Public sector innovation and accountability: Are they compatible concepts? A case study of ten Harvard/Ford Foundation innovations in state and local government awards program winners.

摘要

This is a comparative case study of governmental innovation at the state and local level investigating how control, accountability and democratic values are or are not maintained in the process of implementing such innovations.; Government is often described as inefficient and wasteful, and tax payers insist that government be more efficient, innovative, and entrepreneurial. At the same time, the public expects government to be accountable.; This dissertation investigates whether public sector agencies, which are structured as bureaucracies and characterized by tight controls, can operate as innovative organizations.; In 1986 Harvard University's, Kennedy School of Government, with the aid of a Ford Foundation Grant, began annually recognizing ten public sector innovators with {dollar}100,000 awards. Researchers have conducted a great deal of analysis to better understand this innovation phenomenon. The bulk of these studies have focused on innovation but not on accountability requirements.; This dissertation examines whether public sector innovation and control, accountability, and democratic values are compatible concepts.; Ten Harvard/Ford Foundation program award winners (period 1986-1992) were judgmentally selected for analysis. Control, accountability and democratic values described in the literature were compared to the cases selected to validate the findings and conclusions. Six propositions dealing with accountability, based on the intensive research of six authors, were developed and then contrasted to the accountability strategies utilized by the ten innovations investigated. Applying the logic of analytic generalization, theory building findings and conclusions were disclosed.; The dissertation concludes that innovation and accountability are compatible concepts. Superhuman efforts to innovate and maintain accountability expectations are not required. The innovators were pragmatic and did what had to be done. The process was time consuming and often complex, but the innovators, contrary to popular literature and research findings, did not have to engage in subversive or deceptive behavior to circumvent accountability requirements. The dissertation establishes conventional wisdom is wrong--innovation is not inconsistent with accountability requirements. Those requirements do force a deliberative process, but they do not prevent innovation and American democratic values are protected by the process.