公共管理英语修订版顾建光全文翻译Unit.docx

1、公共管理英语修订版顾建光全文翻译UnitWhy Public Ma nageme nt Reform?为什么要进行公共管理改革？Public man ageme nt 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 mea ns to multiple en ds. 更准确说，我们可以认为它是一种潜在地达到多种目的

2、的手段。These include making saving (economies) in public expenditure, improving the quality of public services, making the operation ofgover nment more efficie nt, and in creas ing the cha nces that the policies which are chose n and impleme nted 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

3、效，增加被选用 的和实施的政策变得有效的机会。 On the way to achievi ng these importa ntobjectives, public management reform may also serve a number ofin termediate en ds, in cludi ng those of stre ngthe ning the con trol of1 politicians over the bureaucracy, freeing public officials frombureaucratic con stra ins which in

4、 hibit their opport un ities to man age andenhance the government s accountability to the legislature and thecitize nry 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1公务员、国家公职人员、政府官员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

5、should men ti on the symbolic and legitimacy ben efits of man ageme ntreform. 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 politicia ns these ben efits con sist partly of being seemto be doing somethi ng.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, criticiz ing bureaucracy, prais ing new man ageme

6、nttech niq ues, promisi ng improved services for the future, restructuri ngmi nistries and age ncies all these activities help to attract favorableatte nti on to the politicia ns who espouse 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一一 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 cynic might observe th

7、at, in these days when the power of in dividual gover nments4to act independently is increasingly called into questions by a complexin terplay of local, n atio nal and intern ati onal con stra ins, the one thi ng5that mini sters usually can do with the appeara nee of dyn amism but atlittle immediate

8、 cost is to announce changes in their own machinery of governanee. 个愤世嫉俗的人可能会发现，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23456们通常所能做的事情一一以充满活力的面貌出现却仅需极小的直接代价一一就 是在他们自己管辖机构内部宣布改革。 There are also legitimacy benefits forthose senior officials who, almost invariably, play important parts insh

9、ap ing and impleme nti ng such in itiatives. They may gain in reputati onby associati on with moder nizing and streamli ning 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 man ageme nt reform really does produce cheaper, more efficie ntgovernment, with hi

10、gher-quality services and more effective programs, andif it will simultaneously enhance political control, free managers to man age, make gover nment more tran spare nt and boost the images of those8ministers and mandarins most invoIved, then it is little wonder that ithas been widely trumpeted .如果管

11、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、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。 Unfortun ately, however, matters are not sosimple. 不幸的是，事情并非如此简单。 There is a good deal of evidenee toshow that man ageme nt reforms can go wrong. 众多证据表明，管理改革会走入歧途。They may fail to produce the cla

12、imed ben efits. 它们可能无法产生那些宣称的好处。 They may eve n gen erate perverse effects that ren derthe releva nt admi nistrative progresses worse (in some importa nt sen ses)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。Whena local authority“ homehelp ” （domestic care） service for eld

13、erly and disabled people is reshaped along quasi-market lin es, with a split betwee n the authority purchasing the service and the providing it, wemayconsider 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, however, wediscove

14、r that the con tract draw n up for the service is 700 pages long and that the actual service provided seems to have cha nged very little ineither quality or quantity, then doubt sets in . 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。Wewonderif more trust between the parties conc

15、erned might not be a more efficie nt opti on, en abli ng a muchshorter con tract （or no con tract at all） and radically reduced mon itori ng 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” inrespect of one or two o

16、f the objectives men ti oned above （sav in gs, 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。In deed, weshall argue12later that certa in trade-offs and dilemmas are exceed in gly com mon inadm ini strative

17、cha nge, so that the achieveme nt of one or two particular ends might well be “ paid for ” by a lowered performanee in other respects:“rule over specialized decisi on makers in a bureaucracy is main tai ned13by selective crackdowns on one goal at a time, steering the equilibrium without ever ack no

18、wledg ing that tighte ning up on one criterio n impliesslackening off 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，从而控制平衡一一但他们没有认识到， 紧缩某一项指标意味着放松另一项指标”。 For example, if we subject public serva nts to more15effective political super

19、visi on and con trol, can we simulta neously gift =them greater freedom and flexibility to man age? 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 down a clearer, simplerframework of rules within which managers can “get creative ” . 乐观主121314151617义者会点头称是，他们会

20、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 skeptic will say no, pointing to surveyevide nee that the man agers themselves think that political “ leave well18alone ” in politically sensitive operations such as social security,health care, educati on or the pris on service. 怀疑主义者贝 U会大摇其头，他们会指出，有调查证据表明，

21、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。In any case, public managementreform is only one way to achieve most of the desirable ends ide ntified in the first paragraph. 不管怎样，公共管理改革只是达到第一段中所提到的期望目标的手段之一。To be adequate,any description of its nature will need to takeinto account thatgovernmental perfor

22、manee can be improved by a varietyof routes and thatman ageme nt reform is freque ntly un dertake n in conj un cti on with othertypes 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 anu mber of coun tries one acade

23、mic observed rece ntly: “ Adm ini strative reform is a subject of all policy performanee, not a separable set oftechnical 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”Other routes to improved gover nment performa nee in clude political181920reforms (such as changes in elector

24、al systems or legislative procedures)and substa ntive cha nges in key policies （such as new macroec ono micsman ageme nt policies, labor market reforms or fun dame ntal cha nges in social policy）. The example of New Zeala nd which comb ined man ageme ntreforms with fun dame ntal cha nges in both mac

25、roec ono mic policies and,21later, the electoral system was alluded to in our in troductio n.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制度的根本改变组合在一起。To makematters more complicated still, there is, as commentators have

26、no ticed, a delay which affects a good deal of public man ageme nt reform.The full ben efits of major cha nges in the processes and structures of public agencies normally cannot be harvested until three, four, five or eve n more years after a reform programs has bee n laun ched. To beg in with, new

27、legislati on might well be n eeded. Then will be n ecessary to an alyze22status quo, and subsequently to design, formulate, and refine new operating procedures, train staff how to work with them, define new roles and the appropriate reward and appraisal system, set new measureme nt systems in place,

28、 inform service users and other stakeholders, and work2122提到、提及、谈到 精炼、提炼、改善23hard to reduce the anxiety all novelties have probably caused, both among users and among staff. But this is not the kind of timescale that mostsenior politicia ns are comfortable with. Their focus is more in ten sely short

29、-term: on the n ext elect ion, the n ext gover nment reshuffle, or eve ntoday s television news. The searchlight of political attention moves about from one issue to another much more quickly than complexorgani zational change can be accomplished between the politician s need for “something to show

30、noW and the organization reform s need for time, commitme nt and continuity has probably grow n as a result of the gen eral inten sificati on and accelerati on of political process in many wester n democracies.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

31、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新奇、新奇的事务、创新 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。