本文選題：美國政府 + 績效評估　； 參考：《吉林大學》2004年博士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)代政府的公共行政中，績效導向型管理（performance-oriented management）已成為各國政府改革追求的方向和目標。政府的績效導向型管理是有目的地對資源與信息加以運用，以獲取和顯示在達到績效導向型政府與項目的目標方面的顯著進步；旨在將管理焦點轉(zhuǎn)移致結(jié)果，提高服務質(zhì)量與項目效益,強化政府責任，提高公眾對政府的信任與支持，體現(xiàn)了政府改革對績效、結(jié)果和責任的渴望。因此，績效評估也由于可以通過識別希望的管理后果和評估它們的成就來提高政府工作的效率和效益而倍受各國政府的高度重視，并是過去30年中公共行政學文獻里最為頻繁出現(xiàn)的主題之一。 黨的十六屆三中全會明確提出了“堅持以人為本，樹立全面、協(xié)調(diào)、可持續(xù)的發(fā)展觀，促進經(jīng)濟社會和人的全面發(fā)展”�？茖W的發(fā)展觀引導著正確的政府績效觀，召喚著科學評估政府績效的制度和方法。經(jīng)濟全球化的快速發(fā)展和我國入世后對外開放的現(xiàn)實對我國行政管理體制改革不斷提出新的國際化、市場化的要求。目前，我國政府績效評估實踐所處的階段以及面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，亟需政府從包括美國在內(nèi)的外國政府績效評估的先進實踐中吸取經(jīng)驗和教訓。這對于進一步改善我國政府績效評估的實踐狀況，逐步建立中國特色的政府績效評估制度，全面實現(xiàn)十六大提出的行政管理體制改革的目標有著非常重大的現(xiàn)實意義。 WP=165 綜合國內(nèi)外的各種觀點，政府績效評估是一些特定的評估活動的總稱，主要由績效測量和項目評價組成。它以政府的戰(zhàn)略和目標為引導，以人們的思維框架為基礎，選擇政府的項目、服務和操作活動并在投入、產(chǎn)出、結(jié)果和經(jīng)濟、效率、效力、質(zhì)量、公平等方面設置指標與標準，然后借助于這些指標與標準，通過對政府活動趨向于既定目標的日常測量和對政府所發(fā)揮作用的定期或?qū)ｍ椩u價，來評定政府活動的績效。在實踐中，建立一個有效的政府績效評估系統(tǒng)要經(jīng)過鑒別評估項目、陳述目的并確定所需結(jié)果、選擇衡量標準或指標、設立績效和后果（成就目標）的標準、監(jiān)督結(jié)果、績效報告、使用后果和績效信息等過程。 20世紀初，美國地方政府開始了對好政府的追求并且以效率為核心對政府的運作進行測量與評估。隨著時間的推移，奠基于進步主義運動、威爾遜的效率主義和泰勒的效率革命的政府績效評估運動在美國得以擴展和延續(xù)，并且在不同的時代被賦予不同的主題和思想，以不同的面貌出現(xiàn)。在50-70年代，它以強調(diào)成本控制的改革預算管理形式出現(xiàn)；到了70-80年代，“偉大社會”項目的失敗引發(fā)的生產(chǎn)率運動以及經(jīng)濟自由主義指導下的私有化運動所共同展現(xiàn)出了項目評價的發(fā)展、興盛與衰落；進入90年代，伴隨著《首席財務官法》和《政府績效與結(jié)果法案》的出臺，新一輪的政府績效評估在總統(tǒng)與議會的雙重支持與推動下，以績效測量為主要內(nèi)容在美國聯(lián)邦政府中迅速推開。 從理論上講，每一個國家的政府績效評估實踐都會有其獨特性，這種獨特性植根于各國特有的國民性格、價值觀以及制度結(jié)構(gòu)等因素所構(gòu)建的實踐基礎之上。美國的政府績效評估實踐同樣也因其基礎的獨特性而表現(xiàn)出特有的美國特色。美國政府績效評估實踐的主要理論基礎是管理主義，它強調(diào)公共部門對私營部門管理技術與經(jīng)驗的借鑒與應用；而 WP=166 美國政府績效評估實踐的歷程就是一個管理主義實踐的歷程。價值觀基礎包括質(zhì)疑政府觀與金錢至上觀。由于對政府的質(zhì)疑，美國人有著強烈的監(jiān)督政府的意識；而金錢至上則使得美國人對稅收、腐敗、浪費等現(xiàn)象非常敏感，迫使政府力求成為有責任政府。美國人富有冒險和創(chuàng)新精神，這使得他們能夠不斷地探索新的評估技術與工具；同時，美國人在道德領域又相當保守，，無法容忍官員的腐敗。美國人性格中的神圣化傾向與金錢至上觀相結(jié)合，使得他們總是希望政府能夠像工商業(yè)界那樣高效、優(yōu)質(zhì)地提供公共服務，而非神秘化也幫助他們更為密切地監(jiān)督著政府的活動。政治架構(gòu)中縱向的中央與州、地方政府的分權(quán)，以及橫向的三權(quán)分立和民眾與精英的監(jiān)督與控制，則為政府績效評估添加了許多的不確定性。 在基礎因素的作用下，美國政府績效評估的發(fā)起階段，方案設計力量的一元化使設計呈現(xiàn)理性化特色；而多元化社會基礎又為多支力量發(fā)起評估提供了機會，結(jié)果又賦予政府績效評估實踐持續(xù)性特色。在績效評估的運行階段，由于理性設計的方案被互動式的運行過程所扭曲，而趨于失敗，所以導致政府績效評估實踐呈現(xiàn)了間斷性特色。從整個績效評估發(fā)展歷程上看，持續(xù)性與間斷性的結(jié)合使得政府績效評估歷程表現(xiàn)出時斷時續(xù)的特征；而政治架構(gòu)的分權(quán)特色導致績效評估實踐具有明顯的局部性，總是不能在全國全面推開，甚至在一級政府的所有部門內(nèi)的全面鋪開也有可能成為奢望。 我國政府對自身績效的普遍關注始于20世紀90年代中后期。目前，政府績效評估實踐基本處于探索階段。歸納起來，績效評估實踐可分為三類：一是以目標責任制、效能監(jiān)察、行風評議等為代表的普適性的政府機關績效評估；二是以衛(wèi)生部、教育部等對各自所屬企事業(yè)單位進行 WP=167 的組織績效的定期評估為代表的行業(yè)組織績效評估；三是以珠海市“萬人評政府”、深圳市“企業(yè)評政府”等為代表的專項績效評估。 中國政府績效評估
[Abstract]:Public administration of modern government, performance oriented management (performance-oriented Management) has become the direction and goal of government reform. The performance oriented management of government is to make use of resources and information, to obtain and display the remarkable progress in the goal to reach the performance oriented government and the project aims at will; management focus to result, improve service quality and efficiency, strengthen government responsibility, improve the public trust and support of the government, reflects the government reform on the performance, desire and responsibility of the results. Therefore, the performance evaluation also can be identified by the expectant results and evaluate their achievements to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government work the more attention of governments, and public administration in the past 30 years in the literature as one of the most frequently mentioned themes.
In the third Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee the party clearly put forward the "people-oriented, establishing comprehensive, coordinated, sustainable development view, promote the economic society and human development. The scientific development view leads to the correct performance view of government, calls for the scientific system and method of government performance evaluation. The rapid development of economic globalization and China's accession to the WTO the opening of the reality of China's administrative system reform continuously put forward new internationalization, the demands of the market. At present, the practice of the stage and the challenges of government performance evaluation in our country, the experiences and lessons from foreign advanced practice need the government to government performance evaluation including the United States. The further improvement of the assessment the practice of Chinese government performance, government performance evaluation system and gradually establish Chinese characteristics, the full realization of the reform of the administrative system of the sixteen The goal is of great practical significance.
WP=165
Various viewpoints at home and abroad, government performance evaluation is a general term for some specific evaluation activities, mainly consists of performance measuring and program evaluation. It takes the government's strategy and objectives for the guide, based on the thinking framework, government projects, service and operation activities and in the input, output, and economic results, efficiency, effectiveness, quality, set up index and standard of justice, and then with the help of these indexes and standards, through the daily measurement of government activities tend to set goals and the government play regular or special evaluation function, to evaluate the performance of governmental activities. In practice, the establishment of an effective government performance the evaluation system through the identification assessment project, purpose statement and determine the desired results, selection standards or indicators, set up performance and consequences (achievement goal) standards, inspection results, performance reports, after use The process of fruit and performance information.
At the beginning of twentieth Century, the local government began to pursue the good government and with efficiency as the core measurement and evaluation of the operation of the government. With the passage of time, to lay the progressive movement based on the government performance evaluation exercise efficiency revolution efficiency doctrine and Taylor's Wilson to expand and continue in the United States, and in different times endowed with different themes and ideas, in different aspect. At the age of 50-70, it is to emphasize the form of the reform of the budget management of cost control; to the 70-80's, "private instruction triggered great society" the failure of the project productivity movement and economic freedom of movement by the common show development project evaluation the rise and decline; in 90s, with the chief financial officer of < > and < > the government performance and Results Act introduced a new round of government performance evaluation in general With the dual support and promotion of the unification and parliament, the main content of performance measurement is pushed forward rapidly in the United States federal government.
Theoretically, every country's government performance evaluation practice will have its uniqueness, its uniqueness is rooted in their own national character, on the basis of the practice of constructing values and system structure and other factors. The government performance evaluation practice of the United States is also due to its uniqueness and shows a unique basis the main feature of the United States. Theoretical basis of practice of the United States government to assess the performance of management, which emphasizes the reference and application of the public sector to the private sector management skills and experience; and
WP=166
Process practice of American government performance evaluation is a management practice. The value basis including the concept and question the government money view. Because of questions about the government, Americans have a strong sense of government supervision; and money makes Americans for tax, corruption, waste phenomenon is very sensitive, forcing the government to be a responsible government. Americans are adventurous and innovative spirit, which allows them to constantly explore new evaluation techniques and tools; at the same time, Americans in the field of ethics and rather conservative, unable to tolerate corruption. Sacred trend and money in the American character, first view combined, so that they always hope that the government would like business the industry that efficient, high quality to provide public services, but also help them to demystify more closely monitor the activities of the government. Political structure in vertical Decentralization of central government and local governments, horizontal separation of three powers and supervision and control of the masses and elites add much uncertainty to government performance evaluation.
Based on the effect of the factors, to evaluate the performance of the U. S. government launched a unified design stage, the design strength showed rational characteristics; and the diversification of social foundation and provides opportunities for multiple force initiated assessment results and give the government performance evaluation practice of persistent characteristics. In the running stage of performance evaluation, the rational design the scheme is distorted by interactive operation process, and tends to fail, resulting in the government performance evaluation practice presents intermittent characteristics. The course of development from the perspective of the performance evaluation, continuity and discontinuity combination makes the government performance evaluation process showed intermittent characteristics; and political structure which has the local characteristics of decentralization obviously the performance evaluation practice, not always in the country to fully open, even in all sectors of the level of government in full swing may also become a luxury Look.
Our government pay close attention to their performance in late 1990s. At present, the government performance evaluation practice in the exploration stage. To sum up, the performance evaluation practice can be divided into three categories: one is based on the target responsibility system, efficiency supervision, government performance evaluation of PCED as the representative of the general; two the Ministry of health, the Ministry of education of their respective enterprises
WP=167
The periodic evaluation of organizational performance is the performance evaluation of the representative industry organizations; the three is the special performance evaluation represented by Zhuhai's "ten thousand people commentary" and Shenzhen's "enterprise evaluation government".
Performance evaluation of Chinese government

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2004
【分類號】：D771.2

【引證文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 尚虎平;李逸舒;;一種概念界定的工具:原子圖譜法——以“績效”、“政府績效”、“政府績效評估”概念為例[J];甘肅行政學院學報;2011年04期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 孫圣勇;;服務型鄉(xiāng)(鎮(zhèn))政府的公共性屬性譜系[A];“建設服務型政府的理論與實踐”研討會暨中國行政管理學會2008年年會論文集[C];2008年

相關博士學位論文 前3條

1 郭鋒;土地基金支出效益及管理績效評價研究[D];天津大學;2007年

2 董幼鴻;我國地方政府政策評估制度化建設研究[D];華東師范大學;2008年

3 馬嘉銘;礦山環(huán)境治理績效評價與預測研究[D];中國地質(zhì)大學;2012年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 劉德亮;廣東省公安機關績效考核的問題與對策研究[D];華南理工大學;2010年

2 劉劍橋;美、日政府績效評估立法對中國的啟示[D];吉林大學;2011年

3 王振國;基于績效棱柱理論的鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)政府績效評價研究[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學;2011年

4 代君;我國地方政府績效管理中存在的問題及對策研究[D];華中師范大學;2011年

5 李建功;地方政府城市建設績效評估研究[D];山西大學;2011年

6 曹軍華;甘肅省質(zhì)量技術監(jiān)督局績效評估模式構(gòu)建研究[D];蘭州大學;2011年

7 熊偉光;2010年度江門市政府績效公眾滿意度實證研究[D];華南理工大學;2011年

8 徐暉;政府、公民與公共治理視角下的政務超市探析[D];華中師范大學;2006年

9 林志剛;地方政府審批流程績效評價研究[D];清華大學;2005年

10 游亞宏;政府投資項目采購及其績效評價研究[D];天津大學;2006年

本文編號：1768708