新公共管理的现状-外文文献及翻译
“新公共管理”对我国行政管理改革的启示的论文
“新公共管理”对我国行政管理改革的启示的论文本文从网络收集而来,上传到平台为了帮到更多的人,如果您需要使用本文档,请点击下载按钮下载本文档(有偿下载),另外祝您生活愉快,工作顺利,万事如意!提要:20 世纪七十年代,大多数西方国家出现了空前的财政危机、政府管理危机和信任危机,同时又伴随着全球化、信息化、市场化及知识经济时代的来临,西方各国进入了公共部门管理、尤其是政府管理改革的时代。
在西方政府改革的浪潮中,“ 新公共管理”的政府管理模式成为西方政府改革的基本趋势,并取得了一定的成效。
关键词:新公共管理;行政改革;效率一、新公共管理的基本涵义“新公共管理”最早是由胡德于1991年在一篇名为《一种普适代写论文性的公共管理》的文章中提出的。
胡德将20 世纪七十年代中期以后,英国以及其他国家纷纷掀起的政府改革运动称作“新公共管理”运动。
胡德将“新公共管理”看作是一种以强调明确的责任制、产出导向和绩评估,以准独立的行政单位为主的分权结构(分散化),采用私人部门管理、技术、工具,引入市场机制以改善竞争为特征的公共部门管理新途径。
胡德所归纳的新公共管理的七大理论原则都可以为完善公共服务提供思想指导和价值归属。
这七大理论原则包括:1、政府部门内的职业化管理。
2、明确的绩效评估标准。
3、更加强调对结果的控制。
4、政府部门内单位的分散化。
5、在政府部门内引进竞争。
6、强调在政府部门内运用私有工商管理的方法。
7 、强调成本概念。
新公共管理有很多不同的名称,如“管理主义”、“以市场为基础的公共管理”、“企业化政府”、“重塑政府”、“后官僚制典范” 、“新公共管理”等,这反映了人们对正在发生的行政改革的不同看法。
尽管如此,他们确实存在着某些共识:“从传统公共行政关注管理过程中的效率转变到极大地关注管理结果以及管理者的个人责任”。
按照波立特在《管理主义和公共服务:盎格鲁和美国的经验》一书中说的,“新公共管理”主义主要是由古典泰勒主义的管理原则所构成,即强调的是商业管理的理论、方法、技术及模式,引入市场竞争机制,提高公共管理水平及公共服务质量,因此“新公共管理”也被称为“新泰勒主义”。
新公共管理的现状
新公共管理的现状【摘要】新公共管理是一种管理理论和实践,旨在提高政府效率和绩效。
本文通过介绍新公共管理的发展历程和需要关注的原因,以及在各国的应用情况和主要特点,探讨了新公共管理的优点与局限性,尤其是在中国的现状。
分析了新公共管理的未来发展趋势,展望了其前景并讨论了对社会的影响。
提出了改进方向,强调了新公共管理在不断变化的社会环境中的重要性和应用前景。
本文从多个角度全面探讨了新公共管理的现状,为读者深入了解和思考这一管理模式提供了参考。
【关键词】新公共管理,现状,发展历程,应用情况,特点,优点,局限性,中国现状,未来发展趋势,前景展望,社会影响,改进方向。
1. 引言1.1 什么是新公共管理的现状新公共管理注重市场化、绩效导向和公民参与,以提升政府管理效率和公共服务的质量。
它强调将管理重心放在结果导向上,注重评估和奖励绩效,以激励工作人员更有动力和创新意识。
新公共管理还倡导政府与市场、民间组织等社会力量合作,实现资源的优化配置和服务的共享。
新公共管理的现状是一个积极向上的发展趋势,旨在增强政府的执行力、透明度和效率,为公民提供更优质的公共服务。
随着全球化的深入和社会需求的不断变化,新公共管理将继续不断完善和拓展,以适应时代发展的需求。
1.2 新公共管理的发展历程新公共管理的发展历程可以追溯到20世纪80年代,在当时,传统的公共部门治理模式已经无法满足社会发展的需求,面临着效率低下、服务质量不高、成本过高等问题。
为了解决这些问题,新公共管理应运而生。
新公共管理倡导以市场机制和企业管理的理念来管理公共部门,提倡政府精简、市场化、社会化、权责明晰、绩效导向的原则。
新公共管理的理念逐渐受到各国政府的关注和采纳,在英美、澳大利亚、加拿大等国家得到广泛应用。
随着全球化和信息化的发展,新公共管理理念的传播和应用范围不断扩大,逐渐成为公共管理领域的热门话题。
新公共管理的发展历程充分反映了社会治理模式的不断演进和创新,为提升政府治理效能、提高公共服务质量发挥了积极的作用。
新公共管理:当代西方公共行政的新趋势
新公共管理:当代西方公共行政的新趋势新公共管理:当代西方公共行政的新趋势【内容提要】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行政改革的主体指导思想之一。
它以现代经济学为自己的理论基础,主张在政府等公共部门广泛采用私营部门成功的管理方法和竞争机制,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、工资及其他人事行政环节上实行更加灵活、富有成效的管理。
新公共管理在一定程度上反映了公共行政发展的规律和趋势,因而对我国行政管理的理论和实践不无借鉴意义。
【关键词】新公共管理/公共服务/传统公共行政【正文】从本世纪70年代开始,曾经主导西方公共行政领域近一个世纪之久,并被誉为是行之有效、甚至是最佳的传统或称主流的公共行政,遭受到新的外部环境的越来越严峻的挑战,其近乎刻板、僵化的科层体制愈来愈不能适应迅速变化的信息和知识密集型社会和经济生活,其赖以建立的两大理论基础——威尔逊和古德诺的政治—行政二分论和韦伯科层管理论均无法回答和解决政府所面对的日益严重的问题和困难:政府财政危机,社会福利政策难以为继,政府机构日趋庞大臃肿,效率低下,公众对政府能力失去信心,“政府失败”论开始占主导地位。
正是在这样的历史背景下,一种新的公共行政理论、管理模式——新公共管理(NewPublic Management)在80年代的英美两国应运而生,并迅速扩展到西方各国。
与以往传统的公共行政框架内进行的变革不同,新公共管理不是对现存行政管理体制和方式进行某种程度的局部调整,或仅仅是为了降低行政管理的成本,减少行政费用开支,更重要的是,它是对传统的公共行政模式的一种全面清算和否定。
一、新公共管理的理论基础如果说传统的公共行政以威尔逊、古德诺的政治—行政二分论和韦伯的科层制论为其理论支撑点的话,新公共管理则以现代经济学和私营企业管理理论和方法作为自己的理论基础。
外文文献翻译:东南亚公共行政改革:趋势和影响
Reforming Public Administration in SoutheastAsia:Trends and ImpactsM。
SHAMSUL HAQUE polhaque@nus。
edu.sgDepartment of Political Science, National University of Singapore, SingaporeKey words:public service reform, current trend,major impact,Southeast Asia Abstract:In Southeast Asia,the recent two decades have witnessed major theoretical,structural, functional, and ethical reforms in the administrative system。
In the region, the state-centric mode of public administration that emerged during the colonial and postcolonial periods, has recently been transformed into a businesslike public management in line with the current global movement for such a transition。
This article examines the trends of administrative changes in countries such as Brunei,Cambodia,Indonesia, Malaysia,Philippines,Singapore,Thailand, and Vietnam。
【完整版】浅谈新公共管理的研究形势行政管理本科毕业论文
对新公共管理的探讨程志伟内容摘要:新公共管理是70年代以来的行政改革浪潮中的重要实践和理论。
由理论基础、核心价值与思想、操作规则与手段三个层次构成,围绕这三个层次对其进行了广泛的批评,90年代以来的治理对新公共管理的理论基础、核心价值与思想、操作规则与手段三个层次进行了超越与替代。
关键词:新公共管理理论基础核心价值操作规则治理一、新公共管理的基本含义开始于30年代的政府经济职能和社会职能的扩张,长期奉行凯恩斯的国家干预政策,加上石油危机的影响,进入70年代西方国家普遍出现了空前的财政危机、管理危机和信任危机。
[1](p46)为此,西方国家在实践中很快兴起了被称为新公共管理的政府管理模式。
它起源于英国、美国、澳大利亚和新西兰,并很快扩展到其他西方国家和发展中国家。
[2] (序p4)“新公共管理”作为一种实践和理论,从实践上讲,它是一组政府针对现实问题的政府行为和政府管理的新理念、新方法和新模式。
旨在克服政府面临的危机、提高政府的效能和合法性。
从理论上讲,他是基于对传统公共行政模式的考量,对行政(administration)与管理(management)概念的再认识,对公共部门的抨击的回应,对经济理论的变革、对私营部门变革和技术变革的再审视,[3] (ppl-23 )以国家和社会之间关系的调整和政府自身管理手段、过程、模式的重塑为主线,以解决新时代政府管理社会和管理自身事务问题为宗旨,以经济、效率和效能为基本价值的管理理论和心智的努力。
对于“新公共管理”的内涵政治实践者和理论工作者有不同的论述。
有代表性的观点有三种。
一种是OECD 组织的认识,认为新公共管理就是增强和提高公共产品和服务能力的两个途径:一是提高公共组织的生产绩效,目的是提高人员、发展、合格人才的招聘以及绩效奖励等方面的人力资源管理水平;二是:充分利用私营部门。
[4](p11)胡德(Hood)则从管理过程的角度看待“新公共管理”,包括七个方面:公共政策领域中的专业化管理,绩效的明确的标准和测量;格外重视产出和控制;公共部门内由聚合趋向分化。
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。
新公共服务:是服务而不是掌舵
翻译论文:新公共服务:是服务而不是掌舵(美) 罗伯特·B·丹哈特珍妮特·V·丹哈特1[摘要]:新公共管理( the New Public Managtment ) 倡导将公共管理者视为政府企业家,政府则是一个新型的、有偏向的且日益私人化的政府,它效仿工商企业的实践和价值观。
支持者们主要把新公共管理与传统公共行政相比较,并由此提出自己的主张。
在这种比较中,新公共管理显然总是处于上风。
我们在本文中主张,把新公共管理与我们所说的“新公共服务”(the“New Public Service”) 相比较可能是更好的选择。
“新公共服务”运动,是以对民主社会的公民权、社区和市民社会、组织人本主义和组织对话理论进行的研究为基础的。
我们提出,新公共服务有七项原则,其中最突出的原则是:公务员的首要作用乃是帮助公民明确阐述并实现他们的共同利益,而不是试图去控制或驾驭社会。
公共管理已经经历了一场革命。
公共行政官员不再关注控制官僚机构和提供服务,而是正在对“掌舵而非划桨”的告诫做出反应,试图成为新型的、有偏向且日益私人化的政府的企业家。
结果,公共部门中实施了一系列相当积极的变革。
但是,当公共行政领域逐渐抛弃划桨观念并接受掌舵的责任时,那仅仅是用一个“行政中心(adminicentric) ”的观念替代另一个行政中心”的观念吗? 奥斯本(Osborne) 和盖布勒( Gaebler)写道:“掌舵者比划桨者更有能力把握船的航向”(1992 ,32) 。
果真如此的话,从划桨到掌舵的转变就不仅仅是让行政官员掌控船只(即选择船只的目的地和航向,并确定到达目的地的路径) ,它也会赋予行政官员更多的权力去掌控船只。
当我们急于掌舵时,我们是否正在淡忘谁拥有这条船?金( King) 和斯迪沃斯( Stivers) 在其新著《政府是我们的》(1998) 中提醒我们记住这个显而易见的答案:政府属于它的公民。
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年代后期出现的行政管理思潮,主要来源于西方国家,尤其是英美国家。
在新公共管理的理论构建中,政府不再是管理者或者监管者,而是推动者和协调者,重视市场机制和绩效管理,着重加强公共服务的质量和效率。
对于我国,借鉴新公共管理可以提供一种新的思路和方法,有助于推进行政管理改革。
一、市场机制和绩效管理有助于提升公共服务在新公共管理中,市场机制被赋予很高的意义。
政府不再垄断公共服务的供给,而是通过引入市场机制来激励效率和创新。
在我国,政府的公共服务供应过程中仍存在着一定的局限性,例如陈旧、低效的政府机制和员工管理、不健全的监管机制等。
借鉴新公共管理的思想,可以将市场机制引入公共服务的领域中,推动公共服务的供给更加灵活、创新,从而提升公共服务的质量和效率。
同时,新公共管理中的绩效管理也备受推崇。
通过制定合理的绩效指标和评价体系,可以科学评估公共服务的提供和管理情况,有助于发现问题并及时修正。
在我国,政府公共服务的绩效管理存在着一定的不足,例如评价体系不全面、数据缺失等问题。
通过借鉴新公共管理的理念和实践,可以建立科学、合理的公共服务绩效管理模式,有效益优化服务质量和管理效率。
二、分权和公众参与有助于推进行政体制改革新公共管理中倡导分权,即将权力下放到具有相应能力的地方,降低政府机关的垄断程度。
同时,新公共管理提倡公众参与,认为公众应该被视为政策制定的重要参与者,尤其是对于一些具有广泛利益和影响的事务进行公开透明的决策和管理。
我国政府机构的体制改革包含了分权和公众参与的要素,但是实际执行效果还需要进一步加强。
借鉴新公共管理的思想,可以在推进政府体制改革中进一步加强分权和注重公众参与,从而推动行政管理体制的升级和完善。
三、倡导鼓励创新和制度创新新公共管理强调创新,倡导创新的思维方式和方法。
新公共管理的理念和实践对于公共管理制度的创新具有积极的促进作用。
新公共管理的文献综述
新公共管理基本主张的文献综述摘要:本文主要考察了国外学者对新公共管理的内涵、基本主张及其特征的研究和新公共管理在中国的研究现状。
关键词:新公共管理管理主义企业型政府新公共管理是20世纪80年代以来兴盛于英国、美国、新西兰和澳大利亚等西方国家的一种新的政府治理理论与模式,也是近年来深刻影响其它发达国家和发展中国家行政革新的主导性思想之一。
它继承西方管理主义的思想源流,吸纳现代经济学的方法思维,主张将政府治理与市场机制相结合,把私人企业的各种管理方式引入公共部门,依靠先进的信息网络技术,实现政府治理的经济、效率和效能。
到目前为止,新公共管理并不是一个严格界定的概念或一个明确的模式,在宽泛意义上,它既指一种试图取代传统公共行政学的政府治理理论,又指一种不同于传统官僚制的新的公共行政模式,还指当代西方公共行政领域进行的政府改革运动。
新公共管理最基本的特征是提供了当代公共行政一种新的管理主义途径,它是对政府改革运动的一种总结和概括。
新公共管理最早是由胡德于1990年提出,他比较了经合组织国家20世纪80年代的公共行政改革,发现了其中的一些相似之处,然后进行总结,并冠之以新公共管理这个词。
他概括了新公共管理的五个特征,即明确的责任;产出和绩效取向;以半独立的行政单位为主的分权结构;引进私营部门的管理工具;引入市场机制以改进竞争。
胡德关于新公共管理的特征分析,我们可以看出,公共行政改革已经开始有开始脱离传统公共行政现象,并且将市场机制引入了新公共管理以提高政府的管理效率。
休斯指出,虽然新公共管理的名称众多,但它们存在着某些共同点。
第一,它代表着一种与传统的公共行政不同的重大变化,较为引人注意的是结构的实现和管理者的个人责任;第二,明确表示了脱离古典官僚制的意图,欲使组织、人事、任期和条件更有灵活性;第三,明确规定组织和人事目标,这样可以根据绩效指标对工作任务的完成情况进行测量。
同样,可以对计划方案进行系统评估;第四,资源管理人员更有可能带有政治色彩的致力于政府工作,而不是无党派的或中立的;第五,政府职能更有可能受到市场测试,例如,以合同方式包出工程等;第六,通过民营化和市场测试、签订合同等其它方式减少政府职能的趋势。
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)。
新公共管理的文献综述
新公共管理基本主张的文献综述摘要:本文主要考察了国外学者对新公共管理的内涵、基本主张及其特征的研究和新公共管理在中国的研究现状。
关键词:新公共管理管理主义企业型政府新公共管理是20世纪80年代以来兴盛于英国、美国、新西兰和澳大利亚等西方国家的一种新的政府治理理论与模式,也是近年来深刻影响其它发达国家和发展中国家行政革新的主导性思想之一。
它继承西方管理主义的思想源流,吸纳现代经济学的方法思维,主张将政府治理与市场机制相结合,把私人企业的各种管理方式引入公共部门,依靠先进的信息网络技术,实现政府治理的经济、效率和效能。
到目前为止,新公共管理并不是一个严格界定的概念或一个明确的模式,在宽泛意义上,它既指一种试图取代传统公共行政学的政府治理理论,又指一种不同于传统官僚制的新的公共行政模式,还指当代西方公共行政领域进行的政府改革运动。
新公共管理最基本的特征是提供了当代公共行政一种新的管理主义途径,它是对政府改革运动的一种总结和概括。
新公共管理最早是由胡德于1990年提出,他比较了经合组织国家20世纪80年代的公共行政改革,发现了其中的一些相似之处,然后进行总结,并冠之以新公共管理这个词。
他概括了新公共管理的五个特征,即明确的责任;产出和绩效取向;以半独立的行政单位为主的分权结构;引进私营部门的管理工具;引入市场机制以改进竞争。
胡德关于新公共管理的特征分析,我们可以看出,公共行政改革已经开始有开始脱离传统公共行政现象,并且将市场机制引入了新公共管理以提高政府的管理效率。
休斯指出,虽然新公共管理的名称众多,但它们存在着某些共同点。
第一,它代表着一种与传统的公共行政不同的重大变化,较为引人注意的是结构的实现和管理者的个人责任;第二,明确表示了脱离古典官僚制的意图,欲使组织、人事、任期和条件更有灵活性;第三,明确规定组织和人事目标,这样可以根据绩效指标对工作任务的完成情况进行测量。
同样,可以对计划方案进行系统评估;第四,资源管理人员更有可能带有政治色彩的致力于政府工作,而不是无党派的或中立的;第五,政府职能更有可能受到市场测试,例如,以合同方式包出工程等;第六,通过民营化和市场测试、签订合同等其它方式减少政府职能的趋势。
公共组织变革 英文文献
公共组织变革英文文献【中英文实用版】Title: Transformation of Public Organizations: A Literature ReviewSection 1: IntroductionIn the rapidly evolving landscape of public administration, the need for organizational transformation has become increasingly pronounced. To adapt and thrive in the face of complex societal challenges, public organizations must embrace change and adopt innovative strategies. This literature review aims to explore the key theories and practices of transformation within the context of public institutions.在快速变化的公共管理领域,公共组织变革的需求日益凸显。
面对复杂的社会挑战,公共组织必须接受变革,采纳创新策略以适应和发展。
本文献综述旨在探讨公共机构变革背景下的关键理论和实践。
Section 2: Theories of Organizational TransformationA plethora of theoretical frameworks have been proposed to understand and facilitate organizational transformation. Two prominent theories include the stages of change model and the punctuated equilibrium model. The stages of change model suggests that transformation occurs in a series of predictable stages, while the punctuated equilibrium model posits that change happens in short, intense bursts followed by longer periods of stability.众多理论框架被提出以理解和促进组织变革。
- 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)。
The New Public Management SituationOwen E. Hughes Monash University Management (Australia) No doubt, many countries in the world, and both developed countries and developing countries, in the late 1980s and early 1990s began a continuous public sector management reform movement. The reform movement is still in many aspects government continue to the organization and management of the influence. People in these reforms view repudiating them. Critics especially in Britain and the United States, critics say the new mode of various problems exist, but also does not have the international prevailing reform of public management, could not be called paradigm. Criticism from almost every aspect of the change. Most of the academic criticism belong to the mouth. Different schools of thought in detail discussion, The academic journal articles and abstraction, from reality. At the same time, in the practice of public management and implementation of the reform and the change. As I in other articles in the thought, in most countries, the traditional public administrative mode for public management mode has been replaced. The reform of public department responded to the realities of several interrelated problems, including: the function of public sector provide public services of low efficiency, Economic theory of change, Private sector related changes impact of globalization, especially as a kind of economic power, Technology changes made decentralization and better control globally becomes possible. The administrative management can be divided into three stages: the development of distinct phases, and public administration before traditional pattern and public management reform stage. Each stage has its ownmanagement mode. From a stage of transition to the next stage is not easy, from thetraditional public administration to public administration has not yet completed thetransition. But it was only a matter of time. Because the new mode of theoretical basisis very strong. The new public management movement ", "although this name, but itis not only a debate in the booming, and in most developed countries have taken the2best management mode of expression. The traditional administrative mode than it'sage is a great reform, but that time has passed. A traditional pattern Obviously, in the late 19th century bureaucracy system theory, not sound already exists some form of administrative management. Public administration has a longhistory, and it is the concept of a government and the rise of civilization as history. Asthe case Glad2den Osama bin laden (point), a model of administrative since thegovernment appears has existed. First is endowed with founder or leader, then is thesocial or administrative person to organizers of eternity. Administration managementor business is all in social activities, although not among factors, but the glow ofsocial sustainable development is of vital importance. Recognized administrativesystem in ancient Egypt is already exists, its jurisdiction from the Nile floodingcaused by the year to build the pyramids irrigation affairs. China is adopted in the handynasty, Confucian norms that government should be elected, not according to thebackground, but according to the character and ability, the government's main goal isto seek the welfare of the people. In Europe, various empire - Greek, Roman, and theholy Roman, Spain's administrative empire, they first by the central through variousrules and procedures. Weber's thought, "modern" medieval countries developsimultaneously with "bureaucratic management structure development". Althoughthese countries in different ways, but they have common features, it can be called before modern. Namely, the administrative system of early essence is the personification of, or the establishment in Max Weber's "nepotism" basis, i.e. to loyal to the king or minister certain human foundation, not is personified, With allegianceto the organization or individual basis rather than for the foundation. Although there are such a viewpoint that administration itself not only praise from traditional mode, the characteristic of early but often leads to seek personal interests corruption or abuse of power. In the early administrative system, we now feel very strange approach has the functions of government administration is generally behavior. All those who walk official tend to rely on friends or relatives for work or buy officer, which means the3money to buy the first officer or tax officials, and then out to the customer to money, which is the first to buy officer recovery investment cost, and can make a fortune. America in the 19th century FenFei system of "political parties" means in the ruling changed at the same time, the government of all administrative position is changed. Modern bureaucracy is before "personal, traditional, diffusion and similar and special", and according to the argument, modern Weber bureaucracy is "impersonal, rational, concrete, achievement orientation and common". Personalized government is often inefficient: nepotism means incompetent not capable person was arranged to positions of leadership, FenFei political corruption, in addition to making often still exist serious low efficiency. The enormous success of traditional administrative pattern that early practice looks strange. Specialization and not politicized administrative in our opinion is so difficult to imagine that trace, there exist othersystem. Western administrative system even simple selection of officials to pass theexam, until 1854, Britain and north G..M. Trevelyan report after Northcote - began toestablish in China, although the system has long passage. The traditional public administrative pattern In the late 19th century, additionally one kind of pattern on the world popular, this isthe so-called traditional administrative pattern. Its main theoretical basis from severalcountries, namely, the American scholars and Germany Woodrow Wilson of MaxWeber's, people put their associated with bureaucracy model, Frederick Tylersystematically elaborated the scientific management theory, the theory of the privatesector from America, for public administration method was provided. And the othertheorists, Taylor without focusing on public sector, but his theory was influential inthis field. The three traditional public administration mode is theorist of main effect.In other countries, plus G..M. Trevelyan and North America, the state administrationof administrative system, especially the Wilson has produced important influence. Inthe 19th century, the north G..M. Trevelyan and put forward through the examinationand character, and appointed officials put forward bias and administrative neutralpoint of view. The traditional administrative pattern has the following features:41. The bureaucracy. The government shall, according to the principle of bureaucraticrank and organization. The German sociologist Max Weber bureaucracy system of aclassic, and analysis. Although the bureaucracy in business organizations and othertissues, but it is in the public sector got better and longer.2. The best way of working and procedures are in full manual detail codes, foradministrative personnel to follow. Strictly abide by these principles will run for theorganization provides the best way.3. Bureaucratic service. Once the government policy areas in, it will be through the bureaucracy to provide public products and service providers.4. In political and administrative two relations, political and administrative managers generally think of administrative affairs can be separated. Administration is the implement instruction, and any matter policy or strategic affairs shall be decided by the political leaders, which can ensure that the democratic system.5. Public interests are assumed to individual civil servants, the only motive for public service is selfless paying.6. Professional bureaucracy. Public administration is viewed as a kind of special activities, thus requirements, obscure, civil servants neutral equal employment and lifelong service to any political leaders.7. The administrative task is to carry out the meaning of the written instructions and not others assume the personal responsibility.Through the comparison of the early administrative pattern, we can better understand the main advantages and Webber system differences. Webber system and it is the most important mode of various before the difference: the rule-based impersonal system replaced the personification of administrative management system. An organization and its rules than any of the people are important organization. Bureaucracy is its operation and how to respond to customer must is personified. As Weber has demonstrated that the modern office management ", will be incorporated into various regulations deeply touched it. The modern public administration by law theory, tocommand certain affairs authority has been awarded the legitimate public authority. This does not grant an institution specific cases through some instructions. It only5matters is abstractly control some issues. In contrast, through personal privileges and give concession regulation of all affairs. The latter is completely dominated by the hereditary system, at least these affairs is not the traditional infringement is this situation."It is very important. Early administration based on personal relationships, be loyal to relatives, protect, leaders or political, rather than on the system. Sometimes, the early administration is politically sensitive, because of the administrative organs of the staff is appointed, they also politicians arms or mainstream class. However, it is often autocratic, autocratic administration may be unfair, especially for those who can't or unwilling to input personal and political game. One of the basic principles for with weber impersonal system to completely eliminate autocratic - at least in ideal condition is so. File exists, the reference principle of parallel and legal basis in the same environment means will always make the same decision. Below this kind of circumstance is not only more efficient, and the citizen and bureaucratic hierarchy know myself.Other differences were associated with this. In various regulations and impersonal basis, will naturally formed strict hierarchy. Personal rating system and its provisions in the left unchanged. Although Webber emphasizes the entire system, but he also noticed the bureaucracy of the organization and individual term.The traditional administrative mode won great success, it is widely adopted bygovernments around the world. Theoretically or in practice, it shows the advantage.And before the corruption flourished, it is more efficient than system, and the thoughtof individual professionalization civil servants and amateur service has a greatprogress. However, this model is also exposed the problems that shows that the modelcan even said outdated, also can say is outdated.The theory of public administration has been difficult to describe the pillar. Politicalcontrol theory has problems. Administrative means follow instructions, so peopledemand a well-ordered transceiver method. Instruction between implementers and hasa clear division. But this is not the reality, and with the public service domain expandsthe scale and more impossible. The traditional mode of another theoretical pillar -6bureaucracy theory is no longer considered particularly effective form of organization.Formal bureaucracy could have its advantages, but people think it often training toroutineer and innovators, Encourage executives rather than risk aversion risk-taking,encourage them to waste instead of effective use of scarce resources. Webb was thebureaucracy is regarded as an ideal type ", "but now this ideal type is inert, cultivatethe progressive, leads to low efficiency, these mediocrity and is believed to be thepublic sector of the special disease. It is also criticized. Actually, the word"bureaucracy in today's more likely as low efficiency of synonyms. The new public management mode In the 1980s, the public sector is a traditional administrative pattern of newmanagement methods of defects. This method can alleviate some of the problems oftraditional pattern, also means that the public sector operation aspects has changedsignificantly. The new management method has many names: management of"individualism", "the new public administration", based on the market of publicadministration ", after the bureaucracy model "or" entrepreneurial government ". To the late 1990s, people tend to use "and the concept of new public administration". Although the new public management, but for many of the names of public management of department of actual changes happened, people still have a consensus. First, no matter what, it is called mode with traditional represents a significant change of public administration, different more attention and managers of the individual responsibility. Second, it is clear to get rid of the classical bureaucracy, thereby organization, personnel, term and conditions more flexible. Third, it stipulates the organization and personnel, and it can target according to the performance indicators measuring task completion. Also, to plan the assessment system for more than ever before, and also can be more strictly determine whether the government plans to achieve its objectives. Fourth, the senior executives are more likely to color with political government work, rather than independent or neutral. Fifth, the more likely the inspection by the market, buyers of public service provider and distinguish "helmsman, with the rower to distinguish". Government intervention is not always7refers to the government by means of bureaucracy. Sixth, appeared through privatization and market means such as inspection, contract of government function reduce trend. In some cases, it is fundamental. Once happened during the transformation from the important changes to all connected with this, the continuity of the steps are necessary.Holmes and Shand as a useful characteristics of generalization. They put the new public management paradigm, the good as management method has the followingfeatures: (1) it is a more strategic or structure of decision-making method (around theefficiency, quality and service). (2) decentralization type management environmentreplaced concentration level structure. The resource allocation and service deliverycloser to supply, we can get more itself from the customers and related informationand other interest groups. (3) can be more flexible to replace the method of publicproducts supply directly, so as to provide cost savings of the policy. (4) concernedwith the responsibility, authority as the key link of improving performance, includingemphasize clear performance contract mechanism. (5) in the public sector, andbetween internal to create a competitive environment. (6) strengthen the strategicdecision-making ability, which can quickly, flexible and low cost to manage multipleinterests outside change and the response. (7) by request relevant results andcomprehensive cost reports to improve transparency and responsibility. (8) generalservice budget and management system to support and encourage the change.The new public management and realize a result that no one in the best way.Managers in endowed with responsibility and without being told to get results.Decision is a management job duties, if not for achieving goals, managers shouldassume responsibility. Conclusion The government management over the past 150 years experienced three modes. Firstis the personification of modern administrative mode, or when the pattern of itsdefects and increasingly exposed to improve efficiency, it is the second mode oftraditional bureaucracy model is replaced. Similarly, when the traditional8administrative mode problems, it is the third model is the new public management,from the government to alternative market. Since 1980s, the dominance of the market as the 1920s to 1960s dominant bureaucracy. In any kind of government, market and bureaucratic system are coexisting, just a form at some stage dominant, and in another stage of another kind of form, the dominant. The new public management is increasingly weakened and bureaucracy in the public administration field market dominant period.In reality, the market and bureaucracy, mutual complement each other. The new public management may not be completely replace the bureaucracy, as in 1989, the eastern Europe before bureaucracy could not instead of the market. But the new public management movement is early traditional bureaucracy, many functions can be and often by market now. In a bureaucracy system for organizational principle is weakened environment, market solutions will be launched. Of course not all market prescription can succeed, but this is not the issue. The government of new public management will be a toolbox dowsed solutions. If the scheme of the ineffective, the government will from the same source for other solutions. The theory behind the government management has already happened, we can use the term "paradigm" to describe it. In public administration academia, many of the new public management denial of critics. But their criticism of the government reform quickly. In the new public management mode, another a kind of new mode, but certainly not returned to the traditional administrative pattern.新公共管理的现状欧文·E·休斯(澳大利亚莫纳什大学管理系)毫无疑问,世界上许多国家,无论是发达国家还是发展中国家,在20世纪80年代后期和90年代初期都开始了一场持续的公共部门管理变革运动。