Why Public Management Reform?
为什么要进行公共管理改革？
Public management reform is usually thought of as a means to an end, not an end in itlf. 公共管理改革通常被认为是一种达到目的的手段，而并非目的本身。To be more preci we should perhaps say that it potentially a means to multiple ends. 更准确说，我们可以认为它是一种潜在地达到多种目的的手段。The include making saving (economies) in public expenditure, improving the quality of public rvices, making the operation of government more efficient, and increasing the chances that the policies which are chon and implemented will be effective. 这些目的包括：节约公共开支（经济），提高公共服务的质量，使政府的运作更加有效，增加被选用的和实施的政策变得有效的机会。On the way to achieving the important objectives, public management reform may also rve a number of intermediate ends, including tho of strengthening the control of politicians over the bureaucracy, freeing public officials from bureaucratic constrains which inhibit the
ir opportunities to manage and enhance the government’s accountability to the legislature and the citizenry for its policies and programs. 在实现这些重要目标的同时，公共管理改革还可能为一系列中间目标提供服务，包括强化政治家对官僚的控制和把公务员从官僚政治的束缚中解放出来，这些束缚阻碍了他们在政策和计划实施中管理和提升政府对立法部门和公民所负责任的机会。Last, but not least, one should mention the symbolic and legitimacy benefits of management reform. little black dress最后，但并非最不重要的是，我们还应该注意公共管理改革的象征性与合法性意义。For politicians the benefits consist partly of being em to be doing something. 这些好处对于政治家而言，至少可被人们认为他们正在有所作为。Announcing reforms, criticizing bureaucracy, praising new management techniques, promising improved rvices for the future, restructuring ministries and agencies—all the activities help to attract favorable attention to the politicians who espou them. 比如宣布进行改革，批评官僚主义，表扬新的管理技术，许诺在未来改进服务，重组部门和办事机构——所有这些活动都能把有利的注意力吸引到主张这些事情的政治家身上。A cynic might obrve that, in the days when the power of individual governments to act indep
endently is increasingly called into questions by a complex interplay of local, national and international constrains, the one thing that ministers usually can do—with the appearance of dynamism but at little immediatetired cost—is to announce changes in their own machinery of governance. 一个愤世嫉俗的人可能会发现，近来，由于地方、国家和国际限制等复杂的相互作用，单个政府独立行动的权力（能力）日益受到质疑，政府部长们通常所能做的事情——以充满活力的面貌出现却仅需极小的直接代价——就是在他们自己管辖机构内部宣布改革。There are also legitimacy benefits for tho nior officials who, almost invariably, play important parts in shaping and implementing such initiatives. They may gain in reputation by association with “modernizing” and “streamlining” activities. 这对那些在提出和执行这样的倡议时几乎总要扮演重要角色的高级官员们也有合法性的好处。他们可能会因这些“现代化”和“合理化”（流程优化）的工作而赢得声誉。
If management reform really does produce cheaper, more efficient government, with higher-quality rvices and more effective programs, and if it will simultaneously enhance political control, free managers to manage, make govern
ment more transparent and boost the images of tho ministers and mandarins most involved, then it is little wonder that it has been widely trumpeted. 如果管理改革真会产生一个能提供高质量服务和有效计划的更廉价、更高效的政府，如果它同时还会强化政治控制，让管理者放手去管理，使政府更透明，并且能提升最积极参与的部长和官员们的形象，那么它被广泛鼓吹也就不足为奇。Unfortunately, however, matters are not so simple. 不幸的是，事情并非如此简单。There is a good deal of evidence to show that management reforms can go wrong. 众多证据表明，管理改革会走入歧途。They may fail to produce the claimed 工作经验英文benefits. 它们可能无法产生那些宣称的好处。They may even generate perver effects that render the relevant administrative progress wor (in some important ns) than they were previously. 它们甚至可能导致相反（不当）的结果，从而使相关的行政过程（在某些重要的方面）变得比以前更糟。When a local authority “home help” (domestic care) rvice for elderly and disabled people is reshaped along quasi-market lines, with a split between the authority purchasing the rvice and the providing it, we may consider this a typical “reform”.short是什么意思 比如，某个地方当局一项为老人和残疾人提供“家庭帮助”（家庭照顾）
的计划按照准市场的原则进行了重新修改，将购买服务的当局和提供服务的成员分离开来，我们可将此视为一项典型的“改革”。 When, however, we discover that the contract drawn up for the rvice is 700 pages long and that the actual rvice provided ems to have changed very little in either quality or quantity, then doubt ts in. 然而，如果我们发现，为这项服务而起草的合同文件厚达700页，而实际提供的服务在数量上和质量上只有非常小的改变时，质疑就开始产生了。We wonder if more trust between the parties concerned might not be a more efficient option, enabling a much shorter contract (or no contract at all) and radically reduced monitoring costs. 我们会想，在相关方之间建立更多的信任也许会是更好的选择，这样，合同文件就会简短得多（甚至可能根本不需要合同），并且会大大减少监督费用。
Furthermore, even if a particular reform clearly “succeeds” in respect of one or two of the objectives mentioned above (savings, say, and improvement in quality) it is unlikely that it will succeed in all. 此外，即便一项特定的改革确实在上面提到的一个或两个目标方面（节余、宣示和质量改进）获得了“成功”，它也不可能完全获得成功。Indeed, we shall argue later that certain trade-offs and dilemmas are exceedingly c
ommon in administrative change, so that the achievement of one or two particular ends might well be “paid for”stan by a lowered performance in other respects: “rule over specialized decision makers in a bureaucracy is maintained by lective crackdowns on one goal at a time, steering the equilibrium—without ever acknowledging that tightening up on one criterion implies slackening off on another”. 实际上，我们在后面会说明，行政改革中导致的权衡和两难困境很常见，因此，某一项或两项目标的实现很可能会被其他方面较差的表现“抵消”：“官僚体制中专门的决策者遵循的规则是，一次针对一个目标采取措施，从而控制平衡——但他们没有认识到，紧缩某一项指标意味着放松另一项指标”。For example, if we subject public rvants to more effective political supervision and control, can we simultaneously gift them greater freedom and flexibility to manage? 例如，如果我们对公务员实施更有效的政治监督和控制，我们能否同时赋予他们更多的自由和管理的灵活性？The optimists will say yes, by laying down a clearer, simpler framework of rules within which managers can “get creative”. 乐观主义者会点头称是，他们会提出一个更清晰、更简单的规则，从而使管理者在规则范围之内“获得创造性”。unwittingThe skeptic will say no, p
数字英语ointing to survey evidence that the managers themlves think that political “leave well alone” in politically nsitive operations such as social curity, health care, education or the prison rvice. fater怀疑主义者则会大摇其头，他们会指出，有调查证据表明，管理者自己会认为在诸如社会安全、医保、教育或监狱服务等政治敏感领域，最好撒手不管。
In any ca, public management reform is only one way to achieve most of the desirable ends identified in the first paragraph. 不管怎样，公共管理改革只是达到第一段中所提到的期望目标的手段之一。To be adequateb2c怎么读, any description of its nature will need to take into account that governmental performance can be improved by a variety of routes and that management reform is frequently undertaken in conjunction with other types of policy initiative. 不言而喻的是，对公共管理改革性质的任何描述都需要考虑到政府的表现可以通过很多途径得到改善，并考虑到管理改革经常与其他towel政策创新联系在一起。Comparing administrative developments in a number of countries one academic obrved recently: “Administrative reform… is a subject of all policy performance, not a parable t of technical efforts”. 在对很多国家的
行政发展进行比较之后，有一个学者最近发现：“行政改革…是所有政策绩效的一个主题，而不是一套独立的技术工作”。
Other routes to improved government performance include political reforms (such as changes in electoral systems or legislative procedures) and substantive changes in key policies (such as new macroeconomics management policies, labor market reforms or fundamental changes in social policy). The example of New Zealand—which combined management reforms with fundamental changes in both macroeconomic policies and, later, the electoral system—was alluded to in our introduction.
