公共管理中英文对照外文翻译文献

公共管理专业英语作文500字左右英文回答：Public administration plays a pivotal role in the governance and delivery of essential services to citizens. It encompasses the principles, practices, and theories that guide the efficient and effective management of public organizations. By fostering collaboration, transparency, and accountability, public administration aims to enhance the quality of life for all.Public administrators, who are responsible for implementing public policies and managing public resources, face complex challenges in today's rapidly evolving world. Technological advancements, globalization, and societal demands have necessitated the adoption of innovative approaches to public service delivery. Publicadministration professionals must be adaptable, analytical, and possess strong communication and interpersonal skills to navigate these complexities.Education in public administration provides the foundation for individuals to excel in this demanding field. Degree programs typically cover topics such as public policy, budgeting, human resource management, and ethics. Through coursework, internships, and research projects, students gain a comprehensive understanding of the theory and practice of public administration. They develop theskills necessary to analyze public problems, design and implement effective solutions, and manage public organizations responsibly.中文回答：公共管理在政府治理和向公民提供基本服务中发挥着至关重要的作用。

公共部门绩效评论外文翻译文献4-1 公共部门绩效评论外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)译文：公共部门中的绩效悖论一、引言现在，国家投入了比以往任何时候都要多的注意力、时间和金钱在公共部门的绩效衡量和评价上（经济合作与发展组织［的绩效衡量和评价上（经济合作与发展组织［OECD OECD OECD］］，19961996；；Pollitt & Bouckaert ，2000；p.87；Power ，1997）。

基于结果的管理是各级公共部门一整天的话题，从地方、区域、国家，甚至前国家。

学校和大学，地方政府，其他行政组织，发展援助机构（非政府组织和国际非政府组织），和组织，世界银行都参与绩效结果上的数据和信息制造，如果可能的话，也包括对绩效结果的影响。

上的数据和信息制造，如果可能的话，也包括对绩效结果的影响。

Power Power Power（（19941994，，19971997，，20002000）甚至提到“审计爆炸”或“审计的社会”）甚至提到“审计爆炸”或“审计的社会”。

新公共管理领域的信徒将一个高度优先事项归于计量产出和成果。

他们旨在根据这种理想信息基础上的新政策和管理活动，使得政策的执行更有效率和效力。

但是，评价研究表明，很多试图引进基于结果的管理方式最后仍然不成功（例如Leeuw & Van Gils, 1999, 荷兰研究述评）。

不过，衡量产出、成果、和评价活动的需要在政治家和行政人员发表的改善政府工作表现的声明中仍然是一个重要的组成部分。

员发表的改善政府工作表现的声明中仍然是一个重要的组成部分。

下面，我们将表明以下观点：公共部门产出计量的增加会导致某些意想不到的后果，的后果，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，不仅可能会废止公共部门绩效的结论，也会消极地影响这个绩效。

也会消极地影响这个绩效。

也会消极地影响这个绩效。

我们我们将通过一些不同的例子表明，公共部门的一些特征在发展和使用绩效指标之后还会适得其反。

公共管理英文短文英文回答：Public Administration.Public administration is the management of publicaffairs and the provision of public services. It involvesthe implementation of government policies, the regulationof public institutions, and the delivery of essential services to citizens. Public administrators are responsible for ensuring that government programs are implemented effectively and efficiently, and that the needs of thepublic are met.There are several key elements of public administration:Planning: Public administrators must develop and implement plans for the delivery of public services. These plans must be based on an understanding of the needs of the community and the resources available to meet those needs.Organizing: Public administrators must organize the resources of government to ensure that services are delivered efficiently and effectively. This involves creating a structure of government that is responsive to the needs of the public and that can adapt to changing conditions.Staffing: Public administrators must recruit, select, and train the personnel needed to deliver public services. This involves ensuring that employees are qualified and motivated to perform their jobs effectively.Directing: Public administrators must provide leadership and direction to government employees. This involves setting goals, providing guidance, and motivating employees to achieve their objectives.Controlling: Public administrators must monitor and evaluate the performance of government programs and services. This involves ensuring that programs are meeting their objectives and that resources are being usedefficiently.Public administration is a challenging and rewardingfield of work. Public administrators have the opportunityto make a real difference in the lives of their communities. They can help to improve the quality of public services, promote economic development, and protect the environment.中文回答：公共管理。

公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)1900单词，1.1万英文字符，中文3030字文献出处：Frederickson H G. Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere[J]. The Oxford handbook of public management, 2021: 281-304./news/0706AF57C1E1A817.html原文WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? GOVERNANCE,GOVERNANCE EVERYWHEREH. George FredericksonFor at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, and 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 administration scholars (2001,p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public administration; then, using regime theory from the study of international relations, the concept of governance as applied in public administration is analyzed, parsed, and framed.The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concept of governance inthe 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 essentially 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 policy implementationin public administration, (4) It is the study of the influence or power of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives. Of these approaches topublic administration as governance, it is the third and fourth--governance as the public administration of interjurisdiction relations and third partypolicy implementation, and the governance of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives -- that form the basis of a usable theory of governance for public administration.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 thoughtful and provocative speeches, papers, and books went something likethis: “What the people want is less government and more governance” (1972). What he meant by governance was the following cluster of concepts.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, meritocracy, 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 provision to the state as regulator; and networks. There are many more applications of governance to the subject once known as public administration, but these few illustrate the capacious rangeof concepts, ideas, and theories associated with it.There are as many definitions of the concept of governance as a synonymfor public administration as there are applications. Kettl claims an emerging gap between government and governance. \institutions. Governance is the way government gets its job done.如何翻译外文文献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 processesthat relied less on authority for control\xi). To Kettl, governance, as an approach to public administration, has primarily to do with contracting-outand grants to sub-governments.As was 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] Where:O = Outputs/outcomes. The end product of a governance regime. E = Environmental factors. These can include political structures, levels ofauthority, economic performance, the presence or absence of competition among suppliers, resource levels and dependencies, legal framework, and the characteristics of a target population.C = Client characteristics. The attributes, characteristics, and behaviorof clients. T = Treatments. These are the primary work or core processes ofthe organizations within thegovernance regime. They include organizational missions and objectives, recruitment and eligibility criteria, methods fro determining eligibility, and program treatments or technologies.S = Structures. These include organizational type, level of coordination and integration among the organizations in the governance regime, relative degree of centralized control, functional differentiation, administrativerules or incentives, budgetary allocations, contractual arrangements or relationships, and institutional culture and values.M = Managerial roles and actions. This includes leadership characteristics, staff- management relations, communications, methods of decision-making, professional/career concerns, and mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.The problem is that it is difficult, following Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill,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 studying public administration. Put another way, public administration is ordinarily thoughtto have to do with “treatments,” “structures,” and “management” in the Lynn, et al. governance formula. They tuck the centerpieces of public administration into the broader context of governance. This chapter will later return to these distinctions and to a large-scale synthesis of governance research by Lynn, Heinrich and Hill.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 administration 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 of the organization and management of the territorial state or jurisdiction. From this perspective governance becomes steering and public administration becomes rowing, a lesser phenomenon in the scholarly pecking order, not to mention a lesser subject in governance. Public administration, thus understood, is the work that governments contract-out, leaving governance as the subject of our study. Although the linesbetween politics, policy, and administration are often fuzzy and changing, and although we know, strictly speaking, there is not a politics- administration dichotomy, is nevertheless important to understand the empirical distinctions between political and administrative phenomena. Concepts of governance that advance our understanding of public-sector administrationand organization are helpful. Concepts of governance that simply change the subject of public administration to politics and policy making are not. In democratic government it is, after all, elected officials who govern. Bureaucrats have roles and responsibilities for governing or governance, butin democratic polities these roles and responsibilities are different than the roles and responsibilities of elected officials. Janet Newman says it well: “Neither”good governance“nor” well-managed government could resolve the contradictions around the popular role of government and the appropriate boundaries of governance” (2001 p. 170). In the name of stamping out bureaucracy and replacing it with what they describe as good governance, Osborne and Gaebler advocate a range of managerial prerogatives that would significantly intrude on the political and policy-making prerogatives generally assumed to belong to elected officials, and particularly elected legislators, in a democratic polity (1992).The second implication of the critique is that governance theoristspersist in looking for an all-pervasive pattern of organizational and administrative behavior, a \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 and the empirical testing of theory in public administration, no such pattern has been found (Frederickson and Smith 2021). Does the governance concept beguile a generation of scholars to set off in the vain search for a metatheoretical El Dorado (Olsen 2021)?Constructing a Viable Concept of Governance for Public Administration 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 world, 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 meaning. Social and economic problems and challenges are seldom contained within jurisdictional boundaries, and systems of communication pay little attention to them. Business is increasingly regional or global. Business elites have multiple residences and operate extended networks that are highly multi-jurisdictional. States and jurisdictions are hollowing-out their organization and administrative capacities, exporting to contractors much of the work of public administration. Governance, even with its weakness, is the most useful available concept for describing and explaining these forces. But for governance to become anything more than passing fashion or a dismissive un-public administration, it must respond to the critique of governance. To dothis, governance scholars must settle on an agreed- upon definition, a definition broad enough to comprehend the forces it presumes to explain but not so broad as to claim to explain everything. Governance theorists must be ready to explain not only what governance is, but also what it is not. Governance theorist must be up-front about the biases in the concept and the implications of those biases.The lessons learned in the evolution of regime theory in international relations are relevant here because regime theory predates governance theory and because the two are very nearly the same thing. Summing-UpFrom its prominence in the 1980s, regime 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 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-state. In public administration it could be said that the modern transformation of states and their subgovernments explains the contemporary salience of theories of governance. Both regime theory and governance theory are scholarly responses to the transformation of states.Government in the postmodern state involves multiple levels of interlocked and overlapping arenas of collective policy implementation. Governments now operate in the context of 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 is the best description of the management of the transformed or postmodern state (Sorensen 2021) Nationhood and community are transformed as collective loyalties are increasingly projected away from the state. Major portions of economic activity are now embedded in cross-border networks and national and local economies are less self-sustaining that they once were (Sorensen 2021, p. 162)Harlan Cleveland understood very early how governments, economies and communities were changing 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 model still serves as a感谢您的阅读，祝您生活愉快。

本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译原文：The Role of Public Managers in Public PolicyPublic ManagementPublic managers rarely play a leading role in policy theory, but they are not altogether missing either. In fact, public managers have played an important role in a number of frameworks, serving as one point in the iron triangles, providers of information, members of advocacy coalitions, facilitators of participatory policymaking, and many more. However, these treatments of public managers are often one-dimensional, and they rarely incorporate the knowledge that public management scholars have accumulated. For example, consider how principal–agent models treat concepts of managers and management. Scholars often lump public managers, street-level bureaucrats, and agency-specific characteristics into a single entity known only as “the bureaucracy.” The question then becomes one of how political institutions enable or constrain this composite bureaucratic monolith to obtain policy outcomes. Management in these models, if it appears at all, takes place at the institutional level through various administrative and structural decisions made by Congress (e.g., Bawn, 1995, 1997; Shipan, 2004; and McCubbins, Noll, & Weingast, 1987, 1989), or the president (e.g., Wood & Waterman, 1991).These models have contributed greatly to our understanding of policy design, but they miss some of the critical variation generated by individual behavior within the decision-making processes. One of the basic facts of implementation is that individuals, not institutions, make the majority of decisions that drive policy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as an institution, does not decide to selectively enforce against one company and not another. Rather, the institution (i.e., the EPA) supports the enforcement decision that was made by an individual somewhere within the policymaking system. Thus, looking only at the constraintsplaced upon the institution paints a flawed picture, incapable of rendering an accurate portrayal of those factors that directed the micro-level decisions.Looking at policy strictly from the street-level bureaucrats’ vantage (e.g., Lipsky, 1980), however, results in an equally incomplete picture. From this perspective, public managers possess incentives that are at odds with those of the bureaucrats below them in the hierarchy. This sheds light upon a different facet of the principal–agent problem, but remains unable to explain how two implementation systems, equally endowed with resources and similarly structured, produce different decision making patterns during the implementation of identical directives. One might be tempted to theorize that different bureaucrats prioritize different outcomes due to disparate preferences and motivations. The literature on bureaucratic motivation, however, offers the following answer when asked what motivates bureaucrats under different conditions—“it depends” (Golden, 2000; but see Moe, 1990). This offers little to policy scholars who seek a systematic way to include individual decision making into their models.Put simply, policy theory has a difficult time connecting the dots between how the design of policy instruments translates into street-level implementation. Models that do well at predicting whether Congress will employ “police patrols” or “fire alarms” (McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984) to control an agency are unable to explain why some divisions of that agency implement congressional intent more faithfully than do others. These institutional-level models are simply ill-equipped to deal with behavioral variance that occurs at the programmatic level—the same variance that can determine the success or failure of the program.Conversely, the so-called “bottom-up” approach to studying public policy has proven equally limited in generating variables that provide useful traction across different policy theories. This line of research tends to treat institutional constraints as static—and therefore safe to ignore—when examining how individual-level decisions by bureaucrats affect policy outcomes. This effectively ignores the possibility that top-down management adapts and responds to changes in policy environments, personnel, and political directives. Literature in public management, however, hasregularly shown that the activities and strategies pursued by public managers affect policy outcomes (Lynn, 1996; Meier & O’Toole, 2001). Much of this scholarship considers how managers build relationships with other individuals and organizations, strategically direct resources within the organization, set goals for performance, and motivate employees to pursue the goals set. We know that these activities matter. Research has shown that in many cases, the implementation of the same policy instrument can result in vastly different outcomes across organizations. For example, education policy research has shown that often the actual policy or program that is implemented is much less important than the people who are implementing it (Meier, Hicklin, Hawes, Rocha, & Doerfler, 2006). So many of the hard-fought policy “solutions” to educational problems—differentiated teaching for special education students or English language learners, performance-assessment policy, school choice interventions—are found to be extremely successful at one institution and utterly unsuccessful in others.Role of Managerial QualityIn discussions of policy outcomes and government performance, issues of “bureaucratic incompetence” or “bureaucratic failure” often become central to identifying why certain policies failed. We regularly see case studies that point to administrative failures, poor decision making, or unqualified leadership as the explanation for why things went wrong. Both in scholarly and popular discourse, there seem to be at least two universally accepted truths: that there is substantial variation in the managerial abilities (or quality) of those who are appointed to head public agencies and that this variation in quality has a systematic effect on policy outcomes. If this is the case, why do aspects of managerial quality rarely seem to factor into our work on explaining and predicting when policies succeed and when they fail?Again, we believe that policy scholars may be hesitant to incorporate managerial quality, because it seems idiosyncratic. And to be fair, managerial quality is not the easiest concept to measure. However, our casual discussions of “poor management” or “leadership failures” can uncover some basic themes that can be (and have been)useful to identifying what factors would likely lead to higher quality management. Maybe the best way to identify these qualities would be to consider the indicators that are referenced when making allegations of poor management. For example, a number of critiques of presidential appointments often point to agency heads who were hired for their political affiliations, not their expertise. While “managerial quality” may be difficult to measure, “expertise” (which should be closely linked to quality) can offer more traction.A number of public management scholars have made considerable progress in studying managerial quality by measuring certain aspects of expertise. Avellaneda’s (forthcoming) study of local government officials incorporated levels of formal education and years of experience in similar jobs to measure quality of management. In their work on Texas schools, Meier and O’Toole (2002) construct a managerial quality measure using a model that incorporates salary, education, experience, and a number of other related indicators. Their subsequent work has found this measure of quality to have a substantial and systematic impact on organizational performance. Other studies have included different aspects of managerial expertise, such as whether the manager had served in that particular agency before assuming the leadership role (Hamidullah, Wilkins, & Meier, 2008; Hill, 2005) and if the manager had held similar leadership roles in other organizations. Overall, this work has established that managerial quality is an important predictor of policy outcomes, and that managerial quality is a concept that we can get some real leverage on measuring and incorporating into our studies of the policy process.Networking in Public ManagementIn addition to incorporating varying levels of quality, scholarship in public management has focused on the ways in which public managers operate in organizations that are quite different than the traditional, hierarchical agency. Often, a cursory treatment of policy implementation assumes that laws are passed down to agency heads who implement these changes through their particular organization, all the way down to the street-level bureaucrats. We know this is not always the case. In fact, it is likely the more unusual case. Most public organizations exist in a dynamicenvironment in which their activities and performance are dependent (to different degrees) on other organizations.Examples of government failure have been attributed to a lack of coordination between public managers and other organizations, and legislatures have responded by crafting policies that are intended to affect public managers. We have a number of recent examples. The poor response to Hurricane Katrina is regularly attributed to the inability of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) managers to coordinate with state and local government officials. The mistakes made in the lead up to 9/11 pointed to a lack of collaboration among intelligence agencies. Environmental policy solutions regularly call for a network of public organizations and private industry, whether managed through cooperation or regulation, as way to combat a number of problems. Some health-care policy relies on contracts between public agencies, private industry, and nonprofit organizations. Many of our policy instruments require public managers to collaborate with other organizations. Additionally, other public managers may choose to collaborate, not because they are compelled to do so, but because they believe that this collaboration will lead to positive results for the organization.Scholars consistently find that increased collaboration leads to better policy outcomes for the organization (Agranoff & McGuire, 2004; Boyne, Meier, O’Toole, & Walker, 2006; Milward & Provan, 2000; Meier & O’Toole, 2001). However, few scholars have explicitly considered how policy change affects collaborative behavior or how managerial collaboration affects the relationship between legislative policy adoption and outcomes. We know that increased networking and collaboration leads to higher levels of performance. We also know that there is substantial variation in the extent to which public managers are included in the policy design process. Performance EvaluationWe also join the work of James and Jorgenson (2008) and believe that an exploration of bureaucratic performance evaluation systems could prove fruitful in advancing policy theory. Our colleagues in this series, Workman, Jones, and Watson (2008), focus on the use of information in the policy process, and their work hasconvinced us that study of information may indeed be the way to break new theoretical ground. We believe that another way that public management scholarship may add to policy theory is through contributing to the discussion on the role of information by incorporating the work on performance measurement and evaluation. What may be of particular interest is a study of how the relationship between performance information (assessment of success and failure) and subsequent policy changes may be affected by the performance metric itself. Scholars commonly point to the problems that are inherent in measuring performance and the ways in which these seemingly objective performance criteria are biased both in value-laden objectives and in the emphasis placed on what can be easily measured. If performance information affects policy adoption, and if this information is biased toward a particular interest, then we would hypothesize that different sources of information could affect policymaking in different ways. We know that there are substantial variations in the White House’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment, Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, internal agency performance evaluations, program-level evaluations, and assessments conducted by external groups. But do these differences affect our understanding of the use of information and the influence of values in the policymaking process? Would we expect that use of performance information generated by the White House would bias policymaking toward the president’s preferences? Would the use of performa nce information generated within the agency have a different effect? If information is important, the source of the information should also make a difference.Management in a Policy WorldDespite the lack of theoretical cross-fertilization between theories of public policy and the work on public management, many rich opportunities exist. While calls for integrating theories across subfields are nothing new, we find that the current state of both literatures offer opportunities that have not existed previously. Exploiting the intersection of these two fields will produce new and interesting theories that could allow us to develop a more general understanding of how public managers, bureaucrats, or agents (whatever we choose to call them) affect the policy process.There are so many ways that policy scholars can move past the (often) onedimensional treatment of the bureaucracy, and we need not “reinvent the wheel.” Scholars of public management have already begun to develop broad theoretical frameworks that link public management to the policy process (e.g., see Lynn, Heinrich, & Hill, 2001; O’Toole & Meier, 1999).Whether this pursuit extends current lines of work (such as differentiating among sources of information) or delves into entirely new territory (through incorporating concepts of managerial quality or networking into policy theory), the end result will allow us to expand the scope of our field, open doors for future work, and build on the progress made in multiple subfields. We look forward to seeing the next generation of policy theory research.Source：Alisa Hicklin and Erik Godwin，2009 Policy Studies Organization，The Policy Studies Journal, V ol. 37, No. 1, 2009译文：公共管理者在公共政策中的作用公共管理公共管理者在政策理论中起主导作用，但也不完全是独当一面。

Chapter 2课本第一章An Era of Change改变的年代、时代Introduction引言There has been a transformation（转化、变革）in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries.在发达国家的公共部门的管理已经有了一个变革。

This new paradigm poses（形成，造成） a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration.这个新的范例对几个原先被认为是传统公共行政的基础规则提出了直接挑战。

These seven seeming verities（真理）have been challenged.这几个真理被挑战。

Economic problems in the 1980s meant governments reassessed（重新评估）their bureaucracies and demanded changes.1980s的经济问题意味着政府重新评估他们的官僚制并且需要改变。

All these points will be discussed at greater length（长度）later, but the main point is there has been total change in a profession that saw little change for around a hundred years.这些观点会在以后做更大范围的讨论，但是这里强调的主要是一点：一百年来很少发生变革的公共职业领域发生了全面变革。

A new paradigm一个新的范例There is some debate over whether or not public managemnet, particularly the new public management, is a new paradigm for public sector management.有个争论，关于公共管理尤其是新的公共管理是不是公共部门管理的一个新的范例。

第一章1Opening Administration to the Public政务公开得益于2001年11月16日生效的政府最近实施的邀请市民旁听政府会议的行政事务公开改革措施,安徽省蚌埠市的市民现在有机会参加市政府会议。

每次行政事务会议邀请10名市民参加。

邀请参加重要会议的人数是可以变化的。

这些旁听者可以是人大代表、政协委员、民主党派的要员、工商联代表及其他。

他们要至少18岁，并且愿意参加会议。

旁听者可以通过政府部门以书面形式发表他们的意见。

Increasing Transparency增加透明度在部分城市和农村的基础上，今年的上半年，广东省已要求村及村以上的政府行政事务都要公开。

所有有关法律、规章和公民必须遵循的政府决定，只要不涉及政党和中央政府的机密，都要向公众公开。

具体内容如下：经济社会发展战略，工作目标和它们的完成情况；重大决策和政策的主动过程；财政预算和执行情况；专用基金的分配和重要物资的购买；主要基本建设计划和它们的招投标；政府投资的公共福利项目；政府审批的项目及完成情况；政府向公众承事项的完成情况；有关公民、法人、组织权益的法律实施；重大事件的处理；官员的选拔任用，公务员的录用，先进工作者的评价，员工调动的原则改革及公众关心的其他问题；政府机构的职能和官员的职责；工作内容、条件、流程和时间以及工作效果；工作原则，承担义务、对违反应承担义务的起诉方法及调查结果；除了向社会公开行政事务，广东省已经要求各政府部门公开机关内部结构，工作运转方式和管理情况，特别是官员的自律情况；部门的收入和经费开支情况，工作人员的收入分配和他们的福利待遇，以及其它事项。

了解政府的行政行为是公民基本权力之一，政务公开是政府的应尽的职责。

公开行政信息是已经是政府管理中必不可少的部分。

同时，政务公开也是WTO的一项主要原则，被列在WTO的大部分文件中。

在中国加入WTO后，被要求在这方面做得更好。

中国的政府职能转变落后于它的经济增长。

外文文献翻译原文及译文（节选重点翻译）公共政策和人力资本外文翻译最新中英文文献出处：Research Policy，Volume 48, Issue 9, November 2019, 1-19 译文字数：5300 多字英文Driving innovation: Public policy and human capitalHelena Lenihan, Helen Guirk, Kevin MurphyAbstractHuman capital, the set of skills, knowledge, capabilities and attributes embodied in people, is crucial to firms’ capacity to absorb and organize knowledge and to innovate. Research on human capital has traditionally focused on education and training. A concern with the motivationally-relevant elements of human capital such as employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and willingness to change in the workplace (all of which have been shown to drive innovation), has often been overlooked in economic research and by public policy interventions to date. The paper addresses this gap in two ways: First, by studying firms’ human resource systems that can enhance these elements of human capital, and second, using the results of this research as a springboard for a public policy program targeted at elements of human capital that have been ignored by traditional education and training interventions. Using a sample of 1070 employee-managers in Ireland, we apply a series of probit regressions to understand how different human resources systems influence the probability of employee-managers reporting the motivationally-relevant elements of human capital. The research: (1) Finds that respondents in organizations with certain humanresource systems are more likely to report motivationally-relevant elements of human capital. Specifically, employee-managers in organizations with proactive work practices and that consult with their employee-managers increase the predicted probability of reporting that they are satisfied with their job, willing to change, and are committed to the organization; (2) Highlights the need to consider the role of policy interventions to support the motivationally-relevant elements of human capital; (3) Proposes a new policy program offer to support the motivationally-relevant elements of human capital in order to increase firms’ innovation activity.Keywords: Innovation, Human capital, Human resource systems, Innovation policy, Policy programIntroductionInnovation is a well-recognized determinant of growth, and it is a challenge for both academics and practitioners to understand why and how firms innovate (Montalvo et al., 2006). Human capital, the set of skills, knowledge, capabilities, and other attributes embodied in people that can be translated into productivity (Abel and Gabe, 2011; Fulmer and Ployhart, 2014), is crucial to firms’ capacity to absorb and organize knowledge and to innovate (Protogerou et al., 2017; Teixeira and Tavares-Lehmann, 2014; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005).Traditionally, economists have defined human capital largely interms of knowledge and intellectual capital. It is now widely recognized that this focus on knowledge does not fully capture the domain of human capital (Arvanitis and Stucki, 2012; Bell, 2009). In the last 20 years, the human capital concept has evolved significantly, and current conceptions of human capital include a wide range of human attributes that are relevant to job performance and productivity, ranging from personality traits, work attitudes and values (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011) to characteristics such as creativity, wellbeing, self-efficacy and resilience (Grimaldi et al., 2012, 2013; Madrid et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2014; OECD, 2007; Tan, 2014).The expansion of the domain of human attributes that define human capital can be usefully understood with a taxonomy highlighting the distinction between can do and will do attributes (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011; see also Chiaburu and Lindsay, 2008; Gibbons and Weingart, 2001; Zhao and Chadwick, 2014). According to this taxonomy, some attributes contribute to employees’ ability to execute essential job tasks. Classic exemplars of can do attributes include cognitive ability, general knowledge, job knowledge and problem-solving skills. Other human attributes influence willingness to exert effort, to contribute ideas and to assist fellow colleagues. Classic exemplars of will do attributes include job-related personality traits, work attitudes and beliefs.This can do/will do taxonomy is highly consistent with almost acentury of research on the determinants of human performance, research that recognizes both ability and motivation as independent determinants of job performance; for the most recent meta-analytic review of the roles of motivation and ability, see Van Iddekinge et al. (2018). There is considerable evidence that innovation and the success of organizations, require behaviors that go beyond the usual role requirements of jobs and depend substantially on employees’ motivation and willingness to engage in these behaviors (Chiu, 2018; McGuirk et al., 2015; Shalley, 1995; Menold et al., 2014). In particular, employees’ attitudes regarding both their jobs and their organizations appear to be important determinants of their willingness to engage in the work behaviors needed to support innovation (Allen et al., 2011; Bateman and Organ, 1983; Cetin et al., 2015; Moorman, 1993; Zhao and Chadwick, 2014; Coad et al., 2014; Kato et al., 2015). These perceptions and attitudes about jobs and organizations comprise a critically important component of human capital that can be brought to bear in fostering innovation in organizations.Knowledge and job-related skills represent can do attributes; tangible proxies for these attributes (e.g., level of education, amount of job training) have been the traditional focus of public policy aimed at enhancing human capital (Becker, 1964; Cohen and Soto, 2007; Marshall et al., 1993; Nistor, 2007). Despite growing evidence regarding theimportance of will do human capital attributes in business, there has been an almost complete absence of public policy initiatives to address these aspects of human capital. This is in large part because the targets for public policy are less obvious when attempting to build will do attributes. Policy interventions addressing the will do aspects of human capital are a prime focus of the current paper.In this study, we aim to address the following key questions: (1) What human resource systems, policies, and practices of firms are linked to motivationally-relevant (will do) human capital attributes, such as employee-managers’ job satisfaction, commitment to their organization, and willingness to change? (2) What are the implications for public policy in terms of policy instruments that can effectively promote the development and support of these human capital attributes? As we describe below, both of these represent distinct contributions to the empirical and policy-oriented literatures. This is achieved by demonstrating the empirical links between several organizational policies and practices and will do elements of human capital that are relevant to innovation. We then use this information as a springboard for a public policy program intervention designed to help organizations assess and tailor their policies and practices in ways that can facilitate the growth of human capital to support the firm’s innovative capacity.We focus on employee-managers, a cohort used in severalinnovation studies (e.g., Leiva et al. (2011) and seen as key to innovation (Fitjar et al., 2013). We argue for the importance of creating a firm-level culture that hones human resource systems, thus promoting innovation. In this context, managers are key. Following Becker’s (1964) and Oketch’s (2006) studies of the determinants of human capital as measured by education, we seek to examine the determinants of motivationally- relevant elements of human capital. Understanding the factors that underpin these human capital attributes is significant for innovation theory development and is of practical value to policy makers and firms seeking to increase innovation activity.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we set out the theoretical context of the research. In section 3, we explain the data and methodology. In section 4, we present the empirical results of the regression analyses. In section 5, we discuss policy supports and implications for policy regarding the development of the motivationally- relevant elements of human capital. We propose a new policy program offer, with the ultimate aim of driving firm-level innovation. Section 6 concludes and explores both the implications and the limitations of our research.Theoretical context of human capital and human resource systems Interest is growing in measuring human capital beyond education and training (e.g., Perdreau et al., 2015; Arvanitis and Stucki, 2012).However, there are challenges to measuring human capital’s motivationally-relevant elements, such as work attitudes or motivation (Coronado et al., 2008); measuring these elements is an attempt to make visible what is invisible (Kramer, 2008). These challenges may explain why, in economic research and public policy, researchers frequently overlook these elements of human capital.Our analysis focuses on three elements of human capital that appear to be the most directly relevant to understanding employee-ma nagers’ willingness and motivation to contribute to innovation in work organizations. These elements are employee-managers’ job satisfaction, commitment to their organization, and willingness to change in the workplace.How motivationally-relevant elements of human capital provide a foundation for innovationThe first element of human capital we focus on, job satisfaction, is defined as individuals’ wellbeing or level of contentment in relation to their job (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Job satisfaction supports a number of firm-level functions, including formulation of knowledge and problem-solving strategies (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Whitman et al., 2010). Individuals who are highly satisfied with their jobs are more likely to engage in behaviors necessary for successful motivation, for example, they are motivated to exert extra effort, takerisks, learn new skills, and contribute unique ideas to their organization (Bowling, 2010; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Weikamp and Göritz, 2016). In contrast, individuals who are less satisfied by their jobs (e.g., because they find their job stressful) are less likely to engage in behaviors necessary for successful innovation (Eatough et al., 2011; LePine et al., 2002).The second element of human capital we focus on is employee- managers’ identification with and commitment to their organization (Mowday et al., 1981; Williams and Anderson, 1991). A wide range of work attitudes can contribute to firms’ performance (Melesse, 2016).Constructs such as organizational identification and commitment are particularly relevant to understanding innovation because innovativebehavior is often risky; these risks are more readily undertaken by individuals who both trust and care for the success of their organization (Dalal, 2005; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; LePine et al., 2002; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ, 1988; Organ and Ryan, 1995).Finally, the third element of human capital we focus on iswillingness to change. A number of studies examine the role of employees’ willingness to change (e.g., to change the level of technology, skills and responsibility required to improve how work is done) in determining organizational success (Pulakos et al., 2000, 2002; van den Berg and van der Velde, 2006) and employees’ orientation towardinnovation (Montalvo et al., 2006). Willingness to change is found to influence the adoption or rejection of innovations (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998).Human resource systems connected to the motivationally-relevant elements of human capitalAlthough organizations cannot directly control the perceptions and attitudes of workers (Colarelli and Arvey, 2015), they can decisively influence these perceptions and attitudes by how they interact with their workforce. In particular, there is clear evidence (summarized below) that well-managed human resource systems have a strong effect on the probability of employees being satisfied, committed, and willing to make the changes, take the risks, and exert the extra effort that innovation requires.Human resource systems in organizations deal with recruiting, hiring, training, evaluating, rewarding, and sometimes sanctioning workers (e.g., through redundancies, disciplinary processes, and terminations). These systems provide important information to employees, ranging from orientation and organizational socialization to performance feedback (Cascio, 2012). This information, together with other outcomes of these human resource processes (e.g., rewards), influence the perceptions and attitudes of employees.A substantial body of research links the quality of human resourcesystems with employee attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs. For example, there is evidence that human resource systems that provide timely performance feedback enhance employees’ a) success at adapting to changing conditions and b) their willingness to adapt and change their workplace behavior to create new products and processes (Pulakos et al., 2000, 2002). Piening et al. (2013) note that when organizations provide incentives to employees (e.g., training, opportunities for salary increase and advancement), they are likely to respond with favourable perceptions and behaviors. If implemented effectively, well-constructed human resource programs and practices are likely to cause employees to view themselves as operating a social exchange relationship characterized by mutual trust, respect, and support (Evans and Davis, 2005; Kehoe and Wright, 2013). In turn, this positive relationship is likely to motivate employees to engage in a range of behaviors that encourage and support innovation.Human resource practices that provide information and support to employees appear to contribute especially to the encouragement of innovation. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) refer to the importance of absorptive capacity, which includes the contributions made by individuals and also an organization’s capacity to exploit these contributions. Such high-involvement practice is of growing interest in the organizational performance and human resource management literatures (Böckerman etal., 2012). There is evidence linking aspects of high-quality human resource systems to specific work attitudes, including job satisfaction (Gould-Williams, 2003), organizational commitment (Allen et al., 2003; Meyer and Smith, 2000; Whitener, 2001), and willingness to change (Pulakos et al., 2000, 2002).ConclusionsIn this paper, we examined empirically-supported public policy interventions that can help firms develop and enhance motivationally- relevant (will do) elements of human capital, elements that are required to support firm-level innovation. Public policy targeted at increasing human capital traditionally concerns itself with the can do attributes of human capital (usually knowledge and skills), resulting in interventions that involve education and training. The development of will do attributes, such as attitudes and perceptions influencing employees’ willingness to innovate, require different public policy interventions.Our analysis, based on information retrieved from the Irish National Centre for Partnership and Performance Workplace Survey (NCPP, 2009), reports that firms providing human resource systems, such as greater use of proactive work practices and greater levels of consultation with employee-managers are associated with an increased probability of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and willingness to change of such managers. We also report that bonus schemes (as part of pay andconditions) are linked to motivationally-relevant human capital, as measured by job satisfaction and willingness to change. It would be remiss however, not to acknowledge that some of the human resource systems variables reveal mixed results. For example, we report that greater frequency of information, job share and flexitime (part of work arrangements) have no significant relationship to the majority of the will do elements of human capital. In some cases, human resource systems variables such as the receipt of share options as part of pay and conditions have a negative impact.By boundary-spanning the economics, innovation, and organizational science literatures, our research provides valuable contributions to theory, practice, and policy. From a theoretical perspective, our research makes two key contributions. First, our research extends the understanding of human capital and its supports, with the ultimate objective being that of driving firm-level innovation. Our findings concur with Cowling (2016) on the importance of building firm- level capabilities in support of innovation activity. Our findings help to bring some specificity to this literature by highlighting specific human resource management policies and practices that can be empirically linked to the motivational components of innovation.Second, our research highlights the need to consider the role of public investment in supporting the will do, motivationally-relevantelements of human capital as a driver of firm-level innovation. In particular, we outline a program for developing and implementing interventions that give organizations the tools and knowledge needed to support their employees’ motivation to innovate. We affirm Bell’s (2009, p.50) call for greater focus on “broad magnitudes a nd trends of the more important non-R&D components of innovative activity”, and policy discussion “about the kind of innovation capability that is created and accumulated”.From the perspective of practice at the level of the organization, our research sug gests that firms’ innovation activity may benefit from human resource systems such as proactive work practices, consultation and bonus schemes (part of pay and conditions). These systems motivate employees and support positive work attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment and willingness to change in the workplace. Interestingly, one of the human resource systems we measure, frequency of information, does not appear to have much impact on the probability of will do traits. This may suggest that among potentially useful human resource systems, some appear to be more closely linked to will do traits than others.From the perspective of policy implication, our research suggests that public policy can support the development of elements of human capital that have heretofore been largely ignored in debates about how tosupport innovation in organizations. Literature examining the role of public policy in human capital development has focused almost exclusively on can do elements of human capital –specifically, knowledge and skills (Becker, 1964; de Rassenfosse et al., 2011). Our results suggest that public policies can aid firms as they identify, implement, and monitor particular human resource management policies. These are the policies that are empirically shown to enhance and develop both the attitudes and beliefs necessary to support firm-level innovation.A total overhaul of current programs is unnecessary. Instead, policy should recognize the value of the will do elements of human capital and the importance of human resource systems in their development. Market and systemic failures may also justify public support for the will do elements of human capital.Public policy interventions can help by making the necessary resources, expertise, and knowledge available to organizations, so that the organizations can focus on the will do elements of human capital. A role for government exists in terms of minimizing the risks (whether real or perceived) associated with firms investing in the will do elements of human capital in their organizations. The ultimate goal is to drive firm- level innovation.We propose a new policy program offer (InnovativePeople4Growth) to support the will do, motivationally-relevant elements of human capitalin order to increase firms’ innovation activity. This offer incentivizes firms to promote the will do elements of human capital as a competitive resource.Regarding avenues for future research, such research might usefully consider a broader range of variables that are likely to influence work attitudes. For example, job satisfaction and related work attitudes are strongly influenced by factors such as the design of jobs (e.g., opportunities for autonomy and meaningful work) and the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships (Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).Of course, satisfaction, commitment, and the like are not the only work attitudes that are likely to influence willingness to innovate. Perceptions of justice have the potential to influence will do components of human capital. A substantial literature deals with perceptions of fairness and justice in procedural allocation of rewards and interpersonal treatment (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano and Kackmar, 1995). More comprehensive datasets providing further information on the impact of firm-level variation in these factors could allow future research to extend and improve our work.In this paper we have presented each program in our InnovativePeople4Growth policy offer as a ‘stand-alone’ program, so that firms can adopt an á la carte approach. However, the interactionbetween programs has potential as an effective policy instrument mix. Further investigation and future research is merited to study the effective interactions between programs supporting the will do elements of human capital. This could be based on Flanagan et al.’s (2011) multi-level, multi-actor analysis, and/or Lanahan and Feldman’s (2015) examination of multi-level innovation policy in US small business innovation research programs.This study relied on data from the NCPP (2009) survey. While this survey provides reliable data that is national in scope, there are several potential drawbacks in relying on archival data. First, the NCPP (2009) survey includes only a single response per organization. It is possible that different members of the same organization might have quite different perceptions and understandings of organizational policies and that a multi-respondent survey might have provided higher levels of external validity. Also, this survey was not specifically designed to measure the key constructs in our study, that is, the determinants of will do aspects of human capital relevant to innovation. The mapping of survey items to these constructs is necessarily a matter of judgment and therefore fallible.Despite these limitations, our research represents an important step forward for academics, policymakers, and firms in how they consider and analyze the roles that the motivationally-relevant (will do) elements ofhuman capita l, firms’ human resource systems, and public policy interventions might play (with the ultimate aim of driving firm-level innovation).译文推动创新：公共政策和人力资本海伦娜·列尼汉, 海伦·麦奎尔克, 凯文·墨菲摘要人力资本，即体现在人身上的技能，知识，能力和属性，对于企业吸收和组织知识以及进行创新的能力至关重要。

公共管理英文作文In the intricate tapestry of society, publicadministration is the thread that weaves together the diverse elements of governance, ensuring that the fabric of our communities remains strong and vibrant. It is a field that transcends mere bureaucracy, encompassing a symphony of policies, programs, and practices designed to serve thepublic interest and enhance the collective well-being of all citizens.At its core, public management is the art of steering the ship of state with a steady hand, navigating through the treacherous waters of political pressures, economic constraints, and social expectations. It requires a blend of strategic vision, ethical integrity, and managerial acumen to effectively address the myriad challenges that confront modern governments.From the meticulous planning of urban landscapes to the delivery of essential services like healthcare and education, public administrators play a pivotal role in shaping thelives of millions. They are the unsung heroes who work tirelessly behind the scenes, orchestrating the complex machinery of government to function efficiently and equitably.In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and growing global interdependence, the role of public management has become more critical than ever. It demands a new breed ofleaders who are not only adept at managing resources and personnel but also skilled in fostering collaboration, innovation, and resilience.As we forge ahead into an uncertain future, the principles of public management must evolve to meet the changing needs of society. It is a dynamic field that calls for continuous learning, adaptability, and a deep commitment to the public good. The future of public administration lies in the hands of those who are willing to embrace change, champion transparency, and uphold the values that define our democratic institutions.In essence, public management is not just a profession; it is a calling—a noble pursuit that seeks to make a tangible difference in the lives of people and communities. It is a testament to the enduring belief that through collective effort and enlightened leadership, we can build a better world for generations to come.。

公共管理中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)中英文资料外文翻译The New Public Management SituationNo doubt, many countries in the world, and both developed countries and developing countries, in the late 1980s and early 1990s began a continuous public sector management reform movement. The reform movement is still in many aspects government continue to the organization and management of the influence. People in these reforms view repudiating them. Critics especially in Britain and the United States, critics say the new mode of various problems exist, but also does not have the international prevailing reform of public management, could not be called paradigm. Criticism from almost every aspect of the change. Most of the academic criticismbelong to the mouth. Different schools of thought in detail discussion, The academic journal articles and abstraction, from reality. At the same time, in the practice of public management and implementation of the reform and the change. As I in other articles in the thought, in most countries, the traditional public administrative mode for public management mode has been replaced. The reform of public department responded to the realities of several interrelated problems, including: the function of public sector provide public services of low efficiency, Economic theory of change, Private sector related changes impact of globalization, especially as a kind of economic power, Technology changes made decentralization and better control globally becomes possible. The administrative management can be divided into three stages: the development of distinct phases,and public administration before traditional pattern and public management reform stage. Each stage has its own management mode. From a stage of transition to the next stage is not easy, from the traditional public administration to public administration has not yet completed the transition. But it was only a matter of time. Because the new mode of theoretical basis is very strong. The new public management movement ", "although this name, but it is not only a debate in the booming, and in most developed countries have taken the best management mode of expression. The traditional administrative mode than it's age is a great reform, but that time has passed.A traditional patternObviously, in the late 19th century bureaucracy system theory, not sound already exists some form of administrative management. Public administration has a long history, and it is the concept of a government and the rise of civilization as history. As the case Glad2den Osama bin laden (point), a model of administrative since the government appears has existed. First is endowed with founder or leader, then is the social or administrative person to organizers of eternity. Administration management or business is all in social activities, although not among factors, but the glow of social sustainable development is of vital importance. Recognized administrative system in ancient Egypt is already exists, its jurisdiction from the Nile flooding caused by the year to build the pyramids irrigation affairs. China is adopted in the han dynasty, Confucian norms that government should be elected, not according to the background, but according to the character and ability, the government's main goal is to seek the welfare of the people. In Europe, various empire - Greek, Roman, and the holy Roman, Spain'sadministrative empire, they first by the central through various rules and procedures. Weber's thought, "modern" medieval countries develop simultaneously with "bureaucratic management structure development". Although these countries in different ways, but they have common features, it can be called before modern. Namely, the administrative system of early essence is the personification of, or the establishment in Max Weber's "nepotism" basis, i.e. to loyal to the king or minister certain human foundation, not is personified, With allegiance to the organization or individual basis rather than for the foundation. Although there are such a viewpoint that administration itself not only praise from traditional mode, the characteristic of early but often leads to seek personal interests corruption or abuse of power. In the early administrative system, we now feel very strange approach has the functions of government administration is generally behavior. All those who walk official tend to rely on friends or relatives for work or buy officer, which means the money to buy the first officer or tax officials, and then out to the customer to money, which is the first to buy officer recovery investment cost, and can make a fortune. America in the 19th century FenFei system of "political parties" means in the ruling changed at the same time, the government of all administrative position is changed. Modern bureaucracy is before "personal, traditional, diffusion and similar and special", and according to the argument, modern Weber bureaucracy is "impersonal, rational, concrete, achievement orientation and common". Personalized government is often inefficient: nepotism means incompetent not capable person was arranged to positions of leadership, FenFei political corruption, in addition to making often still exist serious low efficiency. The enormoussuccess of traditional administrative pattern that early practice looks strange. Specialization and not politicized administrative in our opinion is so difficult to imagine that trace, there exist other system. Western administrative system even simple selection of officials to pass theexam, until 1854, Britain and north G..M. Trevelyan report after Northcote - began to establish in China, although the system has long passage.The traditional public administrative patternIn the late 19th century, additionally one kind of pattern on the world popular, this is the so-called traditional administrative pattern. Its main theoretical basis from several countries, namely, the American scholars and Germany Woodrow Wilson of Max Weber's, people put their associated with bureaucracy model, Frederick Tyler systematically elaborated the scientific management theory, the theory of the private sector from America, for public administration method was provided. And the other theorists, Taylor without focusing on public sector, but his theory was influential in this field. The three traditional public administration mode is theorist of main effect. In other countries, plus G..M. Trevelyan and North America, the state administration of administrative system, especially the Wilson has produced important influence. In the 19th century, the north G..M. Trevelyan and put forward through the examination and character, and appointed officials put forward bias and administrative neutral point of view. The traditional administrative pattern has the following features:1. The bureaucracy. The government shall, according to the principle of bureaucratic rank and organization. The German sociologist Max Weber bureaucracy system of a classic, andanalysis. Although the bureaucracy in business organizations and other tissues, but it is in the public sector got better and longer.2. The best way of working and procedures are in full manual detail codes, for administrative personnel to follow. Strictly abide by these principles will run for the organization provides the best way.3. Bureaucratic service. Once the government policy areas in, it will be through the bureaucracy to provide public products and service providers.4. In political and administrative two relations, political and administrative managers generally think of administrative affairs can be separated. Administration is the implement instruction, and any matter policy or strategic affairs shall be decided by the political leaders, which can ensure that the democratic system.5. Public interests are assumed to individual civil servants, the only motive for public service is selfless paying.6. Professional bureaucracy. Public administration is viewed as a kind of special activities, thus requirements, obscure, civil servants neutral equal employment and lifelong service to any political leaders.7. The administrative task is to carry out the meaning of the written instructions and not others assume the personal responsibility.Through the comparison of the early administrative pattern, we can better understand the main advantages and Webber system differences. Webber system and it is the most important mode of various before the difference: the rule-based impersonal system replaced the personification of administrative management system. An organization and its rules than any of the people are important organization. Bureaucracy is itsoperation and how to respond to customer must is personified. As Weber has demonstrated that the modern office management ", will be incorporated into various regulations deeply touched it. The modern public administration by law theory, to command certain affairs authority has been awarded the legitimate public authority. This does not grant an institution specific cases through some instructions. It only matters is abstractly control some issues. In contrast, through personal privileges and give concession regulation of all affairs. The latter is completely dominated by the hereditary system, at least these affairs is not the traditional infringement is this situation."It is very important. Early administration based on personal relationships, be loyal to relatives, protect, leaders or political, rather than on the system. Sometimes, the early administration is politically sensitive, because of the administrative organs of the staff is appointed, they also politicians arms or mainstream class. However, it is often autocratic, autocratic administration may be unfair, especially for those who can't or unwilling to input personal and political game. One of the basic principles for with weber impersonal system to completely eliminate autocratic - at least in ideal condition is so. File exists, the reference principle of parallel and legal basis in the same environment means will always make the same decision. Below this kind ofcircumstance is not only more efficient, and the citizen and bureaucratic hierarchy know myself.Other differences were associated with this. In various regulations and impersonal basis, will naturally formed strict hierarchy. Personal rating system and its provisions in the left unchanged. Although Webber emphasizes the entire system, but he also noticed the bureaucracy of the organization andindividual term.The traditional administrative mode won great success, it is widely adopted by governments around the world. Theoretically or in practice, it shows the advantage. And before the corruption flourished, it is more efficient than system, and the thought of individual professionalization civil servants and amateur service has a great progress. However, this model is also exposed the problems that shows that the model can even said outdated, also can say is outdated.The theory of public administration has been difficult to describe the pillar. Political control theory has problems. Administrative means follow instructions, so people demand a well-ordered transceiver method. Instruction between implementers and has a clear division. But this is not the reality, and with the public service domain expands the scale and more impossible. The traditional mode of another theoretical pillar - bureaucracy theory is no longer considered particularly effective form of organization. Formal bureaucracy could have its advantages, but people think it often training to routineer and innovators, Encourage executives rather than risk aversion risk-taking, encourage them to waste instead of effective use of scarce resources. Webb was the bureaucracy is regarded as an ideal type ", "but now this ideal type is inert, cultivate the progressive, leads to low efficiency, these mediocrity and is believed to be the public sector of the special disease. It is also criticized. Actually, the word "bureaucracy in today's more likely as low efficiency of synonyms.The new public management modeIn the 1980s, the public sector is a traditional administrative pattern of new management methods of defects. This methodcan alleviate some of the problems of traditional pattern, also means that the public sector operation aspects has changed significantly. The new management method has many names: management of "individualism", "the new public administration", based on the market of public administration ", after the bureaucracy model "or" entrepreneurial government ". To the late 1990s, people tend to use "and the concept of new public administration". Although the new public management, but for many of the names of public management of department of actual changes happened, people still have a consensus. First, no matter what, it is called mode with traditional represents a significant change of public administration, different more attention and managers of the individual responsibility. Second, it is clear to get rid of the classical bureaucracy, thereby organization, personnel, term and conditions more flexible. Third, it stipulates the organization and personnel, and it can target according to the performance indicators measuring task completion. Also, to plan the assessment system for more than ever before, and also can be more strictly determine whether the government plans to achieve its objectives. Fourth, the senior executives are more likely to color with political government work, rather than independent or neutral. Fifth, the more likely the inspection by the market, buyers of public service provider and distinguish "helmsman, with the rower to distinguish". Government intervention is not always refers to the government by means of bureaucracy. Sixth, appeared through privatization and market means such as inspection, contract of government function reduce trend. In some cases, it is fundamental. Once happened during the transformation from the important changes to all connected with this, the continuity of the steps arenecessary.Holmes and Shand as a useful characteristics of generalization. They put the new public management paradigm, the good as management method has the following features: (1) it is a more strategic or structure of decision-making method (around the efficiency, quality and service). (2) decentralization type management environment replaced concentration level structure. The resource allocation and service delivery closer to supply, we can get more itself from the customers and related information and other interest groups. (3) can be more flexible to replace the method of public products supply directly, so as to provide cost savings of the policy. (4) concernedwith the responsibility, authority as the key link of improving performance, including emphasize clear performance contract mechanism. (5) in the public sector, and between internal to create a competitive environment. (6) strengthen the strategic decision-making ability, which can quickly, flexible and low cost to manage multiple interests outside change and the response.(7) by request relevant results and comprehensive cost reports to improve transparency and responsibility. (8) general service budget and management system to support and encourage the change.The new public management and realize a result that no one in the best way. Managers in endowed with responsibility and without being told to get results. Decision is a management job duties, if not for achieving goals, managers should assume responsibility.ConclusionThe government management over the past 150 years experienced three modes. First is the personification of modernadministrative mode, or when the pattern of its defects and increasingly exposed to improve efficiency, it is the second mode of traditional bureaucracy model is replaced. Similarly, when the traditional administrative mode problems, it is the third model is the new public management, from the government to alternative market. Since 1980s, the dominance of the market as the 1920s to 1960s dominant bureaucracy. In any kind of government, market and bureaucratic system are coexisting, just a form at some stage dominant, and in another stage of another kind of form, the dominant. The new public management is increasingly weakened and bureaucracy in the public administration field market dominant period.In reality, the market and bureaucracy, mutual complement each other. The new public management may not be completely replace the bureaucracy, as in 1989, the eastern Europe before bureaucracy could not instead of the market. But the new public management movement is early traditional bureaucracy, many functions can be and often by market now. In a bureaucracy system for organizational principle is weakened environment, market solutions will be launched. Of course not all market prescription can succeed, but this is not the issue. The government of new public management will be a toolbox dowsed solutions. If the scheme of the ineffective, the government will from the same source for other solutions. The theory behind the government management has already happened, we can use the term "paradigm" to describe it. In public administration academia, many of the new public management denial of critics. But their criticism of the government reform quickly. In the new public management mode, another a kind of new mode, but certainly not returned tothe traditional administrative pattern.新公共管理的现状毫无疑问,世界上许多国家,无论是发达国家还是发展中国家,在20世纪80年代后期和90年代初期都开始了一场持续的公共部门管理变革运动。

公共行政学经典文选(英文版)1 .The Study of Administration Woodrow WilsonP18第二部分的前两段The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the debatable ground of constitutional study.It is a part of political lifeonly as the methods of the counting-house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.The object of administrative study is to rescue executive methods fromthe confusion and costliness of empirical experiment and set them upon foundations laid deep in stable principle.行政管理的领域是一种事务性的领域，它与政治领域的那种混乱和冲突相距甚远。

(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Public Personnel Management, 12(2):159-166.英文原文New Public Management and the Quality of Government: Coping withthe New Political Governance in CanadaPeter AucoinA 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 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-partisan 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 to 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 overridethe public service –an impartial institution 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 good 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 the 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 virtually 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 first 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 forimpartiality, performance and accountability.New Public Management in the Canadian ContextSince 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 movement 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 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 public 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 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 allgovernments, at least as the norm (although it was not always or everywhere referred to as NPM). 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 othe r public-sector agencies as well as with privatesector agencies in tackling horizontal – multi-organizational and/or multisectoral – issues.This increased managerial authority, flexibility and discretion was, in some jurisdictions, notably the Britain and New Zealand, coupled with increased organizational differentiation, as evidenced by a proliferation of departments and agencies with narrowed mandates, many with a single purpose. “Agencification’, however, was not a major focus reform in all jurisdictions, including Canada and Australia where such change, if not on the margins, was clearly secondary to enhanced managerial authority and responsibility (Pollitt and Talbot 2004).The major NPM innovations quickly led to concerns, especially in those jurisdictions where these developments were most advanced, about a loss of public service coherence and corporate capacity, on the one hand, and a diminished sense of and commitment to public-service ethos, ethics and values, on the other. Reactions to these concerns produced some retreat, reversals, and re-balancing of the systems in questions (Halligan2006). Nowhere, however, was there a wholesale rejection of NPM, in theory or practice, and a return to traditional public administration, even if there necessarily emerged some tension between rhetoric and action (Gregory 2006). The improvements in public management brought about by at least some aspects of NPM were simply too obvious, even if these improvements were modest in comparison to the original claims of NPM proponents.At the same time that NPM became a major force for change in public administration, however, it was accompanied by a companion force that saw political executives seeking to assert greater political control over the administration and apparatus of the state, not only in the formulation of public policies but also in the administration of public services. Accordingly, from the start, at least in the Anglo-American systems, there was a fundamental paradox as political executives, on both the left and the right sides of the partisan-political divide, sought to (re)assert dominance over their public-service bureaucracies while simultaneously devolving greater management authority to them (Aucoin 1990).The impetus for this dynamic lay in the dissatisfaction of many political executives with the ‘responsiveness’ of public servants to the political authority and policy agendas of these elected officials. Public choice and principal-agency theories provided the ideologicaljustifications for taking action against what were perceived as self-serving bureaucrats (Boston 1996). Beyond theory and ideology, however, the practice of public administration by professional public servants in some jurisdictions, notably Australia, Britain and New Zealand, offered more than sufficient evidence to political leaders of a public-service culture that gave only grudging acceptance, at best, to the capacity of elected politicians to determine what constituted the ‘public interest’ in public policy and administration.The Canadian case is of interest, I suggest, for several reasons. In comparative perspective, Canada did not approach public management reform with much of an ideological perspective. When the Conservatives defeated the centrist Liberals in 1984, neither the new prime minister, Brian Mulroney, nor his leading ministers were hardcore neo-conservatives in the Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher mold. At that time, and until the end of the Conservative government in 1993, the party was essentially a centrist party in the Canadian ‘brokerage’ party tradition. While important aspects of neoliberalism unfolded, especially under the umbrella of economic deregulation that came with a free-trade agreement with the United States, there were no major administrative reforms that were politically driven. Pragmatism prevailed (Gow 2004). As a result, the reforms initiated during this period were essentially undertakings of the professional public-service leadership that sought tostay abreast with developments elsewhere. The scope and depth of these reforms were affected, however, by the extent to which ministers wanted to maintain an active involvement in administration (Aucoin 1995).By comparison to developments elsewhere, Canadian ministers were less inclined to worry about the professional public service being unresponsive to their political direction. Nonetheless, the Mulroney regime saw an expansion in the number, roles and influence of ‘political staff’ appointed to ministers’ offices, most notably in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). These staff, who have grown continuously in number over the past four decades, are not public servants, although they are employed on the public payroll. Unlike public servants, who are appointed independently of ministers, political staff are appointed and dismissed at the discretion of ministers and, of course, they have no tenure beyond their ministers. And, in official constitutional doctrine, they have no separate authority to direct the public service. In the Canadian tradition, moreover, they are appointed almost exclusively from partisan-political circles and appointees rarely possess any public service experience.For all these reasons, the Canadian government did not go as far down the NPM road as its three major Westminster counterparts (Australia, Britain and New Zealand) in terms of such matters as ‘agencification,’ devolution, term contracts for executives, external recruitment, or contracting-out. And, the reforms that did occur did notfundamentally transform the traditional administrative architecture. Throughout, there was retained, and even further developed:• an integrated public service, with the most senior levels drawn from the career public service and managed and deployed as a corporate executive resource;• departmental organizations, structured hierarchically with the minister as political executive and combining public policy and operational/service delivery responsibilities; and,• public administrative structures for addressing both corporate or governmentwide concerns and horizontal policy and service delivery issues.These features were seen as strengths of the Canadian approach (Bourgon 1998; Lindquist 2006; Dunn 2002).At the same time, reforms were initiated to improve public management that followed the principal NPM script: some measure of devolution of management authority from central management agencies to the senior public-service executives of line departments for (a) achieving greater economy and efficiency in the use of public resources, (b) improving service delivery, and (c) enhancing collaboration across departments to address those wicked ‘horizontal’ problems that defy government’s organizational boundaries (Bakvis and Juillet 2004).Further, in addressing one major challenge that was critical in thefirst years of NPM, namely, the fiscal crisis of the state in the latter part of the 20th century, the record of Canada was at first dismal and then dramatically successful. While the Conservative government, in power from 1984-93, was unable to wrestle annual deficits to the ground, a major program-budget review initiated following the Liberal Party victory in 1993 resulted, in surprisingly short order, in annual multi-billion dollar budget surpluses for over a decade – the best record in the G-8 nations (a group that does not include Australia which has had a similar experience with very large budget surpluses). On this front, political will and discipline, but not ideology, was a decisive force.By the first decade of the 21st century, moreover, Canada also came to be ranked first both in E-Government and in Service Delivery on one major international scorecard. On this front, the fact that the public service has been able to operate essentially on its own has helped spur progress. The Canadian emphasis on citizen-centred service drew inspiration from the NPM focus on ‘customers’ but, at the same time, paid serious attention to the priorities of citizens as defined by citizens –the outside-in perspective that enabled a significant advance in integrated service delivery structures and processes using multiple channels of service (Flumian, Coe and Kernaghan 2007). The Canadian methodology for this performance-based approach to service-delivery measurement and improvement is being adopted elsewhere in the Westminster systems.Finally, and clearly on a much less positive note, a good deal of attention has been required in Canada over the past decade to codes of ethics, public service values, transparency, comptrollership, and public accountability –thanks in large part to a series of alleged and real political-administrative scandals! Not surprisingly, this is where NPG and its effects on the quality of government can be witnessed in spades.中文译文新公共管理与政府素质：加拿大的新政府治理Peter Aucoin新公共管理（NPM）与善治之间的紧张关系，包括良好的公共管理，早已被那些认为公共产品管理倡导和带来的结构和做法背离了支持传统公众的善治原则和规范的人所认可管理（萨瓦1994）。

对公共管理的理解英文小作文Public Administration: A Multifaceted Discipline.Public administration is the study of the management of public organizations and the execution of public policy. It encompasses a wide range of activities, including budgeting, financial management, human resources management, procurement, customer service, and strategic planning.Public administrators work in a variety of settings, including government agencies, non-profit organizations,and international organizations.The field of public administration has evolved significantly over the years. In the early days, public administration was primarily concerned with the efficient and effective management of government agencies. However,in recent decades, the field has expanded to include a broader range of topics, such as the role of public policyin society, the impact of technology on public administration, and the ethical challenges facing publicadministrators.Today, public administration is a highly interdisciplinary field that draws on a variety of academic disciplines, including political science, economics, sociology, and psychology. Public administrators need to have a strong understanding of these disciplines in order to effectively manage public organizations and execute public policy.Public administration is a challenging but rewarding field. Public administrators have the opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of others. They can help to improve the quality of public services, promote economic development, and protect the environment.The Role of Public Administration.Public administration plays a vital role in the functioning of society. Public administrators are responsible for managing the resources and delivering the services that are essential to the well-being of citizens.These services include education, healthcare, public safety, and infrastructure.Public administration also plays a key role in the development and implementation of public policy. Public administrators help to identify and analyze problems, develop policy options, and implement policy decisions.They also work to ensure that public policies are effective and efficient.The Challenges Facing Public Administration.Public administration faces a number of challenges inthe 21st century. These challenges include:The increasing complexity of public problems.The rising cost of public services.The need to improve the efficiency and effectivenessof government.The ethical challenges facing public administrators.Public administrators need to be creative and innovative in order to overcome these challenges. They need to find new ways to deliver public services moreefficiently and effectively. They also need to be aware of the ethical challenges they face and make decisions that are in the best interests of the public.The Future of Public Administration.The future of public administration is bright. Thefield is constantly evolving to meet the changing needs of society. Public administrators will continue to play avital role in the functioning of society and in the development and implementation of public policy.Public administration is a dynamic and challenging field. It is a field that offers a variety of career opportunities and the chance to make a real difference in the world.。

外文出处：rlocatereconbase.ht ml(用外文写)附件1：外文资料翻译译文“公共池塘资源”中“按比例缩减”的效力与局限性摘要：本文调查了“按比例缩减”（proportional cutbacks）作为一种改进“公共池塘资源”(CPRs)性能的分配规则的优点以及局限性，并对这两个方面的案例加以分析。

对于对称的公共池塘资源，我们已经建立了提高效率的“按比例缩减”，但随之带来的各种复杂因素引起了“按比例缩减”闭联集的不对称。

这种不对称将效率提高于“纳什均衡”（Nash equilibrium）之上。

将“公共池塘资源”这个线性二次方程模型用于调整全球二氧化碳的排放，其按比例缩减——正如京都议定书中所体现的，达到了高效、合理分配的效果。

1、导言公共池塘资源(CPRs)是一种自然或人工的资源。

但很显然，由于其中自然的或体制上的障碍，所以其排他性也是非比寻常的，并且收益将会减少。

一个普遍的假定是，适合于CPRs的个人会陷于社会意义上的两难境地，这将不可避免地造成资源的浪费与破坏(cordon, 1954; Hardin,1968)。

近几年，学者们备有大量田野设置数据，它们主要记录了个体所面对的，很多复杂的，源于CPR设置的占有问题。

尽管很多研究与这一有关过度使用的悲观假设一致，但越来越多的研究证明了资源使用者的能力，即创造并内在地维持公共机构，以便使这些资源的使用更有效率。

实验结果中出现的CPR两难境地的有限重复结构，从理论上支撑了田野调查的发现。

当主题（subject）被放置于独立做出决定的设置中时，他们的集体行为就与对资源使用的平衡预测保持一致。

另一方面，当被允许使用或沟通其他合作机制时，主题通常采用与效率和可支持的资源使用一致的维持协议(Ostrom et al., 1994; Walker et al., 1991)。

即使在参与者的资产不对称的案例中，面对面的交流也使得参与者接近最优先性。

第一章1、There has been a transformation in the management of the public sectors of advanced countries. 发达国家公共部门的管理经历了一场转变。

2、This new paradigm poses a direct challenge to several of what had previously been regarded as fundamental principles of traditional public administration.这种新的典范对曾被认为是公共行政的一些基本的、几乎是永恒的原理提出了直接的挑战。

3、All these points will be discussed at greater length later,but the main point is there has been total change in a profession that saw little change for around a hundred years.虽然上述一切都值得深入探讨，这里强调的主要一点是，在100年来很少发生变化的公共部门职业领域，如今已经发生了全面的变革。

4、There is some debate over whether or not public management,particularly the new public management,is a new paradigm for public sector management.这里有一些争论，关于是否公共管理,特别是新公共管理是公共部门管理的新典范。

5、Some argue that paradigm is large hurdle to jump,requiring agreement among all a discipline's practitioners -- a more or less permanent way of looking at the world.一些人认为典范是巨大的障碍,需要协议在所有学科的实践者——或多或少永久看待世界的方式。

公共管理外文文献
公共管理是一门研究政府组织和公共事务管理的学科，旨在提高公共部门的效率和效果，以满足社会的需求和期望。

在公共管理领域，许多重要的外文文献提供了关于公共管理理论和实践的深入洞察和分析。

一篇重要的外文文献是由Peter F. Drucker于1954年发表的《The Practice of Management》。

这篇文献是公共管理领域的里程碑之作，强调管理者的责任是实现组织目标，并提供了管理的基本原则和技巧。

另一篇重要的外文文献是由Henry Mintzberg于1973年发表的《The Nature of Managerial Work》。

这篇文献通过对管理者的观察和研究，揭示了管理者工作的本质和特点，对公共管理领域的管理实践具有重要的启发和指导意义。

还有许多其他的外文文献提供了关于公共管理的不同方面的研究和理论。

例如，Christopher Hood的《The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management》探讨了公共管理中的文化和修辞的作用；Robert D. Behn的《The Craft of Public Administration》则探讨了公共管理的艺术和技巧。

公共管理领域的外文文献提供了丰富的理论和实践研究，对公共管理的发展和改进具有重要的影响和指导作用。

了解和掌握这些文献
对于从事公共管理工作的人员来说是至关重要的，可以帮助他们更好地理解和应对管理挑战，提高公共服务的质量和效果，为社会的发展做出更大的贡献。

公共管理英文作文English:Public administration is a multifaceted field that involves the management of public resources, policies, and services to meet the needs of society. It encompasses various functions such as planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling governmental operations. Effective public administration ensures the smooth functioning of government agencies and facilitates the delivery of essential services to citizens. It plays a crucial role in shaping public policy, implementing laws and regulations, and fostering economic and social development. Moreover, public administrators must possess a diverse skill set, including leadership, communication, analytical thinking, and problem-solving abilities, to address complex challenges and navigate the dynamic political landscape. They are responsible for fostering transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct within the public sector to maintain public trust and confidence. Additionally, public administration often involves collaboration with stakeholders from different sectors, including government officials, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and community groups, to achieve common goals and address collectiveissues. By promoting efficiency, equity, and effectiveness in the delivery of public services, public administration contributes to the overall well-being and prosperity of society.中文翻译：公共管理是一个多方面的领域，涉及管理公共资源、政策和服务，以满足社会的需求。