2003
DOI: 10.1080/1461667032000066426
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Controversies and conceptual development Examining public entrepreneurship

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first type is conducted away from the core service and is governed by commercial considerations: It is about bringing out of the public service and disciplining according to commercial and market competition along with the production of some outputs previously carried out within the public sector; these are typically peripheral products that for historical reasons used to be run within the public sector but may be conducted outside of it. The second is linked to the core statutory service and is governed by bureaucratic obedience, and it is here that bringing the entrepreneurial spirit into public administration may be deemed more challenging (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003; see also Edward et al, 2006). Klein et al (2010) attempt to identify some of the main traits of the public administrator as public entrepreneur, whereas Bernier and Hafsi (2007) propose a stage model whereby—their argument goes—individual entrepreneurship (if and when existent) dominates in the first stages of growth of a public organization, and subsequently leadership becomes more collective in thrust.…”
Section: Literature Review: Profiling the Public Entrepreneurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first type is conducted away from the core service and is governed by commercial considerations: It is about bringing out of the public service and disciplining according to commercial and market competition along with the production of some outputs previously carried out within the public sector; these are typically peripheral products that for historical reasons used to be run within the public sector but may be conducted outside of it. The second is linked to the core statutory service and is governed by bureaucratic obedience, and it is here that bringing the entrepreneurial spirit into public administration may be deemed more challenging (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003; see also Edward et al, 2006). Klein et al (2010) attempt to identify some of the main traits of the public administrator as public entrepreneur, whereas Bernier and Hafsi (2007) propose a stage model whereby—their argument goes—individual entrepreneurship (if and when existent) dominates in the first stages of growth of a public organization, and subsequently leadership becomes more collective in thrust.…”
Section: Literature Review: Profiling the Public Entrepreneurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the ambiguity birthed a space in our bureaucracy a la de Certeau (de Certeau, 1984; Hjorth, 2004) which provided the latitude to maneuver, although it took considerable time to realize this freedom existed. Moreover, the specifics of our mission were incredibly vague, providing room for reinterpretation of a general standard of values, and paving the way for entrepreneurship in a public organization (Gore, 1994;Llewellyn & Jones, 2003;Teske & Schneider, 1994).…”
Section: The Beginning Of Something Newmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simple coffee maker spanned a widening gap between two very different organizations with vastly divergent ontological perspectives. Because of an implicit narrative focusing on cooperation, this simple material object enabled me to engage in public service entrepreneurship (Gore, 1994;Llewellyn & Jones, 2003;Teske & Schneider, 1994).…”
Section: Giving In To Corruption or Not?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, it happens because of liability assurance systems (Halvorsen et al, 2005). It is not intended to create nancial gain and may take on various form (Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2007;Bessant, 2003;Llewellyn and Jones, 2003) such as new products (e.g. new instruments in the hospital), new services to citizens (e.g.…”
Section: Innovation and Public Organizationsmentioning
confidence: 99%