谁能帮忙翻译一下英文资料，不要在线翻译软件译出来的，我自己用过了，翻译出来的读不通，谢谢！
摘自Developmentsinintergovernmentalrelations:towardsmulti-levelgovernanceB.GuyPetersand...
摘自Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre
原文如下，需要译成中文的：
This issue presents analyses of the emergence of multi-level governance and other types of changes in intergovernmental relationships in five different institutional contexts. Martin Painter’s article on intergovernmental relationships in Australia is based on two different models of such relationships. One is the traditional model of institutional relationships in a federal system, whereas the other is based in what Painter calls “the imperatives of concurrent competencies” (p139). This model, which comes close to a textbook case of multi-level governance, features collaborative exchanges and joint decision making between institutions at different levels of the political system. Painter argues that this type of intergovernmental relationship will play a more prominent role in the future as a result of what appears to be an increasing degree of institutional overlap in terms of competencies and of growing political, economic and administrative interdependencies.
Describing the new or emerging forms of intergovernmental relationships in another federal system, Helmut Wollmann reports on how administrative reform, or modernization, has impacted on the German political system. Overall, he finds that while there is a tendency for local government to become more autonomous vis-à-vis state and federal authorities, intergovernmental relationships have not changed dramatically as a result of the administrative reform which has targeted intra-institutional processes more than inter-institutional exchanges. This is to a large extent because in the German system each tier of government largely conducts its own processes of institutional change and also because the budgetary problems that emerged in the wake of reunification have targeted institutions, not institutional relationships, in budgetary cut-back programmers. Wollmann argues that the changes that have taken place in intergovernmental relationships have been ‘path-dependent’, that is, they have not indicated any major deviations from historical patterns.
The United States presents a different picture in these respects. In his article, Guy Peters suggests that administrative reform – or what in the US is normally referred to as ‘reinvention’ projects – have emerged primarily at the local level. Cities have become laboratories for such ‘reinvention’ concepts, something which has helped portray this level of government as more dynamic and hence less easy to control by institutions higher up in the system. 展开
原文如下，需要译成中文的：
This issue presents analyses of the emergence of multi-level governance and other types of changes in intergovernmental relationships in five different institutional contexts. Martin Painter’s article on intergovernmental relationships in Australia is based on two different models of such relationships. One is the traditional model of institutional relationships in a federal system, whereas the other is based in what Painter calls “the imperatives of concurrent competencies” (p139). This model, which comes close to a textbook case of multi-level governance, features collaborative exchanges and joint decision making between institutions at different levels of the political system. Painter argues that this type of intergovernmental relationship will play a more prominent role in the future as a result of what appears to be an increasing degree of institutional overlap in terms of competencies and of growing political, economic and administrative interdependencies.
Describing the new or emerging forms of intergovernmental relationships in another federal system, Helmut Wollmann reports on how administrative reform, or modernization, has impacted on the German political system. Overall, he finds that while there is a tendency for local government to become more autonomous vis-à-vis state and federal authorities, intergovernmental relationships have not changed dramatically as a result of the administrative reform which has targeted intra-institutional processes more than inter-institutional exchanges. This is to a large extent because in the German system each tier of government largely conducts its own processes of institutional change and also because the budgetary problems that emerged in the wake of reunification have targeted institutions, not institutional relationships, in budgetary cut-back programmers. Wollmann argues that the changes that have taken place in intergovernmental relationships have been ‘path-dependent’, that is, they have not indicated any major deviations from historical patterns.
The United States presents a different picture in these respects. In his article, Guy Peters suggests that administrative reform – or what in the US is normally referred to as ‘reinvention’ projects – have emerged primarily at the local level. Cities have become laboratories for such ‘reinvention’ concepts, something which has helped portray this level of government as more dynamic and hence less easy to control by institutions higher up in the system. 展开
1个回答
展开全部
这个问题显示出多层次管理表象分析和在五个不同的机构背景下关于政府间的关系类型和其他类型的变化。 Martin Painer 关于澳大利亚政府间关系的文章是基于以下两个不同的模式。一个是联邦体制下传统的公共机构模式，但另一个是基于Painer所谓的“the imperatives of concurrent competencies”。这种模式接近于多层次管理的教科书范式、政治系统不同等级间的共同交流和机构间的共同决议.Painter 认为在一个公共机构权限和政治经济行政的重叠的程度依赖性日益增长的的情况下，这种政府间关系将在未来发挥一个更加突出显著的作用。
这是第一段的
如果觉得翻得可以 那我就再翻第二段OK?
这是第一段的
如果觉得翻得可以 那我就再翻第二段OK?
追问
谢谢你的翻译，下面两段可以不用翻了，不过能不能帮我翻译另外一段，这里补充不下，另外的提问链接：http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/252171279.html?fr=middle_ask，这个先采纳为最佳答案吧~
本回答由提问者推荐
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
