The article by Borins (2000) deals with the controversy surrounding the incorporation of public-sector entrepreneurship in New Public Management. According to the author, it is widely believed that the introduction of this component can potentially undermine the soundness of administrative practices and lead to distinct failures of public servants (Borins, 2000). On the other hand, a range of positive characteristics, such as innovation, service, and quality, which are highly sought after in the field of public administration, are expected to increase with the addition of entrepreneurship to the public sector (Borins, 2000). Since, according to Borins (2000), the debate in the current state lacks consistency and does not approach the issue critically, with each side resorting to case studies which support the preferred position and ignoring alternative explanations. Thus, the author suggested a study that would definitively evaluate the net outcomes of entrepreneurial practices in the public sector. In order to do this, Borins (2000) analyzes two large samples of applications to the Ford Foundation – Kennedy School of Government (Ford–KSG) Innovations in American Government Awards Program. The goal of the study is to identify the nature of the innovation as well as assess its specificities, such as received support or ways of dealing with the obstacles, and, using this data, conclude on the role of public-sector entrepreneurship for New Public Management.
Innovation, according to the author, is a successful adoption of an existing idea, which differentiates it from invention – a creation of an entirely new one (Borins, 2000). This definition is important for the study since it excludes unproven or unverifiable ideas as well as those that cannot be replicated. More importantly, it provides a robust definition for further inquiries and analyses and generally decreases ambiguity associated with such broad concepts.
The results of the study support the assertion that innovators in the public sector display integrity in their practices through proactive approach to the issue, persuasion, focus, and utilization of robust evaluation methods. In addition, the results of two data samples are mutually supportive due to the statistically significant correlations (Borins, 2000). In a strict sense, this means that the author achieved his goal of determining the value of the entrepreneurial approach to public management. In this regard, the article provides us with the concrete evidence of a specific practice, which adds to the knowledge of effective administrative methods. The goal is accomplished with decency and integrity. The author acknowledges the limitations of the study (i.e. the questionable method of data sampling that may overlook at least one point of criticism) and introduces appropriate adjustments to the methodology (Borins, 2000). More importantly, the evaluation technique used by the author can be used to evaluate similarly controversial practices once the controversy arises. This scenario is extremely likely since many concepts and definitions involved n organizational management are often misused to cater to the expectations of the audience. On the other hand, most of them (e.g. quality, fairness, accountability) have precise definitions and can be assigned performance indicators, which, unfortunately, is rarely performed in the course of the debate. Finally, the author’s position offers an example of a sound inquiry that consists of defining the concept in question and developing a quantifiable and falsifiable question which would definitively resolve the issue. Such approach is hardly unheard of in the academic circles but surprisingly rarely accompanies the critique.
To sum up, the article presents evidence of the value of public-sector entrepreneurship, which broadens our understanding of the subject, and offers an assessment tool which can be used as a framework for future inquiries.
Reference
Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498-507.