It tries to absorb the reasonable core of traditional public administration theory, especially on the basis of acknowledging the important value of new public administration theory to improve contemporary public administration practice and abandoning the inherent defects of new public administration theory, especially entrepreneur government theory, it puts forward and establishes a new theory that pays more attention to democratic values and public interests. The new public service theory has an important influence on the transformation and improvement of China government functions and the construction of civil society. According to the new public management theory and the new public service theory, whether we can put forward a new pluralistic view of public administration deserves our consideration and exploration. Key words: new public * * * Managing new public * * * Serving civil rights * * * Civil society interests About the author: Lu Xiaofeng, Department of Administration, School of Political and Public Affairs Management, Sun Yat-sen University, 06 undergraduate. I. Introduction "What human beings can do is to get close to the truth, but there is no way to exhaust the truth" [1]. This determines that exploring the law is an eternal process. The development of public administration theory also follows this law. It has been more than one hundred years since 1887, when Wilson published his famous paper "Research on Administration" in the American Political Science Quarterly. In the history of more than one hundred years, the development of public administration has experienced husband administration, new public administration, new public management and new public service. Public administration "the pendulum of reform has never stopped swinging" [2]. The new public management movement, which began in 1970s and 1980s, keeps pace with the times in public management mode and management practice. As a new theory, new public management always prevails [3]. However, with the progress of the times and the development of public sector practice, the criticism of new public management has come and gone. Denhardt, a famous American scholar, put forward the theory of new public service in his masterpiece "New public service: service rather than steering" when criticizing new public management. The change from husband management to new husband service "not only involves the implementation of some new management methods, but also contains a new set of values" [4]. But no theory will be recognized by everyone, and of course the new public service theory has also been criticized to some extent. Some scholars in China have studied the new public service theory and put forward some innovative views. Zhou Yicheng, Department of Administration, Jiangsu Administration College, pointed out in the article Critique of New Public Service Theory: "In the previous article, the new public service theory was critically deconstructed from three aspects: research object, theoretical content and theoretical form, and found that it has the following shortcomings: (1) The research goal caused by the research topic is low-level, that is, it is more at the level of action research. (2) The concept of enterprise in this theory has been promoted to the operational level by the entrepreneur government theory; (3) Strictly speaking, the new public service is a hypothesis rather than a theory; (4) The new public service has some defects in theoretical form, such as insufficient argumentation, imprecise logic and concise aesthetic sense. " [5] But he also pointed out: "Of course, despite the above problems, at least one thing is worthy of recognition, that is, Denhardt and his wife have a clear sense of theoretical construction, which is what many China administrative scholars lack." Therefore, we have to briefly discuss the defects of China's public administration research here. In our opinion, these defects can be summarized as at least three points: (1) action research of repetitive work; (2) applied research lacking analytical tools; (3) pure research is few. "[6] From the perspective of theoretical construction, I hope that young scholars in China can use their lives to build some theories that belong to China people and can effectively solve the China problem. As long as more young scholars join this team, the research of public administration in China will not be marginalized forever. Yu Jianxing, a professor in the Department of Public Administration of Zhejiang University, and Wu Guohua, a graduate student in the Department of Public Administration of Zhejiang University, discussed several theories such as the new public service theory from the political level, and proposed to reform the bureaucratic government from the political road, which provided some useful enlightenment for the theory and practice of administrative management in China. They pointed out: "this kind of government reform from the political direction includes three levels: first, rethink civil rights." "Second, establish new channels for citizen participation. Finally, rebuild the relationship between the government and citizens. [7] At the end of the article, the author wrote: "Faced with the failure of the reform measures of the new palace management, the post-new palace management scholars represented by Denhardt and Gulliver put forward a new reform model. This reform measure, which aims at the political defects of the bureaucratic government, more accurately grasps the causes of the shortcomings of the bureaucratic government, and its reform method is more feasible and may achieve greater results. This new mode of reform is of great significance to the ongoing reform of China government "[8]. Ding Huang, a famous scholar in China and Wuhan University, said in The New Development of Contemporary Western Public Administration Theory-From New Public Administration to New Public Administration Service: "In the field of western public administration, since the 1980s, the new public administration theory has increasingly shown its dominant paradigm position, but it has also been questioned and criticized from many aspects. The new public service theory attempts to establish a new theoretical choice that pays more attention to democratic values and public interests and is more suitable for the development of modern civil society and public management practice on the basis of acknowledging the important value of the new public management theory to improve contemporary public management practice and abandoning its inherent defects. " [9] Peng Weiming and Wang put forward in the Enlightenment of New Public Service Theory on Building a Harmonious Society: "The new public service theory emphasizes serving citizens, pursuing public interests, attaching importance to civil rights and human values, and focusing on citizens. Such a set of public administration ideas provides a new perspective for us to explore the construction of a harmonious society. Accordingly, we can build a harmonious society through the following ways: strengthening the government's social management and public service functions; Innovating the expression mechanism of public opinion; Cultivate and develop community and civil society organizations; Increase opportunities for citizens to participate in political and social affairs; Provide institutional guarantee for social fairness and justice; Emphasize civic spirit and civic virtue; Pay attention to promoting people's psychological harmony. " [10] According to some ideas of new public service, this paper puts forward some views on the construction of a harmonious society in China. In the article "Value Analysis of Administrative Ethics Construction in China —— From the Perspective of New Public Service Value Theory", Wu made a certain analysis of the connotation of new public service from the perspective of administrative ethics, and discussed the construction of administrative ethics in China from the perspective of the basic structure of administrative ethics under the new public service value system. Zhang Zhizhong and Wang Ze should be in new public office; The value concept and realistic appeal point out: "The connotation of the new public service theory lies in enhancing the dignity and value of public service and advocating the excellent values of public administration;" Theoretically, it calls for the establishment of public rationality in public discourse; In reality, it calls for the construction of a citizen-centered public service-oriented government. [1 1] This paper studies the new public service from two aspects: the value concept and the realistic demand. There are still many scholars in China who have studied and explored the new public service theory, so I won't list them one by one in this paper. On the basis of these scholars' research, this paper mainly studies the background and theoretical connotation of the new public service theory and its enlightenment to the civil society construction in contemporary China, so as to provide some useful reference for the civil society construction in contemporary China. Second, the background of the new public service theory. Denhardt's new public service theory is based on the reflection and criticism of the new public management theory, including the entrepreneur government theory. If we want to talk about new public services, it is necessary to analyze and study the management of new public services. The so-called "new public management" was originally a European phenomenon to a great extent, and its origin can be traced back to the continuous debate between "managerialism" and Weber's "bureaucracy theory" in the reform practice of pursuing administrative modernization. In this debate, management theory is dominant. It criticizes bureaucracy from the perspective of management and praises the management technology of private institutions. It is considered that decentralization, deregulation and entrusted management are the organizational principles to eradicate the rigid management mechanism of public enterprises. [12] With the application of new public * * * managerialism in practice, a relatively consistent school has gradually formed, that is, the "new public * * * management" school. "New public * * * management has become the guiding ideology of reform in Europe and America. The new public management tries to break the highly centralized and hierarchical organizational structure of the traditional bureaucratic government and replace it with a smaller and flatter organizational model to separate the organization of policy formulation and policy implementation. In terms of management methods, the new public management has introduced a large number of private enterprise management methods to replace the traditional and mechanized management methods. Performance evaluation, project budget and strategic management are used to carry out extensive social reforms. On the relationship between the government and the market, the new public management advocates relaxing government control, and under the guidance of neo-liberalism, it turns to establish a "small government-big market" relationship between the government and the market. Therefore, the government has carried out a large-scale market-oriented reform, and transferred some functions undertaken by the government to the market through privatization and outsourcing. Introducing the competition mechanism into the government, "competition has various benefits, and the most obvious one is to improve efficiency: that is, less investment and more production." "... competition forces public (or private) monopoly organizations to respond to customers' needs. ..... Competition rewards innovation; Monopoly stifles innovation. ..... competition to improve the self-esteem and morale of employees in public organizations "[13]. By introducing competition mechanism into the government, the efficiency of the government can be improved and the government can operate more effectively. The theory of "new public management" holds the following two ideas about management, namely, liberalization and marketization of management. 1. Liberalization of management. Marketization of management. The new public management theory holds that the management practice and technology of the private sector are superior to the public sector and can be used in the public sector. The difference between public and private is an illusion, "management is management" [14]. These new public management theories have been refined and popularized in the book "Rebuilding the Government" by Osborne and Guble, and become the essence of new public management, that is, entrepreneurial government theory. As a modern public administration theory that tries to surpass the traditional public administration theory, the new public administration theory reflects the development direction and trend of public administration to a certain extent, and also reflects the changes and development trend of the times, so it is highly respected. However, many scholars have criticized the new public service theory. In the book "Rebuilding the Government or ourselves" [15], schacht raised objections to the values advocated by the new public management theory. In his book "Government Reconstruction as a Postmodern Symbolic Politics", Fox pointed out that there are inherent contradictions in the new public management theory [16]. It has also been suggested that mass entrepreneurship advocated by the new public management theory and the so-called "new managerialism" is likely to damage the values of fairness and justice, representative system and participatory democratic constitutionalism [17]. Obviously, these different criticisms reflect the limitations of the new public service theory, including the entrepreneur government theory, and these different views have important significance and influence on the development of modern public administration. However, these theories did not put forward the alternative theory of the new public management theory. "The new public service theory is the essence of the new public management theory [18], which was founded by a group of public management scholars represented by Denhardt, a famous American public management scholar, based on their reflection on the new public management theory, especially the criticism of the defects of entrepreneur government theory. Third, the source and connotation of the new public service theory "Any theory is often produced and developed on the basis of some pre-existing ideological sources and concepts. Compared with the mainstream irrigation administrative thought rooted in rational choice, the new public service theory, like the traditional public administration theory and the new public management theory, also has some ideological sources and conceptual foundations that seem to be described as a standardized theoretical model and can be distinguished from other theories. " [19] Denhardt thinks that among the ideological sources of new public service, it is more contemporary. In recent years, in political theory and social theory, it is particularly important and obvious to pay attention to civil rights and democracy. These two theories are very important for advocating revived, more active and more participatory civil rights. However, civil rights can be examined from different aspects. The first obvious definition focuses on the rights and obligations of citizens stipulated by the legal system, that is, citizenship is regarded as a legal identity. Another broader view is that citizenship involves some more general issues, involving a person's membership characteristics in a political entity, including such rights and responsibilities of citizens, regardless of their legal status. According to this view, civil rights involve the ability of personal influence's political system, which means participation in political life. The new public service theory advocated by Denhardt focuses on the latter viewpoint. Locke pointed out in his book On Government (Part II): "Human beings are born free, equal and independent. Without their own consent, no one can be left out of this state, so that they are subject to the political power of another person "[20] and said:" Although some politicians now want to give some of them a superior position, they have no such requirement; But on the basis that they are all equal until they set up a ruler for them according to the same will. Therefore, their political society originated from voluntary alliances and mutual agreements in which people freely choose their rulers and government forms. " [2 1] From this point of view, Locke's thought is similar to the new public service theory. (2) The theory of community and civil society. Denhardt believes that the recent discussion on community and civil society can be regarded as an important source of new public service ideas. In the author's view, "the extensive interest of former people in the community is a very interesting phenomenon, and this interest has been shown on many different occasions." Critics on the left and right have clearly expressed their interest. On the one hand, people who tend to the left regard mass organizations as the antidote to the characteristics of modern society-excessive greed, self-reliance and mercenary, and as a good medicine to treat the spread of individualism. At the same time, those who tend to the right see the community as a way to restore some basic American values. Although these basic values were once mastered by people, they are now being challenged by forces beyond our control. [22] Gardner believes that community awareness can provide a useful intermediary between individuals and society, because it may come from many different levels of groups, from blocks to working groups. The foundation of community construction is care, trust and cooperation, which is combined by a powerful and effective communication and conflict resolution system. The interaction of the community plays a regulatory role between the individual and the collective, making the individual and the collective consistent. (3) Organizational humanism and new public management. The third theoretical source of new public service is organizational humanism. In his view, in the past 25 years, public administration theorists and colleagues in other disciplines agreed that the traditional hierarchical research method of social organizations limited people's horizons, they criticized bureaucracy and were seeking alternative methods of management and organizational research. Collectively, these methods all attempt to reform public organizations into the needs and concerns of internal and external voters. In this regard, first of all, it is worth mentioning Aghily, a famous American behavioral scientist and organist and a professor at Harvard University School of Management. As early as in the book Personality and Organization, he discussed the influence of traditional management methods on individual psychological development in complex organizations. In particular, he pointed out that the study of human personality shows that from infancy to adulthood, people have to go through a development process from passive to active, from dependence to independence, from limited behavior to wider behavior, from superficial interest to deeper interest, from short-term perspective to longer-term perspective, from subordinate position to equal or superior position, and from lack of understanding to more understanding. [23] There are also some scholars who have made such contributions to the construction of organizations with more humanistic significance in the public sector. These scholars are collectively known as the new school of public administration, which is essentially accompanied by some radical movements in the social sciences at the end of 1960s. George frederick Sen demonstrated in "New Public Administration" that social equity is the guiding concept of administrative and political decision-making. It is the unshirkable responsibility of civil servants to establish standards and measures to protect social equity and understand the impact of public services on citizens' dignity and welfare. (d) postmodern public administration. The fourth theoretical source of new public service is postmodernism. Postmodernism theorists believe that the traditional dependence on positivism strengthens the objectification and impersonalization tendency that has become a part of the mainstream public management model. At the same time, they also believe that only relying on positivism can not make people fully and completely understand the significance and value as an important part of human life. Scholars hope to establish some alternative methods for the research and practice of public administration through some methods, and pay more attention to value (not just facts), subjective human meaning (not just objective behavior), and various emotions and feelings contained in the relationship between people in reality. Postmodern public managers mainly believe in the concept of "dialogue" and think that public problems can be solved more easily through dialogue than through "objective" measurement or rational analysis. The ideal of reliable dialogue is to treat administrative officials and citizens as full participants in each other. They are not only regarded as selfish individuals who get together to talk, but also as participants in a relationship in which they contact each other as human beings. This final process of negotiation and knowledge acquisition is also a process in which individuals contact each other with their own participation. In this process, they fully contain all aspects of human personality. They are not only rational, but also experienced, intuitive and emotional. But this change is very difficult, and it needs to reach * * * knowledge: 1. How to act without reason, and 2. How to reach a compromise with different things? In this regard, Mike Sweet, another representative of postmodern public administration theory, put forward a practical step-we should open our hearts and be honest with each other. "This alternative is to listen to other people's voices, pour out their worries, and put up with others as themselves. This ..... is not so much the result of rationality as the transformation of rationality. ..... By making people and their lives the desired goals of reason, reason separates us from each other. At this time, the human condition is: I am you. [25] In short, Denhardt believes that civil rights theorists, community and civil society theorists, organizational humanism and new public service have created a very meaningful theoretical atmosphere, and many of their ideas constitute the ideological source of the new public service theory. The so-called "new public service" refers to a set of ideas about the role of public administration in a citizen-centered governance system. The new public service thinks that the government should not operate like an enterprise, but like a democratic country; Administrative officials need to realize that they will gain a lot by listening to the voice of the public instead of giving orders to the public and serving instead of steering. Citizens and public officials will jointly define and deal with some common problems of Qixin in a mutually beneficial way. Specifically, the new public service puts forward seven propositions: 1. Service and citizens, not service and customers. Public interest is the result of dialogue with interests, not the gathering of personal interests. Therefore, civil servants not only pay attention to the needs of customers, but also pay attention to citizens and establish trust and cooperation among citizens. [26]2. Pursue the public interest. Public officials must promote the concept of collective and common public interest. This goal is not to find a quick solution to the problem driven by personal choice, but to create * * * benefits and responsibilities. [27]3. Pay more attention to citizenship than entrepreneurship. Civil servants and citizens who are committed to making outstanding contributions to society can promote public interests better than entrepreneurs, because the behavior of the latter managers seems to indicate that public funds are their own property. [28]4. Think strategically and act democratically. Policies and projects that meet the needs of the public can be implemented most effectively and responsibly through collective efforts and cooperative processes. It is not easy to take responsibility. Civil servants should not only pay attention to the market, but also pay attention to laws and constitutions, community values, political norms, professional standards and citizens' interests. [30]6. Serve, not steer. For civil servants, it is more and more important to use value-based leadership to help citizens clearly express and satisfy their interests, rather than trying to control or control the new development direction of society. [3 1]7. Pay attention to people, not just productivity. [32]