《公共管理专业英语》Unit4 textB翻译

Recent Transformations Administration Theory：

a revolution in public management？

近代的变革管理理论：公共管理的改革

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

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

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

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

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

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