羽绒服油渍清洗小妙招 (含：英文原文及中文译文出租车司机的英文)
文献出处： Public Personnel Management, 12(2):159-166.
英文原文
New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping with the New Political Governance in Canada
怎么打开qq邮箱
Peter Aucoin
A tension between New Public Management (NPM) and good governance, including good public administration, has long been assumed by tho 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). 已禁用输入法怎么解决
As this dynamic has played out over the past three decades, however, there emerged an ev
en more significant challenge not only to the traditional structures, practices and values of the professional, non-partisan public rvice but also to tho 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, ek to u and override the public rvice – an impartial institution of government – to better cure their partisan advantage (Campbell 2007; MacDermott 2008 a, 2008b). In so doing, the governors engage in a politicization of the public rvice and its administration of public business that constitutes a form of political corruption that cannot but undermine good governance. NPM is not a cau 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 rvice 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 ca 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 respons vary somewhat becau 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-focud 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 for impartiality, performance and accountability.
New Public Management in the Canadian Context
Since the early 1980s, NPM has taken veral different forms in various jurisdictions. Adopting private-ctor management practices was en by some as a part, even if a mi
nor part, of the broader neo-conrvative/neo-liberal political economy movement that demanded wholesale privatization of government enterpris and public rvices, extensive deregulation of private enterpris, and significant reductions in public spending – ‘rolling back the state’, as it was put a at the outt (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 rvices (Pollitt 1990). The focus, in short, was on ‘management’. Achieving greater economy in the u 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 rvices everywhere.
定量分析方法
By the turn of the century, moreover, NPM, as improved public management in this limited n, was well embedded in almost all governments, at least as the norm (althou
gh it was not always or everywhere referred to as NPM). This meant incread managerial authority, discretion and flexibility:
• for managing public resources (financial and human);
• for managing public-rvice delivery systems; and,
• for collaborating with other public-ctor agencies as well as with privatector agencies in tackling horizontal – multi-organizational and/or multictoral – issues. 一张照片是什么
This incread managerial authority, flexibility and discretion was, in some jurisdictions, notably the Britain and New Zealand, coupled with incread organizational differentiation, as evidenced by a proliferation of departments and agencies with narrowed mandates, many with a single purpo. “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 condary to enhanced managerial authority and responsibility (Pollitt and Talbot 2004).
一贫道长
The major NPM innovations quickly led to concerns, especially in tho jurisdictions where the developments were most advanced, about a loss of public rvice coherence and corporate capacity, on the one hand, and a diminished n of and commitment to public-rvice ethos, ethics and values, on the other. Reactions to the concerns produced some retreat, reversals, and re-balancing of the systems in questions (Halligan 2006). 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 the improvements were modest in comparison to the original claims of NPM proponents. 胸型外扩怎么矫正
