【正文】 he 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 managementfocused approach to public administration, and the emergence of the different pressures that now contribute to NPG, as a politicized approach to governance with important implications for public administration, and especially for impartiality, performance and accountability. New Public Management in the Canadian Context Since the early 1980s, NPM has taken several different forms in various jurisdictions. Adopting privatesector management practices was seen by some as a part, even if a minor part, of the broader neoconservative/neoliberal 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 outset (Hood 1991). By some accounts, almost everything that changed over the past quarter of a century is attributed to NPM. In virtually every jurisdiction, noheless, 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)。我認(rèn)為，NPM 不是一個(gè)政治的原因，而是一個(gè)干預(yù)因素，這個(gè)干預(yù)因素只要 NPM 形式，在最后三十年中的其他改革中，都有過(guò)揭露這些政治腐敗，而這些公開(kāi)的揭露，都使得它更容易受到公共服務(wù)方式上的 政治行政和政治壓力的影響。然而，并非主要集中在所有的司法改革上面，包括加拿大和澳大利亞這些改變的地區(qū)，如果不是在邊緣，顯然增強(qiáng)管理的權(quán)利和責(zé)任是次要的（伯特利和塔伯特 2020 年） NPM 的主要的創(chuàng)新迅速的導(dǎo)致了關(guān) 注，尤其在那些上述發(fā)展最先進(jìn)的地區(qū)，也倒置了公眾服務(wù)的連貫性和企業(yè)能力的喪失。因此，在此期間發(fā)起的改革基本上是要求同步其他地方的發(fā)展步伐專(zhuān)業(yè)公共服務(wù)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的事業(yè)。在這方面，政治意愿和紀(jì)律是一個(gè)決定性的力量，而不是意識(shí)形態(tài)。 這些特征被認(rèn)為是加拿大的辦法（博根 1998 年，林德基斯特 2020 年，鄧恩2020 年）。當(dāng)保守黨在 1984 年擊敗中間自由黨，新的總理 —— 布萊恩馬爾羅尼，和他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的部長(zhǎng)們都沒(méi)有像新的硬派羅納 德里根和馬格里撒切爾那樣的保守的樣子。實(shí)現(xiàn)更加經(jīng)濟(jì)的公共資源的使用正處于最前沿的關(guān)注，考慮到所有政府在二十世紀(jì)七十年代的財(cái)政和預(yù)算狀況，管理效率不甘落后，對(duì)各地的公共服務(wù)的管理的低下質(zhì)量進(jìn)行了假設(shè)。這對(duì)政府的支持者來(lái)說(shuō)是一個(gè)程度的威脅 。 ? for managing publicservice delivery systems。 我首先通過(guò)查找加拿大的情況來(lái)檢查這一現(xiàn)象，但是同時(shí)也應(yīng)用了一定數(shù)量的威斯敏斯特的數(shù)據(jù)。一方面，歸屬感削弱和承諾公共服務(wù)精神，職業(yè)道德和價(jià)值，另一方面，對(duì)這些問(wèn)題的反應(yīng)也會(huì)撤退、逆轉(zhuǎn)、并重新系統(tǒng)平衡的問(wèn)題。這些改革所受影響的范圍和深度，然而，部長(zhǎng)希望維持在政府的積極介入的程度。 到了二十一世紀(jì)的第一個(gè)十年，此外，加拿大也開(kāi)始名列電子政務(wù)和提供服務(wù)的主要國(guó)際統(tǒng)計(jì)的第一 名。 2. 部門(mén)組織，結(jié)構(gòu)和層次，部長(zhǎng)作為政治行政和公共政策還有業(yè)務(wù) /提供服務(wù)的責(zé)任的相關(guān)方 3. 公共管理結(jié)構(gòu)解決了企業(yè) 或政府范圍的關(guān)注和水平的政策和服務(wù)提供的問(wèn)題。在比較的角度看，加拿大沒(méi)有辦法在意識(shí)形態(tài)的角度上面進(jìn)行更多的公共管理的改革。焦點(diǎn)，簡(jiǎn)短的來(lái)說(shuō)，就是兩個(gè)字”管理“。我認(rèn)為，這對(duì)好的管理構(gòu)成了威脅，包括良好的公共管理和那些有素質(zhì)的政府（ QoG） ,類(lèi)似于羅斯坦和特奧雷下的定義（ 2020 年）。 and, ? for collaborating with other publicsector agencies as well as with privatesector agencies in tackling horizontal – multiorganizational 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 and agencies with narrowed mandates, many with a single purpose. “Agencification’, howev