Innovation in the Public Sector: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada
Innovation Award 1990-2011
Luc Bernier, ENAPTaïeb Hafsi, HEC–Montréal
Carl Deschamps, ENAP
New Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions SeriesNew Directions Series
© 2012 Institute of Public Administration of CanadaAll rights reservedPrinted in CanadaISBN: 155061-138-0
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher. Requests for permission should be directed to [email protected] or mailed to IPAC, 1075 Bay Street, #401, Toronto, ON M5S 2B1.
Paper initially prepared for the CPSA Annual MeetingWaterloo, Ontario, May 18, 2011 and revised in June 2012
For correspondence contact [email protected]
Dedicated to Excellence in Public Servicewww.ipac.ca
Luc Bernier is Professor of Public Policy at École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), Université du Québec. He is the co-director of Centre de recherche sur la gouvernance, a research center on governance and public enterprises. Prof Bernier was previously professor of Political Science at Concordia University, and he was Director of Education and Research at l’ENAP. Prof Bernier received his Ph.D. in Political Science at Northwestern University in 1989 after studying Political Science at Université Laval.
Prof. Bernier has written on public entrepreneurship, public enterprises and privatization, foreign policy, administrative reform, institutional capacity in Ireland and Québec, and executive power and leadership. He is the author of numerous publications, monographs, journal articles, contributions to collective works and conferences in Quebec, Canada and abroad. His publications include De Paris à Washington, co-written The Quebec Democracy and co-edited Executive Styles in Canada. Prof Bernier was president of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada in 2005-06.
Taïeb Hafsi is a Professor of Strategic Management at Ecole des Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC) of Montreal. Prof Hafsi’s research focuses on the management of complex organizations, such as large diversified firms, geographically dispersed organizations, not-for-profit organizations, state-owned firms and governments. He has conducted research programs on divestment in public and private sectors, on organizational responses to globalization of markets, on strategic change and on issues of competitiveness and national strategies.
Prof. Hafsi has published in many academic or professional journals, in particular: Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management Studies, Interfaces, La Revue Française de Gestion, l’Expansion, Politiques et management publics. He has also authored or co-authored 24 books or monographs.
Prof Hafsi has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, and a Master’s of Science in management, from the Sloan school of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has a Doctorate in Business Administration, from the Harvard Business School. Before teaching at EHEC he was Director General (Refining and Petrochemicals Division) in a large oil company.
Carl Deschamps is a Masters student at École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), Université du Québec, and a Research Assistant at Centre de recherche sur la gouvernance.
Biographies
Executive Summary
Luc Bernier, Taieb Hafsi, and Carl Deschamps examine the nature of innovation in the public sector by looking at the Institute of Public Administration of Canada’s Innovation Management Award, an IPAC award since 1990. This study identifies cycles in applications for the award over time, and compares the applications submitted by federal and provincial governments across Canada. The study examines the variables that influence the number and quality of applications in order to identify key factors that spur innovation in the public sector.
This paper was first prepared for the CPSA Annual Meeting Waterloo, Ontario, May 18, 2011
3
Introduction
The past 20 years have seen a debate in Canada between the traditionalist camp in
public administration and proponents of the “new public management.” The pro-
tradition side argues that the overriding concern must be respect for the principles and
values by which public servants are supposed to be guided where accountability and
ministerial responsibility are core principles. Advocates of this view criticize the new
public management’s “client-centred approach,” arguing that the connection between
citizens and the public service must be mediated by the politicians who have been
elected to govern, and that the relationship between citizens and the state cannot be
reduced to a client-supplier model (Savoie, 1995). They also have reservations about the
ideological connotations of the public management approach, which is associated with
politicians such as Margaret Thatcher, who considered the private sector to be superior
to the public sector (Metcalfe, 1993).
Leaving aside the ideological element, it can be said that the new public management
seeks to achieve greater efficiency in the public sector (Borins, 1995). Are operations
divorced from policy-making managed more effectively? Is money saved by
implementing results-based management or process reengineering? Many observers
believe that the effort to improve efficiency, which is the leitmotif of the new public
management, has demonstrated its limitations (Dunleavy et al., 2006). Too many public-
private partnerships have yielded disappointing results because the contracts were
unclear or because the private sector had no useful experience to bring to the table.
Special operating agencies have not proven to be a panacea for the problems of
bureaucracy. The limitations of results-based management have also become evident
(Bernier and Angers, 2011).
One benefit of the advent of the new public management, however, is that it has
prompted debate on possible innovations in the public sector. Reinventing Government,
the movement’s seminal text, argued that the state could be transformed by
4
imagination and entrepreneurial spirit, and held out hope that the state need not be
rejected altogether. Today, in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, the idea that the
state has an important role to play has regained currency. Borins (2008) has expanded
on Reinventing Government’s proposition that, in a turbulent public sector environment,
innovation is necessary and the state must be reinvented. There are many reasons for
seeking to improve the operation of the state:
- To address the growing difficulty of recruiting public servants to replace the
wave of retirements;
- To relieve pressure on cash-strapped governments in a time when globalization
makes tax increases difficult;
- To take advantage of technological innovations;
- Because issues increasingly cut across different fields, and administrative
reorganization is required in order to address them.
This list could be extended, and clearly, innovation is necessary for the public sector to
continue playing its role. At a time when needs are growing in areas such as health care
and we are still saddled with 19th century institutions, the state must be reinvented. “An
innovation is about the introduction and adoption of new ideas that produce a change
in the existing relationships between an organization and its internal and external
environments” (Osborne and Brown, 2005: 140). Innovation can be a structural change,
or quality management or performance-oriented measures (Seidle, 1995: 14). These
approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Changing an organization’s
structures can hardly be expected to yield results if its culture does not also change.
In 1990, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada created the IPAC Innovative
Management Award1. The IPAC award was modeled on the Innovations in Government
Harvard University programme, now at the Kennedy School’s Ash Institute, that confers
an annual multi-category award, with monetary prizes endowed by the Ford Foundation
5
since 19952. On its 20th anniversary, a volume entitled Innovations in Government
(Borins, 2008) was published to synthesize emerging patterns. The concept was
subsequently picked up by the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration
and Management (CAPAM)3. As well, IPAC itself developed another award for
Leadership, sponsored by Deloitte, which profiles another aspect of public sector
excellence4. This study deals with the IPAC Innovation award. All public administrations
in Canada are eligible: every year since 1990, between 60 and 100 municipalities,
provinces, territories and the federal government have applied.
This research follows our previous work, which has been on public entrepreneurship in
the Westminster system (Bernier and Hafsi, 2007).
Why do people innovate in the public sector where the rewards may be limited? In the
public sector, innovation has long been regarded as either non-existent or aberrant,
especially in the parliamentary system, where initiatives must officially come from
elected ministers. An organization with an intense, aggressive environment tends to
generate standardized, rigid behaviour, which in turn eliminates all entrepreneurship
and innovation. In their study of the public sector in South Africa, Morris and Jones
(1999) note that the discouraging factors most often mentioned seem to be, in order:
1. Rules, procedures, policies and their fastidious application;
2. Restrictions in the area of human resources management (recruitment,
dismissal);
3. Paltry rewards and internal rivalry; and
4. Lack of managerial autonomy.
1 IPAC’s award was initially funded by both KPMG and IBM Canada. Currently, IBM Canada is the sole sponsor. 2 See http://www.ash.harvard.edu/ash/home/programs/innovations-in-government 3 See www.capam.org 4 See www.ipac.ca/LeadershipAwards
6
It is generally acknowledged that because these “discouraging” conditions often exist in
the public sector, innovation is unlikely. Nevertheless, innovation is possible and does
occur. Hundreds if not thousands of civil servants in small groups apply every year for
awards recognizing their innovations.
IPAC’s Canadian Innovation Award
This study examines the applications for the IPAC Innovative Management Award
submitted by Canada’s federal and provincial governments. We have compiled a
database of all applications for the award since its inception in 1990. The database can
be mined for information on who applied, when and why. It enables us to study all
aspects of innovation in the public sector: the choice of the instruments to be used for
policy implementation, the introduction of new technologies, new processes,
restructuring, etc. As the database covers a long period, we can also consider how
efforts to effect changes in public administrations have come in waves or cycles.
The database can be divided into three sections: the 1,941 applications for the award
submitted since 1990, the short-annual list of 6 to 10 finalists and the three winners
chosen every year to present their projects at the annual conference. The applications,
which must be approved by the Deputy Minister or agency head, are only that, a claim
by applicants that they have done something innovative. However, not only the three
winners but all the short-listed finalists have been deemed successful innovators by a
jury of practitioners and academics. Whether differently-constituted juries would have
chosen the same three winners is open to question.
This paper is based on a data bank we have begun to develop including all the
applications for the award since inception. The available data on the applications comes
from the IPAC website and from the forms that have been sent to us by the Institute.
Electronic forms are available for the last ten years and paper copies for the previous
decade. Applications for the award are voluntary. Applicants may have had only one
chance in 100 to be named winners in most years, however civil servants have applied
7
year after year for over two decades. Since there is no monetary value attached to the
award, unlike in the United States, they are looking solely for recognition of their work.
Between 60 and 100 teams apply every year depending of the annual topic. In the past,
preliminary juries reviewed the applications and classified them into three categories: A)
a few strong candidates that could win; B) potential winners but not as strong as the A
category; and rejected candidates that end up in the C) category. From these applicants,
six to nine files are considered finalists and invited to present their innovation orally to
the official jury, usually four civil servants and one academic. The previously A-listed
candidates were the ones most likely to be selected. Occasionally, a B-listed candidate
was considered by the jury but was unlikely to end up among the finalists5.
The President of the jury is a high-ranking civil servant, usually someone who comes
from the province where that year’s annual IPAC conference takes place. The academic
member of the committee used to write a short article to be published in the Institute’s
magazine. In recent years, the winners and finalists have received exposure through
profiles in the fall issue of IPAC’s Public Sector Management magazine and on the IPAC
website6. The other jury members are senior civil servants who are representative of
the Institute membership.
The choice of chair was in most cases made by the late executive director of the
Institute, Joe Galimberti, who held the position from 1974 until his death in 2006. He
also suggested the topic of the award to the Board of Directors, who confirmed the
suggestion. It had been his idea to launch the award in 1990 based on the American
model.
The award itself is a glass trophy given to the gold, silver and bronze recipients at the
closing ceremony of IPAC’s annual conference in August. The finalists are selected in
5 The preliminary selection process is now conducted by IPAC senior staff. They evaluate the applications and provide the jury with a short list of 9-10 teams and their applications. These teams then present to the judge orally.
6 See Innovative Management Award winners (www.ipac.ca/IM-Home) and Public Sector Management magazine November 2011.
8
June of each year, and are invited to present at the conference. None of the finalists are
told which award they have won until the final day of the conference – it is a closely-
guarded secret and has never been leaked. Applicants presume that they have a fair
chance of winning and many apply more than once. IPAC’s 18 regional groups have their
own regional awards; applicants for the national awards may have won provincially or at
more specialized forums (technology or police associations, for example) before
applying for the national award.
The applications as a whole merit attention and are the focus of this study. In the 1990s,
government belt tightening had resulted in the loss of approximately 15,000 to 20,000
of Ontario’s public servants and Ontario government organizations were encouraged to
apply for the award as a way to recognize the work of public servants. There seem to be
relatively fewer applications from Quebec compared with the other three largest
provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta; and some themes of the annual
competitions aroused more interest than others.
The annual themes were eliminated in 2011 which may yield a more consistent number
of applications from across Canada. In this study, we have examined a number of
variables in the applications:
• What economic variables have had an impact?
• Have changes of government had an impact?
• Have changes of Premier had an impact?
• Do governments innovate more before, or after being re-elected to a second
term?
• Are there cycles associated with government terms of office?
• More simply, are there cycles over time?
• Does the number of innovations per year vary with the government’s
financial situation?
• Who is innovating in each sphere of government action?
• What comparisons can be drawn between the provinces?
9
Our database also allows us to study which organizations have submitted applications
and in which field, and potentially to study the applications themselves in greater detail.
Any quantitative study has its limitations. For example, the creation of the government
of Nunavut, which won gold (the top prize) in 2001, was counted as one innovation, but
so have many more modest reforms. However, we believe that this database, the first of
its kind in Canada, can serve as the basis for a discussion of the usefulness of applying
for these types of awards. The report could support a discussion of innovation in the
public sector based on our analysis of the applications for the award and our
interpretation based on the relevant scientific literature.
The IPAC Innovative Management Award honours innovative organizations in Canada.
We begin by analyzing the applications. In a later stage, we study the finalists and the
winners of the gold, silver and bronze prizes in the annual competitions. The following
analysis has the advantage of any quantitative study, in that it covers a large set of
cases, and the concomitant lack of refinement. In future we could interview a sample of
organizations that applied for the award to find out what motivated them and how they
decided to apply.
The numbers in the following text are based on the applications made by Canada’s
provincial and federal governments. Of the 1,941 applications submitted since the
awards began in 1990, 351 were from municipalities, which are not considered here and
some are partnerships between different governments. We begin by looking at the
applications from governments overall and then examine the most innovative
governments. The Maritime provinces have submitted too few applications over the
years for us to identify any trends. British Columbia appears to be an interesting case
and, as the charts below suggest, deserves further study.
10
Application Barriers
Applications for the innovation award come from governments across Canada in
unequal proportions (Figure 1). The largest number have been submitted by federal
government organizations, followed by Ontario, which has taken a strong interest in the
competition, British Columbia, Alberta and, in fifth place, Quebec. In the case of
Quebec, there may be a language barrier that could explain the lower number of
applications from that province. Similarly, there may be a cultural barrier felt by
organizations that work at the international level, and that identify less strongly with the
public administration community. Why is there an average of five applications per year
from Quebec and more than 20 from Ontario?
Each year, a general theme is chosen for the IPAC award, and organizations may be
more interested in some themes than in others. For lack of more detailed information
about the applications, we are assuming that projects were developed in the year prior
to the year of application, an assumption based on the lead author’s experience as a
member of one preliminary jury and as a final juror the following year. For example,
applications submitted in 2010 cover innovations that were introduced in 2009. The few
applications for innovations introduced in 2007 indicate to us that it was the theme for
2008 (Green Government) that was problematic.
General Trends
With respect to trends over time, Figure 2 shows that there were generally fewer
applications in the 2005-2010 period. Is that because efforts connected to the
introduction of new public management in the 1990s are losing steam or because
minority governments were in office? It is possible that more post-2000 innovations
have been in the field of governance and therefore are less likely to win IPAC awards?
There is a relative decline in this period both in absolute numbers (Figure 3) and
percentages (Figure 4). As can be seen from these figures, there were two waves of
applications in Ontario, the first in the early 1990s and the second in the first years of
the new millennium, when there was also an increase in applications from British
11
Columbia. Applications from Alberta and Quebec appear to have been relatively stable
over time.
Figure 5 shows a large number of annual applications in the 1990s from the federal
government followed by a decline, which is quite pronounced after 2000. Since 2005
there has been an increase in the number of minority governments in Canada. However,
the next figures qualify these general observations.
Provincial Trends
Aside from generally low numbers of applications for the 2008 theme, there are
interesting differences in some provincial trends. In British Columbia and Ontario, there
was a decline in the first half of the aughts decade. In Quebec, there were two peaks, in
the first half of the 1990s and around 2003. In Alberta, there are no noteworthy trends.
For this series, we also included Manitoba (Figure 10), the province that worked hardest
to create special operating agencies in the 1990s, and we note that it submitted more
applications at that time. This is an interesting example of a government with a strong
period followed by a quieter period. As these examples illustrate, it is possible to
develop a good number of applications in a relatively brief span of time.
The themes were chosen by IPAC’s CEO, who tried to find subjects that were related to
the evolution of public administration, but broad enough to attract a variety of
applications (Figure 11). His suggestions were approved by IPAC’s Board of Directors.
Economic Cycles
We wondered whether governments were more likely to try to innovate in times of
budget cuts or in periods of growth. The first test we applied was based on the
unemployment rate (Figure 12). While some provincial governments have faced
unemployment rates of more than 15%, we will confine our comments to the majority
of cases where the unemployment rate was less than 10%. There is an increase in the
number of innovations by provincial governments when the unemployment rate climbs
from 5% to about 8% but the correlation is weak. It is much clearer for the federal
12
government, which is more likely to innovate when the economy is doing poorly, when
it appears to seek solutions to deal with its constrained circumstances. This effect may
also be due to the differences between the roles of the federal and provincial
governments, since the provinces need to provide social services, such as health and
education, regardless of the economic situation, while the federal government is more
responsible for macro-economic policy. Figure 13 shows a similar pattern: increases in
GDP correlate to decreases in the innovation rate. We see the same inverted V trend
line for the provinces under consideration.
Figures 13 and 14 show regression curves broken down by province. The data for
Saskatchewan produces an inverted V as well, although it is less obvious. But Quebec,
which has a much larger public administration apparatus, submits fewer applications for
the award than even some smaller provinces. Figure 14, comparing the number of
applications with government spending, shows the same trend but with a still wider gap.
The inverted V relationship between government spending and applications is also
clearer. After a certain point, higher government spending no longer correlates with
more innovation. While correlation analyses have yet to be performed on the full
model, we believe that these charts indicate that, up to a certain point, increasing
government spending leads to more innovation, but the relationship is not linear. Above
a certain level of spending (and therefore capacity to spend), governments innovate
less. Based on these two charts, we hypothesize that governments innovate when they
are under budgetary stress and the relationship is then reversed. Some innovations are
born out of necessity. For example, after a series of budget cuts, the federal
government’s export support programs now operate as a “virtual agency” since the
various organizations involved no longer have enough resources to operate separately
(Bernier, 2002).
Majority versus Minority Governments
We then considered whether newly-elected governments are more innovative. If it is
possible to draw conclusions from such a small sample, our data suggests that there
13
does not appear to be any strong correlation during the 1990-2010 period. In Quebec
there were more applications under the Liberals than under the PQ, but not necessarily
in their first term of office. The Premier Bourassa and Premier Johnson years in Quebec
are shown in Figure 15 as Liberal governments 1 and 2, followed by Premier Jean
Charest’s three terms of office. This might be related to less interest in what is
happening in the rest of Canada under some governments. The long reign of the
Conservatives in Alberta (Figure 16) is interesting in this respect; the level of innovation
varies little from one term of office to another. In contrast, in British Columbia
(Figure 17), Premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government innovated mostly at the
beginning while the NDP did so more frequently after it was elected for the second time.
Our data covers only one year of Social Credit government. In Ontario (Figure 18), the
largest number of innovations was under the second government of Premier Harris. At
the federal level, the Liberals innovated the most in the 1990s, when they had
majorities. Subsequently, under Prime Minister Paul Martin minority government and
then the Conservative minority of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the number of
innovations per year decreased (Figure 19). Was it because of ideology or because they
had to negotiate with the opposition?
The data series used for this study includes four Liberal governments in Quebec since
1990, but our data goes back one year earlier, since we counted the 1990 applications
as referring to innovations introduced in 19897.
Political Ideology
We then considered whether the number of innovations per year varied with different
first ministers (Figure 21). There does not appear to be any clear left-right split: for
example, in post-Premier Rae Ontario, it was Premier Harris, not the Liberals, who led
7 Liberal government 1 denotes the government of Premier Bourassa of 1985-1989. As the 1989 election was held on September 25, 1989, and the first session of the National Assembly opened on November 28, 1989, we counted the Bourassa government as the government for 1989. We have classified all election years similarly according to election date; if the election was held on or after July 1, we count the new government’s term as beginning the following year, since our data is organized by year; if it was on or before June 30, we count the new government’s term as covering the entire year. Data for election years has been coded according to this principle.
14
an innovative administration. As in any analysis of this type, it is difficult to say whether
these first ministers and their governments were responsible for the innovation or were
just in the right place at the right time. In the case of other innovative practices, such as
the creation of crown corporations in the past, partisan ideology seems to be less
significant than the fact of being in office during a given period (Bernier, 1998).
In Quebec, the brief premiership of Daniel Johnson occurred at a time when the role of
the state was being questioned; “Opération Réalignement” was, among other things, a
reengineering effort in a time of budget difficulties.
Figures 22 and 23 suggest that majority governments are more innovative or are more
willing to take intelligent risks. At the federal level, this was true of both Liberal
governments and the Progressive Conservative government of the early 1990s. The
trend is also clear at the provincial level, where the correlation appears to be quite
strong for this variable.
If we look at just Ontario (Figure 24), it is interesting to note that both the Harris and
McGuinty governments were most innovative in their second terms of office.
The pattern is different at the federal level. Under Prime Minister Mulroney, the pace
picked up towards the end of the government’s second term, while in the case of Prime
Minister Chrétien the number of applications per year was higher in the government’s
first term than the third (Figure 25).
Studies of government budgets have shown a link to the election cycle. Does the same
apply to innovation? Figure 26 shows wide variation in this area, making it difficult to
draw any firm conclusions.
Innovation Projects by Organization Type
After examining economic and political factors, it is worth investigating the areas in
which governments innovate. Figures 27 and 28 show variances between federal
government departments. Human Resources Development, which was created through
15
the merger of four departments in the 1990s and was often in the news, is the federal
department that has submitted the largest number of applications, followed by Public
Works. In contrast, the Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA have submitted few
applications. Does this mean that these organizations are less innovative or simply that
they identify more with their fields of specialization? In all, seven departments have
submitted 20 or more applications and nine others 10 or more applications. We can see
that the number of applications submitted by the departments have gone through
cycles over time. Human Resources Development experienced a full cycle from 1996 to
2004. The applications from Public Works were more scattered but decreased after
2004. If we compare this with Ontario (Figure 29), the province submitting the most
applications, we find that the applications were in slightly different fields, with Natural
Resources standing out.
The next question is: what type of innovation (Figure 30)? It may consist of offering the
public a new service, using information technology, developing a new training program
for the public service, setting up a one-stop shop, or even regulatory changes. We have
organized these changes into categories. The most strongly represented categories are
shown in Figure 30. Changes in processes are classified under “management,” changes
in structures under “reforms.” Many changes related to communications with the
public. There were also many innovations in human resource management.
Figures 31, 32 and 33 show the same information organized according to the fields in
which the reforms were carried out. Unlike Figure 30, which shows the sector of the
public administration, these charts show the sphere of government activity. There has
been a decline in some areas, such as natural resources, compared with the early 1990s,
and human resources management figures prominently. In Figure 33 for better
readability we have included only the most frequently occurring categories. “Strategic”
refers to all innovations in departmental affairs, planning, organizational development,
and so forth – anything related to the administrative apparatus of the State.
16
And the Winners Are…
Applying for an award is one thing, while winning the award is another. It is interesting
to have a look at who wins. Figure 34 offers a comparison of the number of applications
versus the number of finalists and winners. To use a baseball metaphor, in comparison
with the other governments, Alberta has an impressive batting average, winning a little
less than 20% of the awards with only 6% of the applications. Although relatively fewer
in number, Quebec applicants often end up among the finalists and often win. British
Columbia also wins disproportionately more than Ontario and the federal government.
Ontario applications and awards seem to be in equilibrium. Ottawa applies for more
than 25% of the total but wins only a little more than 15% of the time. Different
governments may have different ways of looking at this award – is it important to apply
or to win? It could be argued that organisations can only be convinced to apply if they
have some chance of winning, but not every application wins.
Figure 35, which compares scores of finalists versus applications and winners versus
applications, offers another look at the same phenomenon. If a province has the same
percentage of winners and applications, its score would be 1. Again, the Alberta case is
peculiar. Alberta has a score of 2.96. Alberta applications are often among the finalists,
and they are more often winners. In contrast, Manitoba, where applications have not
been very numerous, has had a difficult time. Manitoban candidates become finalists,
but they rarely win. Saskatchewan, with fewer finalists, has twice as many winners.
Figures 36 to 39 look at organizations from Alberta, BC, the federal government and
Ontario. For the federal government, as mentioned previously, the Department of
Human Resources Development has often applied, but rarely won. It would be
interesting to undertake a case study to examine why they consider themselves
innovative while the award panel does not seem to agree. In Ontario, the Ministry of
Economic Development appears at the fifth rank for the number of applications, but has
won more awards than other departments. As the Natural Resources Department case
17
illustrates, applying often doesn’t guarantee winning. Figure 40 tells the same story for
Quebec. But some organizations have won with their sole application.
In Figure 41, looking at the winners over the years, we see that Quebec has disappeared
for five years around 2000 while Alberta and Ontario have been more stable. It is
interesting to note that the best years both in Ottawa and Toronto were the second half
of the 1990s. Alberta has maintained its rate over both decades and appears the stable
winner.
Conclusion
The data must be interpreted with caution, but its analysis can reveal some noteworthy
points. For example, there was no observable sign that governments innovate more
when the population is increasing and they have to cope with growing needs. It would
appear, however, that these applications move in cycles. Applications were received
from all spheres which involve public administration. In addition, although we have
correlation analyses of the data, we have yet to develop a model to explain what makes
an application a winner.
We believe the relationship between a government’s economic circumstances and its
efforts to innovate merits further attention. When we make the database public, others
may find other points of interest, especially in adding relevant variables. For example,
we plan to look at the link between government deficits and innovation. More extensive
statistical analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of these variables.
Applying for prizes such as the innovation award is a way to give credit to the work of
government organizations at a time of budget cutting, retirements and a certain
cynicism about the public sector. These awards are a way “to publicize examples of
creative problem-solving and accomplishment in the public service as a means of
changing public attitudes towards the public service; and to disseminate information
about, and thus encourage replication of, the best practices in the public service.”
(Borins, 2000: 326).
18
Studies such as the Institute for Citizen-Centred Services’ “Citizens First” survey8 show
that the public is satisfied with the work of the public sector, but the good news is not
widely publicized. IPAC’s own survey of Deputy Ministers and municipal CAOs reveals a
similar concern for citizen awareness of public service outcomes9.
While the main reason for applying for an award may be to win recognition for a job
well done, it can also publicize innovations that deserve to be emulated (Hartley and
Downe, 2007). Knowing that an innovation has been successful in one administrative
branch can spur other public servants to follow suit. The applications for these awards
are a study of best practices in public administration (Borins, 2008). The fact that
applications must be authorized by a senior official constitutes a certain
institutionalization of the application process. The number of awards given to recognize
the work of civil servants has increased, as has specific units within governments
applying for them. In the 1990s, secretariats were established in Canadian public
administration to manage applications and coordinators exist in some departments
(Borins, 2000: 322).
. The purpose of this paper is to cast a first look at the applications for these awards. The
awards have come with the reforms of the new public management and can be seen as
part of them (Borins, 2000: 322-323). Public administration used to suffer from
theoretical malnutrition (Denhardt, 1984; Savoie, 1999). Studies on innovation in the
public sector are now proliferating, but only a small proportion deals with awards
introduced to recognize innovative administrations. IPAC is now using the award
winners as a source to develop in-depth case studies and a synopsis project featuring
short abstracts of award winners for use by practitioners and scholars to facilitate
effective knowledge transfer of best practices to other organizations10.
8 See www.iccs-isac.org/en/cf/ 9 See IPAC’s Deputy Minister Survey 2011 available at www.ipac.ca/knowledge/index . Also see “Dealing with the all-consuming deficit” by Wendy Feldman in Canadian Government Executive (October 2011) at www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca/article/?nav_id=150 10 See www.ipac.ca/knowledge/CaseStudies
19
We suggest framing the future analysis of this databank in an institutionalist
perspective, which would allow drawing generalizations on the implications of
innovation that are non-existent in the current literature. An important element about
research on innovation in the public sector is how it becomes institutionalized. This will
be an important addition to the analysis of the winning cases, following the
presentation of the applications. The proper way to understand innovation in the public
sector may be to move back and forth from a databank to case studies. What becomes
of these innovations five or ten years after receiving the award? Little attention has
been given to issues related to reconciling innovation and traditional control concerns.
How do innovations developed within the public sector become institutionalized?
In the contemporary public sector, innovations are introduced by entrepreneurs who
are often far removed from the top of the organizational pyramid (Borins, 1998; Riccucci
1995; Bernier and Hafsi, 2007). One of the elements in the process of applying for the
innovation award in Canada is to get the approval of the Deputy Minister. The fact that
an innovation is judged award-worthy not only by an applicant but by the top of his or
her hierarchy is a first step toward institutionalization. Such innovations, which are
often designed to deliver better service to the public, disturb the established system of
governance. If they eventually become entrenched, it is because either they are
embraced by citizens or have demonstrated their superiority over old models.
Governments must then legislate or change their policies to institutionalize the
innovations.
Institutional entrepreneurship “represents the activities of actors who have an interest
in particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new
institutions or to transform existing ones” (Maguire et al., 2004). Institutional
entrepreneurs launch projects, develop new organizational forms and institutionalize
new fields by borrowing practices from other fields (Mutch, 2007). In an already-built
environment, they manage to create manoeuvring room for themselves and to innovate
20
(Leca and Naccache, 2006; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006). For innovations to become
institutionalized, entrepreneurs must win acceptance for them in their environment
(Wijen and Ansari, 2007). If the innovations are in line with the government’s general
strategy, this should be relatively easy. On the other hand, if they go against the grain in
any way, more political capital will be required. It would be interesting to study the
process by which entrepreneurial innovations come to be accepted, become
institutionalized and are absorbed into the fabric of the state. The entrepreneurship of
civil servants, in conjunction with the limited impact of the socio-economic and political
factors, is behind the application to these awards.
What do you do with this study if you are a practitioner?
First, you can react to it by telling us how it works in your organization. We are curious
to know what happened and how you deal with innovations. We hope to launch a new
dialogue on best practices. Second, as Ontario did in the 1990s, why not apply for the
award? You might attract the attention of your own Deputy Minister, CAO or CEO for a
project he or she has not had the time to learn about. And it would be recognition for
your employees or colleagues for a job well done. Will you win? If you don’t apply, you
will never win! The chances of winning are better than for any lottery! More seriously,
an interesting project written by committed civil servants who believe in what they do
can catch the eye of the jury. Explain what is innovative and how it could be replicated
elsewhere. You even have a better chance if some results have been achieved, not just a
new plan for the future that will never be implemented.
Innovation is almost always team work. Distribute the merit for it and use it as an
opportunity to tell the world that public servants are accomplishing great things.
21
References
Bernier, Luc. 1998. “L’impact des partis politiques sur la création d’entreprises publiques.” In Crête, Jean et al. Politiques provinciales comparées, 315‒333. Québec: PUL.
Bernier, Luc. 2002. “Équipe Canada Inc.” In Horizontalité et gestion publique, edited by Jacques Bourgault, 101-112. Québec: PUQ.
Bernier, Luc and Taïeb Hafsi. 2007. “ The Changing Nature of Public Entrepreneurship.” Public Administation Review 67/3: 488‒503.
Bernier, Luc et Sébastien Angers. 2010. “Le nouveau management public.” In Paquin, Stéphane et al, L’analyse des politiques publiques, 229-254. Montréal: PUM.
Borins, Sandford. 1995. “The New Public Management is Here to Stay.” Canadian Public Administration 38/1: 122‒132.
Borins, Sandford. 1995. “A Last Word.” Canadian Public Administration 38/1:137‒138.
Borins, Sandford. 1998. Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Borins, Sandford. 2000. “Public service awards programs: an exploratory analysis.” Canadian Public Administration 43: 321‒342.
Borins, Sandford, ed. 2008. Innovations in government, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Denhardt, Robert B. 1984. Theories of Public Administration, Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler. 2006. “New Public Management is Dead – Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16/3: 467‒494.
Epanechnikov, V.A. “Nonparametric estimation of a multidimensional probability density.” Teor. Veroyatnost. i Primenen. 14/1 (1969): 156‒161.
Greenwood, Royston and Roy Suddaby. 2006. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms.” Academy of Management Journal 49: 27‒48.
Hartley, Jean and James Downe. 2007. “The shining lights? Public service awards as an approach to service improvement.” Public Administration 85/2: 329‒353.
Leca, Bernard and Philippe Naccache. 2006. “A Critical Realist Approach to Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization 13: 627‒651.
22
Maguire, Steve, Cynthia Hardy and Thomas B. Lawrence. 2004. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada.” Academy of Management Journal 47: 657‒679.
Metcalfe, Les. 1993. “Conviction Politics and Dynamic Conservatism: Mrs. Thatcher’s Managerial Revolution.” International Political Science Review 14/4: 351‒371.
Morris, M. M. and F. F. Jones. 1999. “Entrepreneurship in Established Organizations: The Case of the Public Sector.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24/1: 71‒91.
Mutch, Alistair. 2007. “Reflexivity and the Institutional Entrepreneur: A Historical Exploration.” Organisation Studies 28: 1123‒1140.
Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector From Schoolhouse to State House. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Osborne, Stephen P. and Kerry Brown. 2005. Managing Change and Innovation in Public Service Organization. London: Routledge.
Riccucci, Norma. M. 1995. Unsung Heroes: Federal Execucrats Making a Difference, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Savoie, Donald J. 1995. “What is Wrong with the New Public Management?” Canadian Public Administration 38/1: 112‒121.
Savoie, Donald J. 1995. “Just Another Voice from the Pulpit.” Canadian Public Administration 38/1: 133‒136.
Savoie, Donald.1999. Governing from the Center. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Seidle, F. Leslie. 1995. Rethinking the delivery of services to citizens. Montréal: IRPP.
Wijen, Frank and S. Ansari. 2007. “Overcoming Inaction Through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory.” Organisation Studies 28: 1079‒1100.
28
Figure 11
Year Theme 1990 Service to the Public 1991 Empowerment 1992 Partnership Management 1993 Better with Less 1994 Re-Shaping Government 1995 Making Diversity Work 1996 Mastering Change 1997 Breakthroughs: Connectng Citizens and Government 1998 Doing Things Differently 1999 Measurement and Recognition 2000 Collaboration: New Approaches to Policy and Management 2001 Developing the Public Service of Tomorrow 2002 Outside-In: Changing Government to Meet Client Needs 2003 In the Know: Knowledge Management 2004 Pulling Against Gravity: Horizontal Collaboration 2005 Public Service Without Borders 2006 Sharing Governance: Citizens, Partners and Networks 2007 New Service Breakthroughs with Technology 2008 Managing the Green Workplace/Innovations in Greening 2009 Turn Around 2010 Collaboration at Work
Figure 12
36
Figure 27
Figure 28
Year
Department of Foreign Affairs and Internation
al Trade
Canada Revenue Agency
Department of National
Defence
Department of Human Resources and Skills
Development
Department of the
Environment
Department of Industry
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public
Works and Governmen
t Services
1990 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 11991 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 41992 1 1 0 0 7 1 1 01993 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 41994 0 0 1 2 5 3 6 61995 0 2 5 0 3 0 1 11996 1 1 6 3 4 2 1 31997 0 4 1 8 0 2 1 01998 0 3 3 15 0 1 3 41999 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 62000 1 3 0 7 2 4 2 32001 0 1 5 3 0 0 1 02002 0 1 3 8 0 3 2 02003 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 12004 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 42005 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 02006 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 02007 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02008 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22009 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 32010 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 02011 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0Total 10 23 28 62 25 26 28 42
37
Figure 29
YearMinistry of
Natural Resources
Ministry of Transportati
on
Management Board
Secretariat
Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Ministry of Economic
Development and Trade
Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural
Affairs
1990 0 0 1 1 0 1 01991 4 1 0 1 0 0 11992 15 0 1 0 0 1 21993 7 0 2 1 2 1 81994 1 1 1 0 0 4 61995 0 2 0 2 6 0 01996 2 0 1 2 2 2 01997 0 1 2 0 0 2 01998 2 2 4 1 0 2 11999 0 0 1 3 0 1 02000 0 0 4 1 0 1 02001 1 1 4 1 1 2 02002 2 9 3 1 1 3 22003 0 6 0 1 0 0 02004 0 5 5 1 2 1 02005 0 3 0 1 0 0 02006 3 2 0 0 5 0 12007 0 0 0 3 1 0 02008 0 0 0 0 0 0 02009 3 0 0 5 1 0 02010 0 1 0 1 3 0 02011 0 3 0 2 1 2 1Total 40 37 29 28 25 23 22
Innovations - Ontario's Organizations
Figure 30
38
Figure 31
Year Human ressources
Planning / Strategic Services Health Natural
ressources Transport Security Social
1990 5 2 7 4 1 1 0 21991 8 0 3 2 10 3 3 51992 5 8 5 7 19 3 2 51993 9 11 10 4 7 2 5 11994 7 9 5 5 6 8 3 21995 16 8 6 2 1 3 5 41996 9 6 0 5 8 6 3 11997 9 11 4 2 4 6 2 31998 7 12 9 11 6 7 3 51999 4 5 5 5 0 1 1 12000 8 7 5 7 3 2 2 62001 12 7 8 5 8 2 1 42002 10 5 6 9 7 8 4 72003 3 3 3 7 2 7 5 32004 5 8 5 8 4 9 4 52005 6 0 3 6 4 4 7 22006 4 3 4 2 3 2 7 32007 2 4 4 3 4 0 1 12008 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 02009 7 3 10 11 3 4 9 42010 2 1 4 3 0 4 5 6Total 139 114 110 108 101 82 72 70
Figure 32
1075 Bay Street | Suite 401 | Toronto | ON | M5S 2B1 | www.ipac.ca
The Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC), founded in 1947, is a dynamic association of public servants, academics, and others interested in public administration. Rooted by its Regional Groups, IPAC is a membership-based organization that creates effective knowledge networks and leads public administration research in Canada. Since the early 1990s, it has been a major player in exporting successful Canadian public sector expertise around the world.
Fondé en 1947, l’Institut d’administration publique du Canada (IAPC) est une association dynamique qui se compose de membres et regroupe des fonctionnaires, des universitaires et des particuliers s’intéressant à la théorie et à la pratique de la gestion publique. Constitué de groupes régionaux, l’IAPC favorise la création de réseaux de connaissances effi caces et se veut à l’avant- garde de la recherche en administration publique au Canada. Depuis le début des années 1990, l’Institut exporte avec succès à l’étranger l’expertise canadienne en matière d’administration publique.