公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)

1900单词，1.1万英文字符，中文3030字

文献出处：Frederickson H G. Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere[J]. The Oxford handbook of public management, 2005: 281-304.

http://www.wenku1.com/news/0706AF57C1E1A817.html原文

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? GOVERNANCE,

GOVERNANCE EVERYWHERE

H. George Frederickson

For at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill as the “regimes, laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goals and services,” holds strong interest for public administration scholars (2001, p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public administration; then, using regime theory from the study of international relations, the concept of governance as applied in public administration is analyzed, parsed, and framed.

The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concept of governance in the field tends to take one or more of the following forms: (1) It is substantively the same as already established perspectives in public administration, although in a different language, (2) It is essentially the study of the contextual influences that shape the practices of public administration, rather than the study of public administration, (3) It is the study of interjurisdictional relations and third party policy implementation in public administration, (4) It is the study of the influence or power of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives. Of these approaches to public administration as governance, it is the third and fourth--governance as the public administration of interjurisdiction relations and third party policy implementation, and the governance of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives -- that form the basis of a usable theory of governance for public administration.

It was Harlan Cleveland who first used the word “governance” as an alternative to the phrase public administration. In the mid-1970s, one of the themes in Cleveland's particularly thoughtful and provocative speeches, papers, and books went something like

this: “What the people want is less government and more governance” (1972). What he meant by governance was the following cluster of concepts.

In all, Rhodes (2000, pp. 55-60) found seven applications of governance in the field of public administration: the new public management or managerialism; good governance, as in efficiency, transparency, meritocracy, and equity; international and interjurisdictional interdependence; non-government driven forms of socio-cybernetic systems of governance; the new political economy, including shifting from state service provision to the state as regulator; and networks. There are many more applications of governance to the subject once known as public administration, but these few illustrate the capacious range of concepts, ideas, and theories associated with it.

There are as many definitions of the concept of governance as a synonym for public administration as there are applications. Kettl claims an emerging gap between government and governance. \institutions. Governance is the way government gets its job done.

如何翻译外文文献Traditionally, government itself managed most service delivery. Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, government relied increasingly on non-governmental partners to do its work, through processes that relied less on authority for control\xi). To Kettl, governance, as an approach to public administration, has primarily to do with contracting-out and grants to sub-governments.

As was noted at the outset, Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2001 p. 15) use a much bigger approach to governance as an analytic framework. Their model, intended to be a starting point for research, is: O = f [E, C, T, S, M] Where:

O = Outputs/outcomes. The end product of a governance regime. E = Environmental factors. These can include political structures, levels of

authority, economic performance, the presence or absence of competition among suppliers, resource levels and dependencies, legal framework, and the characteristics of a target population.

C = Client characteristics. The attributes, characteristics, and behavior of clients. T = Treatments. These are the primary work or core processes of the organizations within the

governance regime. They include organizational missions and objectives, recruitment and eligibility criteria, methods fro determining eligibility, and program treatments or technologies.

S = Structures. These include organizational type, level of coordination and integration among the organizations in the governance regime, relative degree of centralized control, functional differentiation, administrative rules or incentives, budgetary allocations, contractual arrangements or relationships, and institutional culture and values.

M = Managerial roles and actions. This includes leadership characteristics, staff- management relations, communications, methods of decision-making, professional/career concerns, and mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.

The problem is that it is difficult, following Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill, to conceive of anything involving government, politics, or administration that is not governance. That being the case, there appears to be little difference between studying the whole of government and politics and studying public administration. Put another way, public administration is ordinarily thought to have to do with “treatments,” “structures,” and “management” in the Lynn, et al. governance formula. They tuck the centerpieces of public administration into the broader context of governance. This chapter will later return to these distinctions and to a large-scale synthesis of governance research by Lynn, Heinrich and Hill.

Concepts of governance as public administration reflect a long-standing theoretical debate in the field, the matter of distinctions between politics, and policy on one hand and policy implementation or administration on the other. Easy dismissal of the politics-administration dichotomy serves to focus the study of public administration, particularly by some governance theorist, on the constitutional and political context of the organization and management of the territorial state or jurisdiction. From this perspective governance becomes steering and public administration becomes rowing, a lesser phenomenon in the scholarly pecking order, not to mention a lesser subject in governance. Public administration, thus understood, is the work that governments contract-out, leaving governance as the subject of our study. Although the lines between politics, policy, and administration are often fuzzy and changing, and although we know, strictly speaking, there is not a politics- administration dichotomy, is nevertheless important to understand the empirical distinctions between political and administrative phenomena. Concepts of governance that advance our understanding of public-sector administration

and organization are helpful. Concepts of governance that simply change the subject of public administration to politics and policy making are not. In democratic government it is, after all, elected officials who govern. Bureaucrats have roles and responsibilities for governing or governance, but in democratic polities these roles and responsibilities are different than the roles and responsibilities of elected officials. Janet Newman says it well: “Neither”good governance“nor” well-managed government could resolve the contradictions around the popular role of government and the appropriate boundaries of governance” (2001 p. 170). In the name of stamping out bureaucracy and replacing it with what they describe as good governance, Osborne and Gaebler advocate a range of managerial prerogatives that would significantly intrude on the political and policy-making prerogatives generally assumed to belong to elected officials, and particularly elected legislators, in a democratic polity (1992).

The second implication of the critique is that governance theorists persist in looking for an all-pervasive pattern of organizational and administrative behavior, a \theory\that will provide an explanation for the past and a means to predict the future. Despite the accumulated evidence based on decades of work on theory and the empirical testing of theory in public administration, no such pattern has been found (Frederickson and Smith 2003). Does the governance concept beguile a generation of scholars to set off in the vain search for a metatheoretical El Dorado (Olsen 2003)?

Constructing a Viable Concept of Governance for Public Administration Although the critique of governance is a serious challenge, does it render the concept useless? The answer is no. There are powerful forces at work in the world, forces that the traditional study of politics, government, and public administration do not explain. The state and its sub-jurisdictions are losing important elements of their sovereignty; borders have less and less meaning. Social and economic problems and challenges are seldom contained within jurisdictional boundaries, and systems of communication pay little attention to them. Business is increasingly regional or global. Business elites have multiple residences and operate extended networks that are highly multi-jurisdictional. States and jurisdictions are hollowing-out their organization and administrative capacities, exporting to contractors much of the work of public administration. Governance, even with its weakness, is the most useful available concept for describing and explaining these forces. But for governance to become anything more than passing fashion or a dismissive un-public administration, it must respond to the critique of governance. To do

this, governance scholars must settle on an agreed- upon definition, a definition broad enough to comprehend the forces it presumes to explain but not so broad as to claim to explain everything. Governance theorists must be ready to explain not only what governance is, but also what it is not. Governance theorist must be up-front about the biases in the concept and the implications of those biases.

The lessons learned in the evolution of regime theory in international relations are relevant here because regime theory predates governance theory and because the two are very nearly the same thing. Summing-Up

From its prominence in the 1980s, regime theory would now be described as one of many important theories of international relations. International relations is, of course, the study of relations between nation-states whereas public administration is the study of the management of the state and its subgovernments. It could be said that regime theory accounts for the role of non-state actors and policy entrepreneurs in the context of the modern transformation of the nation-state. In public administration it could be said that the modern transformation of states and their subgovernments explains the contemporary salience of theories of governance. Both regime theory and governance theory are scholarly responses to the transformation of states.

Government in the postmodern state involves multiple levels of interlocked and overlapping arenas of collective policy implementation. Governments now operate in the context of supranational, international, transgovernmental and transnational relations in elaborate patterns of federated power sharing and interdependence. Therefore, it is now understood that public administration as governance is the best description of the management of the transformed or postmodern state (Sorensen 2004) Nationhood and community are transformed as collective loyalties are increasingly projected away from the state. Major portions of economic activity are now embedded in cross-border networks and national and local economies are less self-sustaining that they once were (Sorensen 2004, p. 162)

Harlan Cleveland understood very early how governments, economies and communities were changing and how rapidly they were changing. His initial description of public administration as governance was designed to square the theory and practices of the field with the realities of a changing world. His governance model still serves as a

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)在线全文阅读。