查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 公共企業精神:公共企業家的角色與批判 |
---|---|
作者 | 盧建旭; | 書刊名 | 空大行政學報 |
卷期 | 4 1995.11[民84.11] |
頁次 | 頁131-174 |
分類號 | 572.9 |
關鍵詞 | 企業型政府; 公共企業家; 政策企業家; 革新; 公共領導; Entrepreneurial government; Public entrepreneur; Policy entrepreneur; Innovation; Public leadership; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 傳統官僚型政府已不能滿足現代民眾多元需求,尤以缺乏財源的地方政府為劇,以致公共財政因難,企業型政府為刻不容緩的訴求。本文研究日約於公共領;草池求金業問拓精神,創意地執行公共乎務,有效地運用公用資源。主旨從企業家個人層觀論起,確信成功的企業性政府主要來自公共企業家的創新助力與泱1C毅力。上個研究問題為:"公共企業家"的定義與角色為何?其專注政策議匙的公共特質$,3行政首長型正式權威特質有何區別?其在政府革新與學習過程申的活動為何?如果貫徹公共企業精神,叉會對公共行政理論與實務、民主政治制度產生什麼銜雌?在理論上是否可能建構一個較可行的架構,藉以制定出公共企業精神的貧務策略?針對研究問題,本文主要分成五部份做分析批判,第一、對公共企業家的廂泛定義,做概觀式介紹,不僅突出"企業家"一詞在經濟學內涵上所含的閘拓革新梢神,亦強調引用至公共部門後,其所覆加的1C理/社會、管理等非經碎內涵的多榴向概念。第二、分辨出其為政策型企業家,扮演公共領磚角色,致力於公共乎務議嫂設定與新政策領域的開拓,與政治首長型企業家特質的不同,不僅於人格發展行為上有商低之別,兩者亦於承諾貢獻公共領域的程度上有高低。第三、探討公共企業家在組織革新決策過程的動態活動,以及如何排除抗拒改革的階段。第四、從五個問題層面批判公共企業家的概念,包含了懷疑其動機是否符合公共利益、現行法制與體系是否能突破限制與其創新行動相配合、企業精神所欲梵施範關與層級是否布差別、政策與行政倫理層而挑戰公共企業家的佣人英雄理念、與刮L脫制度限制的公共企業精神是否真正與民主政治理念共容性的問題。第五、吐批出一一個對公共企某精神約三層次架構,由抽象列明確分別為:統領理念革新、組織設計與變速、明確操作方法,並制定出政策型、組織型、與經濟/財政型策略,藉以建議在台灣的公共企業家可行的實務策略。 |
英文摘要 | Traditional bureaucratic governments continually fail to meet the citizens'demands, while the disgruntled public are disclaiming further taxation in Financing futile governmental expenditure. As a result, local governments have beenfrustrated in seeking resources to sustain soaring expenditure. It is an imperativefor both public managers and the public to transform bureaucratic government intoentrepreneurial. The goal of the paper is to call for the entrepreneurial practicesinto the public sector, in order to implement public policies creatively, and tomanage public resources effectively. Viewing from individual cause viewpoint, thesuccess of entrepreneurial government depends on that public entrepreneur (PE) iscreative, innovative, decisive. The theme is set to answer five research questions: what are PE's definition and his/her role in policy making process? What kind ofpersonal characteristics are differentiating between policy entrepreneur fulfilling public leadership role, and executive entrepreneur enforcing formal authority? What really PE does in the process of reinventing government and public learning? What impacts on public administration theory and practice as well as democraticinstitutions if public entrepreneurship is fully carried out? Is it possible toconceptualize a logical framework as practical guideline? The study consists of five sections of analysis. First, the paper is to overview thevarious definitions of PE. Since the very concept is borrowed from the private sector, entrepreneurship inevitably reveals the characteristics of innovation and creativity associated with economic/financial means. However, being transformed into thepublic sphere, PE becomes a multi-dimensional concept in terms of non-economical perspectives such as psychological/sociological, managerial focuses. Second, policyentrepreneur often plays the role of public leader, endeavors in setting new public agenda and exploiting policy arena. In contrast, executive entrepreneur simplylacks of commitments to public welfare and fails to demonstrate mutual personality. Third, it is important to recognize the PE's competence in alleviating any resistance toward innovation. Fourth, five distinct critiques are proposed. The concerns arewhether PE's motives fits the public interests; whether existent public institutions support innovative actions; whether there is any limit on the scope and governmental level of entrepreneurship; whether PE 's heroism jeopardizes policyand administrative ethics; whether entrepreneurial practices are truly reconcilable with democracy? Fifth, a three-level-of-analysis framework is conceptualized through abstract to specific degree: reinventing governance ethos, reorganizing public organizations, and modifying public operations. Thus policy, organizational, and economic/financial strategies are orderly set as feasible recommendations forpublic entrepreneurs in Taiwan. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。