公共管理外文文獻翻譯（節選）

1、<p>　　1900單詞，1.1萬英文字符，中文3030字</p><p>　　文獻出處：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 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>　　公共管理究竟發生了什么變化?治理無處不在</p><p><b>　　喬治?弗雷德里克森</b></p><p>　　在過去的至少15年里，公共行政的治理問題一直是學術界研究的一個突出的主題。治理是由林恩、海因里希和希爾所定義的，即“政權、法律、規則、司法判決和行政實踐，它們約束、規定和提供了公共服務

43、，公共行政領域的學者對之始終持有濃厚的興趣。本章回顧和評估了公共行政領域治理概念的進化和發展。然后，從國際關系的研究制度理論出發，將治理理論的概念引入公共管理中。</p><p>　　目前對治理概念的學術和概念上的使用，往往有一個或以下多個形式：(1)盡管是在不同的語言中，治理實質上已經形成了自己的概念，就如同樣公共行政一樣；(2)它本質上是塑造公共管理實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、行政區域關系的以及第三方公共管理政策實施方面的研究；</p><p>　　(4)它是跨行政區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詞。在20世紀70年代中期，在克利夫蘭的特別體貼和煽動性的、論文、書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)。他所說的就是治理這一概念的核心內容。</p>

45、<p>　　羅茲于2000年的研究，發現了公共管理領域治理的七個方面的應用: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；國際和跨行政區域的相互依賴；非政府形式的社會力量驅動的治理；新的政治經濟，包括：服務條款和網絡。還有很多治理方面的應用，但這些都是一些說的比較寬泛的概念、想法和與之相關的理論。</p><p>　　關于治理的概念，治理作為公共行政的同義詞，有許多定義。而凱特爾認

46、為，政府和治理之間有很大的差距?！罢傅氖枪矙C構的結構和功能。治理則是政府工作的方式。</p><p>　　傳統上來說，政府自身承擔著很多的公共服務。然而，在二十世紀末期，政府越來越多地依賴于非政府伙伴，與其合作，讓其幫助政府做工作。從而，公共服務的提供更少地依賴政府的權威控制”。凱特爾認為，治理，作為公共管理的一個方法，主要就是將很多職能外包給附屬組織或社會組織，合作完成對社會的治理。</p>

47、<p>　　就像之前所說的：林恩、海因里希、希爾，都從更大的視角來分析治理框架。他們分析模型，打算從以下幾點展開，他們是:O=f(E、C、T、S、M]</p><p><b>　　這里：</b></p><p>　　O=輸出/結果。治理機制的最終產品。</p><p>　　E=環境因素。包括政治結構、經濟績效、供應商之間的競爭、資源

48、水平和依賴關系、法律框架、目標人群的特征等。</p><p>　　C=客戶的特征?？蛻舻膶傩?、特征和行為。</p><p>　　T=治療。這是工作或組織內部治理機制的主要核心流程。它們包括組織的任務和目標、招聘和資格標準、確定資格的方法、治療方法或技術。</p><p>　　S=結構。包括組織類型、組織之間的協調和治理制度的集成，集中控制的相對程度、功能分化、行政法

49、規或激勵、預算分配、合同安排或關系、制度文化和價值觀。</p><p>　　M=管理角色和行動。這包括領導特征、員工管理關系、通信、決策方法、專業/職業問題、監控機制、控制和問責制。</p><p>　　問題是，按照林恩、海因里希和希爾的觀點，任何涉及政府、政治、或政府不作為的設想都是很困難的。似乎沒有區別研究整個政府和政治和公共行政研究這幾個范疇。換句話說，公共管理通常被認為與“治療”、

50、“結構”和“管理”有關的。他們主要是從公共行政治理的大背景下來說的。</p><p>　　公共行政治理的概念反映了這一領域長期存在的理論爭論，政治、政策執行或管理之間概念的區分問題。容易導致簡單的政治與行政二分法，尤其是憲法和政治環境下的一些治理理論。從這個角度看，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，嚴格地說，不能簡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際區別。對公共部門管理和組織治理概念的解釋，有助于推進我們的理解。治理的概念，簡單地說，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管理。由官僚來管理、負責職能或治理，但在民主政治這些角色和責任不同于民選官員的角色和職責。珍妮特·紐曼說:“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，并且以一個新的方式來管理，即良好的治理,奧斯本倡導的一系列管理特權，大大影響到政府的決策特權。</p><p>　　治理理論家堅持尋找一個全面的組織和行政行為的模式,“一個通用型理論”，將提供一個解釋過去和預測未來的一種手段。盡管基于理論和公共行政理論的實證研究，已經積累了數十年的研究經驗，但是到現在，也沒有發現這樣的模式(瓦萊利和史密斯2003)。整整一代的學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>　　構建一個可行的治理概念。雖然對治理概念的批判給理論界帶來了一個嚴重的挑戰，但它的概念真的是無用嗎?答案是否定的。世界上有很多強有力的機構都在研究傳統的政治、政府，而對公共行政卻研究不多。社會和經濟問題的挑戰很少包含司法權限中，因此很少有人去關注治理問題。當前，經濟日益趨于區域化和全球化。商業精英們擁有多個子公司，運營網絡遍及各地。州和地區政府因此，將他們的大部分的組織和管理權力，都外包

54、給社會上的合作組織。但對于治理，還是要對外界對它的批判作出回應。要做到這一點，學者們必須在對治理的概念界定上達成一致。要做出一個足以解釋這一社會力量的定義。治理理論涉及的內容，必須要先做好解釋什么是治理這一基本問題。</p><p>　　國際關系制度理論的演變相關的知識，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80年代，制度理論現在被描述為許多重要的國際關系理論之一。當然，國際關系是民族國家之間

55、的關系的研究，而公共管理則是國家及其附屬社會組織內部管理的研究。這也可以這樣說，制度理論涉及到社會組織和企業家在現代民族國家的轉型中的作用。在公共管理領域中，可以說國家的現代化轉型及其與社會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術界對轉型國家的理論上的回應和探索。</p><p>　　政府的后現代狀態涉及實施公共政策的多個層次。政府現在處于國際化、跨國合作化的復雜背景下，政府和社

56、會組織權力分享，并且相互依賴。因此，現在可以知道，公共管理作為一種治理，是對政府角色轉換和后現代狀態的最好描述。國家和社區組織正不斷開展合作，達到一個共同治理的最佳狀態。主要經濟活動現在可以嵌入到跨境網絡這一環境中，國家和當地經濟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詞。他對早期政府、經濟和社區是如何逐步轉變的有者

57、很清晰的理解。他最初將的公共管理描述為治理活動，之后不斷地按照該領域治理的理論和實踐的現實變化調整其概念。他的治理模型至今仍然讓人信服，跨行政區域和組織間的協調決策，合作共治。治理，作為公共管理的一個方法，主要就是將很多職能外包給附屬組織或社會組織，合作完成對社會的治理。公共和私人組織之間的界限正日益模糊?？死蛱m的研究，使得治理這個詞的逐漸流行，而獲得高度的認可。在一些治理理論與實踐發展的不是很好的國家，其國內很多的學者都缺乏足夠的研