满大人 【官僚机构大改造】满大人的教训

Reforming Leviathan
改造利维坦

Mandarin lessons

满大人的经验

Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition of The Economist

译者：Plantiska

THE French call them hauts fonctionnaires, the Germans Beamte im h?heren Dienst and the British, somewhat more economically, know them as “mandarins”. The senior echelons of civil services are a powerful arm of the state. They implement the reforms dreamed up by politicians, and design public services ranging from welfare systems to prisons. Compared with private-sector bosses, the bureaucrats who manage the public sector tend to be less well paid but have more cushioned lives, with more secure jobs and far less pressure to improve productivity. Now the mandarins face change (see article).

法国人把他们叫做“hauts fonctionnaires”，德国人把他们叫做“Beamte im h?heren Dienst”，英国人则更简洁地把这些人叫做“满大人（官僚）”。高层次梯队里的公务员是国家有力的左膀右臂。他们执行着政治家们梦想中的改革，并设计着从福利系统到监狱系统的公共服务。与私营部门老板们相比，处理公共部门事务的官僚似乎赚得更少，但是他们的生活却更有保障，工作也更加安稳，提升工作效率的压力也没那么大。不过现在，满大人们面临着挑战。（另见文）

There has long been taxpayer fury when big projects go awry. Berlin’s new airport is three years overdue and predicted to cost €6 billion ($8.1 billion), three times the original estimate. But voters, and thus politicians, are especially intolerant of civil-service inefficiency nowadays. One prompt is austerity. Another is technology, which is changing not only how public services are delivered—think of “massively open online courses” in education—but also the way they can be measured. Social networks enable users to grumble about hospital waiting-times and mathematics results. Perhaps the biggest pressure is the passing of time: private-sector workers are incredulous as to why civil servants should escape the creative destruction that has changed other offices around the world.

当大项目出问题时，纳税人的愤怒早已有之。柏林的新机场的落成要延期3年，有预测称工程花费因此达到了60亿欧元（折合82亿美元），这可是原先估测的3倍。不过选民们（以及因此而受影响的政治家们）对行政部门效率低下的现状十分不满。一大原因在于紧缩政策，另一个原因则在于技术。后者改变的不仅仅是公共服务的履行——例如教育中的“大众开放式在线课堂”——还有对这些公共服务的权衡。社交网络使得用户能够朝医院候诊时间以及数学结果吐槽。也许最大的压力在于时间的流逝：私营部门的员工不理解，为何公务员可以逃脱“创造性毁灭”这一在全球席卷了其他许多工作场所的过程呢？

The reform of the public sector is a huge project, but people are at the centre of it. Government is a service industry, and there is a basic talent problem. A few civil services—Singapore’s is the obvious example—compete with the private sector for the best graduates. But elsewhere even elite departments, such as the US Treasury and Britain’s Foreign Office, struggle (or lose high-flyers quickly). The mandarins and their political masters need to change tack.

对公共部门的改革任重而道远，中心在于以人为本。政府是一个服务型行业，总有基本的人才问题。少部分公共服务——新加坡是很明显的例子——跟私营部门争抢优秀的毕业生。不过其他地方，甚至精英部门，像美国财政部以及英国外交部，要么在人才问题上苦苦挣扎，要么就是很快地失去“抱负之士”。官僚们以及其政界里的主子们都需要改变行动方针。

Too many civil servants, especially in continental Europe, swirl around a bureaucratic Gormenghast but rarely leave it. Nearly four-fifths of German senior public servants have been in public administration for more than two decades. The French state under Fran?ois Hollande is governed by a caste of unsackable functionaries, resistant to reform. One reason many officials become stuck is their generous pension deals: making pensions portable should be a priority. But career structures also must adapt.

太多的公务员，尤其是欧洲大陆的这群人，在官僚作风充斥的戈门哈斯特摸爬滚打，却少有人离开。将近五分之四的德国高级公务员已经在公共行政行业里呆了二十年有余。奥朗德治下的法国被一众不可解雇的公务员管理着，他们也是改革的阻力。许多官员之所以不愿离开，一大原因就在于他们大笔大笔的养老保险协议。因此，让这些养老金可以进行转移成为优先考虑的问题。不过职业构成也应当有所改进。

Most civil services still tend to be gerontocracies, where age and seniority are synonymous. New Zealand has dismantled the system of rigid hierarchies and pay-grades that spawned the likes of the phlegmatic Sir Humphrey in the BBC comedy “Yes Minister”. Instead, it appoints departmental chief executives in its ministries, who sign contracts to meet specific targets and can be dismissed if they fail. Singapore’s civil servants are frequently sent out to private-sector jobs. Britain has appointed a senior figure from the oil business to run the agency that deals with large-scale state projects. The idea is that private-sector experience in areas such as contract management and negotiation can help avoid disasters like Berlin’s airport.

大多数公众服务依然趋于由老人政府所掌控，也就是说年岁之长与资历之老是一回事。新西兰取消了严密的等级制度以及薪酬等级，以往这些等级容纳了像BBC喜剧“Yes Minister”中不苟言笑的汉弗莱爵士。取而代之的是，新西兰委任部门首席执行官进入政府部门。这些人签署合同，并保证达成一些特定目标，如果他们失败的话就会遭到解雇。新加坡的公务员则经常被派往私营部门工作。英国委任一个在石油行业的资深人士来处理大规模的国家项目。这个主意在于，从私营部门中获得诸如合同管理以及协商经验，以期避免出现柏林机场这样的灾难。

All this appeals to right-wing politicians. But the corollary of better performance is higher pay. The British government’s chief operating officer announced this week that he is leaving for a lucrative commercial job. Singapore, which runs a far leaner government than America, pays its best people $2m a year. No Republican congressman would tolerate that, which is foolish. The cost of higher salaries is offset by saving money on costly consultants to mop up failing projects.

这一切的一切都迎合了右翼政客。不过更好的表现就意味着更高的薪酬。英国政府一个营运主管在本周宣布自己要辞职以奔赴一个更有利可图的商业工作。新加坡拥有一个比美国更加精简的政府，不过她要为上层人士每年支付两百万美元。没有一个共和党的国会议员会忍受这个，因为这实在有些愚蠢。雇佣代价高昂的顾问来弥补失败项目所带来的损失也许是省下来了，不过支付给官员的高额薪酬会抵消这笔钱。

There is one area where less change would be useful. To plan careers, you need a long-term strategy—and democracy throws up change every election. In Britain health-care officials talk about successive “re-disorganisations”. One reason for authoritarian Singapore’s success is that its voters have miraculously always chosen the party founded by Lee Kuan Yew since he took control in 1959. Voters elsewhere are less obliging. New Zealand has tried to counter this by boosting the powers of a state-services commissioner, whose duties include one of lasting “stewardship”. That could be a useful model for elsewhere—especially America, where too many senior positions are filled by political appointees (who then take months to get confirmed by Congress). Mandarinates have their faults, but somebody needs to keep Leviathan working.

这世上有个领域不需要多少改变就能变得更加有用。在职业规划过程中，你需要一个长期策略——而且民主会在每个竞选时带来改变。在英国，医疗保健部门的官员就一次又一次地说着制度“再解体”。新加坡威权主义的成功在于，自从李光耀在1959年掌权后，他所创的政党总是能奇迹般地受到选民的青睐。其他地方的选民可就没有这么忠实了。为了应对这个问题，新西兰尝试着提升其国务理事的权力，他们的指责之一包括永久的“管理工作”。这种模式也许在其他地方也能有用武之地——尤其是在美国，太多高级职位都被政治提名者所占据（这些人之后又经历了数月才得到国会的批准）。官僚制度有其缺陷，不过总有人得做些什么来让利维坦工作吧？

From the print edition: Leaders