Critical Journal

一、引言（Introduction）

The article, Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain, by Udo Pesch, seeks to address how accountability and value systems interact in the decisions made by public administrators[1.描述事件/体验: 这段把背景、研究对象、研究问题一次说清，属于有效的"事件描写".]. The research problem being addressed is whether public administrators are free from accountability for their decisions and what are the different influences that can affect their decisions.

(引入要评论的文章，交代评论对象、作者、标题和研究议题。属于标准"What?"段落中的"描述"部分。)

二、主干段落

2.1 文章的复杂性与初印象

It is clear from the abstract of the article that this is no simple issue. In fact, the article is fairly confusing for the first couple of paragraphs. The author starts by saying that explicit ethics codes or reference systems make it easier to hold individuals accountable for their actions. However, a conflict emerges when an individual's moral values are different from such accountability policies. What can make accountability more complicated are the motivations of the administrator and also the individual's inability to perceive future consequences of their decisions.

2.2. 社会情境与组织因素

Another influence, outside of individual morals and ethical guidelines, is the existence of social context. These different domains generally "lay down their own standards of good and bad behavior" (p. 336). This social surrounding can help an individual determine a good decision from a bad one, but at the same time complicates the idea of accountability. The organization that a public administrator is a part of may also complicate accountability and may provide another outlet for blame if the public sees a decision as immoral.

2.3 层级责任与行政人员的角色

The author also acknowledges the tendency to blame the highest level of a hierarchy or elected official for questionable decision making on a lower level. Udo Pesch sees this as "undesirable" and writes that by carrying out the policies, the public administrator is at least somewhat responsible. To support this claim, the author uses the example of viewing the public administrator as a citizen, and as such they have "an active role in the safeguarding [community] values and interests" (p. 339).

2.4. 道德冲突与缺乏普适标准

To such a complicated issue, the author sums the research up well by saying that there are times when a public administrator has to violate their own moral codes because there are no universal moral rules that "allow a civil servant to live up to integrity standards" (p. 341). A public administrator can hide behind laws and organizational procedures, but ultimately this is no reason to disregard accountability, and there are ways that these individuals can act morally[5.语言专业性：语言准确，使用学术型表达，"ultimately admits"等正式术语，语言专业、评价态度公允且层次分明].

2.5. 对作者理论主张的肯定与限制

Pesch writes, "It would be more sensible to design accountability arrangements that acknowledge that civil servants are actively responsible for their actions, and that try to provide them the opportunity to consciously address the potential difference between authorized rules and communal principles and values" (p. 341)[5.语言专业性：引用规范，评论者多次直接引用原文原句并标注页码，引用规范而清楚，有利于提升学术说服力。]. And while this is excellently laid out as a theory, the author ultimately admits that there is no single best design for an accountability agreement on a tangible level.

This is a good concept for how the problem of multiple value systems and accountability should be handled. However, there doesn't appear to be any concrete guidelines for carrying this out[2.批判反思：作者提出多处具体批评，而非简单点赞。例如对文章缺乏可操作性指出]. In other words, this sounds great on paper but it doesn't translate as easily to everyday life[3.行动计划分析：批评者指出了从理念到实践的落差，暗含"理论不能直接指导行动"的问题。].

2.6. 引证与理论背景

There isn't research in the traditional sense for this article, but the author does include many examples of work written by those who have written on this subject in the past. Pesch cites people like Locke, Montesquieu, and Machiavelli[4.理论支持：作者注意到文中引用的经典思想家，表明他在留意理论来源。]. These are good, well-known examples and authors, and I think it adds a great deal of credibility to the piece as a whole.

三、总结与评价

Overall, this article isn't very straightforward in the beginning, and it's not until the second page that you realize where the article is headed. In order to have more people be engaged and read the whole article, it needs a new, more concise introduction[2.批判反思：这些都显示出一定的批判意识[5.结构清晰：]批评人能清楚指出原文结构问题，说明其自己在行文中具备清晰结构判断力。同时，评论文章自身段落安排也很分明：从引言、问题讨论、理论评价到总结，结构层次清楚。]. Once the reader gets to the really good examples that are relevant to the everyday life of a public administrator, a good portion of the article has already passed.

Overall, it is a good, well-written article with an important message for public administrators and organizations. The piece, when taken as a whole, is relevant and very convincing in theory but starts slow and never lays out a concrete way of approaching this complex problem.

(结尾部分持温和肯定 + 理性批评的基调：肯定其理论价值与现实相关性；批评其"理论丰满，实践骨感"。)