Public Management and Administration: a Need for Evolution

Recently, British public management has relied too much on private sector approaches suited to market‐facing situations, to the detriment of systems based on a realistic estimate of the special nature of public business, and its needs for economy and co‐ordination. Accountability processes have suffered from over‐simplification (targetry) and from a gross multiplication of mechanisms focusing on individual error, as opposed to ensuring intelligent assessment of business results. There has been an over‐emphasis on management of inputs and outputs, as opposed to systems gearing the result‐producing mechanisms to means for policy formation and co‐ordination of effort. We need now to re‐think and define properly the systems whereby ministers are advised, account is rendered, resources are allocated and effort is co‐ordinated—and the qualifications of the relevant actors. Suggestions are made to these ends.     

Examining the Evolution of the Field of Public Administration through a Bibliometric Analysis of Public Administration Review

In 2015, Public Administration Review celebrated its 75th year of publication. For this milestone, the PAR Editorial Board selected the 75 most influential articles in the history of the journal and invited scholars to “revisit a selection of these articles” in order “to take stock of what these articles meant for the field.” Bibliometrics offers a complementary view of the history of a discipline and the evolution of its research and practice agendas through an analysis of its published literature. This article examines the changes over time in PAR from 1940 through 2013 in authorship: contributions, impact, gender composition, institutional and national affiliation, profession as scholar or practitioner, collaboration networks, and the status of the 75 influential articles. Through an extensive quantitative analysis of scholarly production, this article demonstrates PAR’s centrality to the discipline of public administration and its bridging role between public administration and political science.     

新时代公共管理实现途径的多元化演变分析

关于公共管理实现途径的研究,学者们进行诸多探讨后提出管理、政治、法律等实现途径。然而,随着信息化、后工业化、全球化的发展,我国社会呈现高度的复杂性与不确定性,社会主要矛盾发生变化。这些途径在新时代公共治理中存在解释力不足、整体功能没有得到优化等问题,未能说明行政体制改革过程中真实的行为逻辑,对高度复杂性条件下一些公共问题也很难给出有效的应对方案,亟须调适和建立符合我国实际情况的新实现路径。通过对公共管理实现途径价值和观点的梳理,以天津、杭州等地方行政体制改革实践为分析样本,进行多案例研究,分析新一轮政府流程再造中公共管理多种实现途径演变、合流,并用系统性的视角、协同性的思维和综合化的方式,探索具有中国特色的、科学系统的新时代公共管理实现途径。     

Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology

Behavioral public administration is the analysis of public administration from the micro‐level perspective of individual behavior and attitudes by drawing on insights from psychology on the behavior of individuals and groups. The authors discuss how scholars in public administration currently draw on theories and methods from psychology and related fields and point to research in public administration that could benefit from further integration. An analysis of public administration topics through a psychological lens can be useful to confirm, add nuance to, or extend classical public administration theories. As such, behavioral public administration complements traditional public administration. Furthermore, it could be a two‐way street for psychologists who want to test the external validity of their theories in a political‐administrative setting. Finally, four principles are proposed to narrow the gap between public administration and psychology.     

公共领域与公共精神的关系演变

自古及今,公共领域与公共精神都是既相互联系又相辅相成的关系。在封建社会,公共领域的缺失导致公共精神的压抑与异化,公共精神沦为维护等级秩序的工具。在新中国成立后的一段时期内,公共领域对私人领域的越位导致公共精神的扩张与虚化,脱离于物质层面而沦为纯粹的精神革命。改革开放以来,伴随着社会结构的变化,现代公共领域健康发展,公共精神的现代意蕴得以彰显。     

从价值观维度审视西方公共行政范式的演进

从价值观维度来看,公共行政范式演进是在效率与民主这两大价值观之间进行取舍或者相互博弈进而衍生出来的一系列管理理念、管理技术和管理手段的集合.传统公共行政范式恪守效率至上价值观,将行政领域定位为技术性的管理过程,导致民主价值观缺位.新公共行政范式把社会公平添置为公共行政的第三块基石,将民主置于与效率和经济同等的地位,并力图通过分权、权力下放、责任扩大和顾客介入等途径彰显政府的民主蕴涵.新公共管理范式对效率价值进行了扬弃,强化了政府价值观的效能理念;然而,该范式倡导的掌舵型政府、政府职能市场化、企业家精神和顾客导向等改革理念在事实上造成了民主价值观的流失.     

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration

Public sector reform has rarely dropped off the political agenda of Western governments, yet the old craft skills of traditional public administration remain of paramount importance. The pendulum has swung too far toward the new and the fashionable reforms associated with New Public Management and the New Public Governance. It needs to swing back toward bureaucracy and the traditional skills of bureaucrats as part of the repertoire of governing. This article discusses the skills of counseling, stewardship, practical wisdom, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political nous. Although these skills are of wide relevance, the article focuses on their relevance in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. It concludes that the next bout of reforms needs to recover the traditional craft skills. It is not a question of traditional skills versus the new skills of New Public Management or New Public Governance; it is a question of what works, of what skills fit in a particular context.     

混沌理论与公共行政

本旨在探讨运用混沌理论分析公共行政的必要性与可能性。公共组织的非线性、复杂性、不确定性和变动性特征表明,主流公共行政学的理论预设并不符合公共行政的实际。为此,运用主要研究系统的非线性特征的混沌理论来理解公共行政现象并解决公共行政问题,不仅可能,而且必需。混沌不仅为我们提供了研究公共行政的的视角,而且为公共行政的改革提供了理论基础。     

公共服务、公共管理与法国公共行政的现代化

本文基于胡德(Hood)的新公共管理思想和霍尔(Hall)与赖特(Wright)的新历史制度主义观点,分析了法国最近的几次改革及其相关理念,认为如果不同的政府都采用私营部门的管理方法来解决相似的问题,那么,改革的具体内容则依每个国家自身的环境,或先天条件而定.     

社会治理转型中的公共行政价值的回应与平衡

公共行政范式转换与社会治理范式变迁相生相伴,每一种社会治理范式实际上都在寻求回应与平衡效率、责任、公平等核心价值,只是在社会治理不同的发展阶段对某一种公共行政价值有所侧重而已.从公共行政价值多元交叉并存的视角来研究和把握社会治理的根本价值和目的,倡导效率、责任与公平等核心价值并重、统一、均衡的科学公共行政价值观,不仅有助于科学把握公共行政理论的发展规律和走向,破解工具性价值与目的性价值的悖论,也有助于社会治理持续均衡发展,从而更好地强化公共行政精神,实现公共利益.     

反思"公共管理(学)":公共行政的观点

公共管理(学)研究,是在扬弃(传统)公共行政(学)观念和行政改革实践的基础之上发展成为目前各国行政学理论发展的主流.具体就我国特定的历史情境而言,笔者认为由于国内行政学理论探讨中存在的"公共性"不足和"行政"研究的相对不足,以及中国行政现实的需求,"公共行政"研究应成为当前最紧要的任务.对"公共管理"概念、理念、模式的引入与研究应相当慎重,公共行政学的科学价值与学术地位不容动摇.     

论公共行政的道德责任

公共行政的道德责任问题是一个全新的课题,长期以来,人们仅仅看到了公共行政的政治职能、经济职能和社会管理职能,但没有从理论上认识到公共行政的道德职能问题,而是把道德的问题归结为社会成员个体的精神文明建设的范畴中去.实际上,公共行政的道德责任是公共行政的基本内容,而且是公共行政其他职能得以充分实现的前提.公共行政道德责任的基本内容是维护和提供交换正义,公共行政对这一目标的追求将会促进公共行政全面的道德化.