Administrative Resurgence and Policy Innovation

Abstract

In the continuing controversy over the appropriate role and institutional settings for professional urban management, a renewed emphasis on political initiative is appear-ing—manifested in more activist conceptions of the role of the urban manager, in calls for "convergence" of planning and administration, and in rejection of federal aid programs as a "weakening" influence. This article argues that receptivity in the political environment is the primary determinant of effectiveness for the professionally oriented local manager. To illustrate this point, the interaction of administrators and political leaders is examined in small units of local government, where the scope and diversity of political interests and institutional structures are limited and the functions of professional administration are necessarily consolidated and thrown into close proximity with elected leadership. A series of miniature case histories are presented, concerning general administrative resurgence in local governments in Kentucky during the period of implementation of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The case histories suggest that the receptivity of local political leaders to policy innovations and the availability of managerial elites who are both technically competent and politically effective are the basic prerequisites for major thrusts toward general local development. Institutional arrangements and federal funding programs act as catalysts to trigger or encourage changes already forthcoming.

Innovation in Local Government and Fiscal Austerity

“…within the bureaucracy was the ideology and priorities of the director -at least where the agency has been granted considerable decision-making discretion'. Rainey and Kline (1979), in a study of small community adoption of innovative community development strategies conclude that 'political leaders' receptivity to innovations in policy is a prior condition for the adoption of comprehensive strategies for development'. In their study of (mostly technological) municipal innovation, Bingham et al (1981, p. 112) conclude 'The chief executive's rating of innovation importance is the single most consistent correlate of innovation adoption.…”