公共管理外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1900單詞，1.1萬(wàn)英文字符，中文3030字</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Frederickson H G. Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere[J]. The Oxford handbook of public management, 2005: 281-304.&l

2、t;/p><p>　　http://www.wenku1.com/news/0706AF57C1E1A817.html</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? GOVERNANCE,</p><p>　　GOVERN

3、ANCE EVERYWHERE</p><p>　　H. George Frederickson</p><p>　　For at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, a

4、nd 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 admin

5、istration scholars (2001, p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public adminis</p><p>　　The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concep

6、t 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 es

7、sentially 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 pol

8、icy im</p><p>　　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 thought

9、ful 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.</p>

10、<p>　　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, mer

11、itocracy, 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 provisi

12、on to the state as regulator; and networks. There are many more applicati</p><p>　　如何翻譯外文文獻(xiàn) There are as many definitions of the concept of governance as a synonym for public administration as there are ap

13、plications. Kettl claims an emerging gap between government and governance. "Government refers to the structure and function of public institutions. Governance is the way government gets its job done.</p><

14、;p>　　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

15、 relied less on authority for control" (2002, xi). To Kettl, governance, as an approach to public administration, has primarily to do with contracting-out and grants to sub-governments.</p><p>　　As was

16、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]</p>

17、<p><b>　　Where:</b></p><p>　　O = Outputs/outcomes. The end product of a governance regime.</p><p>　　E = Environmental factors. These can include political structures, levels o

18、f</p><p>　　authority, economic performance, the presence or absence of competition among suppliers, resource levels and dependencies, legal framework, and the characteristics of a target population.</p>

19、;<p>　　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 inc

20、lude organizational missions and objectives, recruitment and eligibility criteria, methods fro determining eligibility, and program treatments or technologies.</p><p>　　S = Structures. These include organiza

21、tional 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 alloc

22、ations, contractual arrangements or relationships, and institutional culture and values.</p><p>　　M = Managerial roles and actions. This includes leadership characteristics, staff- management relations, comm

23、unications, methods of decision-making, professional/career concerns, and mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.</p><p>　　The problem is that it is difficult, following Lynn, Heinrich, and Hi

24、ll, 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 s

25、tudying 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 c</p>

26、;<p>　　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 admi

27、nistration 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 o

28、f the organization and management of the territorial state or jurisdiction</p><p>　　The second implication of the critique is that governance theorists persist in looking for an all-pervasive pattern of orga

29、nizational and administrative behavior, a "general 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 an

30、d the empirical testing of theory in public administration, no such pattern has been found (Frederickson and Smith 2003). Does the governance concept beguile a generat</p><p>　　Constructing a Viable Concept

31、of Governance for Public Administration </p><p>　　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 wo

32、rld, 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

33、 meaning. Social and economic problems and challenges are seldom contained within jurisdictional boundaries, and systems of</p><p>　　The lessons learned in the evolution of regime theory in international rel

34、ations are relevant here because regime theory predates governance theory and because the two are very nearly the same thing.</p><p>　　Summing-Up</p><p>　　From its prominence in the 1980s, regim

35、e 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

36、 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-sta

37、te. In public adminis</p><p>　　Government in the postmodern state involves multiple levels of interlocked and overlapping arenas of collective policy implementation. Governments now operate in the context of

38、 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

39、is the best description of the management of the transformed or postmodern state (Sorensen 2004) Nationh</p><p>　　Harlan Cleveland understood very early how governments, economies and communities were changi

40、ng 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 mo

41、del still serves as a compelling argument for plural, interjurisdictional, and interorganizational mediated decision-making networks of public executives operating in the context of blurr</p><p><b>　　譯

42、文</b></p><p>　　公共管理究竟發(fā)生了什么變化?治理無(wú)處不在</p><p><b>　　喬治?弗雷德里克森</b></p><p>　　在過(guò)去的至少15年里，公共行政的治理問(wèn)題一直是學(xué)術(shù)界研究的一個(gè)突出的主題。治理是由林恩、海因里希和希爾所定義的，即“政權(quán)、法律、規(guī)則、司法判決和行政實(shí)踐，它們約束、規(guī)定和提供了公共服務(wù)

43、，公共行政領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者對(duì)之始終持有濃厚的興趣。本章回顧和評(píng)估了公共行政領(lǐng)域治理概念的進(jìn)化和發(fā)展。然后，從國(guó)際關(guān)系的研究制度理論出發(fā)，將治理理論的概念引入公共管理中。</p><p>　　目前對(duì)治理概念的學(xué)術(shù)和概念上的使用，往往有一個(gè)或以下多個(gè)形式：(1)盡管是在不同的語(yǔ)言中，治理實(shí)質(zhì)上已經(jīng)形成了自己的概念，就如同樣公共行政一樣；(2)它本質(zhì)上是塑造公共管理實(shí)踐的影響方面的研究，而不是公共行政方面的研究；(3)它是跨

44、行政區(qū)域關(guān)系的以及第三方公共管理政策實(shí)施方面的研究；</p><p>　　(4)它是跨行政區(qū)域的公眾集體力量或影響的研究。</p><p>　　哈倫克利夫蘭第一次使用“治理”一詞代替公共管理這個(gè)詞。在20世紀(jì)70年代中期，在克利夫蘭的特別體貼和煽動(dòng)性的、論文、書(shū)籍和演講主題之一是這樣的:“人們想要的是更少的政府和管理”(1972)。他所說(shuō)的就是治理這一概念的核心內(nèi)容。</p>

45、<p>　　羅茲于2000年的研究，發(fā)現(xiàn)了公共管理領(lǐng)域治理的七個(gè)方面的應(yīng)用:新公共管理或管理主義；良好的治理，在效率、透明度、精英政治和公平；國(guó)際和跨行政區(qū)域的相互依賴(lài)；非政府形式的社會(huì)力量驅(qū)動(dòng)的治理；新的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)，包括：服務(wù)條款和網(wǎng)絡(luò)。還有很多治理方面的應(yīng)用，但這些都是一些說(shuō)的比較寬泛的概念、想法和與之相關(guān)的理論。</p><p>　　關(guān)于治理的概念，治理作為公共行政的同義詞，有許多定義。而凱特爾認(rèn)

46、為，政府和治理之間有很大的差距。“政府指的是公共機(jī)構(gòu)的結(jié)構(gòu)和功能。治理則是政府工作的方式。</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)上來(lái)說(shuō)，政府自身承擔(dān)著很多的公共服務(wù)。然而，在二十世紀(jì)末期，政府越來(lái)越多地依賴(lài)于非政府伙伴，與其合作，讓其幫助政府做工作。從而，公共服務(wù)的提供更少地依賴(lài)政府的權(quán)威控制”。凱特爾認(rèn)為，治理，作為公共管理的一個(gè)方法，主要就是將很多職能外包給附屬組織或社會(huì)組織，合作完成對(duì)社會(huì)的治理。</p>

47、<p>　　就像之前所說(shuō)的：林恩、海因里希、希爾，都從更大的視角來(lái)分析治理框架。他們分析模型，打算從以下幾點(diǎn)展開(kāi)，他們是:O=f(E、C、T、S、M]</p><p><b>　　這里：</b></p><p>　　O=輸出/結(jié)果。治理機(jī)制的最終產(chǎn)品。</p><p>　　E=環(huán)境因素。包括政治結(jié)構(gòu)、經(jīng)濟(jì)績(jī)效、供應(yīng)商之間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、資源

48、水平和依賴(lài)關(guān)系、法律框架、目標(biāo)人群的特征等。</p><p>　　C=客戶(hù)的特征。客戶(hù)的屬性、特征和行為。</p><p>　　T=治療。這是工作或組織內(nèi)部治理機(jī)制的主要核心流程。它們包括組織的任務(wù)和目標(biāo)、招聘和資格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、確定資格的方法、治療方法或技術(shù)。</p><p>　　S=結(jié)構(gòu)。包括組織類(lèi)型、組織之間的協(xié)調(diào)和治理制度的集成，集中控制的相對(duì)程度、功能分化、行政法

49、規(guī)或激勵(lì)、預(yù)算分配、合同安排或關(guān)系、制度文化和價(jià)值觀(guān)。</p><p>　　M=管理角色和行動(dòng)。這包括領(lǐng)導(dǎo)特征、員工管理關(guān)系、通信、決策方法、專(zhuān)業(yè)/職業(yè)問(wèn)題、監(jiān)控機(jī)制、控制和問(wèn)責(zé)制。</p><p>　　問(wèn)題是，按照林恩、海因里希和希爾的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，任何涉及政府、政治、或政府不作為的設(shè)想都是很困難的。似乎沒(méi)有區(qū)別研究整個(gè)政府和政治和公共行政研究這幾個(gè)范疇。換句話(huà)說(shuō)，公共管理通常被認(rèn)為與“治療”、

50、“結(jié)構(gòu)”和“管理”有關(guān)的。他們主要是從公共行政治理的大背景下來(lái)說(shuō)的。</p><p>　　公共行政治理的概念反映了這一領(lǐng)域長(zhǎng)期存在的理論爭(zhēng)論，政治、政策執(zhí)行或管理之間概念的區(qū)分問(wèn)題。容易導(dǎo)致簡(jiǎn)單的政治與行政二分法，尤其是憲法和政治環(huán)境下的一些治理理論。從這個(gè)角度看，治理成為舵，公共管理成為槳?？梢赃@樣理解，公共管理是政府外包出去的工作，我們將治理作為研究的主題。盡管我們知道，雖然政治、政策和政府之間的界定往往是模

51、糊和變化的，嚴(yán)格地說(shuō)，不能簡(jiǎn)單地將政治和行政一分為二，然而重要的要理解政治和行政之間的實(shí)際區(qū)別。對(duì)公共部門(mén)管理和組織治理概念的解釋?zhuān)兄谕七M(jìn)我們的理解。治理的概念，簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，就是改變了公共管理的主題，而不是政治和政策的制定。畢竟，民主政府是民選官員來(lái)管理。由官僚來(lái)管理、負(fù)責(zé)職能或治理，但在民主政治這些角色和責(zé)任不同于民選官員的角色和職責(zé)。珍妮特·紐曼說(shuō):“良好治理”和“良好的政府管理”能夠解決政府角色和治理之間的矛盾”。杜絕

52、官僚主義，并且以一個(gè)新的方式來(lái)管理，即良好的治理,奧斯本倡導(dǎo)的一系列管理特權(quán)，大大影響到政府的決策特權(quán)。</p><p>　　治理理論家堅(jiān)持尋找一個(gè)全面的組織和行政行為的模式,“一個(gè)通用型理論”，將提供一個(gè)解釋過(guò)去和預(yù)測(cè)未來(lái)的一種手段。盡管基于理論和公共行政理論的實(shí)證研究，已經(jīng)積累了數(shù)十年的研究經(jīng)驗(yàn)，但是到現(xiàn)在，也沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣的模式(瓦萊利和史密斯2003)。整整一代的學(xué)者們都探索治理的概念，他們的研究工作是徒勞

53、的嗎?</p><p>　　構(gòu)建一個(gè)可行的治理概念。雖然對(duì)治理概念的批判給理論界帶來(lái)了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的挑戰(zhàn)，但它的概念真的是無(wú)用嗎?答案是否定的。世界上有很多強(qiáng)有力的機(jī)構(gòu)都在研究傳統(tǒng)的政治、政府，而對(duì)公共行政卻研究不多。社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題的挑戰(zhàn)很少包含司法權(quán)限中，因此很少有人去關(guān)注治理問(wèn)題。當(dāng)前，經(jīng)濟(jì)日益趨于區(qū)域化和全球化。商業(yè)精英們擁有多個(gè)子公司，運(yùn)營(yíng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)遍及各地。州和地區(qū)政府因此，將他們的大部分的組織和管理權(quán)力，都外包

54、給社會(huì)上的合作組織。但對(duì)于治理，還是要對(duì)外界對(duì)它的批判作出回應(yīng)。要做到這一點(diǎn)，學(xué)者們必須在對(duì)治理的概念界定上達(dá)成一致。要做出一個(gè)足以解釋這一社會(huì)力量的定義。治理理論涉及的內(nèi)容，必須要先做好解釋什么是治理這一基本問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　國(guó)際關(guān)系制度理論的演變相關(guān)的知識(shí)，制度理論雖然早于治理理論，但是兩者幾乎是一樣的。在20世紀(jì)80年代，制度理論現(xiàn)在被描述為許多重要的國(guó)際關(guān)系理論之一。當(dāng)然，國(guó)際關(guān)系是民族國(guó)家之間

55、的關(guān)系的研究，而公共管理則是國(guó)家及其附屬社會(huì)組織內(nèi)部管理的研究。這也可以這樣說(shuō)，制度理論涉及到社會(huì)組織和企業(yè)家在現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家的轉(zhuǎn)型中的作用。在公共管理領(lǐng)域中，可以說(shuō)國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代化轉(zhuǎn)型及其與社會(huì)組織的合作共同管理，很好地解釋了治理的理論概念。制度理論和治理理論都是學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)型國(guó)家的理論上的回應(yīng)和探索。</p><p>　　政府的后現(xiàn)代狀態(tài)涉及實(shí)施公共政策的多個(gè)層次。政府現(xiàn)在處于國(guó)際化、跨國(guó)合作化的復(fù)雜背景下，政府和社

56、會(huì)組織權(quán)力分享，并且相互依賴(lài)。因此，現(xiàn)在可以知道，公共管理作為一種治理，是對(duì)政府角色轉(zhuǎn)換和后現(xiàn)代狀態(tài)的最好描述。國(guó)家和社區(qū)組織正不斷開(kāi)展合作，達(dá)到一個(gè)共同治理的最佳狀態(tài)。主要經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)現(xiàn)在可以嵌入到跨境網(wǎng)絡(luò)這一環(huán)境中，國(guó)家和當(dāng)?shù)亟?jīng)濟(jì)不再需要像以往那樣，需要自己提供了（索倫森2004)。</p><p>　　哈倫·克利夫蘭第一次使用“治理”一詞代替公共管理這個(gè)詞。他對(duì)早期政府、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社區(qū)是如何逐步轉(zhuǎn)變的有者

57、很清晰的理解。他最初將的公共管理描述為治理活動(dòng)，之后不斷地按照該領(lǐng)域治理的理論和實(shí)踐的現(xiàn)實(shí)變化調(diào)整其概念。他的治理模型至今仍然讓人信服，跨行政區(qū)域和組織間的協(xié)調(diào)決策，合作共治。治理，作為公共管理的一個(gè)方法，主要就是將很多職能外包給附屬組織或社會(huì)組織，合作完成對(duì)社會(huì)的治理。公共和私人組織之間的界限正日益模糊?？死蛱m的研究，使得治理這個(gè)詞的逐漸流行，而獲得高度的認(rèn)可。在一些治理理論與實(shí)踐發(fā)展的不是很好的國(guó)家，其國(guó)內(nèi)很多的學(xué)者都缺乏足夠的研