- 威尔逊行政学之研究中英对照版 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
威尔逊行政学之研究中英对照版
- 但是，我们在进入这种研究之前，需要做到下列几点： Before entering on that study, however, it is needful:
- 但是，在行政学研究已经告诉人民应该期望与要求什么样的行政管理，以及怎样实现他们的要求时，它的全部任务是否就已经完成了呢？难道不应该前进一步为公共服务机关培训后备人员吗？ But is the whole duty of administrative study done when it has taught the people what sort of administration to desire and demand, and how to get what they demand? Ought it not to go on to drill candidates for the public service?
- 但是，事与愿违。直到本世纪已经度过了它的最初的青春时期，并且已经开始长出独具特色的系统知识之花的时候，才有人将行政机关作为政府科学的一个分支系统地进行论述。直到今天，我们所拜读的所有的政治学论著者都仅仅围绕下列问题进行思考、争辩和论证：政府“构成方式”；国家性质，主权的本质和地位，人民的权力和君主的特权；属于政府核心内容的最深的含义及根据人性和人的目的摆在政府目标之前的更高目标。下列范围广泛的理论领域是存在激烈论战的中心地区：君主制对民主制进行攻击，寡头政治力图建立特权的堡垒，专制制度寻求使其所有竞争者投降的要求得以实现的机会。在这些理论原则的激烈斗争中，行政机关不能中断其自身的思考。经常出现的问题是：由谁制定法律以及制定什么法律？另一个问题是如何有启发性的、公平的、迅速而又没有摩擦地实施法律。这一问题被看做是“实际工作中的细节问题”，在专家学者们就理论原则取得一致意见后由办事人员进行处理。 But such was not the case. No one wrote systematically of administration as a branch of the science of government until the present century had passed its first youth and had begun to put forth its characteristic flower of the systematic knowledge. Up to our own day all the political writers whom we now read had thought, argued, dogmatized only about the constitution of government; about the nature of the state, the essence and seat of sovereignty, popular power and kingly prerogative; about the greatest meanings lying at the heart of government, and the high ends set before the purpose of government by man’s nature and man’s aims. The central field of controversy was that great field of theory in which monarchy rode tilt against democracy, in which oligarchy would have built for itself strongholds of privilege, and in which tyranny sought opportunity to make good its claim to receive submission from all competitors. Amidst this high warfare of principles, administration could command no pause for its own consideration. The question was always: Who shall make law, and what shall that law be? The other question, how law should be administered with enlightenment, with equity, with speed, and without friction, was put aside as ""practical detail"" which clerks could arrange after doctors had agreed upon principles.
- 但是,舆论权威所赖以形成并显示出来的“手段”是什么呢；在组织行政管理工作方面，我们美国所特有的困难并不在于失去自由的危险，而是在于不能够或不愿意把自由的要素和它的偶然因素分别开来。我们的成就已经被我们那种令人烦恼的错误弄成值得怀疑的东西了，这错误就是试图通过投票作过多的事情。自治并不意味着对每桩事情都要插上一手，正如同操持家务并不意味着一定要用自己的双手去做饭一样。在管理炉灶与炉火方面，应授予炊事员很大的自由处置的权力。 But the method by which its authority shall be made to tell? Our peculiar American difficulty in organizing administration is not the danger of losing liberty, but the danger of not being able or willing to separate its essentials from its accidents. Our success is made doubtful by that besetting error of ours, the error of trying to do too much by vote. Self-government does not consist in having a hand in everything, any more than housekeeping consists necessarily in cooking dinner with one’s own hands. The cook must be trusted with a large discretion as to the management of the fires and the ovens.
- 我认为一支经过特殊训练的文官队伍，在接受任命、进入完善的组织机构、摆在适当的级别上和接受特有的纪律之后，在许多深谋远虑的人看来，似乎包含了一些综合起来足以形成一个讨厌的官僚阶层的因素——形成一个独特的、难结社性的团体、他们的感情与那种进步而且具有自由思想的人民相去甚远，他们心`胸狭窄，充满着乖僻的文牍主义式的卑劣行径。可以肯定，这样一个阶层在美国必然会是百分之百令人讨厌的和有害的。任何旨在培育这样一个阶层的措施，对我们说来都将是反动而且愚蠢的措施。但是如果害怕产生出一个像我在这里研究结果指出的那样的跋扈而且反对自由的官僚阶层，那就等于完全忽视了我所希望坚持的原则。这种原则是：美国行政管理必须在一切方面都对公众舆论有敏锐的反应。在任何情况下，我们都必须有一支受过充分训练的、以良好行为进行服务的官员，显然是一种工作上的需要。但是当你探讨过究竟什么是良好的行为时，那种担心这样、一个阶层将会具有某种反美因素的疑虑便会烟消云散。因为很显然这一问题的答案是显而易见的，良好行为就对其为之服务的政府的政策具有坚定而强烈的忠诚。那种政策在各方面都绝没有官僚作风的污点，决不是出自常任文官的创造，而是那种直接。而且必须要对公共舆论负责的政治家的杰作。只有当一个国家的全部行政机关与人民、人民领袖以及其普通工作人员的共同政治生活隔离的时候，官僚制组织才可能生存。官僚制组织的动机。目标、政策和标准必然是官僚性的。我们规定所有的部都必须是真正为民众服务的，因而对于在真正为民众服务的部长领导下履行任务的官员们，要想指出他们无耻的独断专横的任何实例，看来是很困难的。而另一方面，要举出其它的正面例子则将是很容易的。例如在普鲁士斯坦因的影响下；一个具有真正公共精神的政治家，其领导方式可以把自负而且敷衍塞责的机关变成公共政府的具有公正精神的工具。 But to fear the creation of a domineering, illiberal officialism as a result of the studies I am here proposing is to miss altogether the principle upon which I wish most to insist. That principle is, that administration in the United States must be at all points sensitive to public opinion. A body of thoroughly trained officials serving during good behavior we must have in any case: that is a plain business necessity. But the apprehension that such a body will be anything un-American clears away the moment it is asked. What is to constitute good behavior? For that question obviously carries its own answer on its face. Steady, hearty allegiance to the policy of the government they serve will constitute good behavior. That policy will have no taint of officialism about it. It will not be the creation of permanent officials, but of statesmen whose responsibility to public opinion will be direct and inevitable. Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed from the common political life of the people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, its objects, its policy, its standards, must be bureaucratic. It would be difficult to point out any examples of impudent exclusiveness and arbitrariness on the part of officials doing service under a chief of department who really served the people, as all our chiefs of departments must be made to do. It would be easy, on the other hand, to adduce other instances like that of the influence of Stein in Prussia, where the leadership of one statesman imbued with true public spirit transformed arrogant and perfunctory bureaux into public-spirited instruments of just government.
- 除了适当强调之外，我们还有必要认识到所有相类似的政府，它们在行政管理方面的合法目标也是相同的。这是为了使人们不至于在下述的观点面前吃惊：以为我们是在外国的行政管理制度当中寻求教训和启发。这是为了使人们免除这样一种忧虑，即我们有可能会盲目地引进某些与我们的原则不相符合的东西。那种对把外国制度移植到我们国家的意图进行指责的人肯定是盲目地步入歧途，这是不可能的，外国制度完全没有在这里生长的可能。但是，如果有某种符合我们要求，可以加以利用的外国的发明创造，我们为什么不加以利用呢？我们以一种外来的方式应用它们是不会有危险的。我们引进了大米，但我们却不用筷子吃饭。我们的全部政治词汇都是从英国引进的，但我们却从其中淘汰了“国王”和“贵族”。除开建立在个人基础之上的联邦政府的活动以及联邦最高法院的某些职能之外，我们究竟做过一些什么样的组织工作呢？ But, besides being safe, it is necessary to see that for all governments alike the legitimate ends of administration are the same, in order not to be frightened at the idea of looking into foreign systems of administration for instruction and suggestion; in order to get rid of the apprehension that we might perchance blindly borrow something incompatible with our principles. That man is blindly astray who denounces attempts to transplant foreign systems into this country. It is impossible: they simply would not grow here. But why should we not use such parts of foreign contrivances as we want, if they be in any way serviceable? We are in no danger of using them in a foreign way. We borrowed rice, but we do not eat it with chopsticks. We borrowed our whole political language from England, but we leave the words ""king"" and ""lords"" out of it. What did we ever originate, except the action of the federal government upon individuals and some of the functions of the federal supreme court?
当前第1页 共1页
跳转到第
页
最后更新
