公共行政大问题的回顾与展望(英文)

时间:2018-10-22 作者:博学论文网
  Abstract:Big Question is essential to the development of a discipline. Reviewing the centennial development of public administration, its rise is just the consequence of responding to the call of the times. Without the needs of the times and practice, there will be no development of public administration. In the process of development, the administrative mode of rational bureaucracy deviated from the original idea of a good life because of its obscuration of Big Problem. Looking to the future, the discussion on the Big Question of public administration mainly depends on how to locate the proper role of bureaucracy in democratic governance and how the theories of administration effectively respond to public issues of the real world. In the context of promoting the modernization of national governance,public administration need to be constructed as localization issues that can promote administrative practice. This requires us to balance the dual appeals of public administration to value rationality and technology rationality,highlight the normative values and ideas on which public administration based,awaken citizen awareness of participation in public affairs and inspire them to make contributes to build a better society with public officials.
  
  Keyword:big question; rational bureaucracy; citizen participation; good society;
  
  Since ancient times, mankind has been longing for a fair, harmonious and prosperous society. People in different historical periods actively explore ways to implement reasonable value distribution in order to satisfy the yearning for a better society. Since modern times, this dream of mankind has inevitably led to the rise of “administrative state”. The prosperity of “administrative state” not only shows that administration occupies the central position of modern government, but also shows that administration is an important fulcrum for the realization of a good social vision. [1] At the same time, the public in some countries has shown unprecedented discontent with the government's governance capabilities and methods, especially in recent years, the social protest movement represented by “Occupy Wall Street” has surged around the world, which has highlighted this discontent. With the expansion of the administrative state, the strengthening of the welfare state and the improvement of public awareness, people have more and more questioned what role public administration should play in modern society. Starting from the controversy over the major issues of public administration, this paper combs the unremitting exploration of the scholars of public administration on the major issues, clarifies the proper role of public administration in modern state governance, and explores how public administration can promote the realization of a better society.
  
  First, the debate on the major issues of public administration.
  
  The beginning of science is to explore problems and promote the development of academic research. As a problem, the importance of Big Question lies in that the basic areas of any discipline are defined by its big problems. Without a consensus on the major issues of the discipline, it is difficult to determine the scope of research, core issues and even research methods of the discipline. [2] is no exception to public administration. Its history is exactly the history of the continuous interpretation and deepening of a big problem.
  
  Since its birth at the end of the nineteenth century, the validity of public administration as an independent discipline has been questioned. The subject often gives the impression that it is not the accumulation and integration of knowledge, but is full of controversy, change and even “push back and forth”. “The evolution logic of theory itself is overwhelmed by the change or conflict of ideas and differences of pluralism and experience.” [3] Although some scholars have been trying to define a unified research paradigm for this field, and many scholars claim to have captured the core issues of this subject, the field of public administration has always lacked a cumulative knowledge base acceptable to most people, and is in a state of “blind touch”. [4] The proposition of the “big problem” reflects the efforts of people to define the core issues of public administration from one side, and the controversy over the “big problem” indicates that the “blind touch” scene in public administration is still repeated.
  
  In 1995, Robert Behn published the “Big Issues in Public Administration” in the “Public Administration Review” (PAR), which opened the debate on the big issues of public administration. When naturalists gather together, Bain observes, the topic usually focuses on the big issues of the subject, such as the origin of the universe, which physicists are accustomed to discussing. Bain deduced that if public administration scholars want to make their field of study a social science beneficial to human society, they must also focus on the major issues of the subject. Bain criticized that in order to make administration look more like a “hard science” like physics, some scholars focused more on data and methods, often using the most sophisticated methods to study trivial issues. But they may have forgotten the fact that scientists do scientific research not by data or methods, but by problems. Public administration is no exception. Our respect for research methods does not make our field “scientific” as a result. Instead, what we need is a systematic way to answer big questions that are vital to our discipline. [2]
  
  Bain believes that public management must answer three big questions: micromanagement, motivation and measurement. Every problem is about how public managers can accomplish something. It is aimed at a puzzle that public managers encounter in the process of work. Why did Bain choose these three problems as a major problem in public administration? In his view, practitioners and scholars engaged in public management not only need to understand the behavior of public organizations, but also to improve the performance of public organizations. [2] To quote a classic expression, the problem is to transform the world of public administration, not to explain it.
  
  As soon as Bain's article was published, it attracted the attention of many public administration scholars, who expressed their own opinions, combined with their own research put forward their own big problems. Francis Neumann endorsed Bain's view that any discipline is determined by the big questions it raises, but he questioned: What makes them big problems? Why does a discipline have to be defined by these problems? In his view, the exploration of big problems requires careful philosophical thinking. Of course, the questions raised by Bain are worthy of active consideration, but they are only applied topics, not exploring the origin or basic nature of the discipline, thus failing to grasp the nature of the major issues constituting the field of public administration. If the major issues of public administration concern the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, we can simply assert that there are no major problems in the field of public administration. If so, the discipline of public administration does not exist in a philosophical sense, because it does not raise the big question of the most basic nature or source. [7]
  
  John Kirlin also agrees with Bain's basic position on defining the scope of public administration research through the “big issues” debate, but he also believes that Bain does not have a good grasp of the big issues of public administration. In Colin's view, traditional administration focuses on public institutions, and fails to respond well to the major problems of public administration in modern society. Colin believes that in modern society, the real big problems of public administration must meet the following criteria: first, help to achieve democracy; second, attach importance to values; third, the complexity of tools that can cope with collective action; and fourth, promote more effective social learning. Only in accordance with these four criteria can we list the major problems of public administration. Colin asserts that the major issue of public administration involves and should be considered first is the issue of democratic administration. In modern society, the major issue of public administration must be rooted in how to effectively achieve democracy. [8]
  
  Although Bain and others have not reached a consensus on what is the major issue of public administration, the controversy over the major issues of public administration activated by Bain and others has attracted more and more attention and caused more and more reflection. [9] In the course of reflection, modern administration gradually realized the problems existing in its own knowledge development, and gradually improved itself in the process of discussing these problems. The result of reflection is not that one side overwhelms the other side, but that each side sees and absorbs the other's strengths. Their “one-sided profundity” jointly contributes to the development of public administration theory and practice.
  
  Two, return to the source of big problems: response and guidance to the needs of a better life.
  
  Academics have different opinions on the major issues of public administration. Although there is no final conclusion, they all believe that public administration can not be short of attention to the major issues. Then, how should we understand the major problems of public administration? We may as well go back to the beginning of the birth of public administration to see why it came into being.
  
  Generally speaking, public administration was born in the late nineteenth Century in the United States. In Woodrow Wilson, the father of administration, it was created to respond to and guide people's yearning for a better life. The American vision of a better society is to bring democracy to the world, but Wilson finds that the American vision of a democracy is riddled with abuses, such as corruption, inefficiency and superstition, which are ubiquitous from the federal government to the municipal government. In order to safeguard and realize democracy, Wilson proposed to introduce a “developed by French and German professors” of administration, and to “Americanize” it, “filter it with the Constitution of the United States” [10], so as to firmly establish it on the basis of democratic principles. In order to achieve this goal, Wilson put forward the principle of “political-administrative dichotomy” and took it as the basis of constructing an administrative science. Administration, which is separated from politics, is regarded as a means of realizing democratic politics and has pure technical superiority. Wilson's view that administration should be an independent and non-political tool has a guiding influence on administration, and it echoes Max Weber's bureaucratic organization and Frederick Taylor's scientific management principle, and together establishes a rational bureaucratic administration model. Solid foundation.
  
  For the founders of administrative science, rational bureaucracy means efficient, efficient means good government. [11] Indeed, the technological superiority of rational bureaucracy has enabled Wilson's administrative science to significantly and successfully solve some of the most pressing problems of the first half of the 20th century at the top of the government. It is not only the government, but also the industry that requires public administration scholars to provide theoretical knowledge and guidance. [12] The reason for this is that it can answer the question of “who has the ability to govern the good society envisaged by public administration scholars” in terms of technical rationality and scientific management in solving organizational and efficiency problems. In modern society, professionals do professional work, not only is a necessary choice, but also reflects a value pursuit. Public administration is no exception. It is defined as “a particular business or skill that one can specialize in, a science and art that one can acquire” [1]. As a technical matter of administration, it needs to be done by specially trained professional officials, neither the people nor the Parliament are suitable for the administration, otherwise it will undermine the democratic value of public affairs. John Mill therefore emphasized that “unless democracy is willing to let skilled people do what is needed, it is impossible to move towards skilled democracy.” [15] The rise of such a large and skilled administrative bureaucracy as a “democratic ruling class” makes people not only hope but also demand that “the government be regarded as a tool for a better life” [1].
  
  But unfortunately, public administration seems to have forgotten why we started out when it was going so fast, and it is moving away from our dream of a better life. In fact, it is those factors that are considered to contribute to the efficiency of institutional management that lead public administration to a path from value neutrality to hostility to normative values. The hierarchical principle of bureaucracy conflicts with the principle of equality, and the principles of discipline, rules and obedience emphasized by bureaucracy conflict with the concept of freedom. More importantly, rational bureaucratic administration determines people's way of life with irresistible force, suffocating people's spirit of freedom. In this regard, Quan Zhongxie's criticism is profound: “The narrow vision of most experts in public services, accompanied by the indifference and insensitivity to the real political world and public interests, creates an organizational climate of tension and conflict, which is difficult to align with the higher public service ethics of public institutions and the ethics of democratic government.” It is. “ [17]
  
  The administrative model which emphasizes the value of tools excessively ”can not adapt to the developing trend of democracy, can not solve social conflicts or can not create a solid foundation for solving social problems“. [19] This departs from people's original good idea of public administration, thus triggering the controversy over the major issues mentioned above.
  
  In our view, the big problem is not only the ”identity card“ of public administration as an independent discipline, but also the value of public administration as a social practice. In English, public administration refers to both public administration practice and public administration research. In western public administration science, the first letter of public administration is usually capitalized by Dwight Waldo. Public Administration for practice. [20] this reflects from one side that public administration itself should be a unity of theory and practice.
  
  Why is public administration as a practice flourishing? The problem is the motto of the times. With the increasing complexity of the division of labor in modern society and the awakening of public democratic consciousness, people must seek stable social order and reliable external guarantee in order to live a better life. In order to make modern society work for all, the government should play a positive and protective role and shoulder the responsibility of resisting economic autocracy and safeguarding the welfare of citizens. These tasks are difficult to be accomplished only by legislatures and judicial organs. Public administration emerges as the times require. Therefore, the rise of public administration ”originates from the fact.“ A dream dating back hundreds of years, [21].
  
  From the theoretical point of view, the legitimacy of public administration is rooted in the effective answer to the big problems in real life. If any public administration theory wants to be widely accepted by the society, it must be able to effectively reflect the real world of public administration practice and provide an effective solution to the current reality of public problems. If we can't contribute constructively to the big problems of the times, what's the use of us as a discipline? As far as China is concerned, our administrative science should think normatively about the various ”big problems“ of modern state construction. ”Especially the fundamental big problems of a good society and good governance, which can not be handed over to other disciplines.“ [22]
  
  To properly grasp the major problems of public administration, we must break through the narrow field of vision of technology and efficiency. If the study of public administration focuses on bureaucracy, then our focus is on the operation of the organization, and the focus is on how to improve the efficiency of the organization. This study reflects the reasonable expectation of efficient government services, and also represents the human effort to seek good government governance, but this kind of modern management. Theoretical-based public administration studies tend to allow us to stay at the micro-level of technical problems and phenomena, and to be satisfied with a countermeasure study, which is not conducive to ”our understanding of today's crisis situation and complex human phenomena.“ [17] Technical issues in public administration are of great importance, but if we want to solve the myth of major problems in the discipline of public administration, we must shift our attention from the issue of ”administrative“ of technical nature to the issue of more fundamental and magnificent subjects, and the impact and value of public administration on the state and society. After all, public administration and public administration are related to each other. Business management is similar only in all unimportant aspects. If we stick to technical issues, it is difficult to grasp the essence of public administration.
  
  In the field of public administration, what topics constitute the basis of public administration and the distinction between public administration and other disciplines? Whatever the issues we list, we should recognize that the practical logic and appeal of public administration go far beyond the consideration of efficiency. The major issues of public administration must be able to control and cover the basic categories of technology and value. If only from a single technical dimension or value dimension to recognize and practice public administration, it is difficult to grasp the complexity of public administration. The mission and responsibility of public administration, in a philosophical sense, points to two purposes: one is to better understand the practice of public administration, and the other is to better reform the practice of public administration. Theory is to help us understand and guide practice, when we explore the major issues of public administration, we can not stay on the specific way which is higher or lower, which is better or worse. It is from understanding and reforming the real world of public administration that the significance of public administration lies in building a better society and meeting the growing needs of the public for a better life.
  
  To properly grasp the major issues of public administration, we must also be down-to-earth, standing in the perspective of what public administration is. We can't always answer the ultimate level of what a good life is because public administration must pay attention to value issues. We also ”must fully understand the social, cultural and political environment in which public issues arise and are defined, and the people are closely related to these issues.“ Close. ” [24]
  
  Three, post bureaucracy administration: an alternative to a better society.
  
  Since rational bureaucracy strangles the spirit of human freedom and deviates from a better life, as early as the 1930s when it flourished, behavioral science and interpersonal relations schools criticized the hierarchical authority structure of bureaucracy from the humanitarian standpoint. Since then, almost every 20 years, there will emerge a trend of thought to rectify the deviation of rational bureaucracy and even give subversive criticism, such as the new public management theory, which is called “post-bureaucratic administration” because of its different theoretical propositions from rational bureaucracy. [25]
  
  Strictly speaking, post-bureaucratic administration is not a unified academic school, nor is it a tight or loose academic community, just because they have mercilessly criticized rational bureaucracy in order to find alternatives for a better society, and thus share the name of “post-bureaucracy”. Among all these reflective efforts, the normativists represented by Waldo and Dahl are particularly noticeable. They challenge the principle of the dichotomy of politics and administration and the supremacy of efficiency value advocated by the orthodoxy, thus opening up the “Waldo Path” in public administration. [26] In their view, public administration plays a very important role in human civilization and human life, but such an important human practice has not been properly reflected in the orthodoxy, threatening the foundations of the United States, and consequently, traditionalists call on public administration to face up to responsiveness, fairness and generation. Normative values such as expression and rule of law. Waldo insisted that although the government was supported by professional bureaucracies, the core appeal of bureaucracies was not scientific management and efficiency first, but to serve the public. His book, The Administrative State, first published in 1948, successfully brought normative values back to the theory and practice of public administration and greatly rewrote it. The pattern of knowledge in public administration. Waldo appealed: “If administration is really the core of modern government, then the democratic theory of the 20th century must include administration.” [27] Waldo's continuous efforts have made people realize that no one who studies public administration can ignore the existence and significance of normative values in the field of public administration. Nowadays, the emphasis on normative value has become an important part of public administration theory and practice. The modernization level of state governance often depends on the recognition of normative value. Therefore, the research on normative path of public administration has become a “posture that the academic community of public administration should have”. [28]
  
  The appearance of “Waldo Path” in public administration means that the administrative field which abandoned the value problem must also seriously deal with the problem of normative value. In this sense, Waldo Path appeared as a criticism of bureaucratic administration from the beginning. The obvious rigidity, red tape and hierarchical control of bureaucratic administration can not only stifle the enthusiasm and creativity of administrative organizations, but also weaken the sense of autonomy and responsibility of the public, so it is not the ultimate solution to the major problems of public administration. How to replace or reform the bureaucratic administration, creatively reconcile the internal tension between democratic governance and efficient administration, enhance the ability of public governance, and give full play to the positive role of public administration in the realization of a better society have become the core issues in the development of public administration. [21]
  
  The earliest theoretical school to systematically explain Waldo's path belongs to the “New Public Administration” with George Frederickson as its flag. New Public Administration was born in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is a “turbulent” era: student movements around the world surging, civil rights movements in the United States one after another, economic depression, urban riots and other issues emerge in endlessly. All these problems “leave indelible marks on society, government and public administration”, “lead to some new government projects and change the way of thinking and practice of public administration”. [30] Because the original bureaucratic administration is slow to respond to the needs of the public in a timely and adequate manner, nothing The law is effective in coping with the crisis and therefore needs to be changed. It is in this context that the new public administration came into being. From the very beginning, it emphasized that public administration should pay attention to the realization of public interests, more attention to the interests of minorities and vulnerable groups, and strive to achieve social equity and justice. To achieve social equity and justice, we can not do without civic spirit and citizen participation. The commitment of new public administration to social equity implies citizen participation. “Citizen participation, neighborhood control, decentralization and democratic working environment are the standard themes of new public administration.” [30] It is precisely because the new public administration insists on public affairs. The wide participation of citizens in public affairs can make public administration better respond to the voice of the public.
  
  The new school of public service and the new public administration are deeply different from each other. In the 1980s, there was an atmosphere of “derogatory bureaucracy” in American society. Politicians were rude to permanent civil servants, and the public was prejudiced and hostile to administrative bureaucracies. They could not see what the government was doing to improve public welfare. Such an atmosphere of concern by the Black Burger School undermined governance and the process of governance. Therefore, it is committed to defending the bureaucracy, expecting to change the traditional concept that public administration is only a tool, and thus reshape the positive role of public administration in the process of governance. As the Minnobrook School based on the system, the Heibao School has seen the drawbacks that the values advocated by the new public administration can not be implemented. Therefore, its overall theoretical purpose is to reconstruct the core position of public administration in the process of governance, and try to take a practical institutionalism approach, focusing on The bureaucracy defends to promote the development of new public administration. [32]
  
  New public service is also the product of the development of modern social practice, but it is more of a sublation of the new public management movement which has been popular in Europe and the United States since the 1980s. The new public management movement advocates the bottom-up, simplified and decentralized mode of entrepreneur government management. It holds that management is management, and there is no difference between public administration and enterprise management. However, the new public service theory holds that the market and enterprise organization advocated by the new public management movement are not the only good solution to the bureaucratic malpractice. Moreover, it neglects normative values such as fairness, justice, representativeness and citizen participation, fails to see the positive significance of the government in democratic governance, reduces citizens'sense of social responsibility, and thus poses a threat to democratic governance. Therefore, the new public service is devoted to promoting the dignity and value of public service, with a view to restoring the respect for normative values such as democracy, civil rights and public interests. Its theoretical highlight lies in the emphasis on civic consciousness and civic participation. The seven propositions it puts forward are basically compared with the new public management. And it came out. They boil down to the point that “values such as efficiency and productivity should not be lost, but should be placed within the broader framework of democracy, community and public interest.” [33]
  
  Ostrom, on the other hand, has developed a new theory of post-bureaucratic administration based on the theory of public choice. Although the path of public administration is obviously different from the new public administration, the Heibao School and the new public service, but there is one thing in common, that is, all from the criticism of bureaucratic administration. In Austen's view, our current public administration is harmful to the practice of public administration and can not reflect the public needs of the public. By criticizing these basic characteristics, Ostrom put forward his ideal paradigm of public administration, whose core concepts are overlapping functions, multi-center governance and so on. Austen believed that the founding fathers had conceived the theory of democratic administration, such as Hamilton's exposition of the overlapping government system in the Federalist Collection, which was deeply rooted in the complex democratic decision-making structure and was essentially a democratic administration opposite to bureaucratic administration. However, Wilson and others rejected the founding fathers'design of democratic administration and chose bureaucratic administration. Bureaucratic administration relies mainly on the professional ability of technocrats, but ignores or intentionally neglects the extremely important value consideration of human life. In fact, it “damages the welfare of mankind”. Austen therefore proposed to launch the Copernican Revolution in public administration, that is, to return bureaucratic administration to democratic administration, so as to increase human welfare. [34]
  
  Looking back on the history of public administration in the United States, we can find that if administrative scholars “pay little or no attention to the development of public services and public interests”, but “devote more to theory and practice, the further away” or “rarely approach practice, it is difficult to meet the direct needs of practitioners. [12], then public administration will fall into identity crisis. Fortunately, generation after generation of masters in the field of public administration, ”with their interdisciplinary creativity, from a variety of new perspectives to understand, define and deal with outstanding public issues,“ thus enabling administrative research to respond to the voice of the times, and thus ushered in theoretical breakthroughs and leaps. It is in this sense that Stelman II asserted that the greatest strength of American public administration lies in its low-key response to the immediate public needs of the times. [12]
  
  Four, how does public administration promote the coming of a better society?
  
  As mentioned earlier, the rise of public administration is the result of responding to the call of the times. If it is not to respond to and guide people's yearning for a better life, there will be no birth of public administration. Before the birth of public administration, people generally believed that normative value was a matter in the political field. At that time, politics was mainly to solve the macroscopic ”government structure“ problem, and there was no time to take into account or need to solve the specific problems in the process of government. [20] In fact, when democratic ideas were introduced into the process of government, chaos and inefficiency were once triggered, and Andrew Jackson's ”partisanship“ highlighted the problem. Therefore, for the founders of public administration, to understand public administration as the implementation of the will of the state, relying on bureaucratic organizations and with the help of scientific management methods to realize the vision of a better society, is a very wise concept of governance breakthroughs. With the continuous development of society, state governance is facing more and more complicated phenomena and problems, which require public administration to have greater responsibilities and responsibilities and more clear pursuit of publicity. Bureaucratic administration is not enough to absorb and reflect these social development and needs. Normative value begins to enter the administrative level from the political level. This is caused by the malpractice of bureaucracy and the demand for a better life.
  
  Then, how can public administration promote the coming of a better society? Returning to the controversy over the big issues we originally mentioned, the author thinks that the discussion of the big issues of public administration mainly depends on how we define the proper role of public administration in national governance and on the effective answers to the public problems in the real world from the theory of public administration, which requires us to understand and reform the public. Starting from the real world of administration, we are committed to enhancing the capacity of national governance and constantly meeting the growing needs of the public for a better life.
  
  Specifically speaking, if our public administration wants to have its own place in social science, it must give constructive answers to the major issues of our time. It should be said that our current research in this area is still relatively weak, ”entered a process focusing on technical and functional issues, such as performance management, execution enhancement, cooperative governance, emergency management, public goods provision, policy formulation and implementation occupied most of the research space.“ [39] It's not that performance management, execution and other issues are unimportant. We mean that if public administration fails to respond to the call of the times in a timely and appropriate manner, our discussion of technical issues will have little effect. In fact, our modern state-building is still facing many complex challenges, such as the democratization and rationalization of administrative practices, there is still a long way to go. ”If China's public administration can help us understand, analyze and explain these complexities, and help the country to effectively address these challenges, then, In the 21st century, China's public administration has fulfilled its academic mission. “[22] Therefore, it is of great value and implication of double enlightenment of knowledge to discuss the major issues of public administration as the standardization and localization of China's national governance.
  
  In order to develop public administration, it is essential to properly orientate the respective roles of the government and the public in the process of modernization of national governance. In traditional bureaucratic administration, public administration is only a tool to realize the normative value of democracy, so people focus on how to limit the ”plundering hand“ of public administration, that is, the so-called ”controlling bureaucracy“, but ignore its positive significance. Therefore, the primary significance of post-bureaucratic administration to a better society lies in reminding us to abandon the instrumental rational thinking mode of bureaucratic administration and look more actively at the role of public administration in national governance. Public administration is indispensable to a good society, as Hamilton and others pointed out, ”the greater capacity of the government is essential to the happiness and prosperity of society.“ [41] Only within the framework of post-bureaucratic administration can public administration be shaped as a ”core, important and positive role“ in the realization of a better society, [42] assuming a leading role in the design and implementation of economic, technological, political and social changes. Gary Wamseley, the leader of the Heiberg School, has a passionate declaration that deserves every scholar and practitioner of public administration to savor: ”Public administration is not a simple tool, nor is it a means of value neutrality. Public administration should pursue lofty goals and moral commitment. Considering the long-term interests of the whole people, it is our duty to improve the people's lives and to pursue fairness, efficiency and democracy.“ [42]
  
  In our view, the government is the actor and guide of a better society, at the same time, the public is not just a customer of public services. In modern society, the public should be responsible for their own destiny. But in the bureaucratic administration, people on the one hand uphold the concept of democratic politics, on the other hand, insist that the representative government can identify the needs of citizens, can effectively meet the needs of the public for a better life. Under such a role orientation, public participation is usually regarded as a kind of damage to the daily administration. People must be alert to the danger of public participation, so as not to affect the efficiency and effectiveness of public decision-making. Once away from the public decision-making process, the public will lose a spirit of cooperation with the government, and on the contrary, the more abusive or even abusive the government, it seems that the more abusive the more civic spirit, and less constructive opinion. Under the strong pressure of public opinion, the government can not help but consider the voice of the public, but public criticism will only make the government show respect for the public from the surface and form, intended to appease public sentiment and difficult to take public opinions as a matter of serious concern, which in turn further aggravates public discontent. And form a vicious circle.
  
  In order to achieve a better society, the government and the public should form a community of destiny: the government is not the owner of public services, the public is not a negative consumer of public services, not an external commentator, everyone has the responsibility to improve the ”our“ government. Whether we regard the public as voters or as customers, we should focus on the government's satisfaction with citizens'needs. In this way, we may forget why the founders of Modern Administration named our subject ”public administration“ rather than ”government administration“, because the construction of a good society is inseparable from a group of active public spirit, the government is only an important force to achieve a good society. Instead of all forces, it is an important part, not all, of the publicity of public administration. We cannot ignore the necessary role of the public in democratic governance. It is precisely in this sense that Post-Bureaucratic Administration maintains a good marriage relationship with ”grassroots democracy“, ”governance theory“, ”representative bureaucracy“, ”cooperative governance“ and ”cooperative public management“.
  
  On the way to a better society, we must be consciously alert to the drawbacks of bureaucratic administration, to a greater extent, to defuse the tension between democracy and science, and must also resort to the Internet + era of governance concepts and methods. In the course of its development, Waldo Path has encountered some difficulties similar to ”too much discussion of normative nature but less operability of practice“. For example, we have made some breakthroughs and progress in public expression and participation, government response, public value and other aspects, but its fully realized practical mechanism, governance means and feasibility. In a word, the technical way of public administration is still insufficient. The information technology revolution brought about by the Internet + era has equipped the public administration with the wings to take off, and has provided a certain degree of realization way and action frame for the public administration to solve the big problems of theory and practice. Through the network service, open management and digital platform, the construction of large data government and the government as a whole, relying on the network governance mode, public administration has the technical and practical ways to achieve, can better meet the people's growing demand for a better life.
  
  Reference
  
  [1] [13] [14] [16] [United States] Waldo. Administrative State: Political Theoretical Studies of Public Administration in the United States [M]. Translated by Yan Changwu. Beijing: Central Translation and Publishing House, 2017.80-90, 110, 115, 111.  
  [2][5][6]Robert Behn. The Big Questions of Public Management. Public Administration Review, 1995 (4)。  
  [3] Zhang Zhengjun. Research on ”big problems“ in the field of public administration [J]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University, 2011 (1)。  
  [4]Dwight Waldo, Organization Theory: An Elephantine Problem. Public Administration Review, 1961 (4)。  
  [7] Francis Neumann. What Makes Public Administration a Science? Or, Are Its ”Big Questions“ Really Big? Public Administration Review, 1996 (5)。  
  [8] John Kirlin. The Big Question of Public Administration in a Democracy. Public Administration Review, 1996 (5)。  
  [9] He Yanling, Wang Guanglong. What should we pay attention to: the debate on the ”big issues“ of public administration [J].China Administration, 2011 (12)。
  [10]Wilson Woodrow. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 1887 (2)。
  [11] [US] Bazelle. Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Government Management [M]. Translated by Kong Xiansui et al. Beijing: Renmin University Press, 2001.4.
  [12] [35] [36] [37] Richard Stillman II. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.18, 25, 29, 27.  
  [15][J.S] translated by [M]. J.S, representative government of the mill. Beijing: Commercial Press, 1982.91.
  [17] [18] [23] [America] Chun Zhongxie. Social Construction of Public Administration [M]. Translated by Sun Baiying et al. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2008.1, 4, 1, preface.
  [20][38]Dwight Waldo. Public Administration. The Journal of Politics, 1968 (2)。  
  [21] [29] [US] White, Adams. Public Administration Research: Reflections on Theory and Practice [M]. Liu Yaping, Gao Jie. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2005.1, 22-32.
  [22][40] Ma Jun. Imagination of public administration [J]. Chinese social science evaluation, 2015 (1)。  
  [25] Peng Xinwu. From bureaucracy to post-bureaucracy - the evolution of the paradigm of contemporary public organizations [J].Philosophical Research, 2010 (5)。  
  [26] Yan Changwu, Lin Muzi. Why should we attach importance to Waldo's path in public administration? [J]. Public Management and Policy Review, 2018 (4)。  
  [27] Dwight Waldo. Development of Theory of Democratic Administration. American Political Science Review, 1952 (1)。  
  [28] Kong Fanbin. Take Democratic Administration seriously: An Analysis of the Self-identity of China's Administrative System [A], Edited by Ma Jun and Liu Yaping. Public Management Research (Volume 9)。 Shanghai: Gezhi Publishing House, 2011.92.  
  [30] [31] [US] Frederickson. New Public Administration [M]. Ding Huang, Fang Xing. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2011.2, 8.  
  On the proper role of public administration in democratic governance: the connotation, orientation and Enlightenment of the Heibao Declaration [J]. Journal of Public Administration, 2000 (4)。  
  [33] [US] Robert Danhart, Janet Danhart. New Public Service: Service, not Steering [J].Translated by Liu Junsheng. China Administration, 2002 (10)。 38-44.
博学论文网(www.hndance.cn)版权所有
专业的代写英语论文,代写英文论文、assignment、各专业毕业论文网站,本站部分论文收集于网络,如有不慎侵犯您的权益,请联系客服,24小时内处理