| 165 | 0 | 164 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
新公共行政在公共行政学科史中具有重要地位。传统观点认为“社会公平”是新公共行政的核心主张,但这一观点遮蔽了新公共行政的复杂演变。第一届明诺布鲁克会议在“重构公共行政”的导向下提出了多元理论主张,此次会议上被提出的新公共行政因而具有鲜明的开放性和反叛性。但在会议后,新公共行政逐渐成为一个所指模糊的概念,学界未能就其确切内涵达成共识。为扩大新公共行政的影响力,弗雷德里克森将“社会公平”锚定为新公共行政的核心主张,实现了对新公共行政的正统建构。但这一正统建构未能涵盖第一届明诺布鲁克会议上的大部分主张,实际上制造出“两个新公共行政”的分化格局:第一届明诺布鲁克会议上的新公共行政是反叛传统公共行政的“新的公共行政”,而正统“新公共行政”则是围绕“社会公平”进行叙事且指涉清晰的体系。“两个新公共行政”是第一届明诺布鲁克会议的历史遗产,对其加以揭示有助于更全面地理解新公共行政的发展演进,也是对学科史关键细节偏差的修正。
Abstract：New Public Administration is an important milestone in the development of public administration. According to the conventional view, H. George Frederickson is the representative figure of New Public Administration, and social equity is its core proposition. This view, however, obscures a more complex picture of the evolution of New Public Administration. Under the orientation of “ reconstructing public administration,” participants at the First Minnowbrook Conference advanced diverse theoretical propositions. The New Public Administration proposed at this conference was thus marked by a strong sense of openness and rebellion. During the conference, some participants, including Frederickson, discussed whether there existed a New Public Administration and what its key elements might be, while some other scholars showed little interest in this topic. After the conference, New Public Administration generated heated discussion, yet scholars failed to reach a consensus on its exact meaning. As a result, New Public Administration became a concept with an ambiguous referent.To expand the influence of New Public Administration, it was necessary to construct an orthodox interpretation of it. Since the idea of social equity had broad intellectual origins, responded to social realities, and accorded with Frederickson.s own theoretical preferences, Frederickson anchored social equity as the core proposition of New Public Administration and thereby completed its orthodox construction. This interpretation, however, could not cover most of the propositions advanced at the First Minnowbrook Conference. In effect, it produced the differentiation between two versions of New Public Administration: the New Public Administration at the First Minnowbrook Conference was a “new Public Administration” that rebelled against traditional public administration, while the orthodox “New Public Administration” developed into a theoretical system with a clear referent through a narrative centered on social equity.In terms of subsequent development, the theoretical propositions of the “new Public Administration” were obscured. Young scholars dissatisfied with this situation gathered around the Public Administration Theory Network, while the orthodox “ New Public Administration” became widely disseminated despite persistent criticism. Two versions of New Public Administration constitute the historical legacy of the First Minnowbrook Conference. Revealing this legacy helps provide a fuller understanding of the development and evolution of New Public Administration, and also corrects key details in the intellectual history of the discipline. At the same time, the differentiation between two versions of New Public Administration suggests that public administration should take inclusiveness as an important principle. The discipline should avoid using mainstream theories to exclude or obscure alternative theories and ideas that challenge the mainstream, and should promote dialogue, exchange, and mutual learning among different theories.
白现军,祝天智.2017.弗雷德里克森的“新公共行政”思想及其对中国社会治理的启示[J].国外理论动态,(2):49-57.Bai X J,Zhu T Z.2017.Frederickson's"new public administration"thoughts and its implications for social governance in China[J].Foreign Theoretical Trends,(2):49-57.(in Chinese)
陈振明.1999.从公共行政学、新公共行政学到公共管理学——西方政府管理研究领域的“范式”变化[J].政治学研究,(1):82-91.Chen Z M.1999.From public administration,new public administration to public management:The"paradigm"shift in W estern government management research[J].CASS Journal of Political Science,(1):82-91.(in Chinese)
丁煌.2017.西方行政学说史[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社.Ding H.2017.A history of Western administrative theories[M].Wuhan:Wuhan University Press.(in Chinese)
何艳玲.2018.公共行政学史[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.He Y L.2018.An intellectual history of public administration[M].Beijing:China Renmin U niversity Press.(in Chinese)
李水金.2021.西方公共行政思想史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.Li S J.2021.History of Western public administration thought[M].Beijing:China Social Sciences Press.(in Chinese)
李潇潇.2015.公共管理的自主性与开放性——张康之、周志忍、竺乾威、孔繁斌、何艳玲五人谈[J].中国社会科学评价,(3):13-26.Li X X.2015.Autonomy and openness in public administration A discussion among Zhang Kangzhi,Zhou Zhiren,Zhu Qianwei,Kong Fanbin,and He Yanling[J].China Social Science Review,(3):13-26.(in Chinese)
李振,鲁宇.2016.行政学的威尔逊悖论:学科起源正统史论的祛魅与反思[J].中国行政管理,(4):79-85.Li Z,Lu Y.2016.Woodrow Wilson Paradox in public administration:Rethinking the orthodox view of the origin of the discipline[J].Chinese Public Administration,(4):79-85.(in Chinese)
麦克斯怀特OC.2002.公共行政的合法性——一种话语分析[M].吴琼,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社.McSwite O C.2002.Legitimacy in public administration:A discourse analysis[M].Wu Q,trans.Beijing:China Renmin University Press.(in Chinese)
乔治·弗雷德里克森H.2010.明诺布鲁克:反思与观察[J].宋敏,译.行政论坛,17(1):89-91.Frederickson H G.2010.Minnowbrook:Reflections and observations[J].Song M,trans.Administrative Tribune,17(1):89-91.(in Chinese)
乔治·弗雷德里克森H.2011.新公共行政[M].丁煌,方兴,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社.Frederickson H G.2011.New public administration[M].Ding H,Fang X,trans.Beijing:China Renmin University Press.(in Chinese)
斯拉沃热·齐泽克.2017.意识形态的崇高客体[M].季广茂,译.北京:中央编译出版社.Zizek S.2017.The sublime object of ideology[M].Ji G M,trans.Beijing:Central Compilation&Translation Press.(in Chinese)
孙宇.2021.明诺布鲁克的回响:美国公共行政思潮的一个历史截面及其批判[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.Sun Y.2021.Echoes of Minnowbrook:A historical cross-section and critique of American public administration thoughts[M].Beijing:China Social Sciences Press.(in Chinese)
孙珠峰,胡伟.2014.后新公共行政时代的来临——第三次明诺布鲁克会议述评[J].学术月刊,46(2):93-100.Sun Z F,Hu W.2014.The advent of the post new era of public administration—a brief review of the third Minnowbrook conference[J].Academic Monthly,46(2):93-100.(in Chinese)
唐兴霖.2000.公共行政学:历史与思想[M].广州:中山大学出版社.Tang X L.2000.Public administration:History and thoughts[M].Guangzhou:Sun YatSen University Press.(in Chinese)
张康之,张乾友.2013.解读“新公共行政运动”的公共行政观[J].公共管理与政策评论,2(1):23-34.Zhang K Z,Zhang Q Y.2013.The new public administration movement's conception of public administration[J].Public Administration and Policy Review,2(1):23-34.(in Chinese)
张康之,张乾友.2024.公共行政的概念[M].南京:江苏人民出版社.Zhang K Z,Zhang Q Y.2024.The concept of public administration[M].Nanjing:Jiangsu People's Publishing House.(in Chinese)
张乾友.2012.重塑公共行政的世界观与方法论——“后明诺布鲁克时期”美国公共行政规范研究之旨趣[J].中共天津市委党校学报,14(6):36-44.Zhang Q Y.2012.Reshaping the worldview and methodology of public administration:The aims and concerns of normative research in American public administration in the"post-Minnowbrook era"[J].Journal of the Party School of Tianjin Committee of the CPC,14(6):36-44.(in Chinese)
张乾友.2014.公共行政的非正典化[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.Zhang Q Y.2014.The decanonization of public administration[M].Beijing:China Social Sciences Press.(in Chinese)
张乾友.2018.重新发现明诺布鲁克会议[J].理论与改革,(5):142-152.Zhang Q Y.2018.Rediscovering the history of Minnowbrook conferences[J].Theory and Reform,(5):142-152.(in Chinese)
Alesch D,Brown A,Brown V,et al.1970.More on the new public administration[J].Public Administration Review,30(4):471-472.
Barton R.1980.The road to Minnowbrook:Development of the new public administration in the United States[J].International Journal of Public Administration,2(4):447-475.
Barton R.1983.The new public administration:A modest look at the feasibility of application[J].Public Administration Quarterly,7(3):346-376.
Campbell A K.1972.Old and new public administration in the 1970's[J].PublicAdministration Review,32(4):343-347.
Denhardt R B.1977.The continuing saga of the new public administration[J].Administration&Society,9(2):253-261.
Dubnick M J.2018.Demons,spirits,and elephants:Reflections on the failure of public administration theory[J].Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs,4(1):59-1 15.
Elden J,Brown A,Goldstone R,et al.1970.Need for action now[J].Public Administration Review,30(4):466-467.
Frederickson H G.1971.Toward a new public administration[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,309-331.
Frederickson H G.1974.Introductory comments[J].Public Administration Review,34(1):1-2.
Friedland E.1971.Comment:The pursuit of relevance[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,48-56.
Harmon M M.2003.PAT-Net turns twenty-five:A short history of the public administration theory network[J].Administrative Theory&Praxis,25(2):157-172.
Harmon M M.1974.Social equity and organizational man:Motivation and organizational democracy[J].Public Administration Review, 34(1):1 1-18.
Henderson K M.1971.A new comparative public administration?[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,234-250.
Kirkhart L.1971.Toward a theory of public administration[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,127-164.
Kronenberg P S.1971.The scientific and moral authority of empirical theory of public administration[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,190-225.
La Porte T R.1971.The recovery of relevance in the study of public organizations[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,17-48.
Marini F.1971.Introduction:A new public administration?[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,1-16.
Marini F.1992.Introduction[M]//Bailey M T,Mayer R T.Public Management in an Interconnected World:Essays in the Minnowbrook Tradition.New York:Praeger,1-9.
Page R S.1969.A new public administration?[J].Public Administration Review, 29(3):303-304.
Reining H Jr,Bjur W E.1970.The"new"public administration[J].Public Administration Review,30(2):201-203.
Sumek L J,Reinow F D.1970.New public administration:For a time of crisis—in a time for change[J].Midwest Review of Public Administration,4(2):108-111.
Timney M.2009.Parsing the"Minnowbrook tradition"[J].Administrative Theory&Praxis,31(1):97-101.
Waldo D.1972.Developments in public administration[J].The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,404(1):217-245.
Waldo D.1992.Knowledge development and use in public administration:Views from postpositivism,poststructuralism,and postmodernism[M]//Bailey M T,Mayer R T.Public Management in an Interconnected World:Essays in the Minnowbrook Tradition.New York:Praeger,177-184.
Wamsley G L.1976.On the problems of discovering what's really new in public administration[J].Administration&Society,8(3):385-400.
White O F Jr.1971.Social change and administrative adaptation[M]//Marini F.Toward a New Public Administration:The Minnowbrook Perspective.Scranton:Chandler Publishing Company,59-83.
White O F Jr,Gates B L.1974.Statistical theory and equity in the delivery of social services[J].Public Administration Review,34(1):43-51.
Yu H H,McCandless S A,Rauhaus B M.2023.Social equity in public administration:Past,present,and the future[J].ournal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs,9(3):437-452.
(1)值得一提的是,齐姆林笔下的新公共行政与弗雷德里克森的正统建构高度一致,他同样强调应当将公共官僚机构作为实现社会正义和公平的工具,新公共行政应被界定为摆脱价值中立、直接面向社会正义的学术转向。一个可能的解释是,二人在弗雷德里克森于南加州大学读博期间的合作与交流,使二人共享了研究议题与方法,并形成了相似的学术与道德关切。
(2)该学者的观点引自论文集中“适应能力与组织发展”的Editorial Note部分,出自明诺布鲁克会议上的讨论,但论文集中并未指出该学者的具体身份。
(1)该论文集的副标题为“明诺布鲁克传统论文集”,并未采用与第一届明诺布鲁克会议论文集类似的“明诺布鲁克观点”表述。这正体现了“新的公共行政”学者们对第一届明诺布鲁克会议后正统“新公共行政”的不满,因为前者认为,弗雷德里克森等人偏离了真正的“明诺布鲁克观点”,应延续第一届明诺布鲁克会议体现出的开放性、反叛性的“传统”,因此将论文集副标题命名为“明诺布鲁克传统论文集”。
基本信息:
中图分类号:D035
引用信息:
[1]康健,张浅.“两个新公共行政”:第一届明诺布鲁克会议的历史遗产[J].公共管理评论().
基金信息:
教育部哲学社会科学研究重大专项项目“中国公共政策自主知识体系构建研究”(项目批准号:2025JZDZ046)的资助
2026-07-31
2026-07-31
2026-07-31