John Stuart Mill's Theory of Bureaucracy within Representative Government: Balancing Competence and Participation

The relationship between bureaucracy and representative government has been a subject of concern to public administration since its inception. John Stuart Mill addressed this question in an 1861 essay, in which he explained his theory of government. Mill suggests a role for public administration that is not only legitimate, but also necessary for good government. His writings contain remarkable references to the concerns addressed in current theories of public administration. Mill worked to balance the spirit of popular government with governance by the most educated, skilled, and experienced of the nation, whether they were citizens, elected representatives, or administrative officials. This article examines Mill's theory and the contribution it makes to current public administration discussion.     

公共管理的理论源流与变革

通过“新公共管理运动”而从传统公共行政理论范式中分化出来的“公共管理”，体现了一种新的理论范式整合。传统的公共行政，以韦伯的官僚制来破解庇护主义，以政治／行政分开来化解政党分肥，以官制度来建构行政组织的基本规范，以泰勒主义来保证效率行政的主导地位。这种行政改进逐渐变成公共行政中的教条主义。结果，官僚制成了官僚主义的代名词，政治／行政两分成了“两张皮”，官制度变成了族主义，效率主导变成了缺乏效果的效率。求解这些疑难导致了传统公共行政范式向“新公共管理”范式的转移。而突出公共性、现代性和综合性的公共管理的理论建构，就是以公共行政为底色而对新公共管理或管理主义、政策分析以及20世纪80年代兴起的公共治理理论的一次理论整合。     

政府公共管理新理念及其在社会实践中的运用

随着我国改革开放的深入和社会主义市场经济体制建设的日益完善,传统公共行政的那种僵化的、等级森严的官僚制式的观念正在被新的政府公共管理理念所替代。本文透析了我国政府在进行行政管理改革的进程中所暴露出的一系列有关政府公共管理事务能力、国民素质、非政府组织、政府外交管理事务、政府行政改革滞后于经济改革等方面的问题。最后认为,当前我国应该采纳新的政府公共管理理论,重塑公共政策的价值起点,加快新一轮的政府体制和职能改革,早日使我们的政府变成真正的“统一、高效、公正、廉洁”的政府。     

The Big Questions of Public Administration Education

Following Behn's observation that scientists in other fields understand the big questions of their disciplines and focus attention and their discussions on those questions, public administration scholars have attempted to identify the “big questions” in public management and public administration. In this article, I suggest that scholars in public administration should also be attentive to the big questions of public administration education, those timeless and enduring concerns that speak to the basic perspectives that we bring to the educational process. Specifically, I identify four big questions: Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory or to practice? Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those to which they might aspire later? What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA courses and curricula? What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators? I argue that these big questions in public administration education are far more connected than we usually think, and by posing these questions in terms of processes of human development we can at least provide a framework through which we might develop more coherent answers to these big questions, answers that recognize and build on the diversity of our students and our faculty.     

Managerial Responsibility

The concept of managerial responsibility is a shining thread in the literature of public administration, but its definition within our constitutional scheme remains elusive. How will we know responsible public management when we see it? We propose one answer: Public administration should be conducted according to what we term a “precept of managerial responsibility,” which involves four interrelated elements derived from the classical literature of public administration: judgment, accountability, balance, and rationality. We apply this precept to one of the most vexing problems of public administration theory and practice, institutional reform litigation. This application illustrates how the precept solves a major theoretical problem of American public administration by defining a role for administrative officers that fully comports with the Madisonian scheme of separated institutions—legislative, executive, and judicial—sharing power.     

公共管理学科前沿与发展趋势

公共管理学科领域经历和正在发生着的变化及其趋势至少主要表现在五个互相承续的方面。一是新公共管理在理论上和政府再造实践上的并行所形成的强烈的管理主义取向;二是公共组织理论与公共治理理论共同凸显为公共管理两大支柱理论;三是政府治理模式与政治角色定位这两个层次问题的契合;四是管理学范式与政治学范式在分野基础之上的整合;五是紧贴政府问题的事实关注与价值判断的结合。这些方面的变化使得与之相关的理论与实践问题被推到公共管理学科发展的前沿。其发展趋势正逐步趋向于:公共价值判断下的管理科学取向;公共治理框架内的组织理论创新;公共行政的宪法捍卫者前提下的公共行政执行者的角色定位;作为政治科学的公共行政与作为管理科学的公共行政双重身份的整合;公共行政研究者强烈使命感与社会责任感驱动下的公共管理学的学术发展。     

The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For

For a decade, public administration and management literature has featured a riveting story: the transformation of the field's orientation from an old paradigm to a new one. While many doubt claims concerning a new paradigm—a New Public Management—few question that there was an old one. An ingrained and narrowly focused pattern of thought, a "bureaucratic paradigm," is routinely attributed to public administration's traditional literature. A careful reading of that literature reveals, however, that the bureaucratic paradigm is, at best, a caricature and, at worst, a demonstrable distortion of traditional thought that exhibited far more respect for law, politics, citizens, and values than the new, customer-oriented managerialism and its variants. Public administration as a profession, having let lapse the moral and intellectual authority conferred by its own traditions, mounts an unduly weak challenge to the superficial thinking and easy answers of the many new paradigms of governance and public service. As a result, literature and discourse too often lack the recognition that reformers of institutions and civic philosophies must show how the capacity to effect public purposes and accountability to the polity will be enhanced in a manner that comports with our Constitution and our republican institutions.     

We All Need Help: “Big Data” and the Mismeasure of Public Administration

Rapid advances in our ability to collect, analyze, and disseminate information are transforming public administration. This “big data” revolution presents opportunities for improving the management of public programs, but it also entails some risks. In addition to potentially magnifying well‐known problems with public sector performance management—particularly the problem of goal displacement—the widespread dissemination of administrative data and performance information increasingly enables external political actors to peer into and evaluate the administration of public programs. The latter trend is consequential because external actors may have little sense of the validity of performance metrics and little understanding of the policy priorities they capture. The author illustrates these potential problems using recent research on U.S. primary and secondary education and suggests that public administration scholars could help improve governance in the data‐rich future by informing the development and dissemination of organizational report cards that better capture the value that public agencies deliver.     

公共行政的发展与变迁:新公共管理的研究途径

新公共管理理论是公共行政领域最为引人注目的理论之一.它的兴起,既是对传统公共行政理论的矫正,也促进了政府变革的发展.本文就其主要理论基础进行介绍、分析与评述,并就其未来的发展进行预测和评论.     

American Public Administration and Impacts of International Governance

Increasingly, public administration in the United States operates in a densely interconnected international system in which local decisions and actions may trigger global repercussions—and vice versa—and the fate of communities in one region is bound to the choices of decision makers elsewhere. Administrative actors have become enmeshed in a complicated, interwoven pattern of governance in ways that shape actions, issues, and opportunities for influencing administrative agencies at national, state, and local levels. These developments call for a critical reappraisal of our inherited notions of governance, management, and accountability. Terrorist tragedy and responses to it call attention to these themes, but they apply broadly across the spectrum of governance challenges. To demonstrate this point, we analyze some implications of transnational governance for the institutions and practices of U.S. public management, with particular attention to another subject: environmental policy and management. A conclusion is that the public administration community must adjust traditional practices to facilitate the effective management of the global processes that, in turn, reshape the world.     

公共管理学：定位与使命

公共管理学由行政学、公共行政学发展而来,其最初源头在政治学。所以,政治学对于公共行政学的意义,犹如经济学对工商管理学的意义。但是,公共管理学有自己特定的研究对象、学科体系和指导原则,因为,公共管理是一项独立的管理活动,其对象就是公共资源,其主体就是以政府为核心所形成的政府、市场、社会多元统一的公共治理体系;而其原则就是公共性、公正性和效益性的有机统一。在中国,公共管理学要走向成熟,实现科学化,关键是要关注中国公共管理的实践,创造中国公共管理理论。为此,中国公共管理学应该在3个方面作出努力:一是确立公共管理学特有的问题意识;二是确立中国公共管理的规范性价值体系;三是形成理论与实践能够相互转化的研究能力。     

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.     

西方“整体政府”改革：理论、实践及启示

20世纪90年代中后期,西方各国进行了以"整体政府"为内容的第二轮政府改革运动。在理论上,西方"整体政府"改革既是对新公共管理反思与批判的结果,又是一定意识形态作用的产物,还与各种协作理论密切相关;"整体政府"已成为当代西方各国政府改革的新趋向,并形成了一种区别于传统官僚制和新公共管理模式的新型政府改革模式,即"整体政府"模式。该模式具有深刻的内涵、鲜明的特征和独特的治理结构。在实践上,"整体政府"改革具有丰富的内容,既有改革模式上的共性,又有具体操作中的国别特色,并形成了一种最佳实践模式。这一最佳实践模式具有独特的文化与哲学、新的工作方式、新的责任和激励机制,以及制定政策、设计方案和提供服务的新方式。西方"整体政府"改革对我国当前行政管理体制改革的进路具有三点启示:一是建立"内联"治理结构;二是发展"外协"合作关系;三是转变政府职能,建设和谐行政文化。     

EXPLAINING HYBRIDITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: AN EMPIRICAL CASE OF BHUTAN'S CIVIL SERVICE

Public administrations are mostly hybrid in nature with a combination of characteristics of different paradigms and models. In the first part of the paper, I use the notion of paradigms to explain a form of hybridity in public administration. The concept of paradigms in public administration is helpful in identifying a typology of the ideal types and their characteristics based on the main paradigms and models of public administration: the patronage system, the traditional public administration, the new public administration, and other emerging models such as public value management, responsive governance, and new public service. In the second part of the paper, through the trajectory of Bhutan's public administration history, we observe that its public administration exhibits characteristics that sit across the various paradigms and models of public administration. Thus, in doing so, the paper makes a significant contribution in applying the ideal type typology to explain how hybridity in public administration occurs in practice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

TEACHING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: EDUCATION OR TRAINING?*

Abstract: There is an ambivalence in attitudes to public administration as a field of study among both academics and practitioners in Australia. Teachers, researchers, students, public servants seeking training and managers have differing interests and expectations. Disagreements about the field have contributed to the lack of a unified framework of concepts, while the field has fragmented into public administration, public policy and public management, aside from other divisions such as "old" versus "new" public administration. "Education" and "training" have taken diverging paths and academics and practitioners have drifted apart. There needs to be a closer dialogue that can only be based on a generally agreed paradigm for Australian Public Administration as a field of study.     

Collaborative Governance: Integrating Management,Politics, and Law

Scholars have engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the relationships among management, politics, and law in public administration. Collaborative governance presents new challenges to this dynamic. While scholars have made substantial contributions to our understanding of the design and practice of collaborative governance, others suggest that we lack theory for this emerging body of research. Law is often omitted as a variable. Scholarship generally does not explicitly include collaboration as a public value. This article addresses the dialogue on management, politics, and law with regard to collaborative governance. It provides an overview of the current legal framework for collaborative governance in the United States at the federal, state, and local levels of government and identifies gaps. The institutional analysis and development framework provides a body of theory that incorporates rules and law into research design. The article concludes that future research on collaborative governance should incorporate the legal framework as an important variable and collaboration as a public value.     

Beyond Bureaucracy—Public Administration as Political Integrator and Non‐Weberian Thought in Germany

The political role of public administration holds an ambiguous status in public administration theory. The dominant paradigms of the discipline offer more or less negative perspectives. Max Weber’s notion of bureaucracy conceives public administration as the apolitical tool of government, while the public choice school conceives it as the realm of individual selfishness and rent seeking at taxpayers’ expense. In this unfavorable epistemological environment, positive concepts of what makes public administration “political” can hardly flourish. However, as public authorities may organize clientele participation and consequently co‐opt stakeholders, they provide for symbolic sense making and create patterns of identity. Public administration thus works as a political integrator in its own right. Unfortunately, this subject is not prominent within contemporary scholarly research. German political integration through administration is analyzed here in order to address these and related theoretical questions.     

“行政”概念疏义

本以考察词源含义为出发点,试图梳理行政的概念,并厘清行政与管理的区别,继而阐明传统公共行政模式与新公共管理模式的含义,以及公共行政、公共管理与新公共管理之间的意义关联和区别。     

The Role of IPAA: Public Presentation — Key Issues in Governance

In the December 1997 issue of this journal our editors expressed concern about the decline in teaching of public administration. This does not reflect any decline in the overall level of involvement by government in the economy or society. Rather it seems to reflect changing perceptions of what is needed to succeed in public administration.
This in turn raises the very important issue of what we as a society expect from our future public administrators. While many management skills are common to both business and the public sector, public administration needs to extend beyond the limits of business management to comprehend issues such as accountability, probity and policy processes. Indeed it is increasingly being recognised that what is at stake is not just management per se, but rather the broader array of relationships involved in good governance.
The Institute of Public Administration Australia has over the years played an important role in bringing practitioners and teachers together to help foster a better appreciation of these issues. Now more than ever, when the public sector is experiencing considerable change, there needs to be a lively forum where these broader issues of public administration can be debated and new approaches can be tested.
The National Council of the Institute has accordingly been considering how the Institute might encourage a wider public appreciation of good governance. In order to assist in this process and to provide some guidance to spokepersons, the Council has agreed the following Statement. We hope that all members of the Institute will find this Statement helpful and will be encouraged to promote the ideals it seeks to uphold.