毕业设计(论文)外文参考资料及译文-公共管理创新：社区知识的作用和功能.doc

毕 业 设 计（论 文）外 文 参 考 资 料 及 译 文译文题目： 公共管理创新：社区知识的作用和功能 学生姓名： 周 蓉 学 号： 0921405046 专 业： 行 政 管 理 所在学院： 龙 蟠 学 院 指导教师： 周 璐 职 称： 讲 师 2011年 3 月 23 日 公共管理创新: 社区知识的作用和功能 迈克尔亚当斯和大卫赫斯摘要： 新公共管理(NPM)变革正受到在公共管理中重新注重社会因素的理念和实践的挑战。新公共管理倾向于在社区中使用市场手段，而社区基础知识是制定公共政策和开展公共管理的依据，本文介绍了澳大利亚在平衡这两方面的一些经验。关键词: 创新、地方、地区、知识、公共管理在公共管理的当今世界里，那里一直是一个与决策相关的多类型知识的竞赛。 例如，过去20年的新公共管理的焦点，基本上在来自于作为主要的知识来源的市场来源的优越的专业知识。这反映在几乎所有的招聘的重点（对管理人员，会计师和经济学家）公共部门方面，通过被视为解决相关问题（用户选择/用者自付）策略类型，来实施和提供服务的工具（合同和竞争性投标）。这种想法和手段是在新公共管理下的规范的状况下实现的，尽管他们相对狭窄的知识基础，应用于和经济、社会和环境政策一样多种多样的领域。新公共管理的想法和做法是增加效率下产生的，它们的支配这些阶段的期间里，在生产力“外表”下的全面增长是重要的。不利条件的新形式的出现，不管怎样，许多论述是从政策和管理领域被阻止的。在这篇文章中，我们集中在社区知识的想法和做法上进行排除和复苏。这种知识不仅刚刚出现在公共管理文献上，而且出现在经济“集群理论”上，（波特，2000;佛罗里达州，2003年）和地理的新区域主义（库克和Morgan，1998）。 基本上这些理论都是集中在当地区域网络和他们对创新、安宁、繁荣的动态贡献的重要意义。发挥作用的关键因素包括地方领导、体制能力、信任关系、历史和叙事的重要性、局域网数据、网络关系和在社会、经济、自然和人力资源之间的互相依赖的一个认可。这些改变不会清除掉新公共管理也不是他们可能能清除的。相反，他们被嫁接到新公共管理的想法和手段上。这种嫁接的一个简单的例子是从合同到公共私营伙伴关系上看到的，新公共管理的外壳是在合同的使用上看到的，但社会价值的元素这个因素也可能被包括进去。当这种想法和做法现在进入缺乏改革前浪的整体的新公共管理或者不是，例如，有一个反映一个连贯信条的单一的朗朗上口的标题，他们正对政府的实践产生了深刻的影响。我们对于这种说法，至少暂时，作为一个根本的变化是双重的。首先是基础的概念，这是合法化的变化，都不同于他们所取代的那些。这个概念就是说现在的变化要超过增量的改革。他们包含在公共区域活动的一系列新的含义的建立和它适合融入社会的方式。这种变化是支撑于本体的一系列认识论的变化。不仅是在当代公共管理上被使用的新知识，而且被官僚改革前浪所分享的外面的实证主义者知识体系所创造。这种改变是被看见什么被作为适当的知识，那种知识是怎样被定值，那种知识如何被框架起来，这表明可能代表新趋势的一种改变。在当代公共管理上的基本改变的第二个元素指示有一个更熟悉的特质。这就是新概念是证明在启发公共政策及管理棘手的问题已被证明不受强大的传统的理解和手段。这是一个比较熟悉的变化的类型，因为它是出现在政策落实问题上的一个回答。正如新公共管理费用是对传统官僚体制的低效率提高认识，所以对当代的努力响应（重新）包括社会因素可能被视为是在新公共管理中看到的赤字结果响应。当代发展超越如此反应的动态是他们反映现代增长的复杂性的一种方式，例如为许多社区和真正国家情形的自由自在的一流的创造的不确定性。在这里，经济和社会因素相结合的新兴的公共政策试图揭示同时着眼于全球和超越的方式，作为政策实施公共管理的概念去当地的民族国家机构。改变政府工作的方法到了1980年代的年底以市场为导向的民主国家的政府，通过重组的方式转移到他们的业务上。华丽的语言是通过有关削减繁琐规则，使官僚机构更有效和包容在一个商业化的方式和手段有效的市场价值。英国在撒切尔这个被定性为（胡德和杰克逊，1991年，第105页）威斯敏斯特模范。在国际上的三个目标是可辨认的。首先这新公共管理（NPM）试图削弱国家的作用，使政治领袖更能适应。其次，目的是通过私营部门的管理技术的使用来提高效率。第三，它把重点放在作为客户和服务接受者的公民（奥科，1990年，第16页）。理论概念的基础是公共选择和围绕市场导向定位新的做法。商业化，公司化，私营化，竞争性招标，承包出去，基准测试，输出为基础的预算，权责发生制会计和战略资产管理，成为公共部门活动的新的语言。在80年代后期，澳大利亚政府和政治上保守的维多利亚政府接受新公共管理，大多数的基本的接近新公共管理来获得教科书的地位作为“合同陈述” （奥尔福德和奥尼尔，1994年）。理解故障线的关键是，之后出现在新公共管理的落实上，它在理论水平上的失败使得其它的必需品在新自由主经济学制造空档。在澳大利亚国内的新公共管理的顶点是国家竞争政策（NCP），那些看到了实现无可比拟的政策制度和履行过程。这在最次要的，在最坏的门面作用上有效地降级非经济问题，如协调，公平，代表性，政治责任和协商。 随着积极的成果而来的是一系列赤字政策，尤其是在要求经济和其它想法的平衡的区域。在其它地方，我们已经考虑过在政策中的这一影响，通过集中在政策利益想法的过渡（赫斯和亚当斯，2003）。而公众利益总是在目前的NCP过程，它通常出现作为正式文件在倒数第二段的言论和实践中消失了，因为不像新公共管理决策的其他因素，不能轻易地衡量。我们在这一问题上的争论一直认为一个总体把握非党派利益概念的损失对公共管理者解决当代的难题已经非常困难。在国际上，关于对所谓的极端问题这是最清楚的，这需要在一系列政策领域的反应。不管怎样，这也是成为一个领域的问题，其中新公共管理是由围绕狭窄的专业范围的集中政策影响下产生的。在实践中普遍认为这是在已经有讽刺的效果，考虑到小政府集中在逐渐削弱的制约和传统官僚主义的平衡的公共部门活动。即使新公共管理宣扬小政府，中央部门，如首相，内阁总理，财政部和财政部，金融，不断增长的规模和影响力，因为他们已经拥有在其成员的需要为最佳实践的专业知识员工，承建商或顾问。这是在这种权力和知识上的一种方式，以考虑替代性政策和实施办法的困难。我们以前曾认为，在澳大利亚的政策和经济优势，90年代末期以来的（重新）社区概念的出现融合成为一个强大的公众意见（亚当斯和Hess，2001）。在澳大利公共政策上这不是一个新想法，并且它重复了在1972年到75年工党政府澳大利亚援助计划，被提议社会参与作为在当地环境上的政府定位的一种方法。20世纪90年代中后期不同的是，与占主导地位的政治保守主义政策反映了社会各界使用一套新的优先事项。对过去注重再分配的活动已转移到（在总理霍华德的话）的混合.它结合了自由主义的经济政策和. “现代保守主义”的社会政策为相辅相成元素（霍华德，1999年）。然而在实践中，政府已经找到了很难罢工的平衡指着一个倾向，强调预算救济和咨询社区参与，而不是真正的批评者（公共政策论坛，1997年; ACOSS，1998）。在本世纪斗争结束时，使社会上的社会过程的实践部分仍然继续着。我们曾认为，一个不加批判的急于以社区为基础的做法冒着成为时尚的另一项政策，几乎没有实际的好处的危险（亚当斯和Hess，2002年，第21页）。该解决方案，我们觉得，是一个更周到的方法，它承担了明显的学习曲线中的应急的解决方案，是拒绝了认真的审议意见的想法，以及他们如何可能做出的工作。考虑良好的政策知识基础的改变将会成为这种努力的中心方面。经济知识已经成为在新公共管理下如此的重要，因此这是不容置疑的功能。这是由两种困难造成的。首先是那些出现在其它知识结构考虑的排除。第二个，是与经济知识的实证基础。我们的认识论的论点是，历史上运用公共管理理念和起源于知识框架和相对稳定的意义的使用手段所引起（赫斯和亚当斯，2002年）。它们随着时间缓慢改变着，和社会标准概念支撑和管理活动合法化有着密切的关系。在20世纪90年代新公共管理特权功能知识主要来自经济管理，推入背景等知识框架。这与过去的变化是一致的，只要它继续依赖于由专家提供的知识。然而在这个时期，越来越多的专业知识逐渐来自于以外的模式与私营部门和企业提供许多新的想法和做事的方式管理自己。尽管如此，知识是仍然要寻求的东西，一旦发现，由在其中的专家来提供，或当地政府部门制定的。资料来源:迈克尔亚当斯和大卫赫斯.社区知识的作用和功能.EB/OL. /intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan031977.pdfInnovation in Public Management: The role and function of community knowledge Michael Hess and David Adams Professors, Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania. Contact: Michael.H.au or David.A.auInnovation in Public Management: the role and function of community knowledge Michael Hess and David Adams Abstract The New Public Management (NPM) revolution is being challenged by ideas and practices (re)establishing a focus on social factors in public administration. This paper presents some Australian experience of the move to balance the market instruments of NPM by bringing community oriented instruments and community based knowledge upon which these depend into public policy and management. Key Words: innovation, community, locality, knowledge, public management In the day-to-day world of public management there always has been and there remains a contest over the types of knowledge that are relevant to decision making. For example the NPM focus of the past 20 years essentially privileged expertise from market sources as the dominant knowledge source. This was reflected in almost all aspects of the public sector from recruitment focus (towards managers and accountants and economists), through the types of strategies deemed relevant to address problems (user choice/user pays), to the instruments of implementation and service delivery (contracts and competitive tendering). Such ideas and instruments achieved normative status under NPM and, despite their relatively narrow knowledge base, were applied across the board to areas as varied as economic, social and environmental policy. The ideas and practice of the NPM produced increased efficiency and during the period of their dominance overall increases in productivity externalities were significant. New forms of disadvantage arose, however, and many discourses were excluded from the policy and management arena. In this article we concentrate on the exclusion and revival of ideas and practices from community knowledge. This knowledge is re-emerging not just in the public administration literature but also in economics cluster theory (Porter, 2000; Florida, 2003) and in geographys new regionalism (Cooke and Morgan, 1998). Essentially these theories all have a focus on the significance of local area networks and their dynamic contribution to innovation, wellbeing and prosperity. The key factors at play include local leadership; institutional capacity; trust relations; the significance of history and narratives; local area data; network relations and a recognition of interdependence between the worlds of social, economic, natural and human capital. These changes are not sweeping away the NPM nor are they likely to. Instead they are being grafted onto the NPM ideas and instruments. A straightforward example of this grafting is seen in the shift from contracts to Public Private Partnerships where the shell of NPM is seen in the use of the contract but the elements of social value may also be factored in. While these ideas and practices now entering public management lack the unity of previous waves of reform and do not, for instance, have a single catchy title to reflect a coherent dogma, they are having a profound impact on the practice of government. Our argument for regarding this, tentatively at least, as a fundamental change is twofold. First the underpinning concepts, which are legitimizing the changes, are so different from those they are superseding. The implication of this is that the current changes go beyond incremental reform. They involve the establishment of a new set of meanings in public sector activity and the way in which it fits into society. This ontological change is underpinned by a series of epistemological changes. Not only is new knowledge being used in contemporary public administration but it is being created outside the positivist knowledge framework shared by previous waves of bureaucratic reform. It is this change in what is being seen as appropriate knowledge, in how that knowledge is being given value and in how that knowledge is being framed which indicates just how profound a change the new trends may represent. The second element indicative of a fundamental shift in contemporary public administration has a more familiar quality. It is that the new concepts are proving powerful in illuminating intractable issues of public policy and management which have proven impervious to orthodox understandings and instruments. This is a more familiar type of change because it is a response to problems arising in the implementation of policy. Just as NPM was a response to perceptions of the increasing inefficiency of traditional bureaucracy so the contemporary efforts to (re-) include social factors may be seen as a response to deficits in NPM outcomes. Where the contemporary developments go beyond such reactive dynamics is in the way they reflect the increasing complexity of modernity such as footloose capital creating uncertainty for many communities and indeed nation states. Here the combination of economic and social considerations emerging in public policy reveal attempts to simultaneously focus on the global and the local in ways which go beyond the concept of public administration as policy implementation by agencies of the nation state.Changing the Way Government Works By the end of the 1980s most governments in market-oriented democracies had moved to restructure the way they did business. The rhetoric was about cutting through the red tape to make bureaucracy more efficient and effective by embracing market values and instruments in a business-like way. In Thatch rite Britain this was characterized as the de-Sir Humph eying of the West minister model (Hood and Jackson, 1991, p. 105). Internationally three aims were identifiable. First this New Public Management (NPM) attempted to diminish the role of the state and make the bureaucracy more responsive to political leaders. Second, it aimed for greater efficiency through the use of private sector management techniques. Third, it focused on the citizen as a customer and service recipient (Asuncion, 1990, p. 16). The underpinning theoretical concept was public choice and the new practices revolved around market orientation (Self, 1995; Army, 1998). Commercialization, corporatization, privatization, competitive tendering, contracting out, benchmarking, output-based budgeting, accrual accounting and strategic asset management, became the new language of public sector activity.In the late 1980s, Australian governments began embracing the NPM with the politically conservative Government of Victoria taking the most radical approach to NPM which gained it textbook status as the contract state (Alford and ONeill, 1994). A key to understanding the fault lines which later emerged in the implementation of NPM were its failure at a theoretical level to make space for orders of necessity other than those captured in neo-liberal economics. In Australia nationally the capstone of NPM was the National Competition Policy (NCP) which saw efficiency and contestability achieve unrivalled status in policy making and implementation processes. This effectively demoted non-economic concerns such as co-ordination, equity, representation, political accountability and consultation to at best secondary, and at worst window-dressing, roles. Along with the positive results came a series of policy deficits particularly in areas requiring a balance of economic and other ideas. Elsewhere we have considered the impact of this on the policy process through a focus on the demise of the idea of public interest (Hess and Adams, 2003). While the public interest was always present in NCP processes, it usually appeared as the rhetoric of a penultimate paragraph in formal documentation and disappeared in practice because, unlike other factors in NPM decision-making, it could not readily be measured. Our argument on this issue has been that the loss of an overarching concept capturing non-partisan interests has made it very difficult for public managers to address contemporary dilemmas. Internationally, this is clearest in respect to the area of the so-called wicked problems, which require responses across a range of policy areas. It is also, however, becoming an issue in areas in which NPM instruments resulted in concentrating policy influence around narrow ranges of expertise. In practice this is seen in the cult of the expert which has had the ironic effect, given the rhetoric of smaller government, of centralizing public sector activities and undermining the checks and balances of traditional bureaucracy. Even as NPM trumpeted the virtues of small government, central departments, such as Prime Ministers, Cabinet, Premiers, Treasury, and Finance, have been growing in size and influence because they have owned the expertise needed for best practice in their members of staff, contractors or consultants. This has had the effect of co-locating power and knowledge in such a way as to make consideration of alternative policy and implementation approaches difficult. We have previously argued that in the late 1990s in Australia policy and economic advantages converged in the (re-) emergence of the concept of community as a powerful public idea (Adams and Hess, 2001). This was not a new idea internationally or in Australian public policy and echoed the 1972-75 Labor Governments Australian Assistance Plan which had proposed community involvement as a means of positioning government activity in local environments. The difference in the late 1990s was that with political conservatism dominant the use of community in policy reflected a new set of priorities. The previous focus on redistributive activity had been shifted to (in Prime Minister Howards words) a mix which combines liberalism in economic policy and . “Modern conservatism” in social policy as mutually reinforcing elements (Howard, 1999). In practice, however, governments have found the balance hard to strike with critics pointing to a tendency to emphasize budget relief and the faade of consultation rather than genuine community engagement (Public Policy Forum, 1997; ACOSS, 1998). As the century ended the struggle to make community a practical part of policy processes continued. We had argued that an uncritical rush to community-based practices ran the danger of becoming another policy fad with little actual benefit (Adams and Hess, 2002, p. 21). The solution, we felt, was in a more thoughtful approach, which assumed a sharp learn