The New Frontiers of Public Administration: The New Synthesis Project

Transcription

1 The New Frontiers of Public Administration: The New Synthesis Project Jocelyne Bourgon, PC, OC with Peter Milley PGI Public Governance International

2 Jocelyne Bourgon, 2010

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Author 4 Acknowledgement 4 Foreword 5 Introduction 6 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project The Exploration Phase: Starting at Home Broadening the Conversation By Year s End 1.2 The Mobilization Phase: The Project Leader s Team A Collaborative International Research Network By Year s End Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way? What Is Different about Serving in the 21st Century? Serving in an Expanded Public Space 34 Achieving Public Results Government and Governance Expanding Possibilities 2.3 Serving Beyond the Predictable 39 Exploration Proactive Intervention Adaptation 2.4 Serving in the 21st Century 45 An Evolutionary Cycle of Public Administration Part 3: In Search of a New Framework Research Program International Roundtables Dialogue and Deliberation 57 Conclusion 61 Bibliography 65

4 ABOUT THE AUTHOR The Honourable Jocelyne Bourgon has had a distinguished career in the Canadian Public Service. She served as Deputy Minister of several major departments. She also served as Secretary to the Cabinet for federal-provincial relations and later as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet for five years. She is the only woman to have held the latter position in Canada or in any other G7 country. Madame Bourgon has vast international experience. She served for eight years as member and President of the UN Committee of Experts in Public Administration. She was President of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) for four years and is credited with creating a Network of Training and Development Institutes across the Commonwealth. She was Canada s Ambassador to the OECD. She is associated with various international organizations, including the Institute for Government (London), CISCO Systems (USA), the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and Brazil s National School of Public Administration. Madame Bourgon is President of PGI (Public Governance International). She is also President Emeritus of the Canada School of Public Service and a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Waterloo. PGI is contributing the time of J. Bourgon to this initiative on a pro bono basis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Canada School of Public Service. Peter Milley is a Senior Advisor at the Canada School of Public Service and as Director of Research for the New Synthesis Project, he has made a major contribution to the literature reviews cited in this report and to Part 3 of this publication. She would also like to thank Brian Johnson for his contribution to the preparation of this publication and acknowledge the contribution of Henri Kuschkowitz for the artwork, graphic design and general presentation of this publication. Above all the author would like to express her gratitude to the participating countries and partner organizations that have embarked on a common journey of discovery. 4 About the Author

5 FOREWORD The New Synthesis Project is an international partnership of institutions and individuals who are dedicated to advancing the study and practice of public administration. While they hail from different countries, different political systems and different historical, economic and cultural contexts, all share the view that public administration as a practice and discipline is not yet aligned with the challenges of serving in the 21 st century. The publication of this report the first publication in Canada on the New Synthesis Project is intended to ensure the wide dissemination of ideas emerging from the project to date and contribute to the broadening of a much needed conversation. The University of Waterloo is proud to have been associated with the New Synthesis Project since its inception and is pleased to be associated to the release of this publication. It is hoped that it will encourage discussion, debate and dialogue among public administration academics and practitioners in Canada and abroad. Ken Coates Dean of Arts University of Waterloo The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 5

6 INTRODUCTION Public administration without a guiding theory is risky; administrative theory without connection to action is meaningless. That dilemma is the foundation of a genuine crisis in public administration. 1 Public administration has been operating without the benefit of a guiding theory or up-to-date framework for quite some time, a situation that deprives public servants of a frame of reference to guide their actions. This gap has generated risk aversion in public organizations at a time when innovation and creativity in government are most needed. It has acted as a barrier to change as the remnants of the previous frame of reference limit the capacity of the state to address an increasing number of complex public policy issues in the context of our global economy, networked society and fragile biosphere. Most practitioners know from experience that the Classical model of public administration, even with the revisions of the New Public Management, does not adequately reflect the reality of current practice; it speaks only to a declining fraction of their work. A number of scholars and experts, such as Donald Kettl, Janet and Robert Denhardt, and Stephen Osborne have reached a similar conclusion. 2 But in the absence of an updated frame of reference, practitioners find little solace in that. The New Synthesis Project was created by a group of volunteers from the world of practice and academe who are willing to dedicate time and effort to providing a narrative supported by powerful examples to help practitioners face the challenges of serving in the 21 st century. The project was born out of a commitment to public servants, whose role is more difficult and demanding than ever and who deserve all the help that can be marshalled to support their commitment to serving the public good and the collective interest. The project was also born out of necessity. Initial research confirmed that the profusion of public sector reforms launched since the late 1970s has led to confusion. Many reforms were introduced without much coherence or consideration for the connections between them. Public administration needs a new synthesis; one that will coherently integrate past theories, conventions, principles and practices of enduring value with new ones that respond to today s challenges. The task is daunting. However, a range of important new ideas and concepts exists that are relevant to the role of government in the future. Some of them can be found within fields traditionally associated with public administration, such as political science, law, administrative and management sciences, and organizational behaviour. However, many new ideas about complexity, networks, resilience, adaptive systems and collective intelligence from other domains are opening up promising new avenues. 1 Don Kettl, The Transformation of Governance Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). 2 Kettl, 2002; Janet V. Denhardt, and Robert B. Denhardt, The New Public Service, Serving, not Steering. (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2003); Stephen P. Osborne, The new public governance Public Management Review, 8(3) (2006): Also see NS6 Project Leader s Team, Literature Scan no.1: On the Need for a New Synthesis of Public Administration (Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, April 2009). Available at: documents/literaturescans/literaturescan1theneedforanewsynthesisdoc. 6 Introduction

7 The challenge is to craft a story powerful enough to transform the way we think about the role of government in society... The challenge is to craft a story powerful enough to transform the way we think about the role of government in society; one that is coherent enough to guide and support actions and decisions; flexible enough to embrace a diversity of contexts, mandates and circumstances; and modern enough to enable the state to forge new relationships and engage in new conversations to serve the collective interest. The reader interested in how the collaborative international research network, that we call the NS-6, came about, will want to read Part 1. The readers mainly interested in what was gleaned along the way could turn directly to Part II. Finally, Part III provides a road map to the work that will take place in The New Synthesis Project is a work-in-progress. We know how it begins but the end remains to be written. Here is the story as it stands today The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 7

8 8

9 PART 1: THE NEW SYNTHESIS PROJECT 9

10 10

11 PART 1: THE NEW SYNTHESIS PROJECT The story begins in 2006 when the International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS) invited the author 3 to deliver the Braibant Lecture for that year. The lecture was entitled Responsive, Responsible and Respected Government: Towards a New Public Administration Theory. 4 Professor Christopher Pollitt, editor of the IIAS s International Review of Administrative Sciences journal in which the lecture was eventually published, 5 listened to her presentation with surprise. Instead of putting forward a customary five-step program or some other apparently concrete and practical set of actions, 6 Bourgon argued that the practice of public administration is no longer consistent with the Classical theory nor is it yet supported by a renewed, unifying philosophy. The lecture was an urgent call for dialogue between academics and practitioners, who sometimes inhabit separate worlds, to bring coherence to a quarter century of public sector reform initiatives. The article attracted some attention, 7 but did not lead to the mobilization needed. Something else was required if this work was to advance further. The question quickly became: who would believe enough in the importance of this work to take action? 1.1 THE EXPLORATION PHASE: 2008 Over the years, the author worried about the increasing gap between the Classical model of public administration that was held as a standard and the reality of practice. In many ways, the New Public Management (NPM) had exacerbated the situation. The narrow focus on efficiency did not provide an alternative to the Classical model of government in fact, the NPM had intensified some aspects of the Classical model. The old model, even in renewed form, was inadequate; but a new one had yet to emerge. The author s international experience made her intensely aware of the damage done to developing countries when implementing these reforms too forcefully and of the difficulties caused to developed countries trying to maintain government-wide coherence. During the summer of 2007, an exploration started to identify who else might hold a similar view and a search for the elements of solution that might already exist. 3 See and for a full biography. 4 Jocelyne Bourgon, Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a New Public Administration theory. (Braibant Lecture delivered at the headquarters of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Brussels,March 22, 2006). Available at: braibant/pages/2006.aspx. 5 Jocelyne Bourgon, Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public administration theory, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1) (2007): Christopher Pollitt, Toward a New Public Administration Theory: Some Comments on Jocelyne Bourgon s 5 th Braibent Lecture, International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1) (2007): It was the most frequently cited article in the journal in 2007 and, as of February 2010, it was the fourth most frequently cited article in the history of the journal (IRAS journal website at The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 11

12 Starting at Home In most collective endeavours that cross organizational or national boundaries, foreign agencies are less likely to enrol without the support of the originator s country. With this in mind, the first step was to turn to Canada for support. The Canada School of Public Service (Canada School) came on board first, followed by the Privy Council Office (PCO). Their support was invaluable in ensuring that a small group of people could put some dedicated effort behind the initiative. The Canada School provided the project team with an executive assistant, Jocelyne Comeau, and a part-time collaborator, Peter Milley. The nucleus of a dedicated team was emerging. The project presented a number of benefits for the Canada School. It would ensure that the School would be at the leading edge of new ideas in public administration and better positioned to modernize its curriculum to prepare future leaders. The project would also contribute to the School s international profile. The PCO also played a key role. The Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council accepted that the author would dedicate most of her time to this project, as project leader. He encouraged her to lecture on the topic and to publish regularly. This proved to be essential to ensure the credibility of the project and to garner support. Two organizations - the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the University of Waterloo, both of which have a strong inclination towards innovation joined the project in the fall of Their involvement provided much needed academic support in the form of research funds and the ability to retain graduate students as research assistants. With a small team, resources and support in place, work began in earnest late in the winter of 2008, taking shape along a number of axes, such as developing an initial research program and producing a number of literature reviews. The first literature review aimed to identify authors who had argued in favour of a new theory, model or conceptual framework for public administration. It also explored the evidence and arguments those authors put forward. It was hoped that this would help identify some of the key elements that could form part of a new synthesis of public administration. The second literature review explored ideas from disciplines not traditionally associated with public administration that could enrich the theory and practice of public administration in the future. The focus was on ideas that would help build the capacity of government to anticipate and respond to global, complex issues, starting with the concepts of emergence 8 and resilience. 9 8 NS6 Project Leader s Team, Literature Scan No. 2: Complexity Theories: What are They and What Do They Tell Us About Public Administration in the 21 st Century? (Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, May 2009). Available at: 2complexityandpublicadministrationdo. 9 NS6 Project Leader s Team, Literature Scan No. 3: Resilience and Public Administration. (Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, September 2009). Available at: 12 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

13 The third review explored the relationship between the authority of the state and concepts such as collective intelligence, 10 citizen engagement and social innovation, with a view to understanding how they could transform existing practices. In the meantime, the work continued to search for organizing principles under which to integrate the key findings. Broadening the Conversation This process of interactive discourse with diverse groups in various parts of the world became a key characteristic of the project. Early in the process, it was decided to expose the work in progress as frequently as possible to a variety of perspectives and in a diversity of contexts. This approach played a key role in shaping the work and enlarging the circle of potential partners. Each event enriched the work and expanded the understanding of the challenges practitioners face. Each encounter shed light on weaknesses and strengthened the team s resolve to improve the ideas and arguments. This process of interactive discourse with diverse groups in various parts of the world became a key characteristic of the project. A more conventional approach would have been to conduct literature reviews to verify the state of knowledge in an area of interest, write a challenge paper to frame the issues, submit it to peer review, and finally seek to publish it in reputable journals. One of the reasons for the disconnect that can frequently occur between practitioners and scholars in public administration is that most practitioners do not learn that way. Practitioners simply do not have the time: instead, they learn by doing. If the New Synthesis Project were to be useful, practitioners would have to validate the ideas and arguments in real time and they would be quick to say if the work were relevant or not. Throughout 2008, opportunities were sought to expose the work in progress to practitioners and scholars and to learn from a diversity of voices. The first opportunity was at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in March, 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan The APEC Conference was based on the theme of Government Performance and Results Management. It was chaired by the APEC Economic Committee and hosted by the Minister, Research, Development and Evaluation Commission for Chinese Taipei and involved delegates from over 20 countries representing a cross-section of public sector auditors, comptrollers, experts in performance measurement systems and world-class academic experts. It was a tough audience in front of which to expose the early work as the presentation would challenge conventional thinking. 11 The presentation, subsequently published as an article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, was 10 NS6 Project Leader s Team, Literature Scan No. 4: Collective Intelligence: What Is It and How Can It Be Tapped? (Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, September 2009). Available at: 11 Jocelyne Bourgon, Performance Management: It s the Results that Count. (Keynote speech presented at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Workshop on Government Performance and Results Management, Taipei, Taiwan, March 27-29, 2008). Available at: EC/WKSP2/08_ec_wksp2_004.pdf. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 13

14 entitled Performance Management: It s the Results that Count. 12 The presentation observed that the focus on performance in government can be traced as far back as the early 1900s and that, under the influence of the New Public Management in the 1980s and 1990s, the field became more extensive and more intensive. Auditing expanded its focus from compliance to value-formoney. Over time, it integrated program evaluation and some aspects of policy formulation to the point that observers have remarked on the proliferation of performance measurement and the increasing cost of control systems. And yet, many of the control and performance systems reflect a time when governments provided fairly predictable services under prescribed rules with limited discretion and in a relatively stable environment. The presentation argued for a need to disentangle the control systems, which should be designed to reduce the risks of mismanagement, from the performance management systems, which should be designed to improve the likelihood of achieving better public results. Both systems are valuable and necessary, but they serve different needs and purposes. Control and compliance systems, while at their apogee, were at risk of becoming barriers to reasonable risk-taking and innovation to achieve better public results. It was proposed that the role of performance management systems is to provide decision makers with information to improve decisions leading to better public results. A performance system that functions well is one that supports ministers and public administrators with the information they need to make better decisions in a timely way. A measure of success is not the amount of information collected but how much of it is used, by whom and with what impact. Public policy decisions and policy implementation decisions are part of a common learning cycle that involves elected officials and professional public servants The idea is embodied in the action. 13 Performance management systems in this cycle should help reveal the need for adjustment and course correction to improve results. Another key suggestion was that the results most significant to citizens and ministers are beyond the reach of a single government program or agency: they require system-wide or societal action. Therefore, a meaningful performance system must reach beyond agency results and clarify the contribution of government agencies to system-wide and societal results. At the conference, Professor John Halligan presented his most recent work with Professor Geert Bouckaert arguing the need in government for micro, meso and meta indicators of results 14, which reinforces this observation. One of the most interesting findings of the conference was the need to position the contribution of government agencies in the broader context of system-wide and societal results. This conclusion was in line with the emerging practices of countries as diverse as Canada, Vietnam and Singapore. However, no consensus emerged on how to disentangle compliance and performance functions while continuing to ensure the necessary synergy between them. Nonetheless, a conversation had begun that would carry on. 12 Jocelyne Bourgon, Performance Management: It s the Results that Count, Asian Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 30(1) (2008): Available at: 13 Giandomenico Majone and Aaron B. Wildavsky, Implementation as Evolution, in Implementation, eds. Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky (Berkley, CA: University of California Press 2004). 14 Geert Bouckaert and John Halligan, Managing Performance: International Comparisons (New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis 2008). 14 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

15 The Institute of Public Administration of Australia (IPAA) National Conference, Sydney, Australia The IPAA conference, which took place in June 2008, is at the origin of the international collaborative research network. The conference gathered a broad cross-section of experienced practitioners at the national and state level and a large number of well-known scholars. The theme of the conference was The Future of Public Service: Striking the Right Balance. It was an important event as most people knew by then that the New Public Management model had run its course. For the first time, the work undertaken in the context of the New Synthesis Project to identify some of the most significant trends in public administration was presented to a mixed audience of practitioners and scholars. The title of the presentation, The Future of Public Service: A Search for a New Balance, 15 was meant to signal that no right balance exists in public administration; instead, there is a constant search for balance. The presentation was published as an article in the Australian Journal of Public Administration. 16 The presentation proposed that the future of public administration will be built on the solid foundations of the past and some key practices of enduring value. Government will continue to contribute to stability and reduce risks in society. It will continue to rely on and promote the rule of law. It will continue to value due process, respect democracy and ensure transparency and accountability. Not everything is changing or needs to change a compliance model is here to stay. At the same time, government must retain the sharp focus that has been placed since the 1980s on efficiency, productivity, quality of service and user satisfaction. New information and communication technologies enable government to provide services in new ways, to integrate services when multiple actors are involved and to empower citizens to play a key role in public services a performance model is also here to stay. The presentation proposed that governments must do more to prepare to serve in an unpredictable world characterized by complex and sometimes wicked problems, unpredictable crises, preventable failures, global cascading breakdowns and unprecedented breakthroughs. It argued for a more complete framework of public administration; one that would complement the hierarchical structure of government with the use of expanded networks, one that would encourage citizen engagement in policy design and service delivery by giving voice, choice and greater discretion to citizens as users of public services. Beyond the emphasis on incremental improvement, governments need innovation, which can be accessed by tapping the collective intelligence of society. Finally, government plays a crucial role in building the resilience of society to flourish in unpredictable circumstances, to shoulder the burdens of inevitable crises, to avert preventable crises and to learn from adversity. 17 The text foresaw some global crises that would ensue shortly thereafter and touched a nerve with practitioners. It imperfectly captured some important aspects of their reality. For these reasons, the paper received the 2008 Sam Richardson Award for the most important or influential article published in the 15 Jocelyne Bourgon, The Future of Public Service: A Search for a New Balance. (Keynote address given at the Annual Conference of the Institute of Public Administration of Australia, Sydney, Australia, June 18-20, 2008). Available at: 16 Jocelyne Bourgon, The Future of Public Service: A Search for a New Balance, Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(4) (2008): Available at: 17 Ibid., 26. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 15

16 2008 volume of the Australian Journal of Public Administration. 18 In the months following the conference, discussions were initiated with the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) on a multi-year partnership agreement to undertake joint research work of mutual interest. Public Administration Committee Annual Conference in York, United Kingdom After an initial engagement with a large group of practitioners, it was becoming important to expose the work in progress to academics and scholars. The opportunity presented itself as a result of an invitation to deliver the opening keynote address in September 2008 at the Public Administration Conference at the University of York. The participants were professors, scholars and graduate students from the United Kingdom and a few other countries, most notably the Netherlands. The theme of the conference was New Directions in the Study and Practice of Public Administration once again signalling the need to take a fresh look at emerging trends in public administration. The keynote address, entitled New Directions in Public Administration: Serving Beyond the Predictable 19 was an important milestone for the New Synthesis Project. The various literature reviews in areas relevant to the changing nature of public administration were paying dividends. The team was gaining confidence and had a better understanding of recent work in other disciplines. The academic work on complexity, complex adaptive systems, emergence and resilience was proving to be particularly relevant to the challenges of public administrators. This keynote provided the occasion to bring some of these ideas together. The keynote, which was subsequently published as an article in the Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 20 explained in more detail than before the need for a continued focus on compliance and performance in government. It also pointed out that a model of public administration that focused predominantly on these two areas was no longer sufficient. The compliance and performance systems in government are best suited to executing predictable tasks in a relatively stable environment. These conditions pertain to a diminishing proportion of the work of government. Instead, governments are increasingly working in uncertain, turbulent and complex contexts that involve a diffuse array of actors and more shared or distributed governance arrangements. The emphasis on compliance and performance needs to be complemented with a focus on emergence and resilience. Most public sector reforms since the 1980s focused on improving the performance of public organizations but paid insufficient attention to the need to adjust existing systems and practices. The reforms were an incomplete journey. For instance, a commitment to achieving better public results would have required the re-engineering of control and performance management systems, an integrated approach to decision making, a repositioning of the centre of government to ensure coherence in the intergovernmental space, and a repo- 18 See 19 Jocelyne Bourgon, New Directions in Public Administration: Serving Beyond the Predictable, (Keynote address given at the Public Administration Conference, York, UK, September 1-3, 2008). Available at: 20 Jocelyne Bourgon, New Directions in Public Administration: Serving Beyond the Predictable, Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 3(23) (2009): Available at: 16 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

17 sitioning of line departments as hubs of large networks of organizations. Much remained to be done but even these measures would be insufficient to prepare government to address complex issues in an increasingly unpredictable world. The role of government is to serve the collective interest in all circumstances predictable, less predictable and even improbable. This means building the capacity of government to anticipate, experiment and intervene before the cost of inaction becomes greater than the risk of exploring new avenues. It means reducing friction, avoiding preventable failures and ensuring an equitable sharing of the risks and benefits resulting from innovation. The address postulated that emergence the role of government in an unpredictable world would form part of future public service reforms. It proposed that governments are complex and adaptive systems: complex because they are made up of multiple interconnected networks and sub-systems; adaptive because they have the capacity to learn, innovate and change. The works of Professors Erik-Hans Klijn 21 and Geert Teisman, 22 Eve Mitleton-Kelly, 23 and Philip Haynes 24 were particularly relevant in the development of this concept. Among practitioners, Peter Ho, the head of the Singapore Civil Service in 2010, is the most articulate on the subject. 25 The address provided more detail and suggestions on how governments can play their role in building the resilience of their society. A resilient society is characterized by active citizenry and resilient communities. The literature on citizen engagement, participatory governance and social capital was especially useful. The work of Lance Gunderson and C.S. Holling, Francis Westley, Brenda Zimmerman, Ann Dale and Jenny Onyx helped to explore how this could be achieved. 26 Most of the discussion at the conference focused on the concept of emergence. Conversations with delegates from the Netherlands were particularly lively, revealing a strong convergence of interests. A broad frame of reference had been mapped out to help explore the future role of government and to analyze its implications for public administrators. The conceptual framework was built around four quadrants: compliance, performance, emergence and resilience. It relied on traditional approaches to reduce uncertainties and provide a stable, law-abiding environment and took account of public sector reforms of enduring value to improve performance and user satisfaction. It stated clearly that these measures would be insufficient to meet the challenge of serving in the 21 st century. Greater emphasis on exploration and experimentation was needed in government, noting, however, that the uncertainty surrounding many public issues and the diffuse array of actors involved precluded governments from doing this alone. Governments must increasingly support, tap and harness the power of others through approaches that draw on collective intelligence, self-organizing networks and distributed decision making. Working with and empowering others has the added benefit 21 Erik-Hans Klijn Complexity Theory and Public Administration: What s New? Public Management Review 10(3) (2008): Geert Tiesman, and Erik-Hans Klijn Complexity theory and public management, Public Management Review, 10(3) (2008): Eve Mitleton-Kelly, Ten Principles of Complexity and Enabling Infrastructures in Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations, ed. Eve Mitleton-Kelly (Amsterdam: Elsevier 2003). 24 Philip Haynes, Managing Complexity in the Public Services. (Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press 2003). 25 Peter Ho, Governance at the leading edge: Black Swans, Wild Cards, and Wicked Problems, (Speech at the Fourth Strategic Perspectives conference, Singapore April 8, 2008). Available at: 26 Lance H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds.) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, DC: Island Press 2002); Francis Westley, Brenda Zimmerman, and Michael Patton, Getting to Maybe: How the World is Changed. (Toronto, ON: Random House, 2006); Ann Dale and Jenny Onyx. A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press 2005). The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 17

18 of foster-ing resilience since it builds the social capital required to act in concert in times of crisis. This is particularly the case when participatory governance processes are used at the community level.... countries whose governments have the capacity to anticipate emerging issues and initiate proactive interventions will have a significant comparative advantage to influence events in their favour. In the face of uncertainty and complexity, countries whose governments have the capacity to anticipate emerging issues and initiate proactive interventions will have a significant comparative advantage to influence events in their favour. The 5 th Quality Conference for Public Administration in the EU, Paris, France The Quality Conferences for Public Administration in the European Union are large scale events attracting leading thinkers and scholars in the field of public administration including Geoff Mulgan, Elke Loffler, Geert Bouckaert and others. The 5 th Quality Conference held in October 2008 under the chairmanship of the Minister of Budget and State Reform, Eric Woerth, brought together 1,000 practitioners at all levels from across the EU. The theme of the conference was Le citoyen au coeur de la qualité publique. As a result of discussions in York, a number of adjustments to the conceptual framework had been introduced. In particular, a definition was added for the four vectors that frame the four quadrants mentioned earlier. This addition helped reveal the tensions, trade-offs and choices open to government to achieve public results. It made the framework more dynamic and potentially adaptive. The presentation was entitled The Citizen at the Heart of Public Sector Reforms. 27 It argued that well performing public organizations must achieve public policy results and civic results. The role of government is to achieve results of high public value, at system-wide and societal levels and in a manner that enhances civic capacity. Public policy results build credibility, civic results build legitimacy; together, they build trust in government and public institutions. Government needs to balance the drive for better public policy results with the need to improve civic results. Civic results provide the basis from which more ambitious public policy results may be achieved. Similarly, government must search for balance in using the authority of the State apparatus to leverage the collective power to achieve better public results. Using too much authority creates rigidities, not enough dissipates the collective capacity to achieve results of public value and increases the risks borne by society. The presentation argued that government must balance relying on state authority and relying on the strength of others. Government can act as a partner, facilitator, leader or guardian of the public good. Whatever choice they make, governments will always be the insurer of last resort when the public interest demands it. The presentation signalled the need for a different and enhanced relationship between the State and citizens to achieve results of high public value. This can be done by giving citizens more voice, more choices and greater influence in the development and delivery of public services. Citizen engagement has instrumental and intrinsic value. It will be increasingly 27 Jocelyne Bourgon, The Citizen at the Heart of Public Sector Reforms, (Keynote address presented at the 5 th Quality Conference for Public Administration in the European Union, Paris, France, October 20-22, 2008). Available at: 18 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

19 important in future public sector reforms since a growing number of issues are beyond the reach of government working alone. These issues will require the participation and contribution of citizens as active agents and value creators in the production of public goods. The key elements of the presentation figured prominently in the concluding report of the conference. By Year s End By the end of 2008, a conceptual framework on the role of government and the dynamic range of choices open to government to achieve public results in the 21 st century had been fleshed out. It had evolved through interactive discussions and presentations to a diverse range of academics, experts and practitioners in different parts of the world. It was supported by a number of literature reviews and was documented in a number of articles slated to go to press in Working with limited resources, the team had taken the project as far as they could. A different approach was now needed. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 19

20 1.2 THE MOBILIZATION PHASE: 2009 From the start, it was clear that a number of disincentives were preventing the modernization of the field of public administration, even though many authors recognized that upgrading was urgently needed. One difficulty was the scope of such a project. As Pollitt correctly observed, such a project would necessarily become the work of a team rather than one individual no one could be simultaneously master or mistress of all these pieces of the jigsaw. 28 A second difficulty was the disconnection, noted earlier, between scholars and practitioners. A third, and probably the most powerful disincentive, was the risk associated with such an undertaking. Whatever may be proposed by way of a modernized theory, argued Pollitt, will be immediately challenged from various positions, adding, quite rightly, that is how it should be. 29 The solution was to create a collaborative international research network of senior practitioners, academics and experts. To move the project forward, it would be necessary to reduce the risk for the participants and the cost to the participating organizations. The solution was to create a collaborative international research network of senior practitioners, academics and experts. However, building this network would require more capacity than existed around the project leader. The Project Leader s Team The confidence of the four early partners was strengthened by the results achieved in In early 2009, the University of Waterloo, CIGI, the Canada School and the PCO reaffirmed their support. In January 2009, the Canada School agreed to support Peter Milley full-time as Director of Research for the New Synthesis Project. The University of Waterloo provided additional funding for students. CIGI funded an electronic platform for co-operation and collaboration among the partners. In May of the same year, Marie Sassine, Assistant Deputy Minister at the Canadian Department of Transport, joined the team through an exchange agreement as Director of Network Relations. The team could now count on three full-time staff, the support of an executive assistant and at least one graduate student at all times. Who would agree to join as member of a collaborative international research network? What would convince them to commit to the project? And would this approach work? A Collaborative International Research Network The initial concept was to invite six countries, representing the Americas, Europe, and the South-East Asia and Pacific region, to participate in the Network. Each participating country would lead an aspect of the research and contribute to the work of others. Each would develop two case studies to deepen the understanding in practice and host an international roundtable on a key theme. The roundtables would integrate the research and case studies through a 28 Pollitt, 2007, Ibid. 20 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

21 process of discussion and co-creation enriched by the participation of leading thinkers and practitioners. The initiative was a good value proposition, the equivalent of which was not available without participating in the project. This approach would increase the likelihood of producing a framework to guide practitioners while reducing the costs for the partners. At a minimum, it would help participating individuals, organizations and countries to better frame the key issues, would provide them with powerful practical examples, and allow them to learn from their international peers. At the end of the process, the thinking of participating countries would be enriched by the work of others and they would be better prepared to lead their own public sector reforms. The initiative was a good value proposition, the equivalent of which was not available without participating in the project. The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, Brazil and Canada were invited to join in the first half of The governments of these countries had all led ambitious public sector reforms since the 1980s and had insights to share regarding these efforts and future trends. Together, they represented a diversity of governance approaches: parliamentary and presidential systems, unitary states and federations, more centralized or highly decentralized governments. They also represented different approaches to economic, social and democratic development. While there was a rationale to selecting these six countries, the selection was also a pragmatic choice that took into account a nexus of existing relationships among senior practitioners in these countries who had been involved in leading public sector reforms. People who lead public sector reforms tend to know people who are involved in similar roles and challenges in other countries. They provide each other assistance. They talk and exchange ideas. These conversations play a key role in shaping public sector reforms around the world. The relationships that ensue endure over many years. The Netherlands At the request of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the project leader was invited to visit the Netherlands in January 2009 to explore areas of common interest with civil servants from various ministries and to participate in an expert discussion on the co-creation of public goods and services. The program included a meeting with the State Secretary for the Ministry and a working session with Roel Bekker, Secretary General of the Central Government Reform Program. The work led by Bekker was well known and of interest to many other countries. The Dutch have a reputation for undertaking important public sector reforms. The Netherlands has a long tradition of citizen and community engagement, which is supported and advanced by a vibrant academic community that contributes to advancing public debate. The work of Dutch scholars in public administration is at the leading edge in a number of areas including less traditional topics, such as the application of complexity and network theories to governance, administration and public policy. The discussions revealed a powerful convergence of interests. The Netherlands was invited to join the Network in January 2009 and was the first to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on its participation. The Ministry of the Interior, acting as lead partner, enrolled the contribution of scholars from the University of Rotterdam and Leiden University. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 21

22 Australia In February 2009, the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) hosted a three-week program designed to expose a broad section of practitioners and experts to the ideas that underpinned the New Synthesis Project. The project leader attended in her capacity as Fellow of the School. In Melbourne, among other activities, the program featured a working session with managers of the State Government of Victoria to explore the relevance of the New Synthesis Project at the sub-national level. In Canberra, Terry Moran, Secretary to the Cabinet, hosted a meeting that brought together senior leaders at the national level to discuss issues and ideas of mutual interest. The program ended with a public lecture hosted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The lecture argued the need for a new synthesis of public administration if governments are to build the capacity to address complex issues in increasingly unpredictable circumstances. 30 The State Services Authority of Victoria (SSAV) was first to indicate its desire to participate in the International Research Network because it complemented SSAV s own research that had been articulated in Towards Agile Government 31 and The Future of the Public Sector in ANZSOG, the Department of the Prime Minister through the Australian Public Service Commission and the SSAV formed a partnership and joined the Network. This structure ensures powerful input from practitioners at the national and state levels, as well as strong academic input through ANZSOG s own network. The United Kingdom The United Kingdom is recognized for its thought leadership in public sector reforms and for the contribution of a robust academic sector and many NGOs to public debate. The project leader is a member of the Board of Governors of the Institute for Government (IfG), a non-partisan organization unique in Western democracies dedicated to supporting the learning needs of senior elected and professional public servants. The IfG is pursuing an ambitious research program and organizes public events on major public policy issues. As its work is influential in shaping the public policy agenda in the United Kingdom and because of the project leader s existing relationship with the IfG, it seemed natural to approach the Institute to join the Network. As well, the 20-year relationship between the Canada School and the UK National School of Public Service and between the project leader and the Cabinet office supported this decision. In March 2009, the New Synthesis Project was presented to key people at the IfG: Lord Sainsbury, Chair of the Board, Sir Michael Bichard, CEO, and David Halpern, Director of Research. It was also presented to Rod Clark, Director of the UK National School of Public Service, and to Gus O Donnell, Secretary to the 30 Jocelyne Bourgon, New Governance and Public Administration: Towards a Dynamic Synthesis, (Public lecture hosted by the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, Australia, February 24, 2009). Available at: Canberra%20_Feb_16_v21%20_PMilley%20Edits_.pdf. 31 State Government of Victoria and Demos, Towards Agile Government (Melbourne, Australia: State Services Authority of Victoria 2008). Available at: 32 State Government of Victoria, The Future of the Public Sector in 2025 (Australia, State Services Authority of Victoria, 2006). Available at: vic.gov.au/ca d/webobj/futureofps2025/$file/futureofps2025.pdf. 22 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

23 Cabinet. The three organizations formed a partnership and joined the Network under the leadership of the IfG. Their participation increased the Network s attention to the needs of elected officials and the future role of the centre of government. Canada The Canada School of Public Service (Canada School) hosts an annual event that brings together representatives of Canadian universities in the field of public administration and senior public service leaders. The 2009 event, which took place in May, seemed like the ideal venue to brief scholars in public administration and public policy from Canadian universities on the New Synthesis Project. The response to the presentation highlighted the need for greater clarity on some aspects of the project. First, greater clarity was needed regarding the role of the project leader, a Canadian, and the separate matter of Canada s participation as one of the six participating countries. Second, greater clarity was needed about the role of Canada in the project. The New Synthesis Project is an international initiative conducted through an international network rather than a Canadian project conducted under the authority of the Government of Canada. This was necessary to ensure the creative and intellectual independence of the network. Canada joined the Network with the Canada School leading a partnership made up of the Privy Council Office, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) and the Canadian Association of Programs in Public Administration (CAPPA) and the Policy Research Initiative (PRI). The Canada Partnership includes an advisory committee chaired by the Canada School and a broader network of associates contributing to the research work. The Canadian partnership provided a particular focus on the development of future public sector leaders and an interest in modernizing the curriculum in public administration. Singapore Singapore was an early adopter of information and communication technologies in public service delivery. It is at the leading edge in thinking on how to improve the capacity of government to anticipate emerging trends and phenomena. There has been an association between the project leader and the Singapore civil service since the mid-1990s. She has served on the board of the Civil Service College (CSC) and has interacted with successive heads of the Singapore Civil Service and senior permanent secretaries in Singapore. In July 2009, the project leader was invited as a Senior Visiting Fellow of the CSC to lecture on future trends in governance and public administration. The lecture was entitled Serving Beyond the Predictable, 33 different versions of which were published in the CSC s public policy journal Ethos 34 and as part of the State 33 Jocelyne Bourgon, Serving Beyond the Predictable, (Lecture given as a fellow of the Singapore Civil Service College, Singapore, June 30, 2009). Available at: 34 Jocelyne Bourgon, Serving Beyond the Predictable, Ethos, 7 (2009): The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 23

24 Services Authority of Victoria (Australia) Occasional Paper series. 35 This lecture added to the New Synthesis narrative in a number of ways and expanded on the dynamic nature of the framework. It stressed the need for solid institutional capacity and strong organizational capacity for the compliance and performance systems of government to work effectively together. It proposed that governments need to improve their anticipative capacity to detect emerging issues. On this topic, the presentation observed that governments need to rely more heavily on collective intelligence to detect emergent trends since the best knowledge and insights do not necessarily rest with governments but is broadly dispersed in society. It proposed that any system of anticipation therefore needs to align with the compliance and performance systems to exploit knowledge and insight while maintaining stability. Finally, the presentation argued that governments need to improve their adaptive capacity and the adaptive capacity of society. Doing so will require a tolerance for redundancy and contingent capacity so that resources can be readily deployed to explore, experiment or ward off negative impacts in areas of greatest potential or vulnerability. The engagement in Singapore included meetings with Deputy Prime Minister, Teo Chee Hean, Head of the Singapore Civil Service, Peter Ho, and the Dean of the Civil Service College, Lionel Yeo. The Chair of the Civil Service College and Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Division, Ms Lim Soo Hoon, hosted a roundtable with permanent secretaries. These meetings confirmed a common interest in exploring future public sector reforms centred around citizen engagement at the community level and building capacity in government to anticipate emerging developments and to course-correct with greater effectiveness and agility. Singapore joined the Network in July 2009, bringing an impressive track record in public service reform to the table. The Singapore Civil Service College is the lead partner, working in close co-operation with the Public Service Division in the Prime Minister s Office. The Network received its name in Singapore during a meeting with the Deputy Secretary, Lim Hup Seng, of the Ministry of Finance, when he proposed the name NS-6, to represent the search for a modern synthesis of public administration that the six participating countries were undertaking together. The name was adopted and is reflected in the domain name of the virtual collaborative network that was subsequently developed. 36 Brazil The Escola Nacional de Administração Pública (National School of Public Administration, known in Portuguese as ENAP) of Brazil has a long tradition of collaboration with Canadian institutions and particularly the Canada School. Canada and Brazil entered into a bilateral co-operation agreement in 2003 and the two organizations have worked closely since then. The project leader and the President of ENAP agreed to meet in Helsinki in July 2009 to discuss the New Synthesis Project and to flesh out the terms of an agree- 35 Jocelyne Bourgon, Serving Beyond the Predictable, (Occasional paper No. 8 of the State Services Authority of the Government of Victoria, Australia, 2009). Available at: vents/ssa%20events/occpaper_08_bourgon.pdf. 36 See 24 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

25 ment. Both were speaking at the IIAS international conference. The project leader had been invited to give the opening keynote address. This was an important milestone. Two years after the Braibant Lecture, Bourgon was coming back to address the members of the IIAS. The 2007 lecture had been a call for action. The 2009 keynote, entitled The History and Future of Nation-Building: Building Capacity for Public Results, 37 was a consolidation of the key ideas around the concept of a new synthesis of public administration resulting from the research and the process of engagement with various groups around the world. A version of the keynote will appear as an article in the IRAS journal in The project leader was scheduled to visit Brazil in October for the XIV International Congress of the Centro Latinoamericano de Administracion para el Desarrollo (CLAD). Her presentation, entitled Public Purpose, Government Authority and Collective Power, 39 brought the discussion to a new level. First, the presentation, attempted to distill the key concepts into more clearly delineated propositions around what is new and different about serving in the 21 st century. It proposed that practitioners today are the first generation to be called upon to address, simultaneously difficult, complicated and a growing number of complex issues. Complex issues are present in every field of activity and in every public policy area to an unprecedented degree. They are a defining characteristic of the 21 st century, resulting from a more global, networked and integrated world. Complex issues transform the role of government, the role of public organizations and the role of public servants. They require a shift from providing services to citizens to creating results of public value with others. The lecture enumerated some of the key propositions that a new synthesis of public administration may entail and described how they would transform existing systems and practices. Brazil joined the Network in October The Brazilian ENAP leads the country team, which includes partner organizations as well as professors and researchers from Brazilian universities, such as the Universidade de São Paulo and the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, and the Escola National de Saùde Publica. The Brazilian partners contribute a Latin American point of view and important insights from a unique history of governance. In just two decades, Brazil has moved from a 20-year-long military dictatorship back to a thriving democracy with a pronounced emphasis on public participation and social inclusion in which the pursuit of economic development is intrinsically associated with the reduction of poverty and inequalities. In the words of Helena Kerr, President of ENAP, the participation in the New Synthesis Network provides an invaluable opportunity to extend the discussion of public sector reforms in the 21 st century in the context of an emerging nation such as Brazil facing simultaneously the challenges of overcoming poverty and exclusion, enabling social participation, promoting innovation and enhancing the framework for the rule of law. 37 Jocelyne Bourgon, The History and Future of Nation Building? Building Capacity for Public Results, (Keynote address given at the Annual Conference of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Helsinki, Finland, July 7, 2009). Available at: nationoratordocjune30webversion271009doc. 38 Jocelyne Bourgon, The History and Future of Nation Building? Building Capacity for Public Results, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2) (In press). 39 Jocelyne Bourgon, Public Purpose, Government Authority and Collective Power, (Keynote address give at the XIV International Congress of Latin American Development, Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, October 27-30, 2009). Available at: The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 25

26 By Year s End Successful networks require a number of supporting conditions. They need a common purpose, trust among members, ongoing communication, and a common platform for co-creation. Networks also need distributed leadership, where different people provide the necessary leadership at different times to advance the work on behalf of the group. The New Synthesis Project had now come of age. It was supported by a dedicated team and a collaborative network of six countries and 24 organizations, now known as the NS-6 Network. While it proved necessary for the project leader to play a prominent role in the early phases of the work to generate interest and enroll partners, the project is now entering a very different phase where most of the leadership will be provided by a network of country co-ordinators working with the Director for Network Management and the Director of Research. The NS6 Country Co-ordinators Country Co-ordinators Title Australia Brazil Canada Netherlands Maria Katsonis Helena Kerr do Amaral Gordon Owen Tobias Kwakkelstein Principal Adviser, Public Administration Department of Premier and Cabinet and ANZSOG President, (ENAP) Director General, Partnerships and Best Practices, Canada School Strategy Consultant, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Singapore Yee Ping Yi Senior Director, Strategic Policy Office, Public Service Division in the Prime Minister s Office and Centre for Governance and Leadership, Civil Service College United Kingdom Sue Richards Senior Fellow, Institute for Government These roundtables will bring together world-renowned experts and leading practitioners in a process of discussion and co-creation... Country co-ordinators enjoy the confidence of their participating organizations. They guide the research, oversee the preparation of case studies and share information through the NS-6 website. They have dedicated much effort to ensure the success of the roundtables scheduled to take place in These roundtables will bring together worldrenowned experts and leading practitioners in a process of discussion and co-creation that will give substantive and practical shape to a new synthesis of public administration. 26 Part 1: The New Synthesis Project

27 Until then, the next section outlines the key elements that have emerged to date through the process of deliberative conversations described in the preceding sections. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 27

28 28

29 PART 2: WHAT WAS LEARNED ALONG THE WAY? 29

30 30

31 PART 2: WHAT WAS LEARNED ALONG THE WAY? The deliberative discussion that took place during around the New Synthesis Project started to reveal the contours of a broader narrative of public administration that may better reflect the role of government in the future. This is not equivalent to a new framework to guide practitioners. A consensus has not yet emerged among the participating countries. Yielding a framework and achieving consensus is the role of the five NS-6 international roundtables scheduled to take place in Nonetheless, enough discussions have already taken place to develop key propositions and ideas that will form the background to discussions at the roundtables. They will also be the basis of an ongoing dialogue with a broader public interested in this work and who may wish to contribute through the NS-6 website. 40 Discussions did reveal a broad consensus that the 20 th century Classical model of public administration is not sufficient to support governments in facing the challenges of the 21 st century and that most of the public sector reforms since the 1980s did not provide practitioners with an alternative model. Public sector reforms to date represent an incomplete journey. There are substantial differences about governing in the 21 st century compared to previous times. Discussions also revealed a broad consensus that public institutions and public organizations are not aligned with the global context or with the complex issues they have for mission to address. There are substantial differences about governing in the 21 st century compared to previous times. These differences have not been addressed in the reforms to date and do not yet form part of the institutional framework within which public organizations operate. Abundant literature exists on the drivers of change in government. Factors such as globalization, 41 the impact of modern information and communication technologies, 42 the changing expectations of citizens 43 and the impact of new forms of e-democracy 44 have been discussed frequently. However, an integrated synthesis of how these factors and others are transforming the role of government and the practice of public administration is still missing. 45 The role of the New Synthesis Project is to explore what is different about serving in the 21 st century; what is new and what is of enduring value; how will this transform the role of government going forward? What new systems, skills and capacities will governments need to live up to citizens expectations and face the challenges of their time? 40 See 41 e.g. Kettl, e.g., Patrick Dunleavy et al., Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2006). 43 e.g., Don Lenihan et al. Progressive Governance for Canadians: What You Need to Know. (Ottawa, ON: Public Policy Forum 2007). 44 e.g., Jeffrey Roy, Beyond Westminster Governance: Bringing Politics and Public Service into the Networked Era, Canadian Public Administration, 4(Dec) (2008): Erik-Hans Klijn, Networks and Inter-Organizational Management: Challenging, Steering, Evaluation, and the Role of Public Actors in Public Management, in The Oxford Handbook on Public Management. eds. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence Lynn, and Christopher Pollitt. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2005); Geoff Mulgan, The Art of Public Strategy Mobilising Power and Knowledge for the Public Good. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008). The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 31

32 2.1 WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT SERVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY? Traditionally, governments have been relied upon to address difficult problems. Setting priorities, making choices and decisions have always been difficult in government because they involve conflicting views and interests. The difficulty may stem from a lack of information, resources, capacity or political will. While such problems require time and leadership to solve, doing so is not impossible. Some difficult problems are best addressed incrementally, others by swift decisions implemented with the power of law. In the end, governments will address difficult problems and make difficult decisions. Deficit reduction decisions or tax reform are examples that involve difficult choices for any government. Governments have always been called upon to address complicated problems. Generally, the complication stems from the size, scale and scope of the problem or from a process of tackling it that is intricate and risky. 46 Most complicated problems can be broken apart so that progress can be achieved by working on the various elements. The solution to a complicated problem frequently requires a careful balancing and sequencing of the key elements to garner the support of various stakeholders. Addressing complicated problems requires staying power and sustained efforts, sometimes over many years. Global trade or treaty negotiations are examples of complicated undertakings. Governments today have the added responsibility of addressing a growing number of complex issues 47 complex because most are characterized by a broad dispersion of power and a high degree of interdependence. 48 They are taking shape in the increasingly uncertain context of our global economy and networked society. They manifest a high degree of unpredictability and some emergent characteristics. They cannot be solved in the traditional way. They cannot easily be broken apart. More knowledge is unlikely to bring about a solution. They exceed government s capacity to work alone. They require a holistic, systemic and participative approach. 49 Global warming, the deforesta- tion of the Amazon or post-apartheid reconciliation in South Africa are examples of complex problems. 50 Furthermore, some of the difficult and complicated problems of the past are becoming complex problems as a result of expanding connectivity and increasing interdependence. 51 For instance, electricity grids in North America are so extended and interconnected that no-one has a complete understanding of the system as a whole. They are prone to cascading failures the extent of which is unpredictable. 52 The same could be said about information systems, banking systems or energy supply systems Westley et al., State Government of Victoria and Demos, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy: New Tools for Finding Unanticipated Consequences and Unrealized Opportunities (Paris: OECD, September 2009). 49 Mark Huddleston, Onto the darkling Plain: globalization and the American public Service in the twenty first century. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4) (2000): ; Judith E. Innes, & David E. Booher, Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4) (2004): Adam Kahane, Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening and Creating New Realities (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2004); Joe Marocco, Climate Change and the Limits of Knowledge In The Virtues of Ignorance: Complexity, Sustainability and the Limits of Knowledge eds. Bill Vitek and Wes Jackson (Lexington, KT: University Press of Kentucky 2008): Lam Chuan Leong, Managing Complexity and Uncertainties, Ethos, 4 (April 2008). 52 Ian Dobson et al., Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization, Chaos, 17 (June 2007). 53 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (September 2009); Ian Bartle and Marc Laperrouza, Systemic Risk in the Network Industries: Is There a Governance Gap? (Paper presented at the 5 th ECPR general conference, Potsdam University, September 10-12, 2009). 32 Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

33 Increasing complexity and uncertainty are characteristics of the 21 st century. Increasing complexity and uncertainty are characteristics of the 21 st century. An increasing number of public policy issues are beyond the reach of government working alone. An increasing number of public results can only be achieved by working across sectors and by engaging multiple actors as value creators in the expanding space of modern governance. 54 Those working in government today are the first generation of public servants responsible for addressing difficult, complicated and a growing number of complex public policy issues simultaneously. They are serving without the benefit of a modern framework to support their decision making and actions. A different perspective and a different approach to public sector reforms is needed one that extends beyond improving the efficiency of the parts to improving the coherence of the whole. How can government anticipate the most significant issues of the future? How can government initiate proactive actions to mitigate risks and improve the likelihood of more favourable outcomes for society? How can government best set an ambitious agenda and leverage the power of others to achieve results that advance the collective interest? How can government best create and acquire new comparative advantages for society to prosper and adapt even in the context of unforeseen and adverse circumstances? Serving in the 21 st century involves a readjustment of the roles of government, public organizations and public servants. 54 Mulgan, The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 33

34 2.2 SERVING IN AN EXPANDED PUBLIC SPACE Governing in the 21 st century entails serving in an expanded public space. 55 Governments using the authority of the state to act on their own to impose public policy solutions will prove insufficient. 56 New approaches will be needed. This requires working from a broader definition of public results; an expanded view of the role of government and a dynamic appreciation of the field of public administration. Achieving Public Results A broader definition of public results would contribute to the modernization of public administration as a domain of practice and lead to different public sector reforms. Public results are a combination of public policy results and civic results (see Figure 1). 57 Unlike organizations in the private sector or civil society, public organizations have a responsibility to achieve public policy results and to do so in a manner that contributes to building the collective capacity to achieve better public results over time. Public policy results build credibility, while civic results ensure legitimacy. Taken together, they provide a foundation of trust 58. The role of public sector organizations is to achieve policy results and civic results of increasing public value. Figure 1: Public Results Public Policy Results Societal System-wide Agency AND Citizenry Community Civic Spirit Civic Results Public organizations have a responsibility that extends beyond the efficiency of their activities. Their effectiveness depends on their contribution to building the 55 John S. Dryzek, Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. (New York: Oxford University Press 1996); Janet Newman, Participative Governance and the Remaking of the Public Sphere. In Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere ed. Janet Newman (Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, University of Bristol 2005): Lester M. Salamon, The Tools Approach and the New Governance: Conclusion and Implications. In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance ed. Lester M. Salamon, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2002): Steven Rathgeb Smith, and Helen M. Ingram, Policy Tools and Democracy. In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance ed. Lester M. Salamon, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2002): Simon Parker et al., State of Trust: How to Build Better Relationships Between Councils and the Public. (London: Demos 2008). 34 Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

35 collective capacity to achieve public results. This has a number of ramifications: Public organizations must position and monitor their contribution in the broader context of system-wide and societal results. Societal results cannot be reduced to a single dimension. They include factors such as standard of living, quality of life, intergenerational fairness, wellness and life satisfaction. 59 Public administrators must explore how to move the contribution of their organization along the value-added chains of public policy and civic results. They must balance improved public policy results and better civic results, in particular when better civic results would build society s capacity to achieve better public results over time. Public organizations have a special responsibility to improve civic results in particular by removing the barriers, by building the ramps and creating the modern platforms to facilitate access and encourage citizens to play an enhanced role in the design and delivery of public services and in the co-creation of public results. 60 Civic results play a key role since they provide the basis from which a society can aspire to achieve more ambitious public policy results. Civic results play a key role since they provide the basis from which a society can aspire to achieve more ambitious public policy results. 61 Civic results include, but are not limited to, an active citizenry, empowered communities and civic values that influence behaviour in society and encourage collective action. They build social capital that contributes to the overall performance of society. 62 A peaceful society with public institutions that work and a society made up of people able and willing to collaborate and to overcome their differences are better positioned to take risks, innovate and adapt to unforeseen circumstances. 63 This is why similar reforms lead to very different results in different countries. This is why some countries will prosper in the face of adversity while others will flounder. 64 Some current practices and a number of government systems are acting as barriers to achieving better public results. A commitment to achieving better public results would require transforming some existing systems and developing new ones. Some of these measures have been previously discussed in speeches and publications that are available on the NS-6 website and include: 65 The need to disentangle control systems for reducing the risk of mismanagement from performance information systems intended to improve the likelihood of achieving better results; The need for a system of shared accountability for government-wide results that encourages interagency co-operation; and 59 Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. (Paris: 2009). 60 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services (Paris: OECD, November 2008). 61 Michael Cuthill and John Fien, Capacity Building: Facilitating Citizen Participation in Local Governance. Research and Evaluation, 64(4) (2005): 63-80; Jonathan Dent, Civic Capacity and Community Response to Government Action: The Endangered Species Act and State Water Law in the Methow and Walla Walla Basins in the Pacific Northwest. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3) (2008): John F. Helliwell, Well-Being, Social Capital and Public Policy: What s New? NBER Working Paper Series, Vol. w11807 (December 2005); Policy Research Initiative. Social Capital in Action (Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, September 2005). 63 e.g., Marten Scheffer et al., Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Ecosystems-Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy, and Sociology in Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, eds. Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling. (Washington: Island Press 2002): e.g., David Halpern, The Hidden Wealth of Nations (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2010); John Helliwell and Robert Putnam, Economic Growth and Social Capital in Italy, Eastern Economic Journal 21(3) (Summer 1995): See: The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 35

36 A greater integration of policy and implementation decisions into a learning cycle that encourages innovation and supports ongoing improvement. Government and Governance An increasing number of public results are beyond the reach of government working alone. Governing in the 21 st century extends beyond what government can do alone and incorporates what government can do with others to serve the public good and the collective interest. It involves a search for balance between government authority and collective power (see Figure 2). 66 The role of government entails a search for balance between the authority of the state and the collective power to advance results of greater value to society. Figure 2: Governing as a Search for Balance Public Policy Results Government (Authority) Protect/Steward Tax/Spend Legislate Societal System-wide Agency AND Citizenry Community Civic Spirit Partner Enable Empower Co-create Governance (Collective Power) Civic Results There will always be cases where government is best positioned to act alone when it can frame the issue and achieve the desired outcome on its own. Some regulatory functions are examples (although they are frequently an intermediate step towards broader results). Government can also act as partner. This requires shared responsibility, shared accountability for results and conflict resolution mechanisms. 67 Government can, as well, enable and empower other actors in society. This requires a careful mix of incentives and an efficient regulatory framework. 68 The more dispersed the decision making and the more distributed the exercise of power, the more important the stewardship role of government becomes. Government will always be the insurer of last resort when the collective interest is at stake. This stewardship role involves monitoring, anticipating and course-correcting when the collective interest demands it. Government will always be the insurer of last resort when the collective interest is at stake. 66 Mark H. Moore, Introduction, Harvard Law Review, 5(116) (2003): Paul L. Posner, Accountability Challenges of Third-Party Government, in The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. Lester M. Salamon (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2002): Salamon, 2002, Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

37 Modern governance is a search for balance between government authority and collective power, between the public, private and civil spheres, to achieve results of high public value. Every choice comes with consequences that must be understood and weighed in making decisions. Too much government authority creates rigidity and a brittle society; not enough dissipates collective power and increases the risks borne by society. The challenge for government is to optimize the use of its authority to leverage the collective capacity. This gives rise to a number of ramifications for public organizations and public administrators: Public organizations must consider how the choice of policy instrument affects the ability to achieve public policy results and civic results. Indirect service delivery through transfer payments, tax credits or the use of third parties accounts for the bulk of government spending today. 69 Public organizations must understand the impact of both direct and indirect services. An increasing number of government programs and services are intermediate steps to achieving system-wide and societal results. To improve public decisions, public organizations must acquire an understanding of the long chain of results that involve multiple organizations in government and multiple actors in society. There is a need to reposition the role of the centre of government to provide leadership and ensure coherence in the interagency and intergovernmental space of modern governance where multiple actors and several levels of governments are involved. There is also a need to reposition the role of line departments as the hubs of vast networks of organizations, some in government and some outside, contributing to common public policy results. The vertical structure used for reporting on the exercise of delegated authority and the use of public funds must coexist with multiple networks to achieve results beyond the reach of any one organization working alone. 70 Modern governance requires modern communication infrastructures to share information, co-manage and co-create. It is a necessary condition to innovation and improved public results. 71 Faced with similar challenges, two countries may choose a different mix of policy instruments and a different balance between government authority and reliance on the strength of others and for good reasons. First, the choices depend on the mission, the circumstances, the culture and the capacity of government and society in each country. Second, governments must be able to align the appropriate mix of incentives, support and oversight mechanisms behind the choices they make. The choice of policy instruments and decisions on the balance between government and governance are highly contextual and circumstantially specific. These choices, however, should be enlightened by an appreciation of the range of options available and the consequences that different options entail Kettl, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan, Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance, Public Management, 2(2) (2000): Charles Leadbeater, We-think: Mass innovation, not mass production: The Power of Mass Creativity (London, UK: Profile Books 2008) 72 Lester M. Salamon, The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction, in The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. Lester M. Salamon (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2002): The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 37

38 Placing a greater reliance on the collective power to achieve public results would transform current practices. For instance, it would require repositioning the rewards and incentives systems including performance pay systems (where they exist) to support government-wide priorities and encourage collective achievements. The use of government-wide information-sharing systems would reduce the cost of data collection and encourage innovation. 73 Departmental legislation should enable and facilitate interdepartmental and external co-operation instead of creating insurmountable obstacles. Expanding Possibilities Public administration takes place in an expansive space of possibilities. This space includes conventional rules, roles and relationships and new ones that encourage governments to use their authority to leverage the power of others to pursue public results that can only be achieved collectively (see Figure 3). In this expanded space of possibility, public administrators, citizens and other actors form part of an open, dynamic system of governance where choices are made about how the authority of the state can be best used to lever the power of others to achieve results of high public value. Figure 3: Governing in an Expanded Public Space 3 Public Policy Results 3 Government (Authority) 1 Protect/Steward Tax/Spend Legislate Societal System-wide Agency AND Transparency/Account. Citizenry Community Civic Spirit Partner Enable Empower 1 2 Co-create 2 Governance (Collective Power) 3 3 Civic Results Figure 3 schematizes the dynamic system. Government initiates actions through public programs and public agencies (line 1). As they learn to harness the power of others (line 2), they are facing an expanded range of possibilities thus creating the prospect of achieving results of increasing public value (line 3). Seeing public administration in this way does not tell governments what to do, but it may help them understand their range of options and help clarify the consequences of different choices. It removes the comfort of believing that only one best way of doing things exists. 73 David E. McNabb, Knowledge Management in the Public Sector: A Blueprint for Innovation in Government (Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe 2007). 38 Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

39 At the juncture of these lines of force between public authority, collective power and the active engagement of citizen lies the greatest potential for innovation. At the juncture of these lines of force between public authority, collective power and the active engagement of citizen lies the greatest potential for innovation. This is where issues, factors, resources and actors may combine in new and different ways to propel society forward. This is where breakthroughs and discoveries could take shape. 2.3 SERVING BEYOND THE PREDICTABLE Governing in the 21 st century entails dealing with complex issues in the unpredictable context of our global economy, networked society and fragile biosphere. Governments are called upon to serve beyond the predictable. Government must be able to protect and promote the collective interest in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. In the recent past, governments have been confronted by a wide range of risks and crises ranging from pandemics to financial crises to natural disasters. At the same time, remarkable breakthroughs like the mapping of the genome and the rise of Web 2.0 or social networking have taken place. Since the 1980s, the world has become vastly more connected, networked and flat. 74 Local problems can quickly become global problems, and global problems can have a wide range of local impacts. A growing number of people, groups and organizations make important decisions from a growing number of places. Fragmentation is increasing. 75 With fragmentation and interdependence comes uncertainty. Each decision and each action has a limited effect, but the power of multiple decisions moving in the same direction can change the course of events at the speed of light. 76 Emergent phenomena arise out of a vast array of interactions and seemingly out of nowhere. 77 The main difficulty for governments in facing complex issues is that public organizations were not devised or designed to deal with complexity and uncertainty. Their strength is in providing stability and greater predictability in society and the economy. What is strength in most situations becomes a liability in others. Public organizations may be resistant to change and existing regulatory structures can have costly unintended consequences. Relying on traditional approaches means that, when confronted with complexity, governments are left in a reactive position, unable to anticipate or to detect emerging patterns in a changing landscape and therefore unable to intervene ahead of time. Governments will need to improve their capacity to address complex issues. They need the ability to explore, in order to anticipate and proactively intervene with corrective actions that can reduce risks or improve outcomes. They also need to experiment and learn in order to help their societies build resilience and adapt to new circumstances. 74 Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat and Crowded (London: Penguin 2008); Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21 st Century (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2005). 75 Joop Koppenjan and Erik Hans Klijn, Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem-Solving and Decision-Making (London, UK: Routledge 2004). 76 Gareth Morgan, Images of Organization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2006). 77 John H. Holland, Emergence: From Chaos to Order (Reading, MA: Helix Books 1998); Jeffrey Goldstein, Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues, Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1 (1999): The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 39

40 This is an affirmative state, one that is able to protect and promote the collective interest in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. Countries with the best ability to anticipate and to take corrective actions will have a significant comparative advantage in the future. They will be best able to innovate, adapt and prosper in unforeseen circumstances. They will be better able to shift the course of events in their favour. This is an affirmative state, one that is able to protect and promote the collective interest in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. Exploration Most governments need to improve their anticipative capacity a function of the willingness to enter into explorative conversations across government and beyond. The greater the openness, the higher the density of connections between government and other actors, the better the chance of detecting emerging trends and emergent phenomena. Some governments have a tradition of intelligence-gathering, horizon-scanning, and scenario-planning. 78 For example, Singapore uses a cross-government approach that marries scenario-planning with horizon-scanning and the United Kingdom has a foresight program. Much can be learned from these initiatives. While data and technology may help anticipate emerging trends, the most important knowledge lies not in the data itself but in the conversations about it in the interpretation and insight shaped by the line of questioning of various actors. It is about discerning probable patterns where none were seen before and extracting meaning from diffuse information and imperfect knowledge. This work requires the diversity of perspectives coming from the interactions among multiple actors. Their insights may draw from traditional knowledge, expert opinion and institutional memory and reveal patterns that provide a source of new knowledge. This has important implications for governments: Governments must embrace complexity, accept uncertainty as part of the reality of governing in the 21 st century and recognize that they have a key role to play in preparing society for potential risks and improving the likelihood of favourable outcomes. Governments must be able to distinguish between difficult, complicated and complex problems. They are different and require different treatment. While difficult and complicated problems might be addressed in a more or less conventional manner, it is not the case for complex issues or wicked problems. To address complex issues, governments must adopt a government-wide approach to capture information from a wide range of sources and to facilitate access for a variety of actors inside and outside government. The best insight about emergent phenomena may not necessarily rest with government, it may be found in self-organized social networks and in the multiple relationships of citizens in their local or globally dispersed communities of interests. 79 To address complex problems, governments must improve their ability to tap the collective intelligence of society. Citizens and other actors have invaluable 78 Beat Habegger, Horizon Scanning in Government (Zurich: Centre for Security Studies 2009). 79 Douglas Schuler, Civic intelligence and the public sphere in Collective intelligence: creating a prosperous world at peace, ed. Mark Tovey (Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network, 2008). 40 Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

41 information and can provide foresight and devise innovative solutions. 80 Governments have a special responsibility to ensure that citizens benefit from access to the communication infrastructure of the 21 st century; internet and broadband access are a necessity. They empower people to participate in the areas of their choice and to access the knowledge of the world. They are a necessary condition for the co-creation of public results. (Poverty in the 21 st century is not limited to a lack of food, water and other basic commodities; it is also about being deprived of access to the knowledge of the world.) 81 Web 2.0 and other technologies are giving government the means to tap the collective intelligence of our global networked community. However, progress in this regard is not a foregone conclusion. Engaging public servants in exploratory conversations needs to be reconciled with the principle of anonymity, which has governed the behaviour of public servants in a number of countries in the past. These tools will be of limited use in achieving public results unless government officials engage in conversations with others to share knowledge and expertise, to contribute to framing the issues and to acquire a better understanding of a diversity of perspectives. The expert advice of a professional public service to policy decision makers cannot be limited to the knowledge that resides in government. It requires a blend of collective and institutional knowledge. Engaging public servants in exploratory conversations needs to be reconciled with the principle of anonymity, which has governed the behaviour of public servants in a number of countries in the past. This principle was intended to keep secret the professional advice of officials to ensure that public debate would focus on policy decisions. At issue is how best to preserve this principle while ensuring that policy makers have access to the best available intelligence and information to improve the likelihood of making smart interventions in a timely way. Resolving this issue lies at the heart of the future role of a professional public service. 80 Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence, Collective Intelligence, and Conscious Evolution in Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace ed. Mark Tovey (Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network 2008): 5-14; Thomas W. Malone, What Is Collective Intelligence and What Will We Do About It? in Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace ed. Mark Tovey (Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network 2008): In May 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon stated that millions of people are cut off from the quality of life benefits enabled by the internet, and concluded that narrowing the digital divide is crucial to global anti-poverty goals. See The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 41

42 Proactive Intervention Improving the capacity of governments to anticipate emerging issues or opportunities is the first step; but it is only useful if it can lead to proactive interventions that successfully deflect or reduce risks and improve the likelihood of desirable outcomes. Proactive interventions require system thinking to discover and understand the many linkages within and between systems. They also require a mid- to longterm focus to introduce preventive or mitigating measures or to acquire new comparative advantages. Government frequently lacks both. In the global and interconnected world of the 21 st century, government and public organizations have a special responsibility to explore the impact of policy choices across systems, on society as a whole and over time. System-thinking The scale and connectivity of the complex systems on which society depend are increasing. For example, the supply chains supporting most of the world s food, energy, transportation and communication sectors are increasingly interconnected. Many cities are becoming more densely populated, requiring an ever-increasing dependency on global systems to provide the resources to operate and prosper. 82 The economy, demographics, environment, energy and food supply are increasingly interconnected global systems essential to people s well-being. 83 As connectivity increases, new opportunities are created but the probability of major failures also increases. The literature speaks of robust yet fragile networks. 84 Policy failures occur when policy decisions are made from a silo perspective and fail to appreciate the linkages between social, physical and economic systems. The growing integration and connectivity of complex systems means that system-thinking is critically important for smart interventions. Policy failures occur when policy decisions are made from a silo perspective and fail to appreciate the linkages between social, physical and economic systems. A well known example is a policy aimed at encouraging the production of ethanol as a substitute for petroleum without considering (or understanding) the ramifications for land use, water supply and food prices. A Long-term View With complex issues, risks can emerge over a long period, spanning years decades or more. One of the most difficult challenges for public officials is to set priorities that balance short-term political imperatives and mid- to long-term needs and opportunities. The short-term focus of business and other actors in society may discourage the prevention of some long-term risks, exacerbate others and prevent the possibility of capturing some emerging opportunities. Social and cultural factors may also play a significant role, facilitating or inhibiting early interventions. Individuals and communities vary in their risk culture and their degree of risk aversion. Maintaining a long-term focus is particularly difficult when long-term risks can only be prevented or long term benefits can only be realized by imposing short-term costs on society. 82 International Risk Governance Council, Emerging Risks: Concept Note (Geneva, Switzerland, 2009): Thomas Homer-Dixon, The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (Toronto: Knopf 2006). 84 Duncan J. Watts, A simple model of global cascades on random networks, PNAS, 99(9) (2002): Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

43 Some countries have introduced measures to set long-term priorities. For instance, the Finnish parliament s multiparty Committee for the Future looks at least 10 years ahead. The work of the US National Academics through their National Research Council is also worth noting. Much could be learned from these experiences. In the end, it is the responsibility of government to set priorities. Good governments will strike a balance of short-term actions and decisions that will help their society adapt and prosper in the mid- to long-term more frequently than others. Public discussion in a climate of openness may help forge a broad-based consensus, increase public awareness and public tolerance for some short-term pain in exchange for some mid- to long-term gain. Developing new capacities or acquiring new comparative advantages for society to adapt and prosper in changing circumstances may require years of sustained effort. Results may only become visible over time but will make a significant difference in the long run. Working to Scale Finally, the agility of working at various scales and across scales will improve the likelihood of success of preventive interventions. Complex issues can manifest themselves at various scales and cut across scales. They may be confined to a local level for a long time before taking on a more dangerous form with globalizing potential. Some issues evolve slowly before reaching a tipping point. A local issue under the responsibility of local authorities one day could become a global problem tomorrow requiring the intervention of national governments and international organizations the next. For instance, pandemics first manifest themselves at a local level before acquiring globalizing potential; local conflict can degenerate into regional conflict requiring the intervention of the international community. Governments generally work at a single scale (municipal, sub-national or national) in line with their constitutional jurisdiction and the mandate of the electorate. Governments need to develop new forms of co-operation among themselves to ensure co-ordinated actions and to intervene at the level most conducive to achieving the desired outcome. Experimentation and pilot testing on a small scale can accelerate learning and help shape a better policy response. Adaptation Notwithstanding the efforts of governments and citizens to explore, innovate, prevent, pre-empt or course-correct, unforeseen events will arise and unpredictable shocks will occur. The role of governments in the 21 st century extends to building the resilience of their societies to adapt, absorb shocks, embrace change and prosper in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. Ideas about how government can foster resilience have been developing since the 1990s, particularly with respect to crisis management, security and The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 43

44 emergency preparedness. 85 The fields of ecology and environmental studies, which have a longer track record of research on resilience, are good sources of inspiration. 86 Some shocks can be foreseen, even if only as probabilities. Building resilience entails planning for, preventing and pre-empting these shocks, and identifying and mitigating key vulnerabilities associated with them. 87 Some shocks cannot be foreseen, prevented or mitigated. Moreover, change is inevitable and can be healthy, although the benefits and costs may be unevenly distributed. 88 Delaying change may increase the risk of large scale crises later. 89 The role of government extends to promoting the resilience of society, which means building the collective capacity to learn and adapt, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the risks. Resilience cannot be achieved by individuals, organizations or governments working alone. Resilience cannot be achieved by individuals, organizations or governments working alone. 90 Resilient societies have at least two significant characteristics: An active citizenry, comprised of a critical mass of people with the motivation, skills and confidence to take action to meet the needs of their communities, and Solid networks of community groups with the capability to bring a wide range of people together to identify the community s needs and mobilize resources in support of common solutions. 91 These capabilities develop through experience and practice. A participatory approach to public policy decisions and policy implementation helps build the collective adaptive capacity. Public participation, citizen engagement and shared governance approaches provide powerful reinforcements to resilience, particularly if these approaches encourage actions and decision making at the community level. 92 Dealing with issues at the local level also keeps problems from escalating up and across the social system to become crises of great magnitude. 93 Resilience and adaptive capacity develop from learned experience and practice. 94 They grow out of the bonds and relationships built over time among people, organizations, communities and governments that have learned they can work together and count on each other. Resilience is based on the stock of trust, mutual understanding, knowledge and know-how that allows people to 85 e.g., Brad Allenby and Jonathon Fink, Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies, Science, 309 (2005): ; Brooke Hanson and Leslie Roberts, Resiliency in the Face of Disaster, Science, 309 (2005): 1029; Ann S. Masten and Jelena Obradovic, Disaster Preparation and Recovery: Lessons from Research on Resilience in Human Development, Ecology and Society, 13(1) (2008): 9-36; K.U. Menon, National Resilience: From Bouncing Back to Prevention, Ethos, 11(1) (2005): e.g., Gunderson and Holling, 2002; C.S Holling, Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, (1973): W. Neil Adger, Vulnerability Global Environmental Change, 16 (2006): ; Fikret Berkes, Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking Natural Hazards, 41 (2007): Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke, Back to the Future: Ecosystem Dynamics and Local Knowledge in Gunderson and Holling, 2002, ; Norris et al., 2008; Marten Scheffer et al., Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Ecosystems Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy and Sociology, in Gunderson and Holling, 2002, C.S. Holling and Gary K. Meffe, Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management, Conservation Biology, 10 (1996): Sonia McManus et al., Resilience Management: A Framework for assessing and improving the resilience of organizations. (Resilient organizations research programme, Christchurch, New Zealand, University of Canterbury 2007). 91 Dale and Onyx, Louis Lebel et al., Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems, Ecology and Society, 11(1) (2006): Berkes and Folke, Ibid. 44 Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

45 act, learn, adapt and evolve collectively. 95 Governments can do much to build the adaptive capacity of citizens and communities. Experimentation and pilot testing on a small scale can accelerate learning, encourage innovation and help shape a better policy response. Simulating events can enhance collective learning. Accelerating the transfer of knowledge and know-how between actors can support adaptation. In theory, public administrators can also do much to improve the adaptive capacity of their organizations by maintaining a strategic level of redundancy and dedicating resources for exploration, experimentation and innovation. They can create safe spaces or incubators that provide a hospitable environment for experimentation and innovation. In practice, these resources are often the first target of cuts when the need for expenditure reduction appears and this occurs even in countries where the rhetoric about the need for innovation and a renewal in the public service is the most powerful. No private organization that depends on knowledge and ideas would last long without a strong research and development function. No organization has potentially more impact on the future performance of a country or on the wellbeing of citizens than the public organizations. There is a need for investment in organizations mandated to serve the public good and the collective interest. Ultimately, it requires an appreciation that less government is not tantamount to better government one able to serve the collective interest in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. 2.4 SERVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY Public administration and most public institutions were born in the latter part of the 19 th century and early 20 th century; a period characterized by the industrial revolution, the rise of professional and expert bureaucracies and the influence of scientific management. This encouraged codification, standardization, mass production and mass consumption. It contributed to much progress and significant achievements. This approach to problem-solving encouraged specialization. It led to multiple separations between market and state, governments and the governed, politics and administration. It included a separation between policy advice, policy decision and policy implementation, and a strict delineation of the role of public agencies associated with a rigorous regime of accountability for the exercise of the authority and the use of public funds. This approach is particularly relevant to the efficient performance of predictable tasks in a relatively stable environment. The post-war public service model was based on a professional public service delivering to citizens. Better health care meant more hospitals, better education more teachers, safer streets more police. The world over, governments are struggling to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of modern society and the imperatives of serving in the 21 st century. The struggle is nothing less than a new exploration of how to reconnect public institutions, the political process and a broadening public domain. Govern- 95 Pat H. Longstaff and Sung-Un Yang, Communication Management and Trust: Their Role in Building Resilience to Surprises Such as Natural Disasters, Pandemic Flu, and Terrorism, Ecology and Society, 13(1) (2008); Brenda L. Murphy, Locating Social Capital in Resilient Community-level Emergency Management Natural Hazards, 41 (2007): ; Lenore L. Newman and Ann Dale, Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tompkins and Adger, Ecology and Society, 10(1) (2005). The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 45

46 ments are confronted at once with the difficulty shifting from the industrial age to the information age; from a mechanistic model of organization to an organic model with an emphasis on connectivity; from a model of production based on service to citizens towards value creation with citizens. Public health, an educated population and public safety depend as much (and maybe more) on the active role of multiple actors and the active contribution of citizens at home and in their communities as on government actions. Furthermore, these results are interconnected. Public administration is taking shape in an expanded public space and in an expanding space of possibilities. Public administration is taking shape in an expanded public space and in an expanding space of possibilities. Public officials, citizens and other actors form part of a dynamic system of governance where choices are made that contribute to or prevent the achievement of public results and where the actions of each actor condition the behaviour of others. An Evolutionary Cycle of Public Administration Public administration is taking shape in an ecosystem of inter-related complex systems that co-exist and where social, economic, cultural, technical and global dimensions influence each other. 96 Public institutions evolve with society and contribute to the evolution of society. Looking at public administration this way offers a different way of thinking about the role of government and a different way of seeing the world. It may help governments explore new ways of achieving public results, new types of relationships and new organizational models. It may help them discover the various facets of an emerging narrative of public administration better aligned to the reality of serving in the 21 st century and better able to embody the insights and wisdom that experience provides. Public administration incorporates history, traditions and conventions. It includes respect for the rule of law, due process, accountability for the exercise of power and the use of public funds, and an expectation that holders of public office will exhibit integrity, probity and impartiality. Together, these factors and others contribute to building the institutional capacity of the state. Public institutions support a state apparatus able to make and enforce laws, and tax and spend without leakage or corruption. They ensure a proper degree of separation between the executive, legislative and judiciary; they act in a manner deserving of a public trust. This provides a solid foundation for a well performing society. Institutions provide society with a normative constitution and an embodiment of the social systems that have evolved slowly over time. Institutions conserve the aspects that society considers worthy of conserving. They contribute to stability and reduce uncertainty. Building strong public institutions takes years; maintaining and protecting them is a never-ending process. They evolve slowly, and so they should. 96 Mitleton-Kelly, 2003, Part 2: What Was Learned Along the Way?

47 Public institutions depend on public organizations to achieve results. Public organizations must be able to fulfill their mission, support the changing priorities of the government and explore new and better ways of achieving public results. They must be able to change rapidly and at least keep pace with changes in society. When organizations are locked into a fixed model in spite of changes around them, they fall victim of a rigidity trap, where they use all their energy to preserve the status quo at an ever-increasing cost to society, or a poverty trap where no resources are reinvested to adapt and renew. Their relevance diminishes. The challenge is to discover how public institutions and organizations that contribute to stability can also be used to reduce the risks associated with the exploration of uncharted territory. The challenge is to discover how public institutions and organizations that contribute to stability can also be used to reduce the risks associated with the exploration of uncharted territory. How public organizations can be used as a basis to exploit innovative ideas by becoming platforms for collaboration and the mobilization of other actors as value creators. 97 How to combine in new ways, open and closed systems, public and private spaces, collaboration and commerce. 98 A model public organization in the future may be closed in some ways to conserve public values and open in others to integrate and exploit the power of new ideas in serving citizens as users and enabling them as co-creators. Figure 4: Public Administration as an Adaptive System Public Policy Results Performance Emergence Government (Authority) AND Governance (Collective Power) Compliance Resilience Civic Results After the prescription of the 20 th century to managers to plan, organize, direct and control, the virtuous cycle of modern governance in the 21 st century may be to explore, conserve, exploit and adapt. (See Figure 4) 97 Leadbeater, 2008, Leadbeater, 2008, 128. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 47

48 48

49 PART 3: IN SEARCH OF A NEW FRAMEWORK 49

50 50

51 PART 3: IN SEARCH OF A NEW FRAMEWORK Throughout 2010, the focus will be on deepening, enriching and continuing to debate the ideas, concepts and arguments related to the New Synthesis Project. This will be pursued through three main strategies: a program of research, including case studies; a series of international roundtables; and ongoing dialogue and deliberation. The work summarized in this document will help participants joining the discussion through any one of these avenues. The country co-ordinators will be the key drivers of the work in They will provide leadership on research tasks, develop case studies, organize the international roundtables and encourage dialogue and deliberation in and around the NS-6 Network. The Project team for its part will shift its attention to providing support and feedback to the Network. It will also attempt to synthesize and reflect back to the participants the key findings as they emerge. 3.1 RESEARCH PROGRAM Based on the program of research outlined in the spring of 2009, member countries laid out plans based on their key interests and capabilities and began their work. These efforts will bear fruit throughout 2010, nourishing the discussion and debate at the international roundtables and contributing to the overall output. The research plans of each country are sketched out below. Australia The partnership in Australia is pursuing research tasks in three key areas. These will include exploring the ramifications of the choice of policy instruments on the role of government and the delivery of public results; reviewing citizen engagement efforts and the outcomes that can stem from them; and exploring the concepts and ideas that can guide practitioners who are working under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Australia will contribute two in-depth case studies. One will examine the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, a new agency formed after bushfires devastated many communities and took the lives of 173 people in Through the lens of emergence and resilience, this case study will focus on how government can work with citizens and communities to recover from a devastating natural disaster. The second case study will look at the Australian Government s intergovernmental financial agreements. Through the lens of performance and emergence, it will explore the implications of institutional The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 51

52 design, governance, performance measurement and workforce capabilities in the performance of governments in predictable and unpredictable circumstances. Brazil Given Brazil s unique governance history and its current ambitions and challenges, the Brazilian partnership will focus on exploring how governments have implemented performance management and reporting practices at multiple levels agency, system, society and how this encourages practitioners to position the contributions of their organizations; identifying successful practices in the management of defined networks across and outside government in delivering public services; and looking for practices where citizen engagement, participatory governance and social capital have contributed to resilience. The Brazilian partnership will contribute two case studies. One will focus on the construction of the Unified Health System; the other will look at the implementation of the Bolsa Familia. Examining these projects through the lens of compliance, performance, emergence and resilience, the case studies will contribute an understanding of how collective intelligence and social innovation can contribute to addressing complex public issues. In the case of the Unified Health System, the route of collective innovation took place from civil society to government; with the Bolsa Familia, from government to civil society. Canada The Canadian partnership selected research tasks that relate closely to the international roundtable it will host on achieving societal and civic results. It will explore how governments have implemented performance reporting practices at the system-wide and societal levels and how practitioners position the work of their organizations in these reporting systems. It will also investigate how governments have implemented shared accountability and risk-sharing arrangements when multiple sectors are involved in producing public results. Canada will provide two in-depth case studies. One will focus on the federal government s Homelessness Partnering Strategy, a community-based program that incorporates local approaches, and inter-governmental partnerships to provide housing, which is a precondition for socio-economic outcomes and full participation in society for citizens with a complex mix of social and economic disadvantages. The other case study will focus on Immigration and Settlement, in particular, foreign credentials recognition and the impact of this issue on labour market integration. Both cases will focus on system-wide and societal public policy results in light of multi-level, collaborative governance arrangements. The Netherlands The Netherlands charted a program that focuses predominantly on the issues of emergence and resilience in governance and public administration. This will include exploring key concepts and ideas on supporting practitioners in confronting complex public issues, and on how public organizations can become more agile and improvisational. It will also investigate the skills, competencies and systems that will improve the capacity of practitioners and public organizations to anticipate emerging public issues. To these ends, Erasmus University is producing a review paper on emergence and public administration. The paper deals 52 Part 3: In Search of a New Framework

53 with theoretical concepts such as anticipative capacity, bricolage, emergent strategy and logical incrementalism. It also discusses the relationships between emergence in a public sector context and compliance, performance and resilience. The Netherlands will conduct a number of case studies. One will focus on Public Safety Houses, which are service delivery spaces where safety- and welfareoriented public and non-public institutions share information and knowledge towards the common goal of public safety. It will explore whether the Public Safety Houses represent a useful example of new ways of anticipating and dealing with emerging public safety issues and whether they can meet performance and compliance expectations. Another case study will focus on Program Ministries, in which formal collaborations between various ministries are organized around cross-cutting themes. It will explore whether the Ministries represent useful ways of creating more anticipative and responsive government and whether they improve performance. These cases will contribute an understanding of how collective intelligence and social innovation can be leveraged to address complex public issues. Another case study on Rotterdam Urban Renewal and two mini-cases on citizen engagement will illustrate how the Dutch government uses its authority and resources to empower individuals and communities to be more resilient in the face of complex issues. Singapore Singapore is concentrating the majority of its efforts on research related to emergence and resilience, which have been of keen interest to them for some time. Singapore will contribute papers on collective intelligence and public sector innovation; how governments work through networks; the role of social capital and community networks; and the competencies and systems needed to build government capacity in managing for complexity. Singapore is contributing two case studies. One will focus on Singapore s response to SARS. This was not just a health care emergency but it also affected tourism and the economy. Through the lenses of emergence and resilience, the case will explore how the whole-of-government operated with imperfect information and in an unpredictable and complex environment and the nature of the collective efforts of the international community, societal networks and individual citizens. A second case will centre on the Singapore Prison Service s collaboration with the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) Network, comprising major community and government agencies responsible for the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders. Through the lenses of performance and resilience, the case will look at how a high security, law enforcing agency tapped social networks and engaged citizens to improve recidivism rates. It will illustrate an extended perspective of government (from acting alone to harnessing the power of society) to optimise both societal and civic outcomes. United Kingdom The partnership in the United Kingdom is chiefly interested in the complementarities, tensions and contradictions that exist between the ideas and practices associated with compliance, performance, emergence and resilience in public administration, and how to optimize a system of public administration that incorporates all four. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 53

54 Two case studies are planned to pursue this interest. The first will be on health and obesity in children. This will study the tensions between a centralized, output-driven health service that is heavy on compliance and the need to promote health outcomes, including behaviour change to produce healthy, resilient people. This case will explore the adjustments and transformations needed to promote health outcomes and healthy, resilient people. A second case may look at a reconfigured Ministry of Justice program designed for at-risk young people and their communities in Swansea. Through the lenses of compliance, performance and resilience, this case would look at the overemphasis on compliance that can exist in such programs and how this can lead to an under emphasis on performance and community and personal resilience. 3.2 INTERNATIONAL ROUNDTABLES The conversation will now take place in the for a hosted by each participating country. Through five international roundtables, world-renowned experts and leading senior practitioners will come together to give substantive, practical shape to a new synthesis of public administration. To deepen and enrich the synthesis, these experts will explore the themes of the New Synthesis Project in a safe space that fosters free exchange and co-creation. Within the overall strategic thrusts of the New Synthesis Project, the roundtables are a place for the full expression of international collaboration. They will examine, in a systematic way, the thematic issues central to the New Synthesis Project. Lead thinkers and practitioners will explore the research and case studies and determine the findings that may form the basis of future work. The roundtables have been sequenced so that the knowledge stemming from them is cumulative. A report will be produced from each roundtable and made available in time for participants to prepare for the next roundtable. These roundtables will be a disciplined journey of discovery and co-creation. If this approach is successful, it could become a source of inspiration for the way collective research is conducted. Roundtable 1: Emergence and Resilience-Significant Implications, Practices and Principles The Hague, March 24-26, 2010 Governments are increasingly called upon to serve in highly complex and uncertain circumstances, where public issues regularly emerge as surprises and require equally emergent responses. This transforms the role of government and the relationship between government and society. It emphasizes the need for more agile, innovative and adaptive approaches to governance and public administration. This roundtable will explore the significance of emergence for public administration and what emergent approaches look like in practice. It will explore resilience, what it holds for public administration and how it can be fostered in society. This roundtable will also look at how social networking, collective intelligence, social innovation and other related practices can help government anticipate challenges, make smart interventions and adapt to change, and how these practices can help government relate to citizens and other actors 54 Part 3: In Search of a New Framework

55 in new ways to achieve better public results and build collective resilience. It will explore the implications of these concepts and practices for governments, public organizations, public servants and public results. And it will look for guiding principles that could help support practitioners who serve in complex, uncertain circumstances. Roundtable 2: Public Results Social and Civic Ottawa, May 4-5, 2010 Achieving public results is increasingly demanding and multi-dimensional. It involves, at once, issues and interventions at local, regional, sub-national, national and global levels. Public administrators need to interact more extensively with others across and outside government to build the capacity in government and society to achieve results at system-wide and societal levels. This roundtable will explore ways in which government can shift from microlevel results to system-wide and societal results including economic prosperity, wellness, life satisfaction and intergenerational fairness. It will also explain what has been learned in practice that can support this shift. This roundtable will examine current research, experience and practice on when and how to engage citizens and communities to improve public results. It will look at the trade-offs involved and principles that may help support practitioners actions in regards to citizen and community engagement. It will address impediments to achieving better public results and the possible transformations required. This includes ways to disentangle control regimes from performance management regimes and the means of creating systems of shared accountability for system-wide and societal results to help shape a public policy agenda that can be widely accepted and pursued. It will also explore how traditional thinking and institutional practices that maintain a rigid separation between professional public servants and elected/political officials may be revised to bring them into a mutual learning cycle to improve public results. Roundtable 3: Governance in the 21 st Century Using Government Authority and Collective Power Brasilia, July 13-14, 2010 Governance in the 21 st century must accommodate an expanded public space in which the collective interest is fashioned in a dynamic, complex way. Through their voices and actions, diverse actors from across society give shape to a collective expression of interest that informs the use of state authority and resources, which, in turn, can be used to leverage the collective ideas and power of other diverse actors in society to achieve public results. Based on current research, experience and practice in modern governance, this roundtable will explore how an expanded public space could be accommodated and how state authority and resources may be used to leverage collective power. It will look at the effects these governance practices have with respect to public results and the implications for governance practices, government, public organizations and public servants. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 55

56 It will explore the ramifications of using government authority and resources to leverage collective power, in particular, the significance of government s stewardship/trusteeship role, how this role can best be played and what implications it has for the relationships between governments, with the private sector and with civil society in regards to the need to anticipate, course-correct and ensure equitable risk-sharing. It will look for guiding principles that support the actions of holders of public office in making decisions and taking action. Roundtable 4: Preparing Government to Serve Beyond the Predictable Singapore, September 21-22, 2010 Governments serve in an increasingly unpredictable context: they face complex public issues, the outcomes of which are uncertain. As a result, they need to improve their ability to anticipate emerging trends, risks and opportunities and to initiate proactive interventions. They also need to build their capacity and the capacity of society to innovate and adapt to increase the likelihood of favourable outcomes. Based on past experiences and leading practices, this roundtable will explore the way in which governments can increase their anticipative capacity and the implications of improving anticipative capacity for the centre of governments and for departments. Improving anticipative capacity implies that government officials must engage in multiple, exploratory conversations within and beyond government to tap collective intelligence, frame issues and better understand the perspective of others on emerging trends. This roundtable will look at the challenges this presents for government and public servants and how they may be overcome. It will explore how experimentation, pilot projects and micro-interventions at local levels could accelerate collective learning and encourage innovation. It will examine when and how these and other related measures could contribute to building capacity for better public results and what principles may guide the work of holders of public office in this regard. Based on the findings from the first three roundtables, this roundtable will explore how governments can build the resilience and adaptive capacity of their society. It will examine what a government would look like that is able to anticipate and to explore unknown territory; what key strengths would it need to rely on in public institutions, public organizations and actors across and outside government to reduce risks and uncertainties. Roundtable 5: The New Synthesis and Implications for Public Sector Reform and Renewal London, November 2010 The conceptual framework of new synthesis outlines a future for governance and public administration that includes continuity and profound change. A new synthesis thus has significant implications for public sector reform and renewal. This roundtable will look at how the ideas and practices captured in the New Synthesis Project fit together to describe integrated, dynamic systems of government and governance; how these various systems should work together in the future; the tensions, contradictions and complementarities that exist between systems and how they can be reconciled in theory and practice to produce 56 Part 3: In Search of a New Framework

57 results of higher public value going forward. This roundtable will also explore what the ideas expressed in the New Synthesis Project mean for government in the 21 st century what is unchanged and what is new. It will look at the potential ramifications for public sector reform agendas and what new things public administrators will need to know and be able to do as a result. 3.3 DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION Throughout 2010, those in and around the NS-6 Network will need to deepen the discussion, debate and deliberation on what the future holds for governance and public administration to craft a coherent narrative and derive an up-todate framework that can reliably guide practitioners in the 21 st century. The international roundtables represent one key means of doing this and they are expected to yield significant results. Beyond that, member countries are using a variety of means to stimulate dialogue and deliberation at home and to capture and share their findings with the Network. The Australian partnership, for example, will be implementing a series of roundtables for practitioners. The Canadian partnership has pulled together an advisory committee of scholars and senior practitioners to serve as a sounding board, steer the work and help engage others. In Singapore and Brazil, the Civil Service College and ENAP will be sharing ideas in their classrooms. The Ministry in the Netherlands and the Institute in the UK will be consulting senior leaders in their organizations on an ongoing basis. Another channel for dialogue is the electronic network members have at their disposal that features all the necessary Web 2.0 tools for virtual discussion, debate, co-creation and co-production. This platform is expected to become increasingly central to the work. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 57

58 58

59 CONCLUSION 59

60 60

61 CONCLUSION In an effort to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners that many countries have experienced, the New Synthesis Project provides a different avenue to conducting research on public administration. It pursues a real time approach to validate ideas and arguments. The hope is that this approach will improve the timeliness of research in public administration and provide a useful way to improve the linkages between public administration academics and practitioners. This work is dedicated to public administration practitioners. The goal is to provide them with a narrative supported by powerful examples that will help them face the challenges of serving the public good and the collective interest in the 21st century. This is the lens through which this project should be assessed. The New Synthesis Project is now entering its most exciting period. In this phase, some of the best public administration academics will join some of the best public administration practitioners in an exercise of co-creation through a series of roundtables. Others who are unable to attend the roundtables are invited to join the discussion and deliberations online at The work of deepening and enriching the New Synthesis Project in 2010 will be difficult but rewarding. Doing it successfully and doing it well means that members of the NS-6 Network will provide much-needed support to those willing to shoulder the responsibility of serving the collective interest and the public good in the 21st century. The work of the NS-6 Network is in the service of those who serve. The New Synthesis Project is a work in progress. We know how the story began. Some have been invited to improve the story line. But it is hoped that many now will join an expanding circle of contributors by sharing their insights and the power of their experience. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 61

62 62

63 BIBLIOGRAPHY 63

64 64

65 BIBLIOGRAPHY PART 1 Bouckaert, G. and Halligan J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Bourgon, J. (2006). Responsive, Responsible and Respected government: Towards a New Public Administration Theory. Braibant Lecture of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, March 22, Brussels. Retrieved from iias-iisa.org/e/conferences/braibant/pages/2006.aspx. Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, Responsible and Respected government: Towards a New Public Administration Theory, International Review of Administrative Sciences. 73 (1), p Retrieved from reprint/73/1/7. Bourgon, J. (2008). Performance Management: It s the Results that Count. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Workshop on Government Performance and Results Management, March Retrieved from Bourgon, J. (2008). Performance Management: It s the Results that Count, Asian Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 30(1), p Retrieved from sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/51/ pdf. Bourgon, J. (2008). The Future of Public Service: A Search for a New Balance. Keynote address given at the Annual Conference of the Institute of Public Administration of Australia, June 18-20, Sydney. Retrieved from ns6newsynthesis.com/documents/speeches/finaltextsydneypdf. Bourgon, J. (2008). The Future of Public Service: A Search for a New Balance. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(4), p Retrieved from 38&Code=4719&Page=/cgi-bin/fulltext/ /PDFSTART. Bourgon, J. (2008). New Directions in Public Administration: Serving Beyond the Predictable. Keynote address given at the Public Administration Conference, September 1-3, York, UK. Retrieved from New%20Direction%20in%20Puplic%20Administration.doc. Bourgon, J. (2008). The Citizen at the Heart of Public Sector Reforms. Keynote address presented at the 5th Quality Conference for Public Administration in the European Union, October 20-22, Paris. Retrieved from Bourgon, J. (2009). New Directions in Public Administration: Serving Beyond the Predictable. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 3(23), p Retrieved from Bourgon, J. (2009). New Governance and Public Administration: Towards a Dynamic Synthesis. Public lecture hosted by the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, February 24, Canberra. Retrieved from jocelynebourgon.ca/documents/governance%20paper- Canber ra%20_ Feb_16_v21%20_PMilley%20Edits_.pdf. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 65

66 Bourgon, J. (2009). Serving Beyond the Predictable. Lecture given as a fellow of the Singapore Civil Service College, June 30, Singapore. Retrieved from Bourgon, J. (2009). Serving Beyond the Predictable. Occasional paper No. 8 of the State Services Authority of the Government of Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from events/occpaper_08_bourgon.pdf. Bourgon, J. (2009). Serving Beyond the Predictable, Ethos, 7, Bourgon, J. (2009). The History and Future of Nation Building? Building Capacity for Public Results. Keynote address given at the Annual Conference of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences July 7, Helsinki. Retrieved from Bourgon, J. (2009). Public Purpose, Government Authority and Collective Power. Keynote address give at the XIV International Congress of Latin American Development, October 27-30, Salvador de Bahia, Brazil. Retrieved from ns6newsynthesis.com/documents/speeches/cladtextoratordec10doc. Bourgon, J. (In press). The History and Future of Nation Building? Building Capacity for Public Results, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2(76). Dale, A. and J. Onyx. (2005). A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Denhardt, J.V. and Denhardt, R.B. (2003). The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C. (eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Haynes, P. (2003). Managing Complexity in the Public Services. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Ho, P. (2008). Governance at the leading edge: Black Swans, Wild Cards, and Wicked Problems. Speech at the Fourth Strategic Perspectives Conference April 8, Singapore. Ho--Speech%20at%20the%204th%20Strategic%20Perspectives%20Conference. pdf. Kettl, D. (2002). The Transformation of Governance Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Klijn, E-H. (2008). Complexity Theory and Public Administration: What s New? Public Management Review 10(3): Majone, G. and Widavsky, A. (2004). Implementation as Evolution. In J. Pressman and A. Wildavsky (eds.), Implementation. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten Principles of Complexity and Enabling Infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (ed.), Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. 66 Bibliography Part 1

67 Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved from Papers/Ch2final.pdf NS6 Project Leader s Team. (2009). Literature Scan no.1: On the Need for a New Synthesis of Public Administration. Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, April Retrieved from NS6 Project Leader s Team. (2009). Literature Scan No. 2: Complexity Theories: What are They and What Do They Tell Us About Public Administration in the 21st Century? Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, May Retrieved from NS6 Project Leader s Team. (2009). Literature Scan No. 3: Resilience and Public Administration. Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, September Retrieved from NS6 Project Leader s Team. (2009). Literature Scan No. 4: Collective Intelligence: What Is It and How Can It Be Tapped? Ottawa, ON: unpublished working paper, September Retrieved from Osborne, S.P. (2006). The new public governance. Public Management Review 8(3): Pollitt, C. (2007). Toward a New Public Administration Theory: Some Comments on Jocelyne Bourgon s 5th Braibant Lecture. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 73 (1): State Government of Victoria (2006). The Future of the Public Sector in Melbourne: State Services Authority. Retrieved from CA D/WebObj/FutureofPS2025/$File/FutureofPS2025.pdf. State Government of Victoria and Demos (2008). Towards Agile Government. Melbourne: State Services Authority. Retrieved from CA D/WebObj/agile_government_towards_agile/$File/agile_ government_towards_agile.pdf. Teisman, G. and Klinj, E-H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management. Public Management Review, 10(3): The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 67

68 BIBLIOGRAPHY PARTS 2 AND 3 Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16: Allenby, B. and Fink, J. (2005). Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies. Science, 309: Atlee, T. (2008). Co-Intelligence, Collective Intelligence, and Conscious Evolution. In M. Tovey (ed.), Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace [pp. 5-14]. Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network. Bartle, I. and Laperrouza, M. (2009). Systemic Risk in the Network Industries: Is There a Governance Gap? Paper presented at the 5th ECPR general conference, Potsdam University, September Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking. Natural Hazards, 41: Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (2002). Back to the Future: Ecosystem Dynamics and Local Knowledge. In L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems [pp ]. Washington, DC: Island Press. Cuthill, M. and Fien, J. (2005). Capacity Building: Facilitating Citizen Participation in Local Governance. Research and Evaluation, 64(4), p Dale, A., and J. Onyx. (2005). A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Dent, J. (2008). Civic Capacity and Community Response to Government Action: The Endangered Species Act and State Water Law in the Methow and Walla Walla Basins in the Pacific Northwest. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3): Dryzek, J.S. (1996). Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University Press. Dobson, I., Carreras, B.A., Lynch, V.E, and Newman, D.E. (2007). Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization. Chaos, 17(June). Retrieved from GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=CHAOEH &idtype =cvips&gifs=yes&bypasssso=1. Dunleavy, P., Margretts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Friedman, T.L. (2008). Hot, Flat and Crowded. London: Penguin. Goldstein, J. (1999) Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1: Bibliography Parts 2 and 3

69 Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C. (eds.) (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Habegger, B. (2009). Horizon Scanning in Government. Zurich: Centre for Security Studies. Retrieved June 17, 2009 from: t?serviceid=11&fileid=3d89e3d1-55a f380-69c677a36478&lng=en. Halpern, D. (2010). The Hidden Wealth of Nations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hanson, B. and Roberts, L. (2005). Resiliency in the Face of Disaster. Science, 309: Helliwell, J. F. (December 2005) Well-Being, Social Capital and Public Policy: What s New? NBER Working Paper Series, Vol. w Retrieved from SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract= Holland, J.H. (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Reading, MA: Helix Books. Holling, C.S. (1973) Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. (1996). Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conservation Biology, 10: Homer-Dixon; Thomas, (2006) The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization. Toronto: Knopf Huddleston, M. (2000). Onto the darkling Plain: globalization and the American public Service in the twenty first century. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4): Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4): International Risk Governance Council, (2009). Emerging Risks: Concept Note. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council. Kahane, A. (2004). Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening and Creating New Realities. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kettl, D. (2002). The Transformation of Governance Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Klijn, E.-H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2000). Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance. Public Management, 2(2): Klijn, E-H. (2005). Networks and Inter-Organizational Management: Challenging, Steering, Evaluation, and the Role of Public Actors in Public Management. In E. Ferlie, Lynn, L. & Pollitt, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Public Management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E-H. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem-Solving and Decision-Making. London, UK: Routledge. Leadbeater, C. (2008). We-think: Mass innovation, not mass production: The Power of Mass Creativity. London, UK: Profile Books. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 69

70 Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P., and Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): Lenihan, D., Milloy, J., Fox, G., & Barber, T. (2007). Progressive Governance for Canadians: What You Need to Know. Ottawa, ON: Public Policy Forum. Leong, L.C. (2008). Managing Complexity and Uncertainties, Ethos, 4 (April). Retrieved from Longstaff, P.H. & Yang, S. (2008). Communication Management and Trust: Their Role in Building Resilience to Surprises Such as Natural Disasters, Pandemic Flu, and Terrorism. Ecology and Society, 13(1). Retrieved April 21, 2009 from Malone, T.W. (2008). What Is Collective Intelligence and What Will We Do About It? In M. Tovey (ed.), Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace [pp. 1-4]. Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network. Marocco, J. (2008). Climate Change and the Limits of Knowledge. In B. Vitek and W. Jackson (eds), The Virtues of Ignorance: Complexity, Sustainability and the Limits of Knowledge [pp ]. Lexington, KT: University Press of Kentucky. Masten, A.S. and Obradovic, J. (2008). Disaster Preparation and Recovery: Lessons from Research on Resilience in Human Development. Ecology and Society, 13(1): McManus S., Seville, E., Brundon, D., and Vargo, J. (2007). Resilience Management: A Framework for assessing and improving the resilience of organizations. Resilient organizations research programme. University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand. Retrieved January 2, 2009 from nz/pubs.shtml. McNabb, D.E. (2007). Knowledge Management in the Public Sector: A Blueprint for Innovation in Government. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Menon, K.U. (2005). National Resilience: From Bouncing Back to Prevention. Ethos, 11(1): Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten Principles of Complexity and Enabling Infrastructures in E. Mitleton-Kelly (ed.) Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from complexity/papers/ch2final.pdf Moore, M. (2003). Introduction, Harvard Law Review, 5(116): Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mulgan, G. (2008). The Art of Public Strategy Mobilising Power and Knowledge for the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy, B.L. (2007). Locating Social Capital in Resilient Community-level Emergency Management. Natural Hazards, 41: Bibliography Parts 2 and 3

71 Newman, J. (2005). Participative Governance and the Remaking of the Public Sphere. In J. Newman (ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere [pp ]. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, University of Bristol. Newman, L.L., and Dale, A. (2005). Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society, 10(1). Retrieved January 24, 2009 from vol10/iss1/resp2. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008, November). Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services. Paris: OECD. Retrieved January 2, 2009 from nsf/linkto/nt00005fb6?opendocument. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009, September). Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy: New Tools for Finding Unanticipated Consequences and Unrealized Opportunities. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from Parker, S., Spires, P., Farook, F., and Mean, M. (2008) State of Trust: How to Build Better Relationships Between Councils and the Public. London: Demos. Retrieved from Policy Research Initiative. (2005, September). Social Capital in Action. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Retrieved February 4, 2010 from Posner, P. (2002). Accountability Challenges of Third-Party Government. In Salamon, L.M. (ed.), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance [pp ]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rathgeb Smith, S. and Ingram, H. (2002). Policy Tools and Democracy. In Salamon, L.M. (ed.), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance [pp ]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Roy, J. (2008). Beyond Westminster Governance: Bringing Politics and Public Service into the Networked Era. Canadian Public Administration, 4(Dec): Salamon, L.M. (2002). The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. In Salamon, L.M. (ed.), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance [pp. 1-47]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Salamon, L.M. (2002). The Tools Approach and the New Governance: Conclusion and Implications. In Salamon, L.M. (ed.), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance [pp ]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Scheffer, M., Westley, F., Brock, W.A., Holmgren, M. (2002). Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Ecosystems Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy and Sociology. In L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems [pp ]. Washington, DC: Island Press. Schuler, D. (2008). Civic intelligence and the public sphere. In M. Tovey (ed.), Collective intelligence: creating a prosperous world at peace. Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network. The New Frontiers of Public Administration: 71

72 State Government of Victoria and Demos (2008). Towards Agile Government. State Services Authority. Retrieved from CA D/WebObj/agile_government_towards_agile/$File/agile_ government_towards_agile.pdf. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., and Fitoussi, J-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved January 7, 2010 from Watts, D J. (2002). A simple model of global cascades on random networks PNAS, April 30, 99 (9) Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., and Patton, M. (2006). Getting to Maybe: How the World is Changed. Toronto, ON: Random House. 72 Bibliography Parts 2 and 3

73

74

75

76 March 2010 Jocelyne Bourgon, 2010 ISBN PGI Public Governance International 7 Coltrin Place Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1M 0A5 Tel. : Fax : Enquiries@pgionline.com