First, the orientation of the new public management to the role of the government is to personalize its functions. What the government should and should not do, or what the role of the government is, has always been a hot topic in public management. In the new public management, there are many kinds of disputes, but generally speaking, the new public management has the following opinions on the positioning of government decision-making: from its role in national politics, economy and social life, there are so-called "rulers" and "managers"; Judging from the size of its functions, there are so-called "all-round government", "night watchman government" or "small government and big society" From the way of action, there are so-called "rowers", "helmsman" or "athletes" and "referees"; Judging from the position of the government in the reform, the government is not only the organizer and promoter of the reform, but also the object of the reform; Judging from the process of social and economic development, the government is not only the supplier of the system, but also the promoter of social development and economic growth. These are vivid descriptions of the role of the government. The role of the government is closely related to the role and function of the government, but it is not exactly the same. Specifically, the role of the government is closely related to the nature, status, power, function, role and task of the government, involving the power boundary, function scope and behavior mode of the government. Since the reform and opening up, in order to meet the needs of the socialist market economic system reform and social development, local governments have also carried out a series of reforms under the impetus of several large-scale institutional reforms by the central government. In the reform, they have a further understanding of their role positioning, and the government's role positioning is becoming more and more scientific and reasonable. However, at present, there are still some problems in the role orientation of local governments in China, which are not accurate enough, resulting in offside, dislocation and absence of government functions and behaviors. Mainly manifested in: On the one hand, the government did not completely "jump out" from economic activities, and assumed many functions that should not be undertaken by the government but by the market or society, and managed some things that were not well managed, resulting in huge economic and social losses. Not only has it not been recognized by the society, but it has damaged the image of the government and seriously caused the dislocation and offside of the role of the government; On the other hand, many functions that should be performed by the government are not well performed, such as providing public goods and services, not creating a good environment for social development, which is not conducive to economic and social development, thus leading to the absence of the role of the government. This requires us to seriously consider the connotation of government role positioning. Second, the role of local governments. Some roles of the government in the new public management are well known, but some views on the role of the government are still very different from the actual administrative environment faced by local governments in China. Therefore, we must re-understand the role of government, especially local government, in the new public management based on the national conditions of China and the reality of China. 1, "rowing" or "steering" As mentioned above, the role of the government can be divided into the so-called "rower" and "helmsman" from the way of action, while the new public management puts forward that the government is "steering" rather than "rowing". This is fully reflected in the works of Osborne and Guble and other related books. In the book "Reforming the Government", it is clearly pointed out that the government that plays a catalytic role: steering rather than rowing-entrepreneurial public organizations get rid of the existing policy choices and act as catalysts in their communities, triggering alternate action processes. They choose to steer (because they recognize various possibilities and seek a balance between resources and needs) rather than paddle (focusing on a single goal). The man at the helm defines the future, which is contrary to those oarsmen who rely only on traditional assumptions. This theoretical change from "rowing" to "steering" has triggered a wave of changes in government functions at all levels and has been accepted by many scholars. But judging from the political system of China, the government is the executive organ of the National People's Congress. If the model of "rowing" and "steering" is applied, then NPC is "steering" (decision-making) and the government is "rowing" (implementation); Judging from the relationship between the party and the government, the Party committee is "steering" and the government is "rowing". From the point of view of public organizations, all departments and levels of local governments are both at the helm and rowing, but the emphasis is different. There are administrative officers and affairs officers in western countries, but not in China, so leaders should make and implement decisions. Non-leaders in the government are basically "paddlers". Therefore, the local government in China should "steer" and "paddle" at this stage. In fact, even in the west, this concept has been questioned and criticized. American scholar Janet V? Denhardt and Robert B. Denhardt clearly pointed out: service, not turning: it is more and more important for civil servants to use value-based leadership to help citizens clearly express and satisfy their interests, rather than trying to control or master the new development direction of society. Therefore, the local government in China must position itself according to the basic national conditions and administrative environment of China and its own reality. It should be noted that in China, local governments should not only "steer" but also "paddle". If legislation is compared to "steering" and law enforcement is compared to "rowing"; Comparing the formulation of policies to "steering" and the implementation of policies to "rowing", it is not difficult to locate the role of the government. 2. "Power government" or "responsible government"? Because the new public management highly advocates the use of entrepreneurship to reform the government's public sector and emphasizes the transformation of the government from a "power-based government" to a "responsible government". Holmes and Sander regard new public management as a model, and point out that it has the following characteristics: … (4) Paying attention to the correspondence between power and responsibility as a key link to improve performance, which includes emphasizing a clear performance contract mechanism. (7) Require reporting of results and total costs, thus improving accountability and transparency. It is necessary to understand the relationship between power and government before thinking about the transition from "power-based government" to "responsible government". Do local governments in China need power to perform their duties? The answer is, of course, yes. The government is an authoritative organization with legal power, such as decision-making power, financial power and personnel power. The power of the government is the guarantee to fulfill the responsibility. Government functions include power and responsibility, which are indispensable for managing the country and society. If you have responsibility and no rights, you can't do your duty; Power without responsibility will "rent-seeking". The mistake in the past was the excessive concentration or abuse of power, not the power itself. Therefore, a government without power can certainly not take responsibility. Power is given by the people, and it is impossible to be responsible to the people without the power given by the people. When the government defines its role, it is not a simple problem of transformation, but a good relationship between power and responsibility. The two complement each other and cannot be neglected. Use power correctly and realize the unity of power and responsibility. 3. "Management government" or "service government"? At present, building a service-oriented government has always been a hot topic, and the voice of building a service-oriented government is getting higher and higher. Many local governments have also joined the ranks of building a service-oriented government. The author has no criticism on this, but thinks it is necessary to think about it. It is true that the government should serve the people, but it should mainly manage the whole society. After all, the government is an administrative organization, not a service organization. According to the new public management, public organizations can be divided into four types, namely, policy organizations (such as the Planning Commission), regulatory organizations (such as the Securities Regulatory Commission), service organizations (such as the Employment Service Bureau) and subordinate organizations. Among them, the policy organization should completely belong to the government, the supervision organization is partly owned by the government or partly outside the government, and the service providing organization and subordinate organization can basically exist as government-owned management organizations. The government strictly abides by the function of public policy-making, and uses the guidance of public policy to ensure that grandpa's organization can effectively undertake the function of public policy-making, that is, to separate the policy function from the management function. It is not difficult to see that the government shoulders the responsibility of formulating policies and managing state affairs, and entrusts some service work to "service providing organizations" and "subordinate organizations". In other words, only by strengthening and improving the management of local governments, especially the management within the government and the management of social affairs, can we implement the principles and policies of the party and the state. The important task of a country is management, and the government is the core of national management. As the saying goes, "three-point talent and seven-point management", so local governments must shoulder the burden of management. Therefore, government functions are by no means a simple transformation of management and service. If it is a service-oriented government, it also includes new public services with management as the core. Therefore, local governments must adhere to the organic combination of management and service, establish the value concept of people-oriented management and public interest-oriented service, and correctly position their roles. 4. "Government ruled by law" or "flexible government"? We know that according to the different standards of laws and regulations, administrative acts can be divided into binding administrative acts and discretionary administrative acts, which can be said to be opposite to some extent. The so-called administrative act refers to the act in which the conditions, procedures and scope of administrative acts are clearly, detailedly and specifically stipulated by laws, regulations and rules. In this case, the administrative subject can only conduct administrative actions in strict accordance with these provisions, and the administrative subject does not enjoy discretion, choice and discretion, and the administrative subject cannot join his own opinions. The so-called discretionary administrative act means that laws, regulations and rules only stipulate how to implement administrative acts in principle. That is to say, when making discretionary administrative actions, the administrative subject must not only abide by the conditions stipulated by laws and regulations, but also choose what kind of administrative actions to implement according to the actual situation and relying on his own weighing and judgment, that is, in the process of implementing administrative actions, he has joined the administrative subject's own will. From this, it is not difficult for us to see that the restriction of administrative behavior is more about whether it is illegal than whether it is appropriate; On the other hand, discretionary administrative behavior focuses on appropriateness rather than legitimacy. If the administrative behavior of the government is dominated by the administrative behavior under the guidance of strict laws and regulations, then this is the positioning of the "government ruled by law". If the government's behavior is mainly discretionary administrative behavior under the guidance of elasticity and flexibility, then this is the orientation of "flexible government" This has brought trouble to the "government ruled by law" and "flexible government". In this case, the positioning of local government in China is not a simple choice between "government ruled by law" and "flexible government". Undoubtedly, the new public management also requires the establishment of a government ruled by law and emphasizes administration according to law. And "the law is illegal without foundation" is a strict rule of law, that is, the administrative organ can only exercise the administrative power stipulated by law in accordance with the statutory principles, and it shall not do so without the explicit authorization of the law. If you violate this principle, it will constitute ultra vires. In western countries, the legal system is relatively sound, and this kind of government ruled by law can generally solve some problems without relying on the flexibility of the government. Basically, most problems can be solved through legal channels, and only a few problems need to be solved by the government in a flexible way. American scholar Charles T. Goodsell pointed out that the government should be flexible and creative, but at the same time it must have a sense of responsibility. Therefore, at present, local governments in China need to carry out a certain degree of flexible administration on the basis of the overall requirements of administration according to law to ensure the flexibility and creativity of the government. However, it must be pointed out that this flexibility must have a sense of responsibility, so as to ensure that the discretion brought by this flexibility can serve the economy and society, and avoid the fact that the discretion brought about by the arbitrary expansion of flexibility in reality does not take the sense of responsibility as its value orientation, causing harm to the economy and society, which local governments have to consider when positioning their roles. Only in this way can local governments combine "rule of law" and "flexibility" organically, thus accurately positioning their roles. Reference: [1] Sun. The role of local government in the revitalization of Northeast China [J] People's Congress copied materials. Public management? [2] Li Pengxin. Public Management and Application [M]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2004.2.P 154, 158, 172? [3] Denhardt. Public Organization Theory (Third Edition) [M] Translated by Fu Songmao and Li Ding. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2003. P 157？ [4] Jennett V. Denhardt Robert B. Denhardt Xin Gong * * * Service [M] Ding Huang Translation Beijing: China Renmin University Press.2004.P134? [5] Handsome scientific name. Modern public management [M] Guangzhou: South China University of Technology Press 2004.2? [6] Zhang Shixin, Zhou Fan. Administrative law [M] Shanghai: Fudan University Press 2001.p148.6438+049?