公共管理中英文对照外文翻译文献

(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)
中英文资料外文翻译
The New Public Management Situation
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 own management mode. From a stage of transition to the next stage is not easy, from the traditional public administration to public administration has not yet completed the transition. But it was only a matter of time. Because the new mode of theoretical basis is very strong. The new public management movement ", "although this name, but it is not only a debate in the booming, and in most developed countries have taken the best management mode of expression. The traditional administrative mode than it's age 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 long history, and it is the concept of a government and the rise of civilization as history. As the case Glad2den Osama bin laden (point), a model of administrative since the government appears has existed. First is endowed with founder or leader, then is the social or administrative person to organizers of eternity. Administration management or business is all in social activities, although not among factors, but the glow of social sustainable development is of vital importance. Recognized administrative system in ancient Egypt is already exists, its jurisdiction from the Nile flooding
caused by the year to build the pyramids irrigation affairs. China is adopted in the han dynasty, Confucian norms that government should be elected, not according to the background, but according to the character and ability, the government's main goal is to seek the welfare of the people. In Europe, various empire - Greek, Roman, and the holy Roman, Spain's administrative empire, they first by the central through various rules and procedures. Weber's thought, "modern" medieval countries develop simultaneously with "bureaucratic management structure development". Although these 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 allegiance to 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 the money 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 other system. Western administrative system even simple selection of officials to pass the
exam, until 1854, Britain and north G..M. Trevelyan report after Northcote - began to establish 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 is the so-called traditional administrative pattern. Its main theoretical basis from several countries, namely, the American scholars and Germany Woodrow Wilson of Max Weber's, people put their associated with bureaucracy model, Frederick Tyler systematically elaborated the scientific management theory, the theory of the private sector from America, for public administration method was provided. And the other theorists, Taylor without focusing on public sector, but his theory was influential in this field. The three traditional public administration mode is theorist of main effect. In other countries, plus G..M. Trevelyan and North America, the state administration of administrative system, especially the Wilson has produced important influence. In the 19th century, the north G..M. Trevelyan and put forward through the examination and character, and appointed officials put forward bias and administrative neutral point of view. The traditional administrative pattern has the following features:
1. The bureaucracy. The government shall, according to the principle of bureaucratic rank and organization. The German sociologist Max Weber bureaucracy system of a classic, and analysis. Although the bureaucracy in business organizations and other tissues, 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, for administrative personnel to follow. Strictly abide by these principles will run for the organization 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, to command certain affairs authority has been awarded the legitimate public authority. This does not grant an institution specific cases through some instructions. It only matters 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 by governments around the world. Theoretically or in practice, it shows the advantage. And before the corruption flourished, it is more efficient than system, and the thought of individual professionalization civil servants and amateur service has a great progress. However, this model is also exposed the problems that shows that the model can even said outdated, also can say is outdated.
The theory of public administration has been difficult to describe the pillar. Political control theory has problems. Administrative means follow instructions, so people demand a well-ordered transceiver method. Instruction between implementers and has a clear division. But this is not the reality, and with the public service domain expands the scale and more impossible. The traditional mode of another theoretical pillar - bureaucracy theory is no longer considered particularly effective form of organization. Formal bureaucracy could have its advantages, but people think it often training to routineer and innovators, Encourage executives rather than risk aversion risk-taking, encourage them to waste instead of effective use of scarce resources. Webb was the bureaucracy is regarded as an ideal type ", "but now this ideal type is inert, cultivate the progressive, leads to low efficiency, these mediocrity and is believed to be the public 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 new management methods of defects. This method can alleviate some of the problems of traditional pattern, also means that the public sector operation aspects has changed
significantly. The new management method has many names: management of "individualism", "the new public administration", based on the market of public administration ", 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 always refers 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 following features: (1) it is a more strategic or structure of decision-making method (around the efficiency, quality and service). (2) decentralization type management environment replaced concentration level structure. The resource allocation and service delivery closer to supply, we can get more itself from the customers and related information and other interest groups. (3) can be more flexible to replace the method of public products supply directly, so as to provide cost savings of the policy. (4) concerned
with the responsibility, authority as the key link of improving performance, including emphasize clear performance contract mechanism. (5) in the public sector, and between internal to create a competitive environment. (6) strengthen the strategic decision-making ability, which can quickly, flexible and low cost to manage multiple interests outside change and the response. (7) by request relevant results and comprehensive cost reports to improve transparency and responsibility. (8) general service 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 should assume responsibility.
Conclusion
The government management over the past 150 years experienced three modes. First is the personification of modern administrative mode, or when the pattern of its defects and increasingly exposed to improve efficiency, it is the second mode of traditional bureaucracy model is replaced. Similarly, when the traditional administrative 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
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。

这场改革运动至今仍在很多方面继续对政府的组织和管理产生着影响。

人们对于这些改革的看法众说纷纭,莫衷一是。

批评家尤其是英国和美国的批评家们认为,新模式存在着各种各样的问题,而且也不具有国际普遍性的改革意义,公共管理不可能被称为范式。

批评几乎涵盖了变化的各个方面。

大多数批评都属于学术上的吹毛求疵。

不同的思想流派讨论着细枝末节;学术期刊上的文章也越来越抽象,远离现实。

同时,公共管理者在实践中不断推动和实施着这项变化和改革。

正如我在其他文章中所认为的那样,在大多数国家,传统的公共行政模式已经为公共管理模式所取代。

公共部门的变革回应了几个相互联系的重大现实问题,包括:职能公共
部门提供公共服务的低效率;经济理论的变化;私营部门相关变化产生的影响,尤其是全球化作为一种经济力量的兴起;技术变化使得分权同时又能更好地控制全局成为可能。

行政管理可以分为三个鲜明的发展阶段:前传统阶段、公共行政传统模式阶段和公共管理改革阶段。

每个阶段都有自己的管理模式。

从上一个阶段过渡到下一个阶段并非轻而易举,从传统的公共行政到公共管理的过渡至今尚未完成。

但这只是时间的问题。

因为新模式背后的理论基础非常强大。

这场变革运动以“新公共管理”著称,尽管这个名称引起了争论,然而它不但在蓬勃发展着,而且是对大多数发达国家已经采取的管理模式的最佳表述。

传统的行政模式相对于它所处的时代是一项伟大的改革,但是,那个时代已经过去了。

一、前传统模式
很显然,在19世纪末官僚体制理论尚未健全之前,已经存在着某种形式的行政管理。

公共行政已经有很长的历史了,它与政府这一概念以及文明的兴起一样历史悠久。

正如格拉登(Glad2den)指出的那样,行政的某种模式自从政府出现之后就一直存在着。

首先是创始者或领导者赋予社会以可能,然后是组织者或行政者使之永恒。

行政或事务管理是所有社会活动中的中间因素,虽然不是光彩夺目,但对社会的持续发展却是至关重要的。

公认的行政体制在古埃及就已经存在了,其管辖范围从每年的尼罗河泛滥引起的灌溉事务到金字塔的建造。

中国在汉朝就采用了儒家规范,认为政府应当是民选的,不是根据出身,而是根据品德和能力,政府的主要目标是谋取人民的福利。

在欧洲,各种帝国——希腊、罗马、神圣罗马、西班牙等首先是行政帝国,它们由中央通过各种规则和程序进行管理。

韦伯认为,中世纪“现代”国家的发展同时伴随着“官僚治理结构的发展”。

尽管这些国家以不同的方式进行管理,但它们具有共同的特点,这可以称为前现代。

也就是说,早期的行政体制本质上是人格化的,或者说是建立在韦伯所说的“裙带关系”的基础上,也就是说以效忠国王或大臣等某个特定的人为基础,而不是非人格化的;以效忠组织或国家为基础而不是以个人为基础。

尽管存在着这么一种观点,即认为行政管理本身不为人赞许的特点仅仅来自于传统模式,但早期的做法常常导致谋求个人利益的贪污行为或滥用职权。

在早期行政体制下,我们现在看来觉得很奇怪的做法曾是当时执政政府职能的普遍行为。

那些一心走仕途的人往往依靠朋友或亲戚获取工作或买官,这就是说先以钱来收买海关官员或税收官员,然
后再向客户伸手要钱,从而既回收了最初的买官投资成本,又可以大赚一笔。

美国19世纪的“政党分肥制度”意味着在执政党发生了变化的同时,政府中的所有行政职位也发生了变化。

前现代官僚体制是“个人的、传统的、扩散的、同类的和特殊的”,而按照韦伯的论证,现代官僚体制应当是“非人格化的、理性的、具体的、成就取向的和普遍的”。

个人化政府往往是低效率的:裙带关系意味着无能的而不是能干的人被安排到领导岗位上;政党分肥制常常导致腐败,此外还存在着严重的低效率。

传统行政模式的巨大成功使得早期做法看起来很奇怪。

专业化、非政治化行政在我们看来是如此顺理成章,以至难以想象到会有别的制度存在。

西方的行政制度即使简单到通过考试选拔官员的想法,也是直到1854年英国的诺思科特—屈维廉报告出台后才开始建立,尽管这种制度在中国早已通行很久了。

二、传统的公共行政模式
在19世纪末期,另外一种模式开始在全世界流行,这就是所谓的传统行政模式。

它的主要理论基础来源于几个国家的学者,即,美国的伍德罗·威尔逊和德国的马克斯·韦伯,人们把他们和官僚制模式相联系;弗雷德里克·泰勒系统地阐述了科学管理理论,该理论也来源于对美国私营部门的运用,为公共行政提供了方法。

与其他理论家不同,泰勒没有着力关注公共部门,可是他的理论却在该领域具有广泛影响。

这三位理论家是传统公共行政模式的主要影响者。

对于其他国家来说,还要加上诺思科特和屈维廉,他们对美国之外的国家的行政尤其是威尔逊的行政体制产生了重要影响。

在19世纪中期,诺思科特和屈维廉最先提出了通过考试和品德来任命官员的主张,并提出了无偏见和行政中立的观点。

传统的行政模式有以下几个主要特点:
1.官僚制。

政府应当根据等级、官僚原则进行组织。

德国社会学家马克斯·韦伯对官僚制度有一个经典的、清晰的分析。

虽然这种官僚制思想在商业组织和其他组织中采用过,但它在公共部门得到了更好和更长久的执行。

2.最好的工作方式和程序都在详尽全面的手册中加以规定,以供行政人员遵循。

严格地遵守这些原则将会为组织运行提供最好的方式。

3.官僚服务。

一旦政府涉足政策领域,它将成为通过官僚体制提供公共产品和服务的提供者。

4.在政治、行政二者的关系中,行政管理者一般认为政治与行政事务是可以分开的。

行政就是贯彻执行指令,而任何事关政策或战略事务的决定都应当由政治领导者做出,这可以确保民主责任制。

5.公共利益被假定为公务员个人的惟一动机,为公众服务是无私的付出。

6.职业化官僚制。

公共行政被看作是一种特殊活动,因而要求公务员保持中立、默默无闻、终身雇用以及平等地服务于任何一个政治领导人。

7.行政任务的书面含义是执行他人的指令而不承担由此而致的个人责任。

通过对比早期的行政模式,我们可以更好地理解韦伯体系的主要优点和不同点。

韦伯制度和它以前的各种模式最重要的区别在于:以规则为基础的非人格化的制度取代了人格化的行政管理制度。

一个组织及其规则要比组织中的任何个人都重要。

官僚制度就其运作以及如何对客户做出反应方面必须是非人格化的。

正如韦伯所论证的那样“:将现代公职管理归并为各种规定深深地触及了它的本质。

现代公共行政理论认为,以法令形式来命令执行某些事务的权威已被合法地授予了公共机关。

这并没有授予某机构具体情况下通过指令实施某种事务的权力。

它只能是抽象地管制某种事务。

与此形成鲜明对比的是,通过个人特权和赋予特许权管制所有事务。

后者的情况完全是由世袭制支配的,至少就这些事务不是不可被侵犯的传统而言是这种情况。

”
这一点非常重要。

早期的行政管理以人际关系为基础,个人要忠诚于亲戚、保护人、领导人或政党,而不是对体制负责。

有时,早期行政管理在政治上是比较敏感的,因为行政机关的人员是任命的,他们更是政客的臂膀或主流阶级。

但是,它也常常是专制的,专制的行政可能是不公平的,特别是对那些不能够或者不愿意投入个人政治游戏的人来说更是如此。

一个以韦伯原则为基础的非人格化的制度可以完全消除专制——至少在理想情况下是如此。

档案的存在、前例原则的参照和法律依据意味着在相同的环境中总是会做出相同的决策。

在这种情况下不仅效率更高,而且公民和官僚等级制中的人员都知道自己所处的立场。

其他的差别均与此相联系。

在各种规定和非人格化的基础上,会很自然地形成严格的等级制度。

等级制度及其规定在个人离开组织后保持不变。

虽然韦伯强调的是整个制度,但他也注意到了官僚制组织中的个人任期和条件。

传统行政模式获得了极大的成功,它为全世界各国政府所广泛采用。

无论是
从理论上还是从实践上看,它都显示出了优势。

与以前腐败盛行的制度相比,它更具效率,而且职业化公务员的思想对个人以及业余服务都是一个巨大的进步。

然而,该模式现在也暴露出了问题,这些问题表明该模式即使不能说已经过时了,也可以说即将过时。

公共行政的理论支柱已经难以描述政府现实了。

政治控制理论已经问题重重。

行政意味着遵从他人的指令,因此要求有一个秩序井然的收发方法。

指令的发出者与实施者之间有一个明确的划分。

但是这并不现实,并且随着公共服务规模和领域的扩大而愈加不可能。

传统模式的另一理论支柱——官僚制理论也不再被认为是组织的特别有效形式。

正式的官僚体制可能有它的优势,但人们也认为它往往培养墨守成规者而不是创新者;鼓励行政人员规避风险而不是勇于冒险,鼓励他们浪费稀缺资源而不是有效利用。

韦伯曾把官僚制看成是“理想类型”,但现在这种理想类型却培养了惰性、丧失进取心、导致平庸和低效率,这些被认为是公共部门的特有病。

它也由此遭受批评。

实际上“,官僚”这个词在今天更多地被看成是低效率的同义词。

三、新公共管理模式
20世纪八九十年代,在公共部门出现了一种针对传统行政模式的缺陷的新管理方法。

这种方法可以缓解传统模式的某些问题,同时也意味着公共部门运转方面发生了引人注目的变化。

这种新的管理方法有很多名称“:管理主义”、“新公共管理”“、以市场为基础的公共行政”“、后官僚制典范”或“企业型政府”。

到90年代后期,人们越来越倾向于使用“新公共管理”的概念。

尽管新公共管理的名称众多,但对于公共部门管理发生的实际变化而言,人们还是有一种共识。

第一,无论这种模式叫什么,它都代表着一种与传统公共行政不同的重大变化,它更为关注结果的实现和管理者的个人责任。

第二,它明确表示要摆脱古典官僚制,从而使组织、人事、任期和条件更加灵活。

第三,它明确规定了组织和人事目标,这就可以根据绩效指标测量工作任务的完成情况。

同样,还可以对计划方案进行更为系统的评估,也可以比以前更为严格地确定政府计划是否实现了其预定目标。

第四,高级行政管理人员更有可能带有政治色彩地致力于政府工作,而不是无党派或中立的。

第五,政府更有可能受到市场的检验,将公共服务的购买者与提供者区分开,即将“掌舵者与划桨者区分开”。

政府介入并不一定
总是指政府通过官僚手段行事。

第六,出现了通过民营化和市场检验、签订合同等方式减少政府职能的趋势。

在某种情况下,这是根本性的。

一旦发生了从过程向结果转化的重要变革,所有与此相连的连续性步骤就都是必要的。

霍姆斯(Holmes)和尚德(Shand)对这次改革的特点作了一个特别有用的概括。

他们把新公共管理视作范式,这种好的管理方法具有以下特点:(1)这是一种更加富有战略性或结构导向型的决策方法(强调效率、结果和服务质量)。

(2)分权式管理环境取代了高度集中的等级组织结构。

这使资源分配和服务派送更加接近供应本身,由此可以得到更多相关的信息和来自客户及其他利益团体的反馈。

(3)可以更为灵活地探索代替直接供应公共产品的方法,从而提供成本节约的政策结果。

(4)关注权威与责任的对应,以此作为提高绩效的关键环节,这包括强调明确的绩效合同的机制。

(5)在公共部门之间和内部创造一个竞争性的环境。

(6)加强中央战略决策能力,使其能够迅速、灵活和低成本地驾驭政府对外部变化和多元利益做出反应。

(7)通过要求提供有关结果和全面成本的报告来提高责任度和透明度。

(8)宽泛的服务预算和管理制度支持和鼓励着这些变化的发生。

新公共管理并没有认为实现某结果有一条最好的途径。

管理者在被赋予责任之前并没有被告知如何获得结果。

决定工作方式是管理者的一个职责,如果没有实现预定的目标,管理者对此应当承担责任。

四、结论
政府管理在过去的一百五十年里经历了三种模式。

首先是人格化或前现代行政模式,当该模式日益暴露其缺陷以及出于提高效率的目的,它就被第二种模式即传统的官僚行政模式所取代。

同样,当传统行政模式问题重重时,它就为第三种模式即新公共管理取代,从政府转向替代性市场。

20世纪80年代以来,市场的主导地位就如同20世纪20年代到60年代官僚制度居主导地位一样。

在任何一种政府制度中,官僚和市场都是共存的,只是在某个阶段一种形式占主导地位,而在另一阶段,另一种形式占主导地位。

新公共管理时代是官僚制日益削弱而市场在公共行政领域占据统治地位的时期。

在现实中,市场和官僚体制相互需要,相互补充。

新公共管理不可能完全代替官僚制,正如1989年以前的东欧,官僚制不可能代替市场一样。

但新公共管理运动表明的是,早期传统官僚制的许多功能都可以而且现在经常由市场来执行。

在。