Public policy
Creativity and bureaucracy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9783224 |
|---|---|
| Authors | A W Johnson (0009-0004-5894-5100, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1978 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-15 |
| Publication date | 1978-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Public Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0008-4840 • E-ISSN: 1754-7121 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1754-7121.1978.tb01749.x |
| OpenAlex | W2030505687 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
The development and implementation of a government policy by a single ministry is a greater stimulus to creativity than a collective and inter‐ministerial approach. Starting from the principle that creation is an individual act which emanates neither from administrative structures, nor from committees, nor from manuals of instructions, the author affirms that the conditions which favour creativity in a public or other administration are precisely those which awaken and increase the creative impulse of the human mind. In the individual method, the ministry alone formulates the policies which are within its competence. The other ministries affected by them are asked for their views and the possible constraints which may result, but only on a consultative basis. This method has obvious advantages for the ministry in question. The author suggests, inter alia, that the ministry be allowed to retain 50 per cent of any economies realized through greater efficiency in the execution of its policies. On the other hand, if civil servants misread ministerial intentions or ignore constraints imposed by other policies, they should pay the price, which may, in the final analysis, involve the dismissal of the minister or his principal policy advisor. In the collective method, the policy is not worked out by the immediately responsible ministry but rather by a committee including all the interested ministries. The dynamics of such an approach are very different from the individual method. Being more prudent and bureaucratic, it stalemates individual creativity and is prejudicial to innovative thinking. The constraints and the various interests are so well represented within the committee that they tend to dominate the debate and cause the ministry in charge to be on the defensive. In an endless discussion, the other ministries are hoisted with their own petard of counter‐arguments, and the proposing ministry cannot put forward the positive advantages of the new policy. The resulting loss of time and energy is harmful to creativity. At the level of policy execution too, the author favours the individual approach which is both efficient and economical. The ministry in charge of the policy is far better placed to determine its implementation within the constraints which delineate its scope. Here, too, the author reaches the conclusion that creativity is better served than in the collective approach
Bureaucracy · Christian ministry · Civil servants · Competence (human resources · Creativity · Economics · Government (linguistics · Management · Political science · Politics · Public policy · Sociology · Law · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Political Systems and Governance · Public Administration
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,06 |
| Citation span | 1979 - 1992 (14) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |