly. “The government-centered public service has been replaced by a new public service in which government must compete for talent,” states Light (p. 1). His study of the graduates of the top twentyschools of public administration and public policy shows that the new workforce is likely to change jobs and sectors frequently, as well as be more focused on challenging work than on job security. Light argues that to seriously address this crisis, public organizations and graduate schools of public administration need to understand the changing nature of public service. The new public service is shaped by blurring of the lines between sectors, developing trends toward changing sectors during one?s career, worker preference for jobsthat provide flexibility and an opportunity for growth, and the new types of skills required for public sector employees and managers. This greater uncertainty and job movement will make it increasingly difficult for the government to hold on to its talent and prevent agencies from building the kind of expertise needed for an effective public service.According to Light, higher pay and aggressive recruitment alone will not solve government?s problem; itmust also offer challenging work, flexible organizations, andbroader career paths. He suggests a variety of steps for the government to become competitive. First, agencies need to develop new recruitment programs more appropriate for today?s workforce. Second, agencies need to create new entry points for replacing people in mid-and top-level jobs. Instead of reserving the vast majority of promotions for internal candidates, government must open the career paths to outside competition. Third, the government must recognize career development and jobenrichment as an ongoing organizational obligation. Its utility is demonstrated by a case study (Kim, 2002) of the Nevada Operations office of the Department of Energy (DOE) that shows a statistically significant relationship between a supervisor?s support of career development and high levels of job satisfaction. To respondto challenges of this new responsiveness to employee development,the DOE introduced Individual Development Planning (IDP) in 1999. Supervisors were required to ensure that employees were provided the opportunity to have training plans that were subject to annual review and revision to ensure that these plans directly benefited the mission and employee development objectives.Developing Executive and Supervisory TalentIn a study conducted by Huddleston (1999), the presidential award recipient members of the SES (Senior Executive Service) identified several leadership skills necessary for top-level executives. They pointed out four qualities of outstanding senior leaders: (1) strategic vision, (2) ability to motivate others, (3) ethic of hard work, and (4) integrity. Effective senior executives emphasize the importance of articulating a vision, setting goals, having a performance orientation, and understanding what these concepts mean for the success of their agencies. These are commonsense approaches to them rather than management fads. For example, Huddleston writes that Thomas Billy, of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),stated that his strategic vision was to ensure that “the food Americans eat will pose no risk (p. 5).”He argues that while this may sound redundant at first, it gets the agency thinking about designing regulations and developing technologies to get there. Others attributed their success to nothing more than hard work. “You can?t be successful as an 85 per center,” says Paul Chistolini,GSA(p. 6).Current leadership selection practices in the federal government are completely at odds with the new leader competencies, that is,flexibility adaptability, accountability, strategic thinking, vision, and customer service, needed today and in the future. Supervisors are concerned that their agencies do not have selection standards and are inconsistent in the skills they seek for supervisory positions. This lack of consistency means that supervisory competencies and performance management skills may not be evaluated as thoroughly as needed. For example, performance management competency including measuring performance, monitoring performance, developing employees, rating performance, and rewarding good work are not assessed or measured in prospective leaders (OPM, 2001a).The job of leadership development rests both with the existingsenior leaders and the organizations. Katter (1993, p. 139) argues that an environment that is supportive of the time and effort to grow leaders needs to be cultivated in organizations to fill the current leadership void. Blunt (2002a) suggests that launching a successful leadership development program is driven by five imperatives. First, the visibilityof the number of managers and senior leaders who will retire in the next five years provides a succession imperative. Second, the decision to establish a leader development program is a strategic imperative and should be reflected in official strategic plans submitted with the annual budget. Third, the current dissatisfaction with organizational performance from external sources, e.g., the GAO,Congress, the OMB, and the public should provide a performance imperative to focus on developing leaders. Fourth, the changing landscape for performance requires a change in the type of leaders being developed; this is the competency imperative. Fifth, the organization champion imperative requires senior leaders willing to take the initiative to promote and sustain leadership development programs. Taken together, these offer organizations a beginning point for launching leadership development programs. Longitudinal research conducted by Center for Creative Leadership places leader learning in four broad categories: challenging job assignments, learning from others? examples, hardships and setbacks, and educationand training. Similarly, senior leaders can develop a new generation of leaders by serving as an exemplar, a mentor, and a coach, or organizations can create programs that would use such a learning model (Blunt, 2002b).Research provides evidence that a positive relationship exists between supervisory characteristics and levels of job satisfaction.Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that employees produced the most creative outcomeswhen they worked on complex, challenging jobs and were supervised in a supportive, no controlling way. Supportive supervisors encourage subordinates to voice their own concerns, provided positive and mainly informational feedback, and facilitated employee skills development. Supervisors also need skills in performance management, fair appraisals, and effective skill utilization as pointed out by an Office of Policy and Evaluation at the MSPB study (MSPB, 1998). The study suggested that when downsizing occurs, supervisors need to be much more concerned about how they use the talent they have on their staffs and that it iscritical that any staffing, employee development, and performance management decisions be made with a long-term perspective in mind.Improved Skill in Managing a Diverse WorkforceWhile the workforce statistics (see Table 3 of the Appendix) show increasing diversity at all levels of government employment including diversity in contractors, very little attention has been focused on developing diversity competence of managers and employees as part of the government?s human capital strategy. Contraryto this, the private sector has made diversity management skills as one of the dominant issues for developing leaders for the twenty-first century. Diversity management skills have even greater significance for public sector leaders and organizations not only because the government workforce is changing, but also because of the increasingly diversecommunities public administrators serve. Also, the sensitive nature of the current US foreign policy environment makes diversity competence an important priority. It is crucial to understand the implications of the workforce, community, societal, and global diversity means for public administration and take them into consideration as agencies developtheir missions, strategic plans, and leadership training programs. Recognizing its importance, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) organized several panels on “managing community without majorities” in its 2002 National Conference (Conference Brochure).Research shows that in spite of the diversity initiatives in most federal agencies, underutilization and quality of work-life issues that exist for women and minorities remain unresolved. For example a study of a federal agency (Soni,2000,p. 401) revealed that 47% to 79% of women and minorities continue to feel that they “have towork harder than white males to prove themselves,” and only 29% of minorities believe that the agency“discourages comments or jokes that perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice.” Similar studies(Naff&Kellough,2002;Soni,1997) show that in spite of increased diversity in the workplace, organizational capacity to fully utilize and effectively manage diversity remains limited. There are many reasons for this limitation. For example, the inability and lack of willingness on the part of organizational leaders and members to recognize effectivediversity management as a salient workplace issue or that institutional and cultural biases and barriers can limit agencies? approaches to diversity.Successfully managing diversity is a challenging process, but with a clear vision, careful planning and a willingness and commitment to change, government can develop a competitive advantage as an employer and a producer of services to the American people. Riccuci (2002) argues that agencies need to develop the ability to address such challenges as communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, and even hostilities that invariably result from working in an environment with persons fromhighly diverse backgrounds, age groups, and lifestyles. To the extent that the demographics of the workforce reflect that of the general population that it serves and it is effectively managed, the delivery of public service will be greatly enhanced. Public sector organizations must assess and understand the current demographic complexion of their workforce in conjunction with projected forecasts for change (Workforce 2020, 1997). “Public sector organizations that perfunctorily develop diversityprograms solely for the purpose of avoiding liability in potential lawsuits completely miss the point about the importance of diversity programs. They will fail to adequately plan for their own successful performance as well as the future governance of American people,” notes Riccucci (2002, p. 31).Improving Human Resource Management PracticesProposals to reform civil service and public sector human resource management (HRM) in the twenty-first century fall into three categories. The first proposal advocates cutting costs and downgrading the career workforce (Klingner&Nalbandian,2003; Levine &Klee man,1992). This approach reflects the antigovernment values prominent in the late 1990s. Advocates of this approach criticize public sector HR management as being rule-bound, inflexible, driven by legal mandates, risk averse, and a constraint on managers. They see little connection between HR management and organizational mission and recommend eliminating the in-house HR department and outsource the majority of its functions. The second proposal calls for upgrading the compensation, status, and responsibilities of the career civil service employees. This approach emphasizes the strong oversight role of OPM to preserve the merit principles and ensure consistency in HR management in the federal government. Advocates of this approach value expertise embodied in HR professionals and consistency in personnel polices, as well as the necessity and importance of compliance with legal mandates. This approach is based upon the traditional principles of merit, that is, personnel practices based on knowledge, skills, and abilities, fairness, and social equity. The third proposal argues that the essence of modern human resources management is workforce planning. This strategy recommends that federal agencies? human resource activities should be guided by long-term planning rather then short-term problems. This approach advocates the importance of identifying andconnecting present and future competencies with the outcomes identified in an organization?s strategic plan. It includes taking an inventory of what is available in the current workforce and what is needed, and how to close the gap.Spiegel (1995) argues that there are two primary drivers of workplace transitions. Technological changes stimulate the demand side of work—what needs to be done and in what form. Demographic and social changes,the supply side, influence the kinds of workers available to assume work roles and the nature of their interface with the institutions at work. Information technology, along with the growth of knowledge and global competition has created boundary-less organizations removing intermediaries and distributing power. In such an environment, the ability of an organization to acquire or create knowledge has become an important requirement for its survival. However, achievement of this goal is often difficult because organizations tend to replicate their past responses when confronted by new stimuli and allow their past successes to restrain their future choices (March& Simon, 1958). Thus, in the face of new challenges, the federal government must reframe its HR issues, and not rely solely on past approaches to solve the current crisis.Reestablishing a Public Service EthicResearchers have long studied the motivational characteristics of public service and how it affects the quality and content of publicoutput. Perry and Wise (1990) argue that public service motives fallinto three analytical categories: rational, norm based and affective. Rational motives involve actions that are grounded in an individual?s desire to maximize utility. Norm-based motives refer to actions generated by efforts to conform to norms. Affective motives refer to triggers of behavior that are grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts. Public service motivation is seldom defined by utility maximization; however, an ethic of public service can be dictated by rational motives such as participation in the process of policy formulation or commitment to a public program. One can also be driven to public service by affective motives such as personal identification with a program based on an individual?s conviction about its social importance, service to society,or patriotism, which brings with it a willingness to sacrifice for others. The public service ethic has significant behavioral implications. The level and type of an individual?s public service motivation influences his or her jobchoices and job performance. Public organizations that attract members with high levels of public service motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to manage individual performance effectively.Millick and Smith (2002, p. 3) argue that in the post-9/11 environment, government should sell people on public service, “OPMshould spearhead a public campaign aimed at informing the public . . . and capitalizing onthe patriotic sentiments in the country.” The great risk in the current trend of treating the public service like aprivate enterprise is that it fails to acknowledge unique motives underlying public sector employment and the critical linkage between the way agencies operate and the advancement of social and democratic values. More than a decade ago, the Volcker Commission also recommended strengthening the public service ethic to improve public service. Among its recommendations were initiating a campaign of public education inthe media and schools and colleges, and reaffirming the merit principle, professionalism, and public service orientation of the career workforce.ConclusionUsing Kingdom?s argument, problems are brought to the attention of public policymakers by systematicindicators. However, indicators do not always make the problems clear, and frequently need a little push to get their attention. This push is provided either by a focusing event like a crisis, or by feedback from the operation of current programs. This feedback brings to the policymakers? attention information related to whether the programs are working as planned, whether the implementation is consistent with the legislative mandate, or any unanticipated consequences that may surface. Crises and other focusing events are reinforced by a preexisting perception of a problem. Sometimes, subjects。