Aruandekohuslus ja vastutustundlikkus kuuluvad ilmselt paljude kõnepruuki, kuid jäävad sageli kontseptualiseerimata nii indiviidi kui organistasiooni tasandil. Sestap siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst oma koha leidiski. Lugemise teeb veel huvitavaks asjaolu, et Hiina näide sisaldab paljudele tuntud retoorikat (nt kaadrid vms), kuid mis on ehk noorema põlvkonna lugejale võõras ning seetõttu võiks pakkuda teatud “värskust”.
How to enhance responsibility in government is a hot topic not only for academic research but also for political practice. In the 1930s the study of public administration became a new sub-field separated from political science. Rhodes (1996) states, “over the past fifteen years vogue words and phrases for reforming the public sector have come and gone. ‘Rayner’s Raiders’ and the ‘3Es’ of economy, efficiency and effectiveness gave way to the ‘new public management’ and ‘entrepreneurial government’” (p. 652)
Autori ees seivad küsimused:
In contrast with western democratic institutions, how does the Chinese government sustain and improve responsibility? What are the right mixes that make a government more likely to act responsibly towards its people? What are the effects?
The philosopher Williams (1993) argues that four basic elements are relevant to the construction of responsibility: cause, intention, state, and response.
In order to clarity the meaning of responsibility, Harmon (1995) proposed three root meanings for responsibility: agency, accountability, and obligation. Agency is the idea of intentionality or free will, which means people are moral agents who freely choose. It is a necessity of responsibility and a necessary precursor to the two other components – accountability and obligation. Accountability is an authoritative relationship in which one person is formally entitled to demand that another answer for – that is, provide an account of – his or her actions. Thirdly, “obligation introduces an explicitly moral meaning of responsibility by suggesting that one should, or should not, perform a particular action (p. 26).”
Indiviidi ja organisatsiooni tasand:
Generally speaking, individual responsibility is inclined to the moral level, as in everyday life we just assign it to the individual unselfconsciously without explicit justification, and it has developed in either academic fields like philosophy and psychology, or professional fields like law and jurisprudence. Yet, the meaning of organizational responsibility is relatively narrowly used in the field of organizational study. Parsons (1956) and Thompson et al. (1967) delineated three levels of organizational responsibility: (a) the technical level – the effective performance of specialized and detailed functions; (b) managerial level – effective mediation among organizational technical elements and between its internal components and those external factors, e.g., customers or suppliers, in the task environment; and (c) institutional level – being part of the “wider social system which is the source of the meaning” (p. 17), legitimation, etc., which makes the organization’s goal implement possible.
Objektiivne ja subjektiivne dimensioon:
In Friedrich’s idea, the main difference between objective and subjective responsibility is that the former exists for activities with scientific standards which demands administrative officials possess scientific information, while the latter is without “such standards.” Dotson (1957) went further to explain the difference as “objective responsibility demands action indicated by the scientific information relating to the problem under consideration; political responsibility is enforced by the people and their representatives exist for activities where scientific standards may be applied” (p. 709).
Struktuuri ja agendi perspektiiv:
In a word, the term of responsibility has two aspects: (a) responsible by “structure,” and (b) responsible by “agency.” First, structure is external to individuals, like law, formal authority, moral principles, and so on, which is the patterned arrangement to influence or limit the individuals’ choices and opportunities. Individuals, groups, organization, and even the state or nation, are responsible to these kinds of structure. Second, individuals, groups, organization, etc. are responsible by their personal agency, which is “meaningful human behavior, individual or collective, that makes a significant difference in the natural and/or social worlds, either by direct, unmediated action or else through the mediation of tools, machines, dispositifs, institutions, or other affordances” (Moulaert et al, 2016, p. 169).
In practice, various features of the pre-existing Soviet-style Nomenklatura system have been incorporated into the new management system. The resultant hybrid management framework includes the Bianzhi (Established post; 编制) System (1950), the Cadre Target-Based Responsible System (1986), Regulations of the Selection and Appointment Party and Government Leadership (2002, 2014, 2019), 18 the CCP’s Internal Supervision Regulations (2004, 2016), 19 the CCP’s Disciplinary Regulations (2004, 2015, 2018), 20 the Civil Service Law (2005, 2018).
Overall, cadre education and training has two functions: to keep cadres’ political loyalty through political indoctrination, and to enhance cadres’ working capacity by providing them professional knowledge and skills.
Majandusloogikad võivad tuua muudatusi:
With the progress of economic reform, the emerging norm of individualism originating from capitalist market logic is making the inculcation of collectivism in socialist bureaucratic logic an uphill battle (Zheng, 1994; 2001). 42 How to bring about an adequate code of administrative ethics, and to make it effective in closing the gap poses serious challenges for the Chinese authorities (Ma, 1999; Zhu, 2000).43
Zhu, G. (2021). Institutional Accountability or Individual Agency in China’s Public Administration System. Developments in Administration, 3, 43-59.