政府对公共舆论的管理外文翻译文献Word文件下载.docx

1、原文：New Public Management and the Quality of Government:Coping with the New Political Governance in CanadaPeter AucoinDalhousie UniversityHalifax, CanadaConference on New Public Management and the Quality of Government,SOG and the Quality of Government Institute,University of GothenburgSweden13-15 No

2、vember 2008A tension between New Public Management （NPM） and good governance, including good public administration, has long been assumed by those who regard the structures and practices advocated and brought about by NPM as departing from the principles and norms of good governance that underpinned

3、 traditional public administration （Savoie 1994）. The concern has not abated （Savoie 2008）. As this dynamic has played out over the past three decades, however, there emerged an even more significant challenge not only to the traditional structures, practices and values of the professional, non-part

4、isan public service but also to those reforms introduced by NPM that have gained wide, if not universal, acceptance as positive development in public administration. This challenge is what I call New Political Governance （NPG）. It is NPG, and not NPM, I argue, that constitutes the principal threat t

5、o good governance, including good public administration, and thus the Quality of Government （QoG） as defined by Rothstein and Teorell （2008）. It is a threat to the extent that partisans in government, sometimes overtly, mostly covertly, seek to use and override the public service an impartial instit

6、ution of government to better secure their partisan advantage （Campbell 2007; MacDermott 2008 a, 2008b）. In so doing, these governors engage in a politicization of the public service and its administration of public business that constitutes a form of political corruption that cannot but undermine g

7、ood governance. NPM is not a cause of this politicization, I argue, but it is an intervening factor insofar as NPM reforms, among other reforms of the last three decades, have had the effect of publicly exposing the public service in ways that have made it more vulnerable to political pressures on t

8、he part of the political executive.I examine this phenomenon by looking primarily at the case of Canada, but with a number of comparative Westminster references. I consider the phenomenon to be an international one, affecting most, if not all, Western democracies. The pressures outlined below are vi

9、rtually the same everywhere. The responses vary somewhat because of political leadership and the institutional differences between systems, even in the Westminster systems. The phenomenon must also be viewed in the context of time, given both the emergence of the pressures that led to NPM in the fir

10、st instance, as a new management-focused approach to public administration, and the emergence of the different pressures that now contribute to NPG, as a politicized approach to governance with important implications for public administration, and especially for impartiality, performance and account

11、ability.New Public Management in the Canadian Context Since the early 1980s, NPM has taken several different forms in various jurisdictions. Adopting private-sector management practices was seen by some as a part, even if a minor part, of the broader neo-conservative/neo-liberal political economy mo

12、vement that demanded wholesale privatization of government enterprises and public services, extensive deregulation of private enterprises, and significant reductions in public spending rolling back the state, as it was put a at the outset （Hood 1991）. By some accounts, almost everything that changed

13、 over the past quarter of a century is attributed to NPM. In virtually every jurisdiction, nonetheless, NPM, as public management reform, was at least originally about achieving greater economy and efficiency in the management of public resources in government operations and in the delivery of publi

14、c services （Pollitt 1990）. The focus, in short, was on management. Achieving greater economy in the use of public resources was at the forefront of concerns, given the fiscal and budgetary situations facing all governments in the 1970s, and managerial efficiency was not far behind, given assumptions

15、 about the impoverished quality of management in public services everywhere. By the turn of the century, moreover, NPM, as improved public management in this limited sense, was well embedded in almost all governments, at least as the norm （although it was not always or everywhere referred to as NPM）

16、. This meant increased managerial authority, discretion and flexibility: for managing public resources （financial and human）; for managing public-service delivery systems; and, for collaborating with other public-sector agencies as well as with privatesectoragencies in tackling horizontal multi-organizational and/or multisectoral issues.This increased managerial authorit