公共事业管理外文翻译

2.2 The Essence of Classics in Public Administration 2.2.1 The Study of Administration1公共行政研究EssenceNecessity 必要性I suppose that no practical science is ever studied where there is no need to know it.我认为决没有任何一门实用科学，当还没有了解它的必要时，会有人对它进行研究。

Administration is the most obvious part of government; it is government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government itself.行政是政府最明显的部分，它是行动中的政府；它是政府的执行者，是政府的操作者，是政府的最显著的方面，当然，它的历史也和政府一样悠久。

No one wrote systematically of administration as a branch of the science of government until the present century had passed its first youth and had begun to put forth its characteristic flower of systematic knowledge.在本世纪度过它最初的青春年华，并开始吐放它在系统知识方面独特的花朵之前，谁也没有从作为政府科学的一个分支的角度来系统地拟定过行政学著作。

The functions of government are every day becoming more complex and difficult.The idea of the state and the consequent ideal of its duty are undergoing noteworthy change; and “the idea of the state is the conscience of administration”.Seeing every day new things which the state ought to do, the next thing is to see clearly how it ought to do them.政府的职能在逐日变得更加复杂和更加艰难。

公共事业管理外文翻译河南理工大学公共事业管理专业2009级外文翻译姓名：冯明雷学号：310919010220班级：事管09-2班From Crisis to Opportunity: Human Resource Challenges for the PublicSector in the Twenty-First CenturyVidu Soni Central Michigan UniversityAbstractA great deal of attention has been focused on the human capital crisis in the public sector since the mid-1990s. Experts and practitioners give many reasons why the current crisis emerged. This article examines the important factors that led to the crisis, what is being done about them through presidential agendas, legislators, oversight agencies, professional societies, and public policy think tanks. Concerns are many in terms of a large number of upcoming retirements, early retirements, unplanned downsizing, difficulty in attracting new generations to public service, and the changing nature of public service. However, the human resource crisis also presents an opportunity to fundamentally change those features of public sector human resource management practices that have become outdated for contemporary organizations and position government agencies for the twenty-first century by meaningfully reforming the civil service. This transformation would require public sector organizations to take a more strategic view of human resource management and to give greater policy attention to human capital issues.IntroductionIn 1989, the National Commission on the Public Service (commonly referred to as the Volcker Commission) issued a report on the state of public service characterizing it as a “quiet crisis,” which referred to the slow weakening of the public service in the 1970s and 1980s. This period was marked by loss of public confidence in its elected and appointed officials, heightened bureaucrat bashing by the media and political candidates, and a distressed civil service. For different reasons, the quiet crisis of earlier decades continued through the 1990s and is present today. The current crisis is building as large numbers of government workers are expected to retire in the coming years and not enough younger people are in the pipeline for government jobs. Adding to the crisis is understaffed government agencies, a skills imbalance, and a lack of well-trained supervisors and senior leaders. These concerns are reinforced by a preliminary report of the second National Commission on Public Service (Light, 2002), which paints a more dire picture and foreshadows a more pronounced crisis. Light contends that “the United States cannot win the war on terrorism or rebuild homeland security without a fully dedicated federal civil service” (p. 2). Millick and Smith (2002, p. 3) have a similar reaction when they state “while the first National Commission on Public Service referred to a ‘quiet crisis’ in the civil service, the second Commission is facing what can only be called an imminent catastrophe.”Scholars and practitioners alike have been projecting serious shortages in qualified workforce in federal government (Light, 1999; Voinovich, 2000; Walker, 2000).These trends in public service partly reflect the generational shift in attitudes toward government itself. The younger generation tends not to choose public service careers because of the negative reputation of government’s hiring process, lack of challenging work, and its system of rewards. These concerns led the General Accounting Office (GAO) to add human resources management to the government wide “high-risk list” of federal activities in 2001. Similarly, inspectors general at nine major agencies have listed workforce problems among the top ten most serious management challenges that their agencies face (General Accounting Office [GAO], 2001). The federal government’s human resource crisis threatens its ability to serve the public well and meet theexpectations of the American people. Federal agencies must respond by publicizing job opportunities more aggressively, including offering younger workers interesting and challenging work and the potential for advancement. Light (2002) argues that a strong civil service has five characteristics: it is (1) motivated by the chance to accomplish something worthwhile on behalf of the country, (2) recruited from the top of the labor market, (3) given tools and organizational capacity to succeed, (4) rewarded for a job well done, and (5) respected by the people and leaders it serves. However, Light also point out that “by all five measures, the federal service has lost ground since September 11” (p. 2).This article examines the context and nature of the impending workforce crisis in federal government and discusses various areas of change that must be addressed to avert the crisis or, at least, minimize its impact. The issues related to recruiting and developing public sector human resources in the twenty-first century not only require consideration of the traditional remedies such as civil service reform, political support, and more managerial flexibility, but also, consideration of the changing nature of public service (Light, 1999) and the world of work across all sectors (Spiegel, 1995). Many external and internal organizational forces such as workforce demographics, technology, and privatization, as well as eroding trust in government institutions have drastically altered the environment of government service. Accordingly, traditional human resource (HR) management approaches no longer work. The HR supply and demand problem must be addressed at multiple levels. Educating people about government service, raising the image of government workers, providing competent and reliable leadership in government agencies, conducting career development and training of existing personnel, and actively recruiting, particularly in technological and scientific fields, all will have to be done simultaneously to adequately respond to the human resource crisis in the public sector.Next, the article documents and discusses some of the actions that various federal agencies have taken in response to the crisis. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) have conducted numerous surveys, issued reports on causes of the problems, and have developed tools, techniques, and resources to assist the federal agencies in solving the problems. Lastly, the paper outlines recommendations and strategies that can lead the federal government to turn this HR crisis into an opportunity for systematic reform, modernization, and revitalization of public sector human resources practices and systems. The recent coalescence of interest in addressing the HR crisis and recognizing its urgency is demonstrated by the inclusion of discussion of workforce problems in congressional hearings, presidential priorities, and reports issued by oversight agencies and public sector think tanks. This heightened attention to the human resources crisis in government represents a promising opportunity to improve and strengthen public service.Initiatives Taken in Response to the CrisisThe federal government has taken several initiatives to help minimize the negative impact of the human capital crisis. Se nator Voinovich’s Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital (2000) makes several recommendations that fall in two categories. The first category includes recommendations that do not require legislation such as, urging agencies to conduct workforce planning and automating hiring systems to speed up the process. The second category requires legislative action such as making the pay system more flexible by allowing broad banding, or obtaining special hiring authority when needed. Several agencies such as the Forest Service, GAO, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have requested and received special wavers to set pay deviating from the General Schedule pay structure and conduct direct hiring. Following is a discussion of some of the important administrative and legislative initiatives introduced by GAO, OPM, and Office of Management and Budgeting (OMB).Leadership ImprovementCompliance with Congress’ directive that agencies measure and demonstrate results made it necessary that agency leaders have proven managerial competence and leadership skills. To facilitate strategic management of human resources so that agencies can accomplish their policy and programmatic goals, Senator Voinovich asked the GAO to develop two types of management questionnaires that could be used for confirming presidential nominees to administrative positions (GAO,2002b, p. 35). “It is clear that federal agency leaders must create an integrated, strategic view of their human capital—and sustain that attention to create real improvements in the way they manage their people,” argues the senator. The first questionnaire is intended for those appointees who will have significant program management responsibilities, and their responses will inform the Senate of their management experience and preparedness for addressing the current and future top management challenges facing federal agencies. The second questionnaire includes questions on agency-specific management problems drawn from sources such as the High-Risk series (GAO, 2001). The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve the quality of federal programs by improving the quality of people appointed to manage them. Political appointees must be prepared to substantively address the problems at their agencies, not just give policy direction to the career civil servants. The questionnaires convey the message that the Senate considers effective managerial skills to be a priority for all nominees to senior agency positions.Presidential Management AgendaThe President’s Management Agenda (OMB, 2002) has identified several government reform goals that will address the human capital crisis. Among its goals are:(1) workforce planning and restructuring undertaken as part of “strategic management of human capital” that will be defined i n terms of each agency’s mission, goals, and objectives, (2) agency restructuring is expected to incorporate organizational and staffing changes resulting from “competitive sources” and expanded E-government, (3) as part of the 2003 budget process, OMB has asked departments and agencies to identify statutory impediments to good management, (4) agencies will strengthen and make the most of knowledge, skills, and abilities of their people in order to meet the needs and expectations of “their ultimate clients—the American people.” These reforms are expected to create long-term results that will allow agencies to build, sustain, and effectively deploy the skilled, knowledgeable, diverse, and high-performing workforce needed to meet the current and emerging needs of government and its citizens. These reforms will also allow the work-force to adapt quickly in size, composition, and competencies to accommodate changes in mission, technology, and labor markets and will contribute to increasing employee satisfaction.Understanding New Public ServiceLight (1999) argues that the end of twentieth century marks the end of government- centered public service and brings a multispectral service in its place. This means the labor market from which government workers will be drawn has also been altered significantly. “The government-centered public service has been replaced by a new public service in which government must compete for talent,” states Light (p. 1). His study of the graduates of the top twenty schools of public administration and public policy shows that the new workforce is likely to change jobs and sectors frequently, as well as be more focused on challenging work than on job security. Light argues that to seriously address this crisis, public organizations and graduate schools of public administration need to understand the changing nature of public service. The new public service is shaped by blurring of the lines between sectors, developing trends toward changing sectors during one’s career, worker preference for jobs that provide flexibility and an opportunity for growth, and the new types of skills required for public sector employees and managers. This greater uncertainty and job movement will make it increasingly difficult for the government to hold on to its talent and prevent agencies from building the kind of expertise needed for an effective publicservice.According to Light, higher pay and aggressive recruitment alone will not solve government’s problem; it must also offer challenging work, flexible organizations, and broader career paths. He suggests a variety of steps for the government to become competitive. First, agencies need to develop new recruitment programs more appropriate for today’s workforce. Second, agencies need to create new entry points for replacing people in mid- and top-level jobs. Instead of reserving the vast majority of promotions for internal candidates, government must open the career paths to outside competition. Third, the government must recognize career development and job enrichment as an ongoing organizational obligation. Its utility is demonstrated by a case study (Kim, 2002) of the Nevada Operations office of the Department of Energy (DOE) that shows a statistically significant relationship between a supervisor’s support of career development and high levels of job satisfaction. To respond to challenges of this new responsiveness to employee development, the DOE introduced Individual Development Planning (IDP) in 1999. Supervisors were required to ensure that employees were provided the opportunity to have training plans that were subject to annual review and revision to ensure that these plans directly benefited the mission and employee development objectives.Developing Executive and Supervisory TalentIn a study conducted by Huddleston (1999), the presidential award recipient members of the SES (Senior Executive Service) identified several leadership skills necessary for top-level executives. They pointed out four qualities of outstanding senior leaders: (1) strategic vision, (2) ability to motivate others, (3) ethic of hard work, and (4) integrity. Effective senior executives emphasize the importance of articulating a vision, setting goals, having a performance orientation, and understanding what these concepts mean for the success of their agencies. These are commonsense approaches to them rather than management fads. For example, Huddleston writes that Thomas Billy, of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),stated that his strategic vision was to ensure that “the food Am ericans eat will pose no risk (p. 5).” He argues that while this may sound redundant at first, it gets the agency thinking about designing regulations and developing technologies to get there. Others attributed their success to nothing more than hard work. “You can’t be successful as an 85 per center,” says Paul Chistolini,GSA (p. 6).Current leadership selection practices in the federal government are completely at odds with the new leader competencies, that is, flexibility adaptability, accountability, strategic thinking, vision, and customer service, needed today and in the future. Supervisors are concerned that their agencies do not have selection standards and are inconsistent in the skills they seek for supervisory positions. This lack of consistency means that supervisory competencies and performance management skills may not be evaluated as thoroughly as needed. For example, performance management competency including measuring performance, monitoring performance, developing employees, rating performance, and rewarding good work are not assessed or measured in prospective leaders (OPM, 2001a).The job of leadership development rests both with the existing senior leaders and the organizations. Katter (1993, p. 139) argues that an environment that is supportive of the time and effort to grow leaders needs to be cultivated in organizations to fill the current leadership void. Blunt (2002a) suggests that launching a successful leadership development program is driven by five imperatives. First, the visibility of the number of managers and senior leaders who will retire in the next five years provides a succession imperative. Second, the decision to establish a leader development program is a strategic imperative and should be reflected in official strategic plans submitted with the annual budget. Third, the current dissatisfaction with organizational performance from external sources, e.g., the GAO,Congress, the OMB, and the public should provide a performance imperative to focus on developing leaders. Fourth, the changing landscape for performance requires a change in the type of leaders being developed; this is thecompetency imperative. Fifth, the organization champion imperative requires senior leaders willing to take the initiative to promote and sustain leadership development programs. Taken together, these offer organizations a beginning point for launching leadership development programs. Longitudinal research conducted by Center for Creative Leadership places leader learning in four broad categories: challenging job assignments, learning from others’ examples, hardships and setbacks, and education and training. Similarly, senior leaders can develop a new generation of leaders by serving as an exemplar, a mentor, and a coach, or organizations can create programs that would use such a learning model (Blunt, 2002b).Research provides evidence that a positive relationship exists between supervisory characteristics and levels of job satisfaction. Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that employees produced the most creative outcomes when they worked on complex, challenging jobs and were supervised in a supportive, no controlling way. Supportive supervisors encourage subordinates to voice their own concerns, provided positive and mainly informational feedback, and facilitated employee skills development. Supervisors also need skills in performance management, fair appraisals, and effective skill utilization as pointed out by an Office of Policy and Evaluation at the MSPB study (MSPB, 1998). The study suggested that when downsizing occurs, supervisors need to be much more concerned about how they use the talent they have on their staffs and that it is critical that any staffing, employee development, and performance management decisions be made with a long-term perspective in mind.Improved Skill in Managing a Diverse WorkforceWhile the workforce statistics (see Table 3 of the Appendix) show increasing diversity at all levels of government employment including diversity in contractors, very little attention has been focused on developing diversity competence of managers and employees as part of the government’s human capital strategy. Contrary to this, the private sector has made diversity management skills as one of the dominant issues for developing leaders for the twenty-first century. Diversity management skills have even greater significance for public sector leaders and organizations not only because the government workforce is changing, but also because of the increasingly diverse communities public administrators serve. Also, the sensitive nature of the current US foreign policy environment makes diversity competence an important priority. It is crucial to understand the implications of the workforce, community, societal, and global diversity means for public administration and take them into consideration as agencies develop their missions, strategic plans, and leadership training programs. Recognizing its importance, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) organized several panels on “managing community without majorities” in its 2002 National Conference (Conference Brochure).Research shows that in spite of the diversity initiatives in most federal agencies, underutilization and quality of work-life issues that exist for women and minorities remain unresolved. For example a study of a federal agency (Soni,2000,p. 401) revealed that 47% to 79% of women and minorities continue to feel that they “have to work harder than white males to prove themselves,” and only 29% of minorities believe that the agency “discourages comments or jokes that perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice.” Similar studies (Naff&Kellough,2002;Soni,1997) show that in spite of increased diversity in the workplace, organizational capacity to fully utilize and effectively manage diversity remains limited. There are many reasons for this limitation. For example, the inability and lack of willingness on the part of organizational leaders and members to recognize effective diversity management as a salient workplace issue or that institutional and cultural biases and barriers can limit agencies’ approaches to diversity.Successfully managing diversity is a challenging process, but with a clear vision, careful planning and a willingness and commitment to change, government can develop a competitive advantage as an employer and a producer of services to the American people. Riccuci (2002) argues that agencies need to develop the ability to address such challenges as communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, andeven hostilities that invariably result from working in an environment with persons from highly diverse backgrounds, age groups, and lifestyles. To the extent that the demographics of the workforce reflect that of the general population that it serves and it is effectively managed, the delivery of public service will be greatly enhanced. Public sector organizations must assess and understand the current demographic complexion of their workforce in conjunction with projected forecasts for change (Workforce 2020, 1997). “Public sector organizations that perfunctorily develop diversity programs solely for the purpose of avoiding liability in potential lawsuits completely miss the point about the importance of diversity programs. They will fail to adequately plan for their own successful performance as well as the future governance of American people,” notes Riccucci (2002, p. 31).Improving Human Resource Management Practices Proposals to reform civil service and public sector human resource management (HRM) in the twenty-first century fall into three categories. The first proposal advocates cutting costs and downgrading the career workforce (Klingner&Nalbandian,2003; Levine &Klee man,1992). This approach reflects the antigovernment values prominent in the late 1990s. Advocates of this approach criticize public sector HR management as being rule-bound, inflexible, driven by legal mandates, risk averse, and a constraint on managers. They see little connection between HR management and organizational mission and recommend eliminating the in-house HR department and outsource the majority of its functions. The second proposal calls for upgrading the compensation, status, and responsibilities of the career civil service employees. This approach emphasizes the strong oversight role of OPM to preserve the merit principles and ensure consistency in HR management in the federal government. Advocates of this approach value expertise embodied in HR professionals and consistency in personnel polices, as well as the necessity and importance of compliance with legal mandates. This approach is based upon the traditional principles of merit, that is, personnel practices based on knowledge, skills, and abilities, fairness, and social equity. The third proposal argues that the essence of modern human resources management is workforce planning. This strategy recommends that federal agencies’ human resource activities should be guided by long-term planning rather then short-term problems. This approach advocates the importance of identifying and connecting present and future competencies with the outcomes identified in an organization’s strategic plan. It includes taking an inventory of what is available in the current workforce and what is needed, and how to close the gap.Spiegel (1995) argues that there are two primary drivers of workplace transitions. Technological changes stimulate the demand side of work—what needs to be done and in what form. Demographic and social changes, the supply side, influence the kinds of workers available to assume work roles and the nature of their interface with the institutions at work. Information technology, along with the growth of knowledge and global competition has created boundary-less organizations removing intermediaries and distributing power. In such an environment, the ability of an organization to acquire or create knowledge has become an important requirement for its survival. However, achievement of this goal is often difficult because organizations tend to replicate their past responses when confronted by new stimuli and allow their past successes to restrain their future choices (March& Simon, 1958). Thus, in the face of new challenges, the federal government must reframe its HR issues, and not rely solely on past approaches to solve the current crisis.Reestablishing a Public Service EthicResearchers have long studied the motivational characteristics of public service and how it affects the quality and content of public output. Perry and Wise (1990) argue that public service motives fall into three analytical categories: rational, norm based and affective. Rational motives involve actions that are grounded in an individual’s desire to maximize utility. Norm-based motives refer to actions generated byefforts to conform to norms. Affective motives refer to triggers of behavior that are grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts. Public service motivation is seldom defined by utility maximization; however, an ethic of public service can be dictated by rational motives such as participation in the process of policy formulation or commitment to a public program. One can also be driven to public service by affective motives such as personal identification with a program based on an individual’s conviction about its social importance, service to society, or patriotism, which brings with it a willingness to sacrifice for others. The public service ethic has significant behavioral implications. The level and type of an individual’s public service motivation influences his or her job choices and job performance. Public organizations that attract members with high levels of public service motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to manage individual performance effectively.Millick and Smith (2002, p. 3) argue that in the post-9/11 environment, government should sell people on public service, “OPM should spearhead a public campaign aimed at informing the public . . . and capitalizing on the patriotic sentiments in the country.” The great risk in the current trend of treating the public service like a private enterprise is that it fails to acknowledge unique motives underlying public sector employment and the critical linkage between the way agencies operate and the advancement of social and democratic values. More than a decade ago, the Volcker Commission also recommended strengthening the public service ethic to improve public service. Among its recommendations were initiating a campaign of public education in the media and schools and colleges, and reaffirming the merit principle, professionalism, and public service orientation of the career workforce.ConclusionUsing Kingdom’s argument, problems are brought to the attention of public policymakers by systematic indicators. However, indicators do not always make the problems clear, and frequently need a little push to get their attention. This push is provided either by a focusing event like a crisis, or by feedback from the operation of current programs. This feedback brings to the policymakers’ attention information related to whether the programs are working as planned, whether the implementation is consistent with the legislative mandate, or any unanticipated consequences that may surface. Crises and other focusing events are reinforced by a preexisting perception of a problem. Sometimes, subjects also become prominent agenda items partly because important policymakers have personal experiences that bring the subject to their attention. All of these factors have contributed to calling attention to the current human capital crisis as the above discussion points out.According to Kingdom (2003), the chances of certain items rising on a decision agenda on which action must be taken are enhanced when the problems, polices, and politics all come together at a critical time. Kingdom refers to this as the opening of a “policy window.” The policy window is an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their solutions and draw attention to their specific problems. Advocates need to “soften up the system, to have a given proposal worked out, discussed, amended, and ready to go long before the window opens” (p. 170). Now that the human resource management crisis has found a place on policymakers’ agenda, federal agencies must have their reform proposals ready and be prepared to seize the opportunity when the problem, political, and policy streams come together. Thus, whether agencies can continue improving human resource management depends on the priorities of the Bush Administration and Congress, or, to paraphrase Kingdom, when the problem stream is joined by the policy and political streams. Walker (2000) believes human capital management’s placement on GAO’s high-risk list will provide incentive for change:History has shown that when something appears on our high-risk list, that generated heat, action usually follows . . . Successfully addressing the human capital crisis and empowering federal employees。

外国公共事业管理制度IntroductionPublic service management in foreign countries is a complex and multifaceted system that involves the coordination and delivery of public services to citizens. It encompasses a wide range of activities, such as health care, education, transportation, social welfare, and environmental protection. The management of public services is crucial for the well-being and development of any country, as it directly affects the quality of life of its citizens. In this paper, we will explore and analyze the public service management systems of several foreign countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, to gain a better understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and best practices.United StatesThe United States has a federal system of government with three levels of government: federal, state, and local. This structure presents a unique challenge for public service management, as the responsibilities for delivering public services are shared among these different levels of government. The federal government is primarily responsible for national defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce, while state and local governments are responsible for delivering public services such as education, health care, and transportation. The management of public services in the United States is characterized by a high degree of autonomy and decentralization. This means that state and local governments have a significant amount of flexibility in how they design and deliver public services to their citizens. However, this also leads to a lack of coordination and consistency in service delivery across different jurisdictions. In addition, the United States has a fragmented system of public service management, with many different agencies and organizations responsible for delivering different aspects of public services. This can often lead to duplication, inefficiency, and waste.To address these challenges, the United States has implemented several strategies to improve the management of public services. One such strategy is the use of performance measurement and accountability systems to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery. Many states and local governments have implemented performance measurement systems to track key performance indicators and report on the results to the public. This allows for greater transparency and accountability in the management of public services.Another strategy the United States has adopted is the use of public-private partnerships to deliver public services. Public-private partnerships involve collaboration between government agencies and private sector organizations to design, finance, and deliver public services. This has been particularly successful in areas such as transportation, infrastructure, and social welfare, where the private sector can bring innovative solutions and efficiencies to the delivery of public services.United KingdomThe United Kingdom has a centralized system of government, with most public services being delivered by the national government and its various agencies. The management of public services in the United Kingdom is characterized by a strong focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. The government has implemented several reforms in recent years to improve the management of public services, including the introduction of performance-based contracting and the use of market mechanisms to deliver public services.One of the key features of public service management in the United Kingdom is the use of performance-based contracting. This involves setting clear performance targets and standards for the delivery of public services and using competitive tendering to award contracts to private sector organizations based on their ability to meet these standards. This has led to greater competition and innovation in the delivery of public services, as well as improved accountability and transparency.In addition, the United Kingdom has also implemented market mechanisms to deliver public services, such as the use of vouchers and direct payments to citizens to purchase services from private sector providers. This has led to greater choice and flexibility for citizens in accessing public services, as well as increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness in service delivery.GermanyGermany has a federal system of government, with responsibilities for delivering public services shared among the federal government, 16 states, and local governments. The management of public services in Germany is characterized by a high degree of coordination and cooperation among the different levels of government. This has led to a more integrated and cohesive approach to the delivery of public services, as well as greater consistency and standardization in service delivery across different jurisdictions.One of the key features of public service management in Germany is the use of benchmarking and best practices to improve the delivery of public services. This involves comparing the performance of different public service organizations and identifying best practices that can be replicated and scaled up across different jurisdictions. This has led to greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public services, as well as improved coordination and collaboration among different levels of government.In addition, Germany has also implemented a strong focus on citizen participation and engagement in the management of public services. This includes the use of citizen panels, public consultations, and feedback mechanisms to involve citizens in the design and evaluation of public services. This has led to greater accountability, transparency, and responsiveness in the delivery of public services, as well as improved citizen satisfaction and trust in government.ConclusionIn conclusion, the management of public services in foreign countries is a complex and multifaceted system that involves the coordination and delivery of public services to citizens. The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany each have unique approaches to public service management, with different strengths, weaknesses, and best practices. By understanding and analyzing these different approaches, we can gain valuable insights into how to improve the management of public services in our own country. This includes strategies such as performance measurement and accountability, public-private partnerships, performance-based contracting, market mechanisms, benchmarking and best practices, and citizen participation and engagement. By implementing these strategies, we can improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of public service management, and ultimately better serve the needs of our citizens.。

公共事业管理专业英语Professional English一、课程基本情况课程类别：专业任选课课程学分：2学分课程总学时：32学时，其中讲课： 32学时，课程性质：选修开课学期：第6学期先修课程：管理学、公共事业管理学适用专业：公共事业管理教材：《公共管理专业英语》，上海人民出版社，顾建光主编，2003年版。

开课院系：公共管理学院公共事业管理系二、课程的目标和任务通过本课程的学习，使学生了解公共管理领域内一些常见的专业术语和概念，提高学生阅读、理解英语专业文献的能力；通过重点讲解英译汉的技巧，使学生能够准确、流畅地翻译英语文献。

同时安排适当的口语练习，使学生在未来的工作中能用英语进行基本的口头交流。

三、教学内容和要求1．Public Administration and Management (4学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）Why does each discipline of science have its big questions?（3）What are the big questions of public management？（4）How do you understand the big big questions of public management？2．International Economic Institutions (3学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）What kind of the policies shall the OECD promote?（3）What are the two main principles aimed at by GATT?（4）List the main agreements made by the Urugury Round Agreement.3．Information Technology and E-Government (5学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）What is the real task of Palmer and his teamwork in the story of the article?（3）Why now is the business of the computer-business prosperous?（4）What are the useful mersure for preventing a hack attacker?4．Reginal and Urban Development (5学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）Do you think it is possible to promote economic development while keeping its （3）environment impact at a minimum level?Why?（4）Please raise some factors which are constrainig the improvement of ubran environment management.Social Security and Community Development (6学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）What means by directive and non-directive approaches to community development?（3）What is the aim of community development and how can it be achieved?（4）What is the main reason of the failing in community development?6．Public Health (5学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）What is the role of public government in HNP sectors?（3）What can be done for enhancing performance of HNP services？7．Techonology and Education (4学时)（1）Questions and Topics for Discussion:（2）What is the core concept of a national policy when education is considered as a public good?（3）What are the main problem in education magament in your region or city?（4）How do you definite the role of the public and private sectors in education service provision?（5）What are being or will be brought about by ICT revolution in education sector?四、课程考核（1）教学方式:老师讲授、案例讨论与口语练习相结合。

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。

公共事业管理名词解释全公共事业管理名词解释全1、非市场中介组织;主要是指在市场经济中发挥保障、管理、法律服务等作用的组织，包括社会保障管理机构、技术研究、开发和咨询机构、服务机构以及法律服务机构。

2、公共物品是指无论个人是否想要购买，其利益不可分割地被扩散给社会全体成员的物品。

3、公共事务是生产公共物品的活动，是指涉及全体社会公众整体的生活质量和共同利益的一系列活动，其产品具有完全的“非排他性”。

4、准公共事务是生产准公共物品的活动，是指涉及部分社会公众的生活质量和共同利益的一系列活动，其产品具有部分的“非排他性”。

和公共事务及企业事务相比，准公共事务的特点是中介性。

5、公共事业管理是指公共事业组织在一定的环境和条件下，动员和运用有效资源，采取计划、组织、领导和控制等方式对社会准公共事务进行协调，实现提高生活质量，保证社会利益目标的活动过程。

6、公共组织是以实现公共利益为目标的组织，它一般拥有公共权力或者经过公共权力的授权，负有公共责任，以提供公共服务，包括管理公共事务、供给公共产品为基本职能的组织。

政府是典型的公共组织，此外，非营利性的公共组织也是现代社会公共组织的重要组成部分，后者形成了所谓的公共事业组织。

7、事业单位：国家为了社会公益事业目的，由国家机关或者其他组织利用国有资产举办的，从事教育、科技、文化、卫生等活动的社会服务组织。

8、社会团体：中国公民自愿组成，为实现会员共同意愿，按照其章程开展活动的非营利性社会组织。

9、民办非企业单位：企业事业单位、社会团体和其他社会力量以及公民个人利用非国有资产举办的，从事非营利性社会服务活动的社会组织。

10、公共事业管理中的沟通，不同公共事业管理主体（个人、群体、组织等）进行交流，互通情报，从而对彼此行为产生作用和影响的过程。

11、公共事业管理中激励：公共事业管理者针对成员的需要，采取某些手段，激发人们为实现公共事业管理目标积极自觉地行动的过程。

12、消极控制就是禁止或限制控制对象发生某些行为，既包括记过、降级、停职、判刑等正式的控制方式，也包括嘲讽、白眼等非正式方式。

新公共管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：New Public Management and the Quality ofGovernment:Coping with the New Political Governance in CanadaPeter AucoinDalhousie UniversityHalifax, CanadaConference on ‘New Public Management and the Quality of Government’,SOG and the Quality of Government Institute,University of GothenburgSwedenA 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 override the 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 togovernance with important implications for public administration, and especially for impartiality, 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 outse t (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 all governments, 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 other 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 andagencies 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 (Halligan 2006). 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 politi cal authority and policy agendas of these elected officials. Public choice and principal-agency theories provided the ideological justifications 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 topolitical 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 to stay 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 NPMroad 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 not fundamentally 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 the first 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 foc us 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.译文：新公共化管理与政府质量：符合加拿大的新的政治治理彼得奥克达尔豪西大学哈利法克斯，加拿大在会议上发表“新公共管理与政府质量”SOG和政府机构的质量，哥德堡大学瑞典新公共管理（NPM）和良好的管理之间的张力，包括长期以来一直承担那些倡导结构和做法和把带来关于新公共管理作为善政的原则和传统的公共规范作为基础的良好的公共行政（萨瓦1994年）。

Public Good DemandThe demand or benefit from a public good is the sum of the willingness-to pay or benefit by consumers for each unit of the good．Each consumer shares the benefit from each unit of the good．This is unlike a private good，where each consumer gets a private benefit from each unit the consumer purchases without sharing the purchase or benefit with other consumers．Therefore，with a public good the benefit is the sum of the benefits from each consumer that receives a benefit from the unit of output．This is illustrated in the table below：公共产品的需求和收益是消费者为每单位物品的支付意愿或收益的总和。

每一个消费者享有每一单位物品的收益。

这不像一个私人物品，在私人物品中，每一个消费者在不用与别人一起负担购买和分享收益的情况下，可以从每一单位的物品购买中得到得到每一单位的私人收益。

所以在公共物品中，收益是每个从单位产出得到收益的每个消费者的收益的总和。

这将会在下面表格陈述：In the fictitious（虚构的）example in the table，the three scientists share a laboratory and are considering jointly purchasing several journal subscriptions．The journal subscriptions would be shared among the scientists．The table simplifies this decision by assuming that the journal subscriptions are similar and the benefit they receive from the first is the highest for all three scientists．The three scientists have a common second choice that they value less，a third choice，etc.，for the five journals they are considering jointly purchasing subscriptions to.在表格里虚构的例子中，三个科学家共同享有一间实验室并考虑一起购买几种期刊订阅。

公共事业管理专业英语部分翻译The New Public Law新公共法The public law of the United Kingdom is defined by the prevailing（adj. 流行的；一般的，最普通的）constitutional order（宪法秩序）,the government and the various institutions （n. 制度；建立；（社会或宗教等）公共机构）of the state，he rights of the citizen and membership of the European Union.Local government exists with（与…共存）statutory （adj. 法定的；法令的；可依法惩处的）powers and responsibilities.There are since 1998 devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament，the Welsh Assembly（n. 装配；集会，集合），the Northern Ireland Assembly and since 1999 an elected mayor（n. 市长）for London．The public law of the United Kingdom has lately come of age（臻至成熟）.There are several reasons for this development．Fundamental constitutional reforms have embraced（vt. 拥抱；信奉，皈依；包含）changes to the electoral system（选举制度），a more independent Bank of England withthe responsibility of adjusting interests rates（利息，利率）removed from the government of the day，reforms of the House of Lords（英国的上议院），and strategies（n. 策略，战略）to modernize（v 现代化）almost every aspect of government institutions and procedures．There is also a new freedom of Information Act 2000（2000年《信息自由法》）．There are changes to the criminal justice system（刑事司法体系），tribunals（n. 法庭；裁决；法官席）and inquiries （n. 探究；调查；质询），and to the management of the courts system．The most celebrated and acclaimed （vt. 称赞；为…喝采，向…欢呼）innovation（n. 创新，革新；新方法）is the Human Rights Act 1998，which came fully into force in October 2000．The 1998 Act is likely to increase the use of judicial review （司法审查）and thus has the potential to shift（vt. 转移；改变）decision- making in public law matters from elected ministers （n. 部长；大臣）to the courts under the direction of increased judicial controls．academic terms，public law has broadly defined terms of reference including the academic discourse（学术话语）from lawyers，economists，historians and political scientists．There is also a judicial contribution．The development of administrative law is largely a product of judicial creativity（司法创造力）and self regulation（自我调节）．Since the 1960s there is a remarkable judicial self-confidence in defining and articulating（v表达，表述）the role of the courts in public law matters．As Lord Donaldson remarked in 1984：从概念术语的角度来看，公法在它自身的技术规则与程序和分析技巧上有一定的发展。

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。

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。

Backgrounds for Controls over Administration行政管理的背景Necessity of Control控制的必要性The action of the administration, whose forms and methods have just been described, is so important that it is impossible in any country possessing constitutional government to allow every administrative officer a perfectly free hand in the discharge of his duties. The public is so dependent upon the action of administrative officers that it is of the utmost（最大的）importance that their action shall be efficient and harmonious．The officers of the administration attend to many things which it is impossible for individuals to attend to at all．If they do not perform their duties, or perform them unwisely or inefficiently,it will necessarily follow that these things will not be done at all or will be done in such a way that the result of administrative action will be of little value．Some means must be provided also which shall insure harmony in administrative action where uniformity of treatment of a given subject throughout the state is necessary．行政管理行为，它的形式和前边已经描述过了，十分重要以致于任何国家的本质控权的政府允许所有行政人员拥有充分自由去履行他的职责。

外文资料翻译FOREIGN LITERATURE TRANSLATION乌克兰的公务员人力资源管理改革Ivanna Ibragimova, Larissa Bezo, Sylvia Pollock1本文试图描述当前的努力和方法目的是在该国更广泛的和解欧洲公共行政原则的情况下在乌克兰的公务员在人力资源管理改革。

它提供了一个最近的经验和教训在公务员人力资源管理改革乌克兰了解到早期的初步反映，以及突出的重点和方向相关的公共部门人力资源管理的未来变化。

本文开头内的人力资源管理改革正在开始在乌克兰的公务员背景的简要说明。

其次是在公务员人力资源管理改革方面的主要挑战的分析概述。

最后，本文列出了在乌克兰的公共部门人力资源管理改革的路线图-专注于优先方面改革.2一、改革的上下文乌克兰的公务员队伍是一个相对年轻的体制机制，其起源可以追溯到在1991年出现一个独立的乌克兰国家。

尽管其起步阶段的发展和专业化，当代乌克兰的公务员公共行政的传统，在乌克兰出现了九十年前的历史可追溯回。

2008年标志着公共行政下Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky在乌克兰建立90周年。

乌克兰的历史经验和传统公共行政-包括当时的行政和政治领域之间的分离-新兴的当代乌克兰公务员承担重要的和相关的经验教训。

正在塑造这个官僚机构的演变和受诸多因素的影响-一些历史，如上面提到的那些，如运动，经过几十年的专制统治巩固民主体制，在乌克兰和一些内部的一些外部的，如乌克兰一体化进程与欧洲- 大西洋共同体。

1.1乌克兰公务员的快照目前，乌克兰的公务员由290765公务员受雇于全职相当于基础上。

这个数字包括在执法机构（占公务员总数的百分之四）在当地的国家主管部门（包括占总数的约百分之二十六的公务员）。

当代乌克兰的公务员成立以来，一直在公务员总人数的稳步增长-在公务员的总人数超过1998年至2008年期间增加约10％。

（专科）可分为公务员管理工作（专科）水平-与受聘的公务员在工作中所占的比例最大，占总劳动人口的百分之74.25％的水平组成。

Professional English Test for Culture and Art Management——French tourismⅠ.V ocabulary（Value=30）Section1 Translation Translate the sentence into English. （Value=30）1.文化历史遗产的保护意识在法国深入人心。

（Value of the key words=2）Answer：Culture historical heritage protection consciousness in the French sink deep into the hearts of the people.法国是世界上最早发展旅游业的国家之一。

（Value of the key words=3）Answer：France is in the world develops one of most early tourism national.2.法国在各国建立或者租赁的最美的建筑，不是大使馆，而是“法国文化中心”。

（Value of the key words=2）Answer：France most beautiful construction which or rents in the various countries' establishment, is not the embassy, but is “the France cultural center”.4.法国法定的文化保护日。

（Value of the key words=2）Answer：French legal culture protection date5.法国保护自己文化的同时，既发展了旅游业，同时也提高了经济水平。

（Value of the key words=3）Answer：France protects oneself culture at the same time, also has developed the tourism, simultaneously also raised the economical levelⅡ.Reading Comprehension & Judgment （Value=40）France in 1910 tenable National Travel agency, in 1997 specially managed the travel agency by a state affair secretary, and various provinces all were equipped with the travel agency. French Government also likes encouraging and mobilizes the populace protecting own cultural heritage, France is in the world “world culture inheritance most countries”, the government protects the cultural heritage to the people the action also to be able to give the corresponding encouragement.In 1830, French Government had been established “the his torical historical site”.Also passes through the near century experience accumulation, has the epoch-making significance cultural heritage protection method to be born, this was on December 31, 1913 through “protection history historical site law”.It is in the world the first protection cultural heritage modern law.The protection inheritance becomes the all citizen's aware consciousness and the motion gradually.Now, France is the world traveling great nation, the tourism is developed, in 2001 the international traveling reception people reached 76,500,000 people, occupied the world traveling market 11.1%, occupied world 1st.The main source of tourists country is Germany, England, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, US and Japan.The tourism is France third big creates income the profession, is getting up the positive role in the French trade aspect.“the France cultural center”,these cultural center primary mission is the propaganda, promotes the French culture, thus promotion tourism.The culture is the French tourism trump card.For in the competition intense world traveling market grab opportunity, France while is protecting the cultural heritage with all one's strength, also excavates the cultural traveling the potential.The development traveling while supports the French economy, also becomes France to protect one of oneself culture most effective methods.Section1 Reading Comprehension To choose the right answer fill in the blanks. （Value=20）1.The French government established the "historical sites" in __________?A.1830B.1910C.1913D.19972.“Protection history historical site law” was born in __________?A.1830B.1910C.1913D.19973.The tourism is France __________big creates income the profession.A.FirstB.SecondC.ThirdD.4th4.Now,__________ is great traveling nation in the world?A.JapanB.EnglandC.GermanyD.France5.The cultural center primary mission is __________ the French culture.A.ImproveB.PromotesC.SpoilingD.OpposeSection2 Judgment T means True, F is for False, choose the right answer fill in the blanks. （Value=20）1.“The protection history historical site law”is in the world the first protection cultural heritage modern law.（T）2.The development traveling while supports the French economy, also becomes France to protect one of oneself culture most effective methods.（T）3.In 1913, The French government established the "historical sites place".（F）4.The French government encourages mobilize people and the protection of cultural heritage.（T）5.To damage heritage gradually become the French citizens' consciousness and action.（F）Ⅲ.Writing (Value=30)Section1 Composition According to the given topic and main content to write a composition of no less than 120 words. (Value=30)From France tourism think of China tourism1.France while is protecting the cultural heritage with all one's strength, also excavates the culturaltraveling the potential.2.The French government pay attention to the protection of the culture.AnswerFrance's tourism lies in the government to pay great attention to cultural very much prosperously the protection, but does in Chinese this aspect well insufficiently, only takes the income, does not pay great attention to cultural heritages and so on protection historical relics, cannot enhance own income as well as the tourism, France protects oneself culture at the same time, also has developed the tourism, simultaneously also raised the economical level, the impetus economy growth.Therefore, these our China all needs to study to France.So development tourism must achieve the protection culture, propagates the Chinese culture, encourages the citizen to protect the culture, can cause China's culture to be more prosperous, can better develop own tourism.出师表两汉：诸葛亮先帝创业未半而中道崩殂，今天下三分，益州疲弊，此诚危急存亡之秋也。

名词解释第一章公共事业公共事业是指随着我国社会主义市场经济体制的建立和事业单位体制改革而正在形成、发展的社会全体公众的事业，是面向社会，以满足社会公共需要为基本目标，直接或间接为国民经济提供服务或创造条件，关系到社会全体公共基本生活质量和共同利益，而且不以营利为主要目的的活动。

公共事务所谓社会公共事务，是指涉及社会公众整体的生活质量和共同利益的那些社会事务。

具体而言，在一个社会中，公共事务是企业和个人家庭所不愿做也不能做，但又是对整个经济和社会的发展也对社会全体公民基本生活来说必不可少的事务。

公共性是其最基本而突出的特征。

公共产品所谓公共产品，是指那些按照私人市场的观点来看待的公共事务，是与私人产品相对应，用于满足社会公共消费需要的物品或劳务，它的两个基本特征是在消费上的非排他性和非竞争性。

准公共产品是指具备非排他性和非竞争性两个特点中的一个，另一个不具备或不完全具备，或者虽然两个特点都不完全具备但具有较大的外部收益的产品。

准公共产品是介于纯公共产品和私人产品之间的公共产品，它构成了纯公共产品和私人产品之间广阔的中间地带。

具有非排他性和非竞争性特点的不充分性和外部性。

公共组织是指不以营利为目的，而是致力于协调社会公共利益关系，以服务社会大众，提高公共利益为宗旨的组织，其本质是公共性，决定了公共组织是社会公共事务的管理主体，即公共管理的主体主要分为：政府组织、准政府组织、非政府组织。

公共权力所谓公共权力，就是用于处理社会公共事务的权力，公共权力来源于氏族权力，并经过其异化形式——国家演化而来，公共权利的主体是公众，客体是社会公共事务，基本作用是通过对社会公共事务的管理，维护和促进社会的发展，主要表现在：一是根据社会生活的变化和发展，维护社会生活现有的基本秩序，或调整某些已变化了的基本社会秩序，克服社会内部一般矛盾和冲突，保持社会发展必需的稳定，二是根据社会发展的需要，引导原有的生活秩序向一定的发现发展公共事业管理指政府对以满足社会公共需要为主要目的的各项公共事业的发展进行规划、组织、指挥、协调和控制的活动，是在一定的环境中，以政府为核心的公共组织凭借公共权力，为满足社会公共需要，促进社会整体利益的协调发展，采取一定的方式对公共事业活动进行调节和控制的过程。