1、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 itself. 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 precise 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。These include making s
2、aving (economies) in public expenditure, improving the quality of public services, making the operation of government more efficient, and increasing the chances that the policies which are chosen 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
3、 to achieving these important objectives, public management reform may also serve a number of intermediate ends, including those of strengthening the control of politicians over the bureaucracy, freeing public officials1 from bureaucratic constrains which inhibit their opportunities to manage and en
4、hance the governments 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 managem
5、ent reform. 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 these benefits consist partly of being seem 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 services for the future, restructuring
6、ministries and agenciesall these 1 公务员、国家公职人员、政府官员activities help to attract favorable attention to the politicians who espouse2 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 cynic3 might observe that, in these days when the power of individual governments to act
7、 independently is increasingly called into questions4 by a complex interplay of local, national and international constrains, the one thing that ministers usually can dowith the appearance of dynamism5 but at little immediate costis to announce changes in their own machinery6 of governance. 一个愤世嫉俗的人
8、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 those senior officials who, almost invariably, play important parts in shaping and implementing such initiatives. They may gain in reputation by association w
9、ith “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 services and more effective programs, and if it will simultaneously enhance pol
10、itical control, free managers to manage, make government more transparent and boost7 the images of those ministers and mandarins8 most involved, then it is little wonder that it has been widely trumpeted9. 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、2 支持、赞成、信奉3 玩世不恭者、愤世嫉俗者、好挖苦人的人、好嘲笑的人4 对表示怀疑、认为有问题、对表示异议、非难、怀疑、质疑
11、5 活力6 机械、机构、机制7 促进、增加、提高、改善、宣传8 国语、官话、满清官吏、旧中国的官员、官僚9 吹喇叭、吹嘘更高效的政府，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
12、may fail to produce the claimed benefits. 它们可能无法产生那些宣称的好处。They may even generate perverse10 effects that render the relevant administrative progresses worse (in some important senses) 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” (domesti
13、c care) service for elderly and disabled people is reshaped along quasi-market lines, with a split between the authority purchasing the service and the providing it, we may consider this a typical “reform”. 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
14、, however, we discover that the contract drawn up for the service is 700 pages long and that the actual service provided seems to have changed very little in either quality or quantity, then doubt sets in11. 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 b
15、etween 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 respec
16、t 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10 堕落的、不正当的、违反常情的、有悖常理的、不合人意的、不当的11 来临、开始、到来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-offs12 and
17、 dilemmas are exceedingly common in administrative change, so that the achievement of one or two particular ends might well be “paid for” by a lowered performance in other respects: “rule over specialized decision makers in a bureaucracy is maintained by selective crackdowns13 on one goal at a time,
18、 steering the equilibriumwithout ever acknowledging that tightening up on one criterion implies slackening off14 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 servants
19、to more effective political supervision and control, can we simultaneously gift15 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 down16 a clearer, simpler framework of rules within which managers can “get creative
20、”. 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”。The skeptic17 will say no, pointing to survey evidence that the managers themselves think that political “leave well alone”18 in politically sensitive operations such as social security, health care, education or the prison service. 怀疑主义者则会大摇其头，他们
21、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。12 权衡、取舍、交易、妥协13 镇压、制裁、强制取缔、惩罚14 放慢、松劲15 赋予、给予、向赠送16 制定、放下、铺设、主张、打赌17 怀疑者、怀疑论者、无神论者18 不要画蛇添足、不要弄巧成拙、不要去管In any case, public management reform is only one way to achieve most of the desirable19 ends identified in the first paragraph. 不管怎样，公共管理改革只是达
22、到第一段中所提到的期望目标的手段之一。To be adequate20, 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
23、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政策创新联系在一起。Comparing administrative developments in a number of countries one academic observed recently: “Administrative reform is a subject of all policy performance, not a separable set 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
24、”。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 exa
25、mple of New Zealandwhich combined management reforms with fundamental changes in both macroeconomic policies and, later, the electoral systemwas alluded to21 in our introduction. 改善政府表现的其他途径包括政治改革（例如选举体系或立法程序的改变）以及关键政策的实质性变革（例如新的宏观经济管理政策，劳动力市场改革，或社会政策的根本性的改变）。本书导言中提到过新西兰的案例，在这个案例中新西兰把管理改革同宏观经济政策以及选举
26、制度的根本改变组合在一起。19 令人满意的、值得要的、合意的、称心的20 足够的、不言而喻的、令人满意的、足以担任21 提到、提及、谈到To make matters more complicated still, there is, as commentators have noticed, a delay which affects a good deal of public management reform. The full benefits of major changes in the processes and structures of public agencies nor
27、mally cannot be harvested until three, four, five or even more years after a reform programs has been launched. To begin with, new legislation might well be needed. Then will be necessary to analyze status quo, and subsequently to design, formulate, and refine22 new operating procedures, train staff
28、 how to work with them, define new roles and the appropriate reward and appraisal system, set new measurement systems in place, inform service users and other stakeholders, and work hard to reduce the anxiety all novelties23 have probably caused, both among users and among staff. But this is not the
29、 kind of timescale that most senior politicians are comfortable with. Their focus is more intensely short-term: on the next election, the next government reshuffle, or even todays television news. The searchlight of political attention moves about from one issue to another much more quickly than com
30、plex organizational change can be accomplished between the politicians need for “something to show now” and the organization reforms need for time, commitment and continuity has probably grown as a result of the general intensification and acceleration of political process in many western democracie
31、s.许多评论人士注意到，使情况变得更复杂的还有改革的滞后性，这种滞后性影响到许多公共管理改革。公共部门程序和结构的重大变化所产生的全部效果一般要在改革计划启动后的 3 年、4 年、5 年甚至更晚才能获得。首先，改革需要新的立法。然后需要对现状进行分析，而后则要设计、形成和修改（重新定义）（设计、阐明、精炼；设计、制定和改进）新的操作程序，还要训练人员按程序操作，明确新角色，确定合适的奖励和评价体系，制定恰当的评估（测评、监测、测量）制度，通知服务的使用者和利益相关者，还要努力减少所有这些创新可能在使用者和工作者中引起的焦虑。但这却不是大多数高层政治22 精炼、提炼、改善23 新奇、新奇的事务、创新家乐意接受的时间表。他们关心更短期的效果：下一次选举，下一届政府的改组，甚至当天的电视新闻。政治注意力的焦点从一个事项到另一个事项的变化周期要比复杂的组织变化能够完成的目标快得多。虽说情况总是如此，但政治家对于“现在就能展示点什么”的需要和组织改革者需要时间、努力和持续性之间的矛盾却总是产生，这也许正是许多西方民主国家政治过程强化和加速的产物。
