新公共管理外文翻译文献

合集下载

试论新公共管理对我国行政管理改革的借鉴作用

试论新公共管理对我国行政管理改革的借鉴作用新公共管理（New Public Management，简称NPM）是20世纪80年代以来在公共管理领域兴起的一种新的管理模式，它的出现标志着公共管理领域的一次革命性变革。

NPM强调市场化、管理效率和结果导向，通过引入私营部门的管理方法和理念，试图解决传统公共管理中的种种问题，成为了当今世界范围内公共管理领域的一种主流理论和实践。

在我国的行政管理改革中，NPM理论也产生了一定的影响。

本文旨在探讨NPM对我国行政管理改革的借鉴意义，并深入分析在实际应用中可能遇到的挑战和问题。

NPM理论对我国行政管理改革的借鉴作用在于强调效率和市场化。

在我国的传统行政管理中，官僚主义、行政权力过于集中、效率低下等问题一直困扰着行政管理领域。

而NPM通过引入市场化机制和竞争机制，强调管理效率和结果导向，试图解决这些问题。

NPM 提倡通过绩效评估和考核来激励行政人员的工作表现，倡导注重成本效益和效率的经营方式，这些都对我国行政管理改革提供了有益的借鉴。

我国在行政管理改革中也开始注重效率和市场化，例如通过实施绩效考核等方式来激励行政人员的工作表现，力求提高行政管理的效率。

NPM强调公共服务的民主化和市民参与。

在传统的行政管理中，政府对公共服务的提供主导地位过高，市民对公共服务的参与度和决策权相对较低。

而NPM提倡政府与市民进行合作式治理，鼓励社会组织和市民参与公共事务的决策，增强市场和社会的监督作用。

这在我国的行政管理改革中也具有一定的启示意义。

我国在推动政务公开、推进政府信息公开工作、建立国家公共信用信息系统等方面，都是希望能够增强市民参与和监督公共事务的能力，以此来提高公共服务的可及性和透明度。

NPM强调创新和变革。

在传统的行政管理中，往往固守传统的管理方式和制度，难以适应社会经济发展的变革和需求。

而NPM鼓励创新和变革，提倡灵活性和适应性。

在我国的行政管理改革中，也需要重视创新和变革。

西方新公共管理范式

西方新公共管理范式英文回答：The Western New Public Management paradigm, also known as NPM, is a management approach that emerged in the late 20th century. It is characterized by a shift towardsmarket-oriented principles and a focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in public sector organizations.One of the key features of the Western NPM paradigm is the emphasis on results and outcomes. This means thatpublic sector organizations are expected to deliver measurable and tangible results, rather than just focusing on inputs and processes. For example, instead of simply measuring the number of students enrolled in a school, the Western NPM paradigm would also consider the educational outcomes and achievements of those students.Another important aspect of the Western NPM paradigm isthe introduction of performance-based management systems. This involves setting clear goals and targets, measuring performance against those targets, and rewarding or penalizing based on the results. For instance, public sector employees may receive bonuses or promotions if they meet or exceed their performance targets, while those who fail to meet the targets may face consequences such as reduced funding or job loss.Additionally, the Western NPM paradigm promotes a more customer-centric approach in public sector organizations. This means that public sector organizations are encouraged to focus on meeting the needs and preferences of their customers, who are often referred to as "clients" or "service users". For example, a government agency may conduct surveys or seek feedback from citizens to understand their expectations and improve the quality of services provided.Furthermore, the Western NPM paradigm advocates for decentralization and devolution of decision-making authority. This means that decision-making power is shiftedfrom the central government to lower levels of government or even to non-governmental organizations. This allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to local needs and conditions. For instance, a local government may have the authority to make decisions on budget allocations or service delivery based on the specific needs and priorities of its community.中文回答：西方新公共管理范式（New Public Management，简称NPM）是在20世纪末出现的一种管理方法。

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。

政府对公共舆论的管理外文翻译文献

政府对公共舆论的管理外文翻译文献 (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 GothenburgSweden13-15 November 2008A 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 emergenceof the different pressures that now contribute to NPG, as a politicized approach to governance 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 outset (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 increasedorganizational differentiation, as evidenced by a proliferation of departments and agencies 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 publ ic servants to the political 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 to political 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 num ber 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 NPM road 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 adecisive 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 ins piration from the NPM focus 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2008年11月13日至15日新公共管理（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）。

公共管理学完整版英文翻译XN

Chapter 2课本第一章An Era of Change改变的年代、时代Introduction引言There has been a transformation（转化、变革）in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries.在发达国家的公共部门的管理已经有了一个变革。

This new paradigm poses（形成，造成）a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration.这个新的范例对几个原先被认为是传统公共行政的基础规则提出了直接挑战。

These seven seeming verities（真理）have been challenged.这几个真理被挑战。

Economic problems in the 1980s meant governments reassessed（重新评估）their bureaucracies and demanded changes. 1980s的经济问题意味着政府重新评估他们的官僚制并且需要改变。

All these points will be discussed at greater length（长度）later, but the main point is there has been total change in a profession that saw little change for around a hundred years.这些观点会在以后做更大范围的讨论，但是这里强调的主要是一点：一百年来很少发生变革的公共职业领域发生了全面变革。

A new paradigm一个新的范例There is some debate over whether or not public managemnet, particularly the new public management, is a new paradigm for public sector management.有个争论，关于公共管理尤其是新的公共管理是不是公共部门管理的一个新的范例。

新公共管理现状分析论文

新公共管理现状分析论文新公共管理（New Public Management，NPM）是二十世纪八十年代以来发展起来的一种公共管理体制理论，其主要特点是强调公共部门的市场化、私有化和管理效率。

本文将从NPM理论和实践的历史发展、主要特点及其对公共管理的影响三个方面进行分析。

一、NPM理论和实践的历史发展NPM理论源于二十世纪八十年代英国政府改革运动。

由于传统的公共管理模式过于官僚化、效率低下且难以适应市场经济的发展需求，英国政府开始思考如何改革公共管理。

在此背景下，诞生了新公共管理理论，它与传统的公共管理模式相比，具有更加注重市场化、竞争导向和效率的特征。

NPM的核心思想是公共部门应该像市场经济一样运作，以增加效率、提高竞争力。

它希望通过使用市场化的原则和工具，使公共部门能够提供更高效、更优质的服务。

为了实现这个目标，NPM提出了一些具体的措施，如私有化、分权、计划经济的透明度、公共服务的流程重组等。

二、NPM的主要特点1. 强调市场化这是NPM理论的核心：通过市场化手段使公共部门变得更加效率、透明和竞争力强。

具体做法体现在下面两个方面：（1）引入竞争机制，鼓励市场经济运作。

政府部门的服务也应该被更多的竞争者参与，鼓励各竞争者通过规则的竞争达成更优秀的质量；（2）引入服务经纪机制，孕育公共部门市场、政府与服务商能够更加合理分工。

2. 强调效率NPM主张以效率为出发点，以目标达成为评估标准，以达成成本最小化和模块化为改革核心，以提高效率为实现理念。

3. 强调结果导向和绩效考核这是NPM监管原则中的重要特征。

NPM倡导建立成果为导向的绩效考核系统，以优秀的绩效为竞标办法，对结果进行定量化评估，提高工作效率和质量，鼓励公共部门达成结果、推行产生成果。

4. 强调管理革新NPM倡导通过各种手段，引入先进的管理原则和技术来推动公共部门进行管理革新。

它强调前沿管理理论的应用和信息技术的使用，以实现公共业务的更合理化、精细化和规范化。

新公共管理

By Laura
新公共管理
• 作为一种新的理念以及新的实践模式，有不同的名称：
– 新公共管理 – 管理主义 – 以市场为基础的公共行政学 – 后官僚制模式 – 企业化政府
• 尽管名称不同，但描述的基本是同一现象
By Laura
新公共管理的主要理论及代表人物
• 小政府理论（弗里德曼和哈耶克）
• 流程再造理论（哈默和钱皮） • 公共部门绩效管理理论（霍哲） • 基于回应性的政府全面质量管理（霍哲）
By Laura
新公共管理的内容（管理主义方案的主要观点）结合阿利森的框架理解
一、定位
1、一种战略方法 2、管理而非行政 3、关注结果 4、改善的财政管理 5、人员调配具有弹性 6、组织机构具有弹性 7、引入竞争机制 8、新合同主义 9、运用私营部门管理方式
二、从组织管理内部要素看三、市场化途径
By Laura
2、委托代理理论
• （3）对公共管理学的影响
– 主张把公共部门的事务尽可能多地签约外包出去。通过签约外包，代理关系就变成私营部门的代理关系，效果更佳，同时，合同关系可以适用于员工和组织； – 选择代理人的观点影响到公共服务哪些可以让私营部门提供，哪些应由政府提供。
By Laura
By Laura
• 重塑政府，追求效率
• 用企业家精神去改造政府
• 虽然政府与企业是不同的，而且政府不能像企业那样去运作，但是却能够把企业经营管理的一些成功方法移植到政府中来，使政府这类公共组织能像私人企业一样，提高效率
• 其中最重要的理论就是顾客理论。顾客理论就是强调服务提供者对他们的顾客负责 • 在提供服务过程中不断进行革新，寻求减少成本和增进质量的方法；聆听顾客的呼声，授权顾客作出选择，把资源放在顾客手里让他们挑选 • 期望“顾客主权”能形成对公共机构的压力，改变政府以往虚构的“社会公仆”的角色，达到改善公共服务的目的

行政管理专业公共管理外文翻译文献

文献信息文献标题：Quality Management in Turkish Public Management: Challenges and Benefits（土耳其公共管理的质量管理：挑战与效益）文献作者：Hasan Alpay Karasoy文献出处：《European Scientific Journal》,2018,14(5):11-18字数统计：英文2325单词，13408字符；中文4090汉字外文文献Quality Management in Turkish Public Management:Challenges and BenefitsAbstract From the late 1970’s onwards, traditional public administration was criticized because it does not meet the needs of developing and changing new world. Following this critique, a new approach to public administration was proposed under the name of New Public Management. The development of new public management changed the concept of the public service. Accountable, transparent, effective, and efficient services have become the basic principles of management. On the other hand, the term “quality” has also gained popularity in public administration. In this sense, Total Quality Management (TQM) was adopted to develop quality systems in public administration worldwide. Turkey has also adopted that system. In this study, the situation assessment of TQM process in Turkey was made through the presentation of strengths and weaknesses. The literature search is conducted to achieve this aim and it is obtained from the research that since quality management cannot be fully realized, there are some deficiencies in practice and in regulatory. In this context the regulatory process needs to be revised specially in terms of evaluating and auditing.Keywords: Quality, Total Quality Management, TurkeyIntroductionEfficient public service is a crucial problem which come into prominence in the public management transformation process. From the great depression in the 1930’s, it was began to propound a critique of the traditional public management which articulated a number of emergent dissatisfactions with it in terms of effective public services. In this context several public management approaches have developed. New public management is one of the crucial approach for public management and it put emphasis on efficient public management.The new public management is applied different concepts and practices such as performance based which is measuring the outputs, specialized form of governance, injection of market type mechanisms such as competitive, performance related pay and finally an emphasis on treating service users as customers and on the application of generic quality improvement techniques such as Total Quality Management (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2017:10). The development of new public management changed the concept of the public service. Accountable, transparent, effective, and efficient services have become the basic principles of management. In the 1930s, new public management approach has forced the will of our government’s quality service. For the purpose of adopting quality service system in an entire organization, Total Quality Concept was applied. During the implementation process, some important problems of the Turkish Public Management brought about major obstacles. In this study, recommendations for quality applications in public management and problems encountered through literature review were stated.QualityThe concept of quality does not only include products but also services and how they are carried out. Today, government’s services are based on customer orientation instead of citizen orientation. Quality represents the target of the customer, determined by himself and it also considers the needs of the customer in the competitive market (Ersen, 1997, 10). Quality, as it can be seen based on its explanation, is an important consideration at every stage of goods and services which aims to meet customer’s expectations. However, this reveals a wholesale approachknown as Total Quality Concept. Total Quality Management is an understanding that provides benefit to an organization or around the organization by quality oriented mentality through the participation of all members, aiming at achieving success through customer satisfaction (Muter Kayalıdere, 2003, 103). Total Quality Management approach offers a model of developing modern and effective management system against conventional management. Therefore, the main characteristics of this management approach are (Özveren, 1997, 4):•Focused on quality•Team Work•Process Approach•Management by objectives•Participatory managementThe establishment of that management approach created by people brought about continuous improvement to the process and customer.Nowadays, successful organizations are implementing this management approach in a rigorous way. Service or goods offered to customer are provided to customer in desired quality by using feedbacks gotten from the audience and through the use of a continuous improvement in the Total Quality Management Philosophy.Aims of the Total Quality ManagementWith a simple definition, the aim of total quality management is to ensure effective and efficient use of the organizations sources. However, this can be described as shown below:-In understanding the effectiveness provided by quality, quality covers efficiency. Quality is concerned with good results, while efficiency is concerned with numbers of results.-The target of quality is to reduce cost. If the costs are much higher, its reflection to the public will be much heavier. It aims to keep costs at the lowest level through the most economical manner with the zero-error principle.-To satisfy relevant customers, enough continuity of total quality management isof significant importance. From production to strategy, plans and programs must be at every stage, but it must be continuous. The purpose of this is to satisfy the customer not for a short term, but for a long term suitable for their expectations and in providing continuity (Kazan & Ergülen, 2008, 103). Therefore, this continuity is called as "Kaizen". Kaizen is focused on processes, and focusing on customer is essential at every stage. (Sezer, 2001,170). As a result, by meeting customer’s expectations, continuity is ensured.-It is necessary to avoid wastage in organizations for the emergence of surplus. Therefore, sources of the organization must be used efficiently and well planned in all processes with total quality approach from purchasing to production and from production to sales.Quality Management ProcessConsequently, there are five (5) principles of Total quality process which is described briefly below:Customer Orientation: This entails developing strategies to meet customer demands and to be separated from its competitors. Thus by providing customer satisfaction, there is a guarantee of achieving significant success of the organizations.Continuous Improvement: Organizations which have adopted T.Q.M. philosophy have also adopted continuous improvement at every stage. Continuous development enables the rapid growth of vitality, motivation, and outputs (Ersen, 2004, 100). Through this dynamism, organizations prepare themselves against all conditions.Leadership: To implement quality, it is important for the organization to adopt this approach from top to bottom. This, however, will be provided by the leader of the organization. Leader adopts that process dynamically and provides opportunities to continue.Participation: Employees should be involved in the understanding of quality regardless of their position. They should also encourage and maximize employees education through participation.Analysis: This involves all the expression of all the transaction process oforganization by measurable values. Thus, the data obtained express meaningful results to analysts, which will provide an opportunity to make the necessary interventions.Turkish public management and qualityWith the new public management approach, public services stability, transparency, and accountability have brought the performance metrics together. Performance service efficiency makes quality requirements in a broad sense. Continuous improvement of efficiency involves the implementation of the total quality management (Gedikli, 2001, 20). In other words, implementation of quality in public has become imperative. Despite the implemented public management reforms in our country, it is not at the desired point. Nevertheless, the Financial Management and Control Law No 5018 enacted in European Union Integration process has made our public management an important place in terms of quality. The reorganization of the audit of public expenditure is important for the integrity of the budget and accounting system (Arcagök et al., 2004, 13). With that law, it is intended to use the public resources effectively without wasting in accordance with the quality comprehension. Although public services are not for profit, quality of the service will enhance satisfaction (Balcı, 2003, 331). This satisfaction will improve quality comprehension.Applicability of Our Country ApplicationsT.Q.M. applications are not at the desired point in our country. The most important reason for this is the lack of infrastructure of public management. Insufficient human resources and the lack of quality programs prevented quality policy (Tekin, 2004, 151). Also, political will, constitution, laws, administrative regulations required by T.Q.M. are inadequate (Tosun & Tosun, 1997, 54). Political administrations biased assignments, nepotism, appointments without merit, raises issues, and does not comply with the leadership and integrity principles of the T.Q.M.In our public management, centralized management approach prevents the joint decision making and participatory management required by T.Q.M. Lack of thecommunication needed by governance forces the implementation of the concept of the T.Q.M.In fact, the main problem is ignorance of the T.Q.M. approach as a culture and tradition in the public authorities. Fears such as bureaucracy density, increase of paperwork, and narrowing jurisdiction triggers that negative situation. This solid, inflexible hierarchical structure, can be changed with in-service trainings and regulations. These trainings must be able to cover not only the subordinates, but also cover superiors. Here, another important point is based on the fact that the recruitment to the public must correspond to the objective attributes, observance of the merit principle, and must be in accordance with the specified criteria. In achieving the goals of Turkish Public Management for the adoption of T.Q.M. as a management principle, personnel systems needs to be rearranged and reinforced with in service trainings. As a result, we can only eliminate the obstacles to quality.ProblemsAs mentioned above, it is seen that there is a system problem in the implementation of the T.Q.S. However, these problems are briefly described below.-The existence of the centralized structure is causing the ignoring of the needs of the citizens and their inability to meet demands adequately. Public officials work in this structure and they have made this negative management a habit. As a result, this habit results to expensive services for the citizens. Central system is causing untimely and late decisions and it also hinders public services.-In our public management system, performance evaluations are not fully implemented. This is because evaluation is seen as a cover up for failure, intimidation with punishment, favoritism rather than skills, merit and awarding (Tosun, 1998, 93). Such performance evaluation also pulls down the motivation of the effective personnel.-In our public management system, resistance is shown for such changes. Public officials adopted their procedure of work and layout as an habit. The structure of the organizations which these executives work precludes any of such changes because oftheir institutionalization (Akınoğlu, 1998, 138). This structure prevents the administrator to get out of the accustomed style of management. They perceive the results of the change as uncertainty and show resistance. To overcome this, individual and corporate contributions, provided by changes, should be discussed with executives through in service trainings.-Our public managers encounter bigger problems which result to escaping from responsibility and not taking initiative when they met with other problems. This depicts that negative situation is a habit. However, T.Q.M. mentality requires intervening on problems quickly without disruption of the service. In this process, it attempts to prevent the emergence of such problem anymore by considering the opinions of everyone involved.-In order to become successful in T.Q.M., a people oriented approach must be taken into immediate consideration. Managers in our country should redirect their decisions of looking cute to take into consideration the demands of the politicians and seniors without analyzing the results of their decisions. This attitude prevents people-oriented active decisions and also reduces productivity.-T.Q.M. has adopted a holistic approach and communication plays a very important role. In the process of the fulfillment of the public service, citizen's expectations should be absolutely considered. This reduces the waste of resources in terms of state and citizen. Communication levels must also be stimulated.-Results in public services should be measured and these results should also be shared with citizens. Transparency will reinforce the confidence of both sides.-Performance evaluations of the officials who are working in public service should be discussed through seminars and trainings. Thus, officials who have information about the details of the performance evaluation should pay more attention when working and this has a significant impact on efficiency directly.-Applications of T. Q. M. in public should be analyzed permanently and these applications must be consistent with the institution's mission and vision. Also, these controls will help the organization to reach its goals.ConclusionGlobal competition affected, in positive sense, both private and public sector. T.Q.M. aims to achieve satisfaction which meets the expectations and needs of the citizens in a citizen-oriented way in public. By focusing on quality, it acts in an holistic way which all employees participates in. In our country, T.Q.M. based arrangements are carried out regularly in public sector. Nevertheless, these regulations did not fully meet desired results. In the public sector, it is necessary to solve these problems for the following reasons:•To achieve the T.Q.M. philosophy and public management to the desired level in our country;•To review regulations, laws etc. about public management again;•To make regulations about resource usage by considering the hardness of resource usage today;•To arrange the staff organization as appropriate to T.Q.M. from recruitment and promotion to performance evaluation;•For the citizen-oriented management and the adoption of governance principles in public institutions;•To identify strategies, especially for public authorities, for resistance to the changes brought by T.Q.M;•In T.Q.M. process, it is necessary to increase level of communication and arrange in service trainings for all staff in a holistic approach.Consequently, the implementation of T.Q.M. in our public management will face problems and difficulties absolutely. T.Q.M. needs to be brought as a management culture to ensure strategic management and appropriate decision making. So, when the government reduces costs, citizens will be satisfied from the service provided.On the other hand, the institutions which are authorized for evaluating and auditing the TQM process should work more efficiently. In this respect, bureaucrats and the other decision makers believe and adopt this new concept of public management. For this aim, reluctant behaviors should be prevented by these authorized institutions in the public management.中文译文土耳其公共管理的质量管理：挑战与效益摘要从20世纪70年代末开始，传统的公共行政因不能适应新世界的发展和变化的需求而受到批判。

新公共管理

新公共管理的局限性
市场参与者之间的竞争 “顾客”服务企业家精神
谢谢
新公共管理的例子
新西兰的公共行政改革（new zealands administrative reforms）措施： privatized substantial public functions redeveloped its personnel system for top executives instituted a new process of measuring the productivity and effectiveness
新公共管理产生背景
新公共管理运动兴起的直接动因，在于公共行政模式在新的时代背景下已难以适应经济社会发展的需要。传统官僚制运作下的西方政府既无力应付自身机构膨胀、财政开支加大的困境，其公共物品供给能力的薄弱又无法满足不断增强的公共需求。 20世纪60年代以来，西方民权运动风起云涌，经济滞胀初露端倪，失业以及公共安全、环境污染、社会保障等矛盾日益暴露，这与公共行政模式的预期形成很大的反差（the fiscal crisis of the 1970s）。变革成为国际社会普遍而迫切的要求，一场来自政府和公共部门内部的改革运动——肇始于英国，随后在美国，进而扩大至西方主要发达国家，最后又波及许多发展中国家和转型国家——终于拉开了帷幕。
第六章政策要义和新公共管理
新公共管理 THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
新公共管理
新公共管理(NPM，New Public Management)是个非常松散的概念，它既指一种试图取代传统公共行政学的管理理论，又指一种新的公共行政模式。新公共管理是80年代以来兴盛于英、美等西方国家的一种新的公共行政理论和管理模式，也是近年来西方规模空前的的主体指导思想之一。它以现代经济学为自己的理论基础，主张在政府的等广泛采用私营部门成功的和竞争机制，重视公共服务的产出，强调文官对社会公众的响应力和政治敏感性，倡导在人员录用、任期、工资及其他环节上实行更加灵活、富有成效的管理。

新公共管理外文翻译文献中英文

(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Public Personnel Management, 12(2):159-166.英文原文New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping withthe New Political Governance in CanadaPeter AucoinA 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 overridethe 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 to governance with important implications for public administration, and especially forimpartiality, 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 outset (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 allgovernments, 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 othe r 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 and agencies 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 (Halligan2006). 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 political authority and policy agendas of these elected officials. Public choice and principal-agency theories provided the ideologicaljustifications 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 to political 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 tostay 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 NPM road 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 notfundamentally 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 thefirst 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 focus 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.中文译文新公共管理与政府素质：加拿大的新政府治理Peter Aucoin新公共管理（NPM）与善治之间的紧张关系，包括良好的公共管理，早已被那些认为公共产品管理倡导和带来的结构和做法背离了支持传统公众的善治原则和规范的人所认可管理（萨瓦1994）。

新公共管理理论

论文摘要：新公共管理理论是一种有别于传统公共行政理论的新的公共行政理论和管理模式。

旨在对新公共管理理论进行全面、客观的梳理。

论文关键词：新公共管理；理论及现实背景；理论内涵；理论反思新公共管理（new public management,NPM）是20世纪80年代以来兴盛于英、美等西方国家的一种新的公共行政理论和管理模式，也是近年来西方规模空前的行政改革的主体指导思想之一。

在当代公共行政理论与实践中越来越显现出其主导范式的地位。

本文将就新公共管理提出的理论及现实背景、理论观点及内涵、以及该理论的反思进行系统的梳理及评述，以期对该理论有一个全面、客观的认识和把握。

1 新公共管理提出的理论及现实背景新公共管理作为一种新的管理模式，它的产生是传统行政管理模式的理论危机以及现实实践过程中的挑战双重合力所导致的结果。

传统的公共行政是建立在由伍德罗?威尔逊提出并由古德诺系统化的“政治与行政二分”理论以及由马克斯?韦伯提出的“官僚制”理论之上的。

两大理论作为传统公共行政的理论基础，其提出具有跨时代之意义，以此理论为基础的传统公共行政模式较之以前的管理是一个重大的进步，自其产生以来，已逐步成为世界上绝大多数国家公共行政的基本模式。

但由于其本身存在的内在理论缺陷，在其形成后不久就遭到了包括政治学行为主义和人际关系学派的激烈批判。

对政治—行政二分法理论的批评主要集中在其二分理论在实践中的不可行。

行政学者罗伯特?达尔和沃尔多都曾指出，威尔逊提出的“政治与行政二分”实际上是做不到的，传统行政模式的不切实际之处就在于，政治与行政必然是相互关联的，一个不含任何价值判断的公共行政只是一个神话而已。

此外，面对于韦伯的“官僚制”理论，学者们也认为，由于官僚制的理性形式、不透明性、组织僵化以及等级制的特点，使得它不可避免地会与民主制发生冲突。

同时，以这种程式化、固定化的方式应对丰富而不规则世界，必然导致了各种现实的冲突与压力。

而在这一理论基础本身存在缺陷而招致批评的同时，经济和社会领域出现了一些新的变化及特点，这对传统公共新政构成了新的挑战。

新公共管理

这种以经济学为基础，以政府和市场关系协调为核心的新公共管理运动，不但成为西方国家改革的理论指导，而且也波及到发展中国家，成为近年来规模空前的公共管理改革的主导方向。新公共管理真的是救治百病的灵丹妙药吗？当代政府真的能像麦当劳那样的经营吗？
新公共管理的理论基础
公共选择理论：以经济人的假设为出发点，对传统的行政管理模式提出批判。
新公共管理所受的质疑
我国学者对新公共管理的审视南京财经大学学术带头人朱广忠教授认为:新
公共管理具有根深蒂固的制度取向
新公共管理的制度取向表明公共管理具有极强的政治性,对于社会制度不同的国家,公共管理理论与实践不具有普适性在中国，新公共管理的制度取向及价值理性特征被掩盖，工具理性特征被彰显
新公共管理
New public management
新公共管理产生的时代背景
官僚制问题重重。各国财政赤字增加，政府效率低下。
新技术革命使西方国家进入后工业社会，为建立高效，灵活，透明的政府创造了可能性。
经济全球化要求西方政府进行积极的改革，以提高自身的竞争力，适应经济全球化的发展。
理论内容：关注政府绩效的改进，把绩效评估作为改进绩效的一种管理工具
该理论认为，绩效评估应分为7个环节： 1．识别要评估的项目，进行清晰界定 2．阐述项目目的，确定所需结果。 3．选择评估标准和指标。 4．设立绩效和成就目标的标准。 5．监督结果。 6．绩效报告。 7．评估结果和绩效信息的利用，以促进绩效的改进。
对新公共管理的批判
主要表现在以下几个方面：
1、公共管理者是企业家吗？——对企业家精神的置疑（1）企业家精神意味着每个政府代理人应该以自己或
代理机构的利益为基础来行动。

新公共管理视角下社会管理论文

新公共管理视角下社会管理论文新公共管理（New Public Management，简称NPM）作为一种现代公共管理模式，是在20世纪70年代末、80年代初在西方发展起来的一种公共管理范式。

NPM可以被视为传统公共管理模式的一种补充和改进。

它从市场的角度来理解公共事务，致力于提高公共服务组织的效率和效能，并强调在公共领域中充分利用私营部门的优势，通过商业化的手段达到公共管理的目标。

随着全球化和国际化的进程不断加速，乃至各国政府的公共管理模式变革，新公共管理模式已经得到了广泛应用，并成为全球范围内的热门话题。

在新公共管理视角下，社会管理论文成为了一个关注点。

社会管理是一门综合性的学科，它涉及了跨学科领域的知识，如经济学、社会学、心理学、政治学等等，其主要目的在于研究和解决社会问题。

在新的公共管理模式下，社会管理作为公共服务的一部分，对于提高公共服务组织的效率和效能具有重要作用。

因此，如何进行有效的社会管理，成为了研究的一个关键领域。

针对社会管理在新公共管理模式下的研究，学者们提出了以下几点：首先，市场导向：新公共管理认为，市场机制是资源分配的最佳方式，因此，社会管理的行动应该以市场导向为核心，以提高效率和效益为目标。

在市场导向的理念下，为了满足公众的需求，社会管理的实践必须满足公众选择的需求，并且要根据社会需求和市场需求来安排资源。

其次，强调绩效评估：新公共管理的另一个核心特点就是强调绩效评估，即把监管和评估与资金分配等管理手段相结合，来对机构的绩效进行评估和监控。

这种方法能够提高机构的效率和效益，有效地使用公共资源，以满足更多的公众需求。

第三，重视电子政务：随着互联网技术的发展，新公共管理的另一个重要特点就是重视电子政务。

这种方式可以实现信息共享、业务流程一体化，改善公共管理的效率和透明度，并促进民众参与公共管理的程度，提高公共服务组织的整体管理效率。

第四，以市场化的方式管理社会问题：新公共管理认为，市场经济本身具有有效解决社会问题的能力。