Search results

The interest in entrepreneurship in the public sector is recognized as an emergent phenomenon in the field of entrepreneurship. Existing theoretical work is limited in helping understand how entrepreneurship in public agencies occurs. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a conceptual paper which develops the literature.

Building on the work of Klein et al. (2010) this paper contributes to theoretical development by providing an overview of public sector entrepreneurship (PSE). Although, there are similar features shared by private and PSE, it is proposed that there are significant differences between them, particularly in that public sector enterprise can be seen as entrepreneurship without entrepreneurs.

As a conceptual paper on PSE the literature is predominantly UK based.

This paper brings entrepreneurship from the periphery to the core of the theoretical debates, as it is an under-researched area. Moreover, theoretical development has implications for policy and practice as existing research is disparate.

The paper considers how entrepreneurship and enterprise in the public sector is formulated. The significance of the paper is to highlight the importance of public entrepreneurs in working alongside a multitude of stakeholders to deal with numerous global and internal environment forces ethically amongst on-going budgetary and fiscal constraints. The contribution is the highlighting of the difficulties and concerns when uniting the discourse of market-based entrepreneurship and the discourse of public sector service provision.

MASH has been a feature of safeguarding practices in England and Wales since 2011, bringing safeguarding agencies together to effectively share information and prevent organizational silos. Core agencies include the police, social care, and health, with key features of co-location, joint decision-making and co-ordination. A standardised definition for MASH implementation does not exist, and this lack of a clear definition has meant various structures have emerged, impacting on safeguarding practices. This policy brief draws on workshops with a range of safeguarding practitioners between May and July 2022, about the challenges of collaborative working practices and how MASH can become more standardised. Whilst national standardisation is required, there needs to be flexibility when implementing guidelines, so that practices and processes reflect regional needs and resources.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the global, historic context of public administration and the specific British context of teaching and research for public administration. Also, it asks the question, “is twenty-first century public administration still ‘fit for purpose?’”.

The paper is a personal reflection on the changes to public administration and management during the twentieth and early part of the twenty-first century, in particular how the UK Learned Society has responded to a number of global, policy and cultural changes.

The findings demonstrate how the UK Joint University Council (JUC), representing public administration, has responded to changes, in particular to recent forces impacting on HE and training providers. It includes the outcomes of a series of recent UK debates as JUC approaches its 100-year centenary in 2018. It concludes by showing that public administration research, teaching and scholarship are as necessary, if not more so, in 2018. In particular, issues such as accountability, legality, integrity and responsiveness, the overall ethical guidelines are vital for both public and private educational curricula. For either theory building or empirical descriptions, public administration research can still positively contribute to the wider economy

As a personal reflection, the findings are offered to add to a debate on the future of public administration scholarship in the UK, and much wider afield.

The contents should be of benefit to academics, policy and practitioners in the field of public administration and management.

This study has wider societal implications, as all states are facing growing social problems and a need to seek novel ways of delivering public services.

Though the paper is a personal reflection, and may therefore be challenged, it is based on wider literature to support the claims being made.

Purpose – The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the potential implications of the 2008 banking crisis for university business and management schools and to reflect upon the organizational and pedagogic possibilities highlighted by the changes discussed.

Design/Approach – The chapter draws upon an extensive literature review.

Findings – The chapter argues that the crisis has long-term, profound implications for practitioners, policymakers, and political elites as well as those working in higher education business and management education. The authors suggest that these changes have yet to be clearly understood or appreciated across the sector and that they represent a severe test for elites working in universities.

Research implications – The chapter describes a possible organizational model for business schools and explores a different paradigm for public management education in universities.

Originality – The chapter is intentionally speculative.

There is a central theme to this collection of essays and reflections, which is that we are in a period of profound and significant change. And whilst some elements of this period of change derive from the instability of the financial and banking sectors, there is a more important set of changes taking place. We think that these changes open the possibility of imagining an alternative to the market-based relationships of the past 30 years. We have characterised these relationships as ones which reflect the dominant ideology of neo-liberalism and that within advanced capitalist economies these relationships have determined social, welfare and public policy decisions. And a key part of this has been the dominance of a different discourse on the nature of civil society, the relationship between the individual, the market and the state, and that, as a consequence, the role of public agencies and institutions as a crude welfare safety net has been undermined over time. The crash of 2008, we suggest, had a profoundly destabilising impact on this social/political settlement. It appears to have accelerated the rush towards market-led solutions and the retreat of the ‘public’ from within public conversation.

Will the Northern Powerhouse bring a new deal for the North East region? Can the region respond to the challenges ahead now with Brexit? Can one still consider the North East as one region or does the rise of two Combined Authorities demand a rethink?

The conclusions discuss developments brought about by the replacement of European funding – the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the debates on the new Industrial Strategy Challenge and how to respond to the new Town Challenge Funds. It considers what is needed to strengthen the role of local and regional public services in the decade ahead in the region. Policies and priorities need to change, and new partnerships are needed to tackle ever growing inequalities. New interdisciplinary challenges must face demands to accelerate the low carbon economy and bring new hope to non-metropolitan communities and towns. How best to strengthen the core city role of Newcastle-Gateshead? The question remains whether the governance framework fits the Challenges which lie ahead in the post-Brexit age.