Advertisement

Revisiting Bureaucratic Entrepreneurialism in the Age of Urban Austerity: Framing Issues, Taking Risks, and Building Collaborative Capacity

  • Aaron DeslatteEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

More than two decades ago, Schneider et al. (2011) posited that city mayors and managers were emerging as “public entrepreneurs,” helping to advance dynamic policy change in the face of growing external environmental challenges. Their focus on municipal executive entrepreneurship coincided with a larger effort to develop a normative theory of entrepreneurial public management in democratic governance (Bellone and Goerl 1992; Hood 1991; Moore 1995; Osborne and Gaebler 1992). This article revisits the thesis posited by Teske and Schneider (1994, 331) that public entrepreneurs emerge to “help propel dynamic policy change in their community,” and applies it in a contemporary urban governance context. The goal is to better understand how public organizations cultivate and utilize an Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) for value creation and to articulate a more general application of these entrepreneurial activities. To do so, this chapter examines data come from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with city managers in 20 local governments located in the Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area. The findings suggest that entrepreneurial strategic processes—problem framing, risk-taking, and collaboration—likely occur concurrently in public organizations, as new problems arise and old solutions move toward entropy. The findings help illuminate the theoretical bases for understanding public entrepreneurialism and the organizational conditions and strategies which sustain this culture.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial orientation Local governments Public organizations Strategic management Urban sustainability 

References

  1. Albury D (2005) Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money Manag 25(1):51–56Google Scholar
  2. Andrews R, Beynon MJ, McDermott AM (2016) Organizational capability in the public sector: a configurational approach. J Public Adm Res Theory 26(2):239–58Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (2015) The politics of information: problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellone CJ, Goerl GF (1992) Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Adm. Rev. 52(2):130–34Google Scholar
  5. Bozeman B, Kingsley G (1998) Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Adm Rev 58(2):109–18Google Scholar
  6. Bryson JM, Crosby BC (2014) Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Adm. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.12238/fullGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong D, Druckman JN (2007) Framing theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci 10(1):103–26Google Scholar
  8. Chong D, Druckman JN (2013) Counterframing effects. J Polit 75(1):1–16Google Scholar
  9. Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm. Sci. Q 17(1):1–25Google Scholar
  10. Cucciniello M, Porumbescu GA, Grimmelikhuijsen S (2017) 25 Years of transparency research: evidence and future directions. Public Adm Rev 77(1):32–44Google Scholar
  11. Damanpour F, Schneider M (2006) Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers. Br J Manag. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x/full
  12. Deslatte A, Feiock RC, Wassel K (2017) Urban pressures and innovations: sustainability commitment in the face of fragmentation and inequality. Rev Policy Res 34(5):700–724Google Scholar
  13. Deslatte A, Schatteman AM, Stokan E (2018) Handing over the keys: nonprofit economic development corporations and their implications for accountability and inclusion. Public Perform Manag Rev pp 1–25Google Scholar
  14. Deslatte A, Stokan E (2017) Hierarchies of need in sustainable development: a resource dependence approach for local governance. Urban Aff Rev  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417737181
  15. Deslatte A, Swann WL, Feiock RC (2017) Three sides of the same coin? a bayesian analysis of strategic management, comprehensive planning, and inclusionary values in land use. J Public Adm Res Theory 27(3):415–32Google Scholar
  16. Deslatte A, Tavares A, Feiock RC (2016) Policy of delay: evidence from a bayesian analysis of metropolitan land-use choices. Policy Stud J. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12188/full
  17. Donald B, Glasmeier A, Gray M, Lobao L (2014) Austerity in the city: economic crisis and urban service decline?. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 7(1):3–15Google Scholar
  18. Druckman JN, Fein J, Leeper TJ (2012) A source of bias in public opinion stability. Am Polit Sci Rev 106(2):430–54Google Scholar
  19. Feiock RC (2013) The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud J 41(3):397–425Google Scholar
  20. Feiock RC, Jeong MG, Kim J (2003) Credible commitment and council-manager government: implications for policy instrument choices. Public Adm Rev 63(5):616–25Google Scholar
  21. Feiock RC, Krause RM, Hawkins CV (2017) The impact of administrative structure on the ability of city governments to overcome functional collective action dilemmas: a climate and energy perspective. J P Adm Res Theory 27(4):615–28Google Scholar
  22. Feiock RC, Steinacker A, Park HJ (2009) Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Adm Rev 69(2):256–70Google Scholar
  23. Frant H (1996) High-powered and low-powered incentives in the public sector. J Public Adm Res Theory 6(3):365–81Google Scholar
  24. Gerber ER, Henry AD, Lubell M (2013) Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. Am J Polit Sci 57(3):598–610Google Scholar
  25. Hardy C, Phillips N, Lawrence TB (2003) Resources, knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. J Manag Stud 40(2):321–47Google Scholar
  26. Head BW, Alford J (2015) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc 47(6):711–39Google Scholar
  27. Hendrick R, Shi Y (2014) Macro-level determinants of local government interaction: how metropolitan regions in the united states compare. Urban Aff Rev 51(3):414–38Google Scholar
  28. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons, vol 69. Public AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  29. Kearney C, Meynhardt T (2016) Directing corporate entrepreneurship strategy in the public sector to public value: antecedents, components, and outcomes. Int Public Manag J 19(4):543–72Google Scholar
  30. Kearney RC, Feldman BM, Scavo CPF (2000) Reinventing government: city manager attitudes and actions. Public Adm Rev 60(6):535–48Google Scholar
  31. Kim Y (2010) Stimulating entrepreneurial practices in the public sector: the roles of organizational characteristics. Adm Soc 42(7):780–814Google Scholar
  32. Kim Y, Warner ME (2016) Pragmatic municipalism: local government service delivery after the great recession. Public Adm. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12267/full
  33. Kingdon JW, Thurber JA (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, vol 45. Little, Brown BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. LeRoux K, Brandenburger PW, Pandey SK (2010) Interlocal service cooperation in US cities: a social network explanation. Public Adm Rev 70(2):268–78Google Scholar
  35. Lubell M (2013) Governing institutional complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Stud J. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12028/full
  36. Lubell M, Mewhirter JM, Berardo R, Scholz JT (2017) Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Adm Rev 77(5):668–80Google Scholar
  37. Meynhardt T, Diefenbach FE (2012) What drives entrepreneurial orientation in the public sector? evidence from Germany’s federal labor agency. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(4):761–92Google Scholar
  38. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  39. Moon MJ (1999) The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: does organization matter?. Public Adm Rev 59(1):31–43Google Scholar
  40. Moore MH (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Nicholson-Crotty S, Nicholson-Crotty J, Fernandez S (2017) Performance and management in the public sector: testing a model of relative risk aversion. Public Adm Rev 77(4):603–14Google Scholar
  42. Osborne David, Gaebler Ted (1992) Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Adison Wesley Public Comp, Reading MassGoogle Scholar
  43. Saldana J (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGEGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider M, Teske P, Mintrom M (2011) Public entrepreneurs: agents for change in American government. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Svara JH (1998) The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Adm Rev 58(1):51–58Google Scholar
  46. Svara JH (2001) The myth of the dichotomy: complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Adm Rev 61(2):176–83Google Scholar
  47. Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):755–69Google Scholar
  48. Teodoro MP (2009) Bureaucratic job mobility and the diffusion of innovations. Am J Polit Sci 53(1):175–89Google Scholar
  49. Teodoro MP (2011) Bureaucratic ambition: careers, motives, and the innovative administrator. JHU PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Teske P, Schneider M (1994) The bureaucratic entrepreneur: the case of city managers. Public Adm Rev 54(4):331–40Google Scholar
  51. Walstrum T Others (2016) The illinois budget crisis in context: a history of poor fiscal performance. Chicago Fed Lett. https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2016/cfl365-pdf.pdf
  52. Wang S, Pagano MA (2017) Cities and fiscal federalism in the trump era: a discussion. State Local Gov Rev 49(3):184–98Google Scholar
  53. Yang K (2016) Creating public value and institutional innovations across boundaries: an integrative process of participation, legitimation, and implementation. Public Adm Rev 76 (6):873–85Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations