MPA Information: Current Status of Public Management in the New Millennium

[MBA China (Reuters) - With the rise and development of new public management, public administration discipline in the last century ushered in a period of prosperity. In the article "Public Management of the New Millennium: Research Status" published in JPART, standing at the beginning of the new millennium, author Kettl reviewed the history of public management and looked forward to the future direction of development. After nearly 20 years, some of the author's views in the text have been confirmed, and at the same time, the research on many issues has far exceeded the author's foresight. As a classic review of public management research, this article is still worthy of public education scholars to recollect.

Any new thing from its birth to maturity and finally to the world's acceptance will inevitably go through a rather long process. There are developments and conflicts in this process, conflicts and peace, but in short it is growing along with human civilization and moving in a direction that is more responsive to the specific needs of a particular period. Isn’t this the case with public management? From a time perspective, it has gone through four important stages.

(1) The stage of origin (1887-1915)

The study of modern public management can be traced back to the progressive era, when public administration theory was at the stage of classical school. More representative are Wilson and Goodnow. Wilson and Goodnow proposed the dichotomy of political administration, that is, the theory of rational bureaucracy, that administrative is not studying political issues, that politics is the manifestation of the will of the state, and that administration is the executor of the will of the state, and wants to fundamentally solve the "party The disadvantages of the "fertilization system" must separate the administration from politics. Public administration plays an important role in the abstract political research and the improvement of the political system.

In addition to public management, we have to mention politics. It can be said that in the early stage of development, public management and politics are detached. At the beginning, public administration is an important part of political science research. At the same time, it is born in the cradle of political science and is one of the five basic disciplines of political science. However, this harmonious relationship has not lasted for too long. As public administration is committed to providing courses for public service students independent of politics, it is in an awkward position in the political science discipline, and the differences between the two sides gradually arise. , almost separated. Public managers are dissatisfied with the degree of political science's attention to practical issues and the education of public services. They believe that political science pays too much attention to theoretical research and pays less attention to professional training. The detachable movement ultimately failed, and public administration had no choice but to continue to support political science. At the same time, the American Political Science Association lists public administration as an area separate from the government. Although it is difficult to truly integrate, at least political science still maintains its status as the cradle of public administration research.

(2) Scientific management stage (1915-1940)

With the further development of society, the concept of separation of politics and administration promoted by Wilson and Goodnow has become a management strategy. Taylor's scientific management believes that effective management is to get rid of the intervention of party politics and pursue absolute efficiency. As long as it can avoid political interference, it can improve the government. He focused on the efficiency issue in the administrative process, and gradually removed the public administration field from the interference of the party's political struggle. This management model showed a prosperous state because the characteristics of this pursuit of efficiency were consistent with the needs of the times. At the same time, public administration established a model for scientific management. However, this highly programmed scientific management method has many drawbacks, which further challenges the status of public administration in the political science.

(3) Self-reflection stage (1940-1969)

On the basis of academic support and government practice in political science, public administration achieved extraordinary achievements in 1940, and one-fifth of all political science doctors in that year were in the field of public administration research. At the same time, the government has widely adopted the opinions of public administration celebrities. Especially in the Second World War, the status of public administration has been greatly improved. At that time, many major public managers actively offered suggestions for the government. As long as they have things that they think are important, they will not hesitate. speak out. As their status has improved, it has been controversial about whether public administration is science or not. Many political scientists expressed dissatisfaction and responded by establishing American Social Public Administration (ASPA), a scientific and artistic department dedicated to public administration, which effectively helped public administration solve its problems. Although the home of public administration is still uncertain, at least it gained respect after the beginning of World War II.

With the end of World War II, the status of public administration has rapidly declined. Such a management that pursues efficiency only and is separated from the government seems to be difficult to accept. Some political scientists try to show the inferiority of public administration theory and think that it cannot become real. science. All this has to trigger post-war reflections of public administration.

Public administration has been questioned on the issues of theory, principles, methods, etc., especially the lack of discipline theory has been exposed. One of the opponents, Simon, believes that the important issue of management is to make decisions rather than organizational construction, and to move the analytical center from a structural approach to human interaction, which erodes the theory that ruled public administration for half a century, further Make public administration theory thin. At the same time, in this process, politics has also got rid of a method of legalization of the so-called system, and more turned to research on pluralism and behaviorism. On the one hand, diversification has driven public administration and changed the situation that it has emphasized efficiency for many years. It greatly increased the number of staff and gave them fair and legal treatment; on the other hand, it shifted the analysis from the output of the process to the input, especially the political transactions between the country and other countries in terms of political ideas and ideologies. Behaviorism weakens the study of institutions, pays attention to individual behaviors, and creates new methodological standards through the analysis and research of big data, which is difficult to meet in previous management research. Traditional management theory gradually withdraws from history. The stage, the new theory rises. Behaviorism rejected the Hoover Committee to streamline the practice of the US government to improve efficiency after World War II, and advocated deductive reasoning based on data. These theoretical innovations differ from the concept of public administration. Public administration is gradually marginalized in the discipline of political science because it lacks the form of new theory to adapt to development.

(4) Diversified development stage (1969-present)

At this stage, a series of theories that adapt to the development of the times have emerged, but because of the expansion of emerging theories in different directions, the lack of core theory is supported. At the same time, the irreparable rift between public administration and political science has gradually become prominent, that is, the traditional public administration theoretical methods (hierarchy, authority theory, political power, etc.) arising from political science and the needs of the public society for public administration (more Focusing on practical skills) is difficult to reconcile. Political science believes that public administration as a guide has little leadership, while public administration theory believes that it can get rid of politics but cannot escape political science.

There are great differences within the public managers about the prospects for crisis resolution, and it is impossible to find a suitable and effective method. In this process the public policy school found the answer. Because the research paradigm of behaviorism is one-sided and superficial, it can't solve deep and complicated social contradictions. Some political scientists get rid of the paradigm of behaviorism and examine the real political life and politics from the perspective of policy formulation and implementation. Institutions, they are public policy schools, they believe that leadership is important, and management technology is the key to the problem.

It can be said that the issues of theory and practice, tradition and innovation throughout the development process have been the focus of debate. From the perspective of theoretical evolution, the development of public management theory has also gone through four stages.

(1) The stage of traditional political philosophy

The traditional view of public administration, how to make management theory more rigorous and how to achieve more efficient management have been the focus of academic debate. At this stage, four people play a role that cannot be ignored.

Wilson believes that policy makers, through power delegation, make the task subdivided, high-level decision-making and lower-level technical personnel to implement, emphasizing the concept of hierarchy, authority and control of the process. He believes that to manage well not only depends on the ability of the manager, but also on the strength of the team. Because of the importance of management, he established a 20th-century reform tradition; Madison focused on political power, believed that political power was the center of government action, and advocated a system of power balance; Hamilton believed that administrative power is an excellent government. The component, which advocates high-government-controlled power politics and democratic federalism, and adopts a top-down management approach; Jefferson, out of his special relationship with agriculture, believes that the smaller the government, the easier it is for the people to participate and the effective The local control of the government is also conducive to the improvement of administrative efficiency, advocates a limited government, emphasizes the self-control of the people, and adopts a bottom-up reform that is different from the other three factions.

These philosophical ideas conflict with each other and restrict each other, forming the political culture of the United States.

(2) Emerging academic views

In the transformation of public administration from being an important pillar of political science to merely acting as a small subdivision of the US government, many new methodologies have emerged. All methodologies have a role in it, so that there is no absolute central methodology. In the process of interaction between theory and practice, theorists introduce a more powerful analytical framework and clearer theoretical topics, introduce economic factors, propose a formal and game theory methodology, and propose a network-driven approach to break the theoretical domination of political separation. Methodology.

The so-called form and game theory methodology is a kind of diagnosis and related support theory based on economics. One of its research premises is to regard workers as selfish, rational people who pursue their own interests, rather than individuals who are employed under bureaucracy and strictly controlled by bureaucracy. This method is called the "agent-agent" theory, that is, the principal-agent relationship based on the form of psychological contract, the principal designates the agent to provide the service, and at the same time gives the agent decision-making power and pays the compensation. It explains that the organization is based on mutual contractual relationship network. To run, the individual's behavior is driven by self-interest, and it also explains the morbidity of the organization. Due to the asymmetry of information, the principal cannot observe the behavior of the agent. In this case, the agent is easy to use power for personal gain and morality. crisis. The crux of the problem lies in how the principal limits the agent's actions to the extent of his or her interests. This requires the client to have a full understanding of the agent before choosing, and can reduce moral hazard by regulating the agent's motivation and monitoring his or her behavior.

Two important applications of this theory are the bureaucratic reform theory and institutional choice theory. The US Congress has been lacking effective regulatory motives because it does not benefit. In the Reagan era, through complex quantitative analysis, it was pointed out that the bureaucratic process can indeed change. The principal uses bureaucratic incentives and sanctions to monitor whether the agent's behavior is consistent with his own preferences, which makes the agent and the government's preferences common. Change, the leader shaped the bureaucratic behavior in a systematic way. The influence of institutional choice theory is even greater. It investigates the basic problems of bureaucratic polity and pays attention to the interactions between bureaucracy, government, interest groups, etc. It borrows a lot from the principal-agent theory and assumes bureaucracy as the agent of government power. People think that people are selfish and pursue utility maximization, but because of information constraints, they must accept choices. It replaces the traditional view that bureaucracy is an independent variable, that bureaucracy is a dependent variable, and that the organization is established to show political interests rather than efficiency.

In general, this methodology still has many problems, such as immaturity, inconsistent guiding structure, deviation from traditional administration, and implementation of policy implementation.

The network-driven approach is essentially a diversified management approach. The government relies on formal and informal, profitable and non-profit organizations to achieve effective management. This method frees the public sector from the poison of hierarchical authority theory, makes the theory and practice consistent, provides a basis for understanding the connection between management research and government work, and also makes a great contribution to the realization of democratic government.

(3) New public management

With the emergence of government expansion and economic stagflation, the original theory is no longer so effective, and the new public management theory rises. At this stage, Osborne and Gebler’s view of “reengineering the government” actually emphasizes that the government’s function is no longer a paddling but a helm. It is a “new management model” created by “public entrepreneurs”. Advocate customer-oriented, introduce the market into management, achieve the balance between the government and the market, reduce the size of the government to improve its flexibility in responding to emergencies, and draw on the theory of enterprise management to consider theory and practice, such as performance appraisal, etc. . It has both top-down reforms (authorized by the client's instructions, agents), and bottom-up reforms to fully meet the needs of citizens. It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration's national performance appraisal plan, which is mainly aimed at reducing the size of the government and improving government performance, has reduced redundancy and achieved widespread success.

(4) Theoretical issues yet to be resolved

Even so, there are still many problems in the development of public administration: first, the bureaucratic bureaucracy seems to have disappeared on the surface, but it still exists. Public management does not deviate from the traditional hierarchical system; secondly, political and administrative differences remain. Existence cannot be solved in a short time; another point is that the argumentation and theoretical research of the theoretical basis of management still needs further development.

Public management is such a step by step to this day, it has experienced many times of rushing time, mature, and perfect, playing an increasingly important role in today's society!