| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 公共行政學系 === 85 === For the coming of plural society, government not only has to confront with more complex public problems, but fae the greater challenges of the society power. The market power that have its leadership worse and governing mechanism destructured dominates the govenment''s directions. If we didn''t consolidate our government, it would be easy to result in ungorernability.
The public sectors of Western countries are undergoing major changes as govern-ments try to response the challenges of techological change, globalization and international competitiveness. Recent years have been wider-ranging reforms than any other period of the twentieth century representing a paradigm shift from the traditional model of public administration,dominant for most of the century, to ''managerial-ism'' or new public management. What is more, there is common intellectual backing for these changes particularly in economic theory and the principles of private management. By the beginning of the 1990''s, a new model of public sector manage-ment was emerging in most advanced countries. The new model has several incarnations, including: ''new public management'' ; ''market-based public administration''; ''entrepreneurial government''; ''managerialism''; ''new managerialism''. It''s used to replaced of traditional bureaucracy.
For Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald and Pettigrew(1996), at least four new public management models can be discerned and while each of them represents a move away from traditional public administration models,they also contain important differences and distinctive features. A contests for interpretation is apparent between propo-nents of these four models, and the degree of influence they in the field may max or wane over time. In essence, that four models represent our initial attempt to build a typology of new pubilc management ideal types, model 1:the efficiency drive; model 2:downsizing and decentralization; model 3:in search of excellence; model 4: public service orientation Returning to the variants of the new public managernent outlined in chapter 2, this analysis suggests that Models 1-3, all of which are essentially derived from private sector management practice, are by themselves in-adequate and require adaptation to public stctor context. NPM Model 4''s advantage(''public service orientation'') lies in its sensitivity to the distinctive public sector context. However, An implication of my analysis is that the value system of public sector managers way well continue to differ in important ways from those of private sector mangers. Do these intersectoral differences in value systems really exist? It there a more variegated pattern evident within the public sector(e.g. differences between provider and purchaser organizations?)These ara questions which are amenable to empircal study.
Nonlinear dynamics also satisfies what students of public organization, administration and management have labeled a practical theory. A practical theory clarifies the "possibilities for action" for managers while illuminating the nature of the manager''s existing actions. Moreover, the focus of nonlinear dynamics on changes, complexity, and process can serve as a guide for government management learning and action, now and in the twenty-first century.
This thesis explores the main impacts on administrative reform, especially on the USA, UK, New Zealand, and Taiwan, of the managerial strategies that have been applied across the public sector in the past decade. In sum, Iargue to have a more mature form of public management it Taiwan context.
|
|---|
