Suchergebnisse

While innovation has long been a major topic of research and scholarly interest for the private sector, it is still an emerging theme in the field of public management. While 'results-oriented' public management may be here to stay, scholars and practitioners are now shifting their attention to the process of management and to how the public sector can create 'value'.One of the urgent needs addressed by this book is a better specification of the institutional and political requirements for sustaining a robust vision of public innovation, through the key dimensions of collaboration, creative pr

Abstract
To better understand why bureaucracy is still going strong despite a century of scorn, this article asks: How has the bureaucratic governance paradigm managed to achieve its ideational robustness in the face of consecutive waves of criticism and societal challenges? This question is answered by studying the combination of a broad range of ideational robustness strategies that have enabled bureaucracy to weather the storm and stay relevant and praiseworthy in the eyes of public governors. The article describes the core components of the bureaucratic governance paradigm and reviews four consecutive waves of criticism before explaining the ideational changes that have enabled the relative stability of public bureaucracy based on the adaptation and innovation of its content and scope. In addition to summarizing key debates about public bureaucracy, the article develops six ideational robustness strategies that may be used to study other core ideas in public governance.

Governance researchers have repeatedly discussed how to make public governance more accountable given the relatively 'thin' accountability of representative government. Recent decades have seen the growth of new, compensatory forms of accountability. However, these measures do not seem have satisfied the demands for strengthening public sector accountability. Drawing on the concept of social accountability, this article challenges common wisdom in arguing that collaborative governance may enhance public governance accountability, although it also raises new accountability problems that must be tackled. The article develops a heuristic framework for empirical studies of accountability, which improves the impact of collaborative forms of governance.

This article has three objectives. The first is to show that while co-production was originally tied to service production, co-creation has broader applications in the field of public governance and involves a broader range of actors and activities. The second objective is to demonstrate how the co-creation concept both builds on and extends the concept of collaborative governance, thus adding new dimensions to an already well-established literature. The final objective is to show how a strategic turn to co-creation introduces a new type of 'generative governance' aimed at solving complex problems by constructing platforms enabling the formation of arenas for co-creation that bring together a plethora of public and private actors, including citizens, in creative problem-solving processes. The three objectives are achieved through prospective theoretical analysis aimed at providing a conceptual foundation for analysing cutting-edge societal developments that are not yet commonplace.

Governance researchers have repeatedly discussed how to make public governance more accountable given the relatively 'thin' accountability of representative government. Recent decades have seen the growth of new, compensatory forms of accountability. However, these measures do not seem have satisfied the demands for strengthening public sector accountability. Drawing on the concept of social accountability, this article challenges common wisdom in arguing that collaborative governance may enhance public governance accountability, although it also raises new accountability problems that must be tackled. The article develops a heuristic framework for empirical studies of accountability, which improves the impact of collaborative forms of governance.

Coronakrisen har vist os, hvad der skal til for, at det politiske og administrative system i fremtiden kan løse store kriser og udfordringer. Det kræver, at alle niveauer og aktører spiller med, skriver Eva Sørensen og Jacob Torfing.

This article has three objectives. The first is to show that while co-production was originally tied to service production, co-creation has broader applications in the field of public governance and involves a broader range of actors and activities. The second objective is to demonstrate how the co-creation concept both builds on and extends the concept of collaborative governance, thus adding new dimensions to an already well-established literature. The final objective is to show how a strategic turn to co-creation introduces a new type of 'generative governance' aimed at solving complex problems by constructing platforms enabling the formation of arenas for co-creation that bring together a plethora of public and private actors, including citizens, in creative problem-solving processes. The three objectives are achieved through prospective theoretical analysis aimed at providing a conceptual foundation for analysing cutting-edge societal developments that are not yet commonplace.

AbstractRecent research argues that complex problems such as climate change are best tackled through co‐creation, which brings together public and private actors, including citizens, neighborhoods, and civil society organizations, in collaborative processes that define problems and design and implement solutions that produce innovative public value outcomes. This article explores the viability of co‐creation as a strategy for achieving ambitious CO2 emissions reductions in the City of Copenhagen, Denmark. It analyses the starting conditions, the co‐creation processes, the drivers and barriers, the positive results and outcomes, and the role of institutional design and leadership in an effort to understand the actual use of co‐creation in city‐level climate governance. The main finding is that institutional, discursive, and political barriers create a discrepancy between the commitment to and actual use of co‐creation, but also that a new focus on consumption and transport among citizens may lead to stronger future waves of co‐creation.

In this chapter we discuss what we have conceptualized as "the paradox of democracy", pointing to the conflict between the idea of the sovereign people on one side, and the idea that democracies need representatives and political leaders, on the other. The chapter gives an overview of democratic arrangements that encourage direct participation, including arrangements that feed into and support and arrangements that challenge the representative system. Furthermore, the chapter provides examples of arrangements that actively and intentionally link together representation and direct participation. Lastly, we discuss how the tension between participatory practices and representative democracy can be solved. In a brief and subsequent chapter, a Norwegian Mayor reflects on the conflict between representation and direct participation.

This article calls for the development of democratic hybrids that combine elements of representative democracy with elements of participatory and deliberative democracy. It presents and evaluates an empirical model of hybrid democracy from a Danish municipality and tests whether the positive Danish experiences can be transferred to a Norwegian municipality with less favorable local conditions. The finding is that the hybrid model of democracy is relatively robust in the face of context variation, not least due to conducive local dynamics in the Norwegian case. The relative robustness of the so‐called 'Gentofte model' may stimulate its diffusion in countries sharing key elements of the Scandinavian model and inspire municipalities in other countries to experiment with the development of hybrid democracy. The diffusion of hybrid democracy helps to enhance the overall performance of local democracy and reduce the inherent tension between democratic leadership and democratic equality.

This paper argues that elected politicians may strengthen their political leadership role by initiating, orchestrating and engaging in the co-creation of public value outcomes. The collaborative turn in public value theory shows how public managers may mobilize the knowledge, ideas and resources of users, citizens and organized stakeholders, but it has so far neglected the role of elected politicians who tend to be reduced to a legitimizing sounding board for public managers aiming to advance public value creation in collaboration with a plethora of public and private actors. This paper seeks to compensate this benign neglect by advancing a new notion of 'interactive political leadership'. This new construct aims to conceptualize the way that elected politicians may develop new and better policy solutions through a problem-focused interaction with relevant and affected actors from the economy and civil society, including users, volunteers, citizens and other lay actors. The theoretical argument about the development of interactive political leadership, which takes us beyond the traditional forms of sovereign political leadership that perceives politicians as 'elected kings', is illustrated by empirical examples drawn from local, national and supranation levels of government.

In response to the urgent need for elected politicians to lead processes of collaborative policy innovation, this paper brings together political leadership theory and theories of collaborative and participatory governance in order to make way for the concept of interactive political leadership. The theoretical framework shows how interactive political leadership relies on platforms and arenas that bring politicians and citizens together in informed dialogues that may contribute to collaborative policy innovation. An empirical case study of institutional reforms in a Danish municipality adds flesh and blood to the theoretical argument about how to enhance interactive political leadership.