隨著多元化社會的來臨，政府不僅面臨日趨繁複的公共問題，而且亦須面對日趨高漲的社會力之挑戰，以政治力為主導的領導體系正遭遇著前所未有的困境，社會的多元衝突再再顯示出當前政府的統治機制已經出現鬆動的徵兆，特別是市場力似乎已經主導政府的走向，如不加以強化，極易發生不可治理性(Ungovernability)的危機。

西方國家為因應技術變遷、全球化和國際競爭力的挑戰，無不在公部門進行重要的改革。近年來，對傳統公共行政進行大規模的典範變遷(paradigm shift)，而形成了「新公共管理」或「管理主義」。本文企圖深入評估新公共管理的理論和原則，並與傳統公共行政交相比較，以了解新公共管理在各國行政革新中所被應用的管理策略與傳統公共行政不同之處，藉此分析各個管理策略的困境，其中以使用經濟理論和私有管理的原則最為人批評，而容易忽略非經濟變數，因為並非所有的妥釵都係品經濟性貿，再者容易只走著重在經濟性謗因，而忽略了非經濟誘因，變成只是重視效率、效能和經濟等標準而忽略了公道和正義等倫理道德面向。

新公共管理(New public Management, NPM)大約出現於八○與九○年代，有的學者稱之為市場基礎的公共行政(market-based public administration)、企業型政府(entrepreneurial governmnent)、管理主義(managerialism)、新管理主義(new managerialism)。它的出現主要是改正傳統的公共行政模式過分強調官僚體系的缺點。

本研究主要是以新公共管理學派的理論架構，佛理、艾伯能、費絹農和培笛果(Ferlie、Ashburner、Fitzgerald and Pettigrew)四人認為新公共管理的理想型系統，至少有四個面向可從傳統公共行政中焠煉出來，它們都包合了不同且重要的特徵，它們都有不同的擁護者和詮釋，而這四個面向在新公共管理這領域中，所能達到的成就，也許會隨著時間增強或減弱；而這四個面向所型塑的理想型系統，亦是本文研究的重心焦點。本質上，這四種面向表現出試圖建構一個『新公共管理的理想型』。以下即論述這四個面向：面向一：效率導向(the efficiency drive)；面向二：削減和分權(downsizing and decentralization)；面向三：追求卓越(in search of excellence)；面向四：公共服務導向(public service orientation)；分析新公共管理中四個不同的面向，均是企圖採用私部門的觀點（例如，全面品質管理；組織學習），以應用於公部門的系絡中。易言之，該理想型系統對內強調專業化且嚴守法規，對外強調顧客並因應市場的要求，並且強調品質，藉此型塑優良的組織文化，以追求卓越。然而當在選擇何者是可以跨越公私界限，何者又不可的問題上，吾人認為是鮮少做明確的界定，或許是因為大部分在本質上係屬『規範的』。如將四個面向與實務相互看待，吾人可以發現目前公部門只限於前三個面向（效率導向、削減和分權、追求卓越），仍未達到第四個面向（公共服務取向），而公共服務取向是否亦是代表著新左派思想的崛起，抑或是新公共管理(NPM)與新公共行政(NPA)之間的共同語言，末來新公共管理是否會超越新右派的管理哲學或日新泰勒主義，而走向社區營造、社群主義和公私合產等社會力的研究途徑，如此的省思亦牽動吾人對新公共管理的限制與困境的思考與建議。

本文為著新公共管理的理想型系統所從事之比較分析計有以下數點：

(一) 釐清新公共管理的理想型系統是否與公共管理理論的三研究途徑（企業、政策、社會力）相呼應，亦或只是企業研究途徑中的一部分。

(二) 企圖聯結理論與實務。分析各國（美國、英國和紐西蘭）行政革新中的管理策略。再者，探討我國行政革新的背景、內容以及所使用的管理策略。

(三) 經由效率與公道、顧客與公民、市場與政府三項對比，來對新公共管理的理想型系統做宏觀批判，進而再對其困境做微觀批判。

最後本研究以當代公共管理的新典範－－『非線性動態』，試圖結合中國固有文化智書中既有的智慧，來營造公共管理新世界觀。職此之故，混沌行政將帶來混沌中的新秩序，增進自我創生組織的信心，並且釋放了預測和控制的枷鎖。量子力學行政的焦點不只是著重在實際的組織，亦重視能量而非事件，強調合適性而非要求存在，強調策劃而非因果關係以及著重在建構實相而非被動的被決定。再者，非線性動態著重在變革、複雜和過程的焦點，可以被當成二十一世紀政府管理在學習和行動的指南。藉著釐清批判新公共管理學派管理策略的困境並予以重建，期望能對我國行改革新的定位有所助益，並期以落實新政府運動和提昇國家競爭力。

For the coming of plural society, government not only has to confront with more complex public problems, but face the greater challenges of the society power. The market power that have its leadership worse and governing mechanism destructured dominates the government's directions. If we didn't consolidate our government, it would be easy to result in ungovernability.

The public sectors of Western countries are undergoing major changes as governments try to response the challenges of technological change, globalization and international competitiveness. Recent years have been wider-ranging reforms than any other period of the twentieth century representing a paradigm shift from the traditional model of public administration, dominant for most of the century, to "managerialism" or new public management. What is more, there is common intellectual backing for these changes particularly in economic theory and the principles of private management. By the beginning of the 1990's, a new model of public sector management was emerging in most advanced countries. The new model has several incarnations, including: "new public management"; "market-based public administration"; "entrepreneurial government"; "managerialism"; "new managerialism". It's used to replaced of traditional bureaucracy.

ForFerlie、Ashbumer、Fitzgerald and Pettigrew(1996), at least four new public management models can be discerned and while each of them represents a move away from traditional public administration models, they also contain important differences and distinctive features. A contests for interpretation is apparent between propo-nents of these four models, and the degree of influence they achieve in the field may wax or wane over time. In essence, these four models represent our initial attempt to build a typology of new public management ideal types, model 1: the efficiency drive; model 2: downsizing and decentralization; model 3: in search of excellence; model 4: public service orientation. Returning to the variants of the new public management outlined in chapter 2, this analysis suggests that Models 1-3 , all of which are essentially derived from private sector management practice, are by themselves in-adequate and require adaptation to public sector context. NPM Model 4's advantage("public service orientation") lies in its sensitivity to the distinctive public sector context. However, An implication of my analysis is that the value systems of public sector managers may well continue to differ in important ways from those of private sector managers. Do these intersectoral differences in value systems really exist ? Is there a more variegated pattern evident within the public sector (e.g. differences between provider and purchaser organizations ?) These are questions which are amenable to empirical study.

Nonlinear dynamics also satisfies what students of public organization, administration, and management have labeled a practical theory. A practical theory clarifies the "possibilities for action" for managers while illuminating the nature of the manager's existing actions. Moreover, the focus of nonlinear dynamics on changes, complexity, and process can serve as a guide for government management learning and action, now and in the twenty-first century.

This thesis explores the main impacts on administrative refrom, especially on the USA, UK, New Zealand, and Taiwan, of the managerial strategies that have been applied across the public sector in the past decade. In sum, I argue to have a more mature form of public management in Taiwan context.