Hybrid stimulations and perversions in public service innovation
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/09520767211015015 |
| Author | Mette Sønderskov,Siv Magnussen,Rolf Rønning |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2022, Vol. 37(3) 363 –384
Article
Hybrid stimulations and
perversions in public
service innovation
Mette Sønderskov and Rolf Rønning
Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, Inland Norway
University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway
Siv Magnussen
Centre for Care Research, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU), Gjøvik, Norway
Abstract
Innovation has been highlighted as a magic formula that can solve deep-seated, emerg-
ing complex social and economic problems in the public service sector. However, public
innovation efforts face both drivers and barriers. Innovation depends on context, and
currently different competing governance paradigms’ influence has attracted growing
academic and political interest regarding the potential of public service innovation.
Today, new public governance (NPG) has been suggested as an alternative paradigm
to classic public administration (CPA) and new public management (NPM), as the focus
of attention has shifted from traditional hierarchical forms of government and market-
based competition strategies to interactive- and collaborative-based governance. In this
paper, we discuss how elements from different governance paradigms interact, support
and undermine one another in terms of innovation in hybrid organisations. Although
hybridisation has been described in extant studies on administrative welfare reforms, it
barely has been examined in the public innovation literature. This is a theoretical paper
based on a scoping review; however, we use the Norwegian Labour and Welfare
Administration (NAV) as an illustrative case to explain how hybridisation may lead to
both stimulations and perversions regarding the development, implementation and
spread of public service innovation. Finally, the paper reflects on how public leaders
can handle hybridity within their organisational units.
Corresponding author:
Mette Sønderskov, Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied
Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway.
Email: mette.sonderskov@inn.no
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09520767211015015
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
364 Public Policy and Administration 37(3)
Keywords
Governance, hybridisation, hybrid organisations, Norwegian Labour and Welfare
Administration (NAV), public service innovation
Introduction
Demand for health and social services is rising rapidly, much faster than what
seems possible to handle within a publicly funded service system. Furthermore,
complex issues, often termed ‘wicked problems’, challenge traditional ways of
working and solving problems in the public sector (Rittel and Webber, 1973;
Roberts, 2000: 6). A growing consensus in the literature asserts that the best
strategy for handling tricky problems and solving societal challenges is to involve
different relevant and affected actors within and across organisational, political
and professional boundaries, and to make them work together in a joint effort
(Alford, 2009; Sørensen and Torfing, 2018, 2019; Torfing et al., 2019). It builds
on the assumption that the active participation of a wide range of actors with
different resources and knowledge will increase the quantity and quality of inno-
vations (Bommert, 2010: 16). This is associated with the notion of new public
governance (NPG) (Osborne, 2006), a mode of governance that revolves around
participatory and networked processes based on interdependence, collaboration
and trust (Torfing and Triantafillou, 2013). In addition, we know that two other
governance systems typically are found in most public sector units: classic public
administration (CPA), which operates as a strictly hierarchical model of bureau-
cracy under the formal control of political leadership, and new public manage-
ment (NPM), founded on themes of market-based competition, contracting and
performance management. This paper’s purpose is to discuss interactions
between these systems.
Although new trends support NPG in terms of co-production and co-creation,
in the sense of attempts to involve end-users in public service delivery and value
creation processes, the fact is that these efforts takes place within or between
organisations in which CPA and NPM are well-rooted. Within public sector
organisations, the three governance systems and their associated practices have
come to be layered on top of one another (Christensen and Lægreid, 2011). More
importantly, the latest research argues that the key to public service innovation
lies in the successful management of this institutional complexity – combining
and balancing elements from CPA, NPM and NPG – because all three gover-
nance systems have mechanisms that may both strengthen and limit the potential
for developing new and innovative solutions (Torfing and Triantafillou, 2016). In
other words, NPG does not replace CPA and NPM. Instead, hybrids, defined as
organisations and practices with two or more sectoral characteristics, will emerge
because elements from these three paradigms are acting side by side; they can
and will coexist and overlap (Osborne, 2010b). However, such elements may
2Public Policy and Administration 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial