60年来我国职业福利的回顾与反思

建国60年来,我国职业福利的发展经历了计划经济时期和向市场经济转型时期两个阶段.由于存在着定位不清和规制滞后等原因,职业福利在发展中出现了诸多问题.今后发展的思路,应当基于科学的发展观,从保障和福利两个层面明确职业福利的发展定位,做到效率与公平的并重,使其沿着符合自身属性的轨道规范发展,在社会保障和福利制度建设中发挥积极作用.     

中国公共管理学的危机与出路:恢复重建三十年后的反思

尽管经过三十余年的发展,当下中国公共管理学却深陷严重的身份、理论、方法、价值和发展危机。造成这些危机的主要原因是缺乏必要的理论和文化自信、国际学术的隐形扩张、过度的人为干预、急功近利的学术氛围。要解决这些危机,必须做到:从国内和国际两个方面,重塑学科的独立地位和身份;加强理论和思想创新,要敢于和勇于形成自己的理论传统和思想体系;加强研究方法,提高研究规范性和科学性,反对形式主义和唯方法主义;加强价值研究,形成学科特有的价值体系,提高学科社会价值;创造一切条件,积极主动推动学科发展。     

Poll Driven Government: A Review of Public Administration in 2001

The approach of the Howard Coalition government to public administration in 2001 was consistent with the conventional wisdom that governments typically 'play it safe' in an election year. The government's preoccupation with winning a third term in office was a significant determinant of the policy responses of the government on a number of key issues. The events of 2001 serve as a vivid reminder that policy considerations are ultimately subject to the dictates of the electoral cycle. This is the sixth administrative essay publsihed in the journal since the editors resumed the administrative chronicles in 1996. Earlier administrative essays include J Stewart 55(1) 196; S Prasser 56(1) 1997; J Homeshaw 57(3) 1998; J Moon 58(2) 1999; C Broughton and J Chalmers 60(1) 2000.     

The Public Administration Review and Ongoing Struggles for Connectedness

Facilitation of connectedness has been a fundamental role of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and the Public Administration Review (PAR) throughout their six decades of professional service. Together, they have sought to link practitioners and academicians across subfields and varied levels of activities. As a foremost refereed journal, PAR has sought to encourage the linking of practice and theory through timely publication of methodologically disciplined research, informed analyses and commentaries, and constructive literature reviews and correspondence. These responsibilities have been persistently challenging. ASPA and PAR have served a dynamic field that has made some wrong turns and had others forced on it, resulting in failed autonomy, followed by increasing partisan politicization of governments and reduced reliance on professionally expert administration. For ASPA, it has created leadership and membership problems. For PAR, it has sometimes exacerbated difficulties in connecting practitioners and academicians, but it has also created more shared concerns as important subjects of inquiry. Challenges now are to serve both enduring and new spheres of the field that are afforded by international and domestic developments. Both ASPA and PAR are striving to do that. Globalization of public administration opens a world of opportunities today. Localization, as a fundamental of constitutional democracy, is a priority internationally, presenting an engaging paradox of global attention to both place and planet. That is linked in this commentary to the classic democracy-bureaucracy quandary that has constructively challenged public administration. While arrays of other important subjects, old and new, need to command attention in PAR, these are linked in this analysis to today's theory and practice of interdependent facilitative states to assess how the journal serves its responsibilities.     

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.