Public entrepreneurship is the process of introducing innovation, the generation and implementation of new ideas, in the public sector. Building on this definition and drawing from a logical tree, four types of public sector entrepreneurs are identified: policy entrepreneurs, bureaucratic entrepreneurs, executive entrepreneurs; and political entrepreneurs. Policy Entrepreneurs, outside the formal positions of government, introduce and facilitate the implementation of new ideas into the public sector. Bureaucratic Entrepreneurs occupy non-leadership positions in government and introduce and implement new ideas from their particular vantage point in public organizations. Executive Entrepreneurs from their leadership positions in governmental agencies and departments, generate and implement new ideas; and finally, Political Entrepreneur introduce and implement new ideas as holders of elective office. (KR) ; Office of the Secretary of Defense ; http://archive.org/details/publicentreprene00robe ; MIPR DWAM 70105/80078/9005 ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Similar to experiences of Indigenous peoples globally, Māori in the nation-state known as New Zealand (NZ) have been subjected to mass incarceration by the colonial state. Places of detention are dangerous environments for the spread of COVID-19. We are deeply concerned about the potential for disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on Māori and other Indigenous peoples within these environments as many have health conditions and/or multiple comorbidities compounding the risks of severe illness and death from COVID-19. We call for the NZ government to honour te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and uphold Indigenous rights contained within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international rights instruments. A whole-of-government commitment to an equitable public health approach is required to: 1) rapidly reduce the numbers of Māori in sites of detention; 2) implement effective, timely, evidenced informed measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19, in line with World Health Organization recommendations; 3) prevent the torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detained Māori during COVID-19; and, 4) eliminate double-celling. Although focused on NZ, the themes we highlight are likely of relevance for Indigenous peoples across the globe in our collective resistance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Public entrepreneurship" is the process of introducing innovation--the generation, translation, and implementation of new ideas-into the public sector. The research described here focuses on "policy entrepreneurs." These are public entrepreneurs who, from outside the formal positions of government, introduce, translate, and help implement new ideas into public practice. ; Organizational Effectiveness Program, Office of Naval Research ; Research Council of Naval Postgraduate School ; Contract no. 00014-84-0016 (ONR)
Public entrepreneurship is the process of introducing innovation -- the generation, translation, & implementation of new ideas -- into the public sector. Here, focusing on the educational policy arena, examined are the activities & behavioral patterns of "policy entrepreneurs," ie, public entrepreneurs who, from outside the formal positions of government, introduce, translate, & help implement new ideas into public practice. Analysis is based on interviews conducted with policy entrepreneurs, governor & staff, & legislators, among others (total N = 134). These data were supplemented by archival research, observations, & background surveys. 2 Figures, 73 References. Adapted from the source document.
Develops a description of the activities of individuals, both inside and outside formal government, who introduce, translate, and help implement new ideas into public practice; US.
In Minnesota, Gov. Rudy Perpich and an ad hoc group of eight policy entrepreneurs - advocates of innovation policy ideas - altered the contours of the educational policy debate. Policymakers in others states responses to the alarm bells sounded by the National Commission on Excellence in Education's 1983 report A Nation at Risk with curriculum reform (42 states), stiffer high school graduation requirements (44 states), statewide testing (35 states), tougher teaching certification standards (42 states) and increased funds for professional development for teachers (25 states). In contrast, the policy entrepreneurs in Minnesota sought a more comprehensive response by redirecting the discussion of reform to structural flaws and bureaucratic inertia in the state's education system. Because of these policy entrepreneurs, Minnesota - instead of focusing on piecemeal education reforms - debated whether the whole system of education needed to be redesigned or restructured. This article describes this education policy initiative, tracing it from conception through legislative action. It examines this policy innovation to find out how the policy entrepreneurs contributed to and affected the policy process. For our research on policy entrepreneurs, we interviewed 65 people from 1984 to 19896. Among the people interviewed were the eight policy entrepreneurs, members of the governor's staff, representatives of the Minnesota Department of Education, education insiders, legislative staff members and legislators. The interviews were confidential and quotes are from these interviews. We conclude, based on our extensive interviews of participants in the decision-making process, that the policy entrepreneurs performed three functions that contributed greatly to enactment of education policy innovations: they generated ideas (the intellectual function), they devised a strategy to get their ideas enacted into law (the strategic function) and they led a political assault on decisionmakers (the activist function). The policy entrepreneurs were not content with "tinkering around the edges" and making incremental change, as they called the standards solutions put forth in most educational policy circles. They sought to develop an educational system based on new premises. They wanted schools to be responsive to consumer demand by establishing a system that allowed students to choose their schools. The policy entrepreneurs' prescription for education reform and excellence engendered an intense negative response from groups with a strong, direct interest in education policy, including the Minnesota Educational Association, the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, the Minnesota School Boards Association, and the Minnesota Association of School Administrators. Despite the opposition of these powerful groups, the entrepreneurs got their controversial proposals on the governor's policy agenda, and they helped him fight for the reforms in the state legislature. This article is organized in three parts. The first part briefly describes the term "policy entrepreneur." The second part details the creation, development and legislative consideration of the education policy innovation. the third part presents observations and conclusions about the participation of the policy entrepreneurs in the policy innovation process. ; Office of Naval Research, Organizational Effectiveness Research Program ; Naval Postgraduate School Research Foundation ; Contract No. N00014-84-K-0016 (ONR)
As Māori and tāngata whaikaha (Māori with lived experience of disability) of the nation-state known as New Zealand, we are deeply concerned about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this commentary, we invoke intersectionality as an analytical tool for understanding critical issues tāngata whaikaha face in the context of the universal approach encompassing New Zealand's pandemic response. We propose a "call to action" framework comprising four elements: (1) guaranteeing self-determination for tāngata whaikaha; (2) addressing all forms of racism, ableism, and other structural forms of oppression; (3) rectifying historical injustices; and (4) allocating resources for the pandemic and beyond in alignment with need.
Aotearoa/New Zealand (Aotearoa/NZ) and the United States (U.S.) suffer inequities in health outcomes by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. This paper compares both countries' approaches to health equity to inform policy efforts. We developed a conceptual model that highlights how government and private policies influence health equity by impacting the healthcare system (access to care, structure and quality of care, payment of care), and integration of healthcare system with social services. These policies are shaped by each country's culture, history, and values. Aotearoa/NZ and U.S. share strong aspirational goals for health equity in their national health strategy documents. Unfortunately, implemented policies are frequently not explicit in how they address health inequities, and often do not align with evidence-based approaches known to improve equity. To authentically commit to achieving health equity, nations should: 1) Explicitly design quality of care and payment policies to achieve equity, holding the healthcare system accountable through public monitoring and evaluation, and supporting with adequate resources; 2) Address all determinants of health for individuals and communities with coordinated approaches, integrated funding streams, and shared accountability metrics across health and social sectors; 3) Share power authentically with racial/ethnic minorities and promote indigenous peoples' self-determination; 4) Have free, frank, and fearless discussions about impacts of structural racism, colonialism, and white privilege, ensuring that policies and programmes explicitly address root causes.
AbstractNational and state governments in settler colonial countries are increasingly committing to policies and practices aimed at strengthening Indigenous frameworks, programmes and leadership in child protection services. However, research‐based information on Indigenous child welfare services and programmes is sparse. This qualitative literature review explores and documents key features of Indigenous child welfare and protection models and/or frameworks in an international context, with a specific focus on Indigenous children, young people, families, and communities. Twenty‐four publications meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Published frameworks, models, services, interventions and/or programmes within the broader area of child welfare and children protection that are Indigenous‐designed and/or led or developed in partnership or collaboration with Indigenous peoples were identified. The review highlights 11 key dimensions that underpin the frameworks, models, services, interventions and/or programmes. Findings of the review also reveal commonalities across Indigenous cultures and contexts that from an Indigenous perspective are considered fundamental to supporting Indigenous children, young people and families involved with child protective services. Additionally, the findings point to the critical need for ongoing advocacy for Indigenous‐designed and led services and programmes, including support for Indigenous research, evaluation and intellectual leadership.
