Innovations in Contemporary Chinese Public Sectors: Myths

Paper prepared for the Symposium on ‘Reform and Transition in Public Administration Theory and Practice in Greater China’, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 4- 6 February 2010.

Innovations in Contemporary Chinese Public Sectors:

Myths and Realities

Jiannan Wu School of Public Policy and Administration

Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China Email: [email protected]

Tel: +8629 82665657 Fax: +8629 83237910

Liang Ma School of Management

Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China Email: [email protected]

Yuqian Yang School of Management

Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China

Innovations in Contemporary Chinese Public Sectors:

Myths and Realities

ABSTRACT

Although many case studies of innovations in the Chinese public sector have been

published, the attributes of innovation deserves more systematic examination. We

empirically analyze types and distributions of public sector innovations in China by

examining more than 80 winners and finalists of the Innovations and Excellence in

Chinese Local Governance (IECLG) Awards Program. Our results show that

managerial, service and collaborative innovations are the main types of innovation in

the Chinese public sector, though technological and governance innovations are

emerging. State and party agencies at city and county level in eastern China appear

more innovative than their counterparts in central and western China. We also tabulate

innovation types against various attributes of their initiators, and identify other factors

affecting innovation in China. Our analysis contributes to the understanding of the

state of the art of public sector innovation in China, and suggests directions for further

internationally comparative research.

INTRODUCTION

Innovation, as one of the core parts of the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM)

movement as well as the ‘Reinventing Government’ bandwagon, has been identified

as one of the drivers of public service performance improvement and excellence

(Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Light 1998; Kettl 2005; Kamarck 2004).

Though its significance has been recognized, most current studies are mainly

concerned with Western developed countries, e.g. the United States (Osborne and

Gaebler 1992; Light 1998; Altshuler and Behn 1997; Borins 1998, 2000, 2008), the

United Kingdom (Hood 1991; Walker, Jeanes, and Rowlands 2002; Hartley 2005;

Walker 2006), New Zealand (Scott, Ball, and Dale 1997), Canada (Borins 2000), and

other OECD member countries (Vigoda-Gadot et al. 2008). Little is known about

innovation of public management and service in developing countries or transition

economies, or about how their comparison with innovation in developed countries

(Borins 2001a, b). 1

The past three decades have witnessed dramatic transformations and changes in

almost every corner of China since the initiation of ‘Reform and Opening up’ in 1978

(Lin 2008). Although most attention has been devoted to reforms of the economic

system, political and administrative reforms merit increasing interest (Ngok and Zhu

2007). China’s transitional context and unique institutional background make the

behaviors of local governments and other public organizations (e.g. state-owned

1 Although Borins (2001a, b) examined winners of the International Innovation Awards sponsored by the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) for international comparison, in which there are relatively few programs from developing countries and their distribution is not equivalent across countries, an approach concentrating on one country could be more appropriate.

1

enterprises, and not-for-profit organizations (NPOs)) quite different from their peers

in Western countries (Yang 2007; Chan and Chow 2007), and could be an appropriate

basis for comparative innovation research. Numerous studies have been conducted

through anecdotes and best practice studies on innovation in Chinese local

governments during the past decade (Saich and Yang 2003; Hartford 2005; Foster

2006; Chan and Chow 2007; Christensen, Dong, and Painter 2008); however, the

overall state of the art of innovation in the Chinese public sector remains unclear.

Systematical investigation making use of multiple cases and representative samples

has yet to be undertaken, while such a study of China could provide a basis for

comparison with existing studies from other countries (Borins 2001a, b) and may

result in interesting and meaningful findings (Kelman 2008).

To address this knowledge gap, we analyze program application material from

more than 80 winners and finalists from four Biennial awards of the ‘Innovations and

Excellence in Chinese Local Governance’ Program (IECLG) from 2001 to 2008, to

portray the current state of public sector innovations in China. Our approach is similar

to other studies using competitive awards programs to identify and describe

innovations in public sectors.

We aim to answer the following two groups of question: 1) What types of

innovation are being adopted by the public sector? How do different types of

innovation interact with each other? 2) When, where, at which levels of government,

and by what functional areas are innovations being adopted? Does this vary for

innovation?

2

The objective of this paper is to describe and analyze the state of the art of public

sector innovation in China. The literature on classifications and types of innovation in

public sectors is initially reviewed, followed by a description of the data and methods

we apply. We then present the findings from our analysis, and discuss how they

compare with public sector innovation patterns in Western countries. Future directions

for research and practical implications are also suggested.

TYPE OF INNOVATIONS

Innovation, as distinct from invention, is related to the adoption of something new to

its adopters (Rogers 2003). However, such a definition is not sufficient for the public

sectors, where innovations need to be successful and sustainable, and contribute to

public value (Light 1998). We define innovation in public sectors as the newness of

the services delivered, the population targeted, the technology employed, the

managerial structure and processes utilized, and/or the use of partnerships with other

entities, sufficient to influence the operation of the public sector and its constituencies

significantly (Moore 2005; Hartley 2005; Walker 2006).

Innovation is a complicated, multifaceted construct, which can be viewed in many

ways. It is helpful to distinguish between types of innovation, to examine their

possible different antecedents, processes and consequences (Damanpour 1987;

Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009). Traditionally, innovation is split between

product/service and process innovations within the technical system of organizations

(Utterback and Abernathy 1975). Innovations in the administrative/management

3

system of organizations are then introduced to be distinguished from

technical/technological ones (Daft 1978; Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol 2008). From

the lens of means and ends, Meeus and Edquist (2006) distinguish two types of

product innovations (service and goods) and two types of process innovations

(technological and organizational), integrating the two dichotomy models mentioned

above. The emerging boundary spanning properties of innovation beyond

intraorganizational settings are identified and termed as ‘ancillary Innovation’

(Damanpour 1987). It’s useful to distinguish innovation generating from adopting to

clarify the degree of innovativeness of organizations in the phases of innovation

diffusion (Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006). We can also classify innovations into

radical and incremental innovations via their degree and speed (Dewar and Dutton

1986).

The confused classifications of innovations advocated by researchers, implying the

lack of ‘paradigmatic consensus’ in the arena of inquiry (Hartley 2006), make the

clarification and knowledge accumulations herein become impossible (Wolfe 1994).

As Wolfe (1994) notes, innovation types and their complementary relationships

should be given more attention to clarify our understanding of the attributes of

organizational innovations.

Innovations in public sectors are different from ones of private sectors, resulting in

various paths of inquiry. One of them is the classification of innovations (Hartley

2006). The complexity and sensitivity of innovations in public sector deteriorate this

problem, though more types of innovation emerge. Berry and Berry (1999)

4

distinguish policy innovations from public management innovations. Light (1998)

identifies two sorts of public service innovations by their content and means, which is

exchangeable with the product-process dichotomy. In Moore’s (2005) view,

innovations in public sector can be either break-through or continuous improvement,

to create public value. Borins focuses on the content of innovations and categorizes

them by policy domains (Borins 2000), which is also the approach adopted by most of

government innovation awards program. For instance, the IECLG program classifies

initiative applications to political, administrative, and public service innovations.

Osborne and Flynn’s (1997) typology of public service innovation takes into

account whether the innovation relates to new or existing services and new or existing

users, leading to four types of innovation: total, expansionary, evolutionary, and

developmental innovations. Total innovation is new services supplied to new users.

Expansionary innovation refers to existing services delivered to new users. When new

services are provided to existing users, evolutionary innovation emerges. Lastly,

supplying existing services to existing users is defined as developmental innovation,

but as this is merely incremental improvement we take the view that it is not great

enough to be considered as an innovation (Walker 2006; Hartley 2006).

Walker proposes a typology for innovations in English local authorities, in which

product/service, technological and organizational process, and ancillary innovations,

are distinguished (Walker 2006, 2008). As argued by Hartley, the complicated nature

of innovation deserves analyzing via a multidimensional approach, which is also

valuable to discern the typology of innovation (Hartley 2006). She integrates existing

5

views on innovation classification into a whole framework, including seven

dimensions: product, service, process, position, strategic, governance, and rhetorical

innovations. Each of the dimensions captures merely one facet of innovations, and can

be congruent for more holistic examination, rather than competing in previous

literature.

Having considered the approaches used in previous research, we have adopted an

essentially two dimensional approach which we consider takes account of Chinese

public sector characteristics. The first and main dimension involves five types of

innovation as illustrated in figure 1.

1) Service innovation. Product/goods innovation is generally not applicable for

public sectors, which mainly focus on public service delivery rather than product

manufacturing (Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009). So we focus our analysis

on service innovations as one key type of innovation.

2) Technological innovation. Process innovation should be divided into

technological process innovation and managerial process innovation. Technological

process innovation, as distinct from administrative/organizational/managerial process

innovation suggested by Daft (1978), involves a change of service deliver

technologies or arrangements. For service organizations, technological process

innovation mainly involves adoption of information technology (IT) (Walker 2006).

IT is involved in many innovations over past decades, facilitating information

exchange and communications within governments and their relationships with

citizens. Arguably, the NPM movement’s market oriented approach, in which

6

commercialization, contracting out and outsourcing have become more prevalent, has

facilitated faster and greater innovation, especially in the field of public utilities.

3) Managerial innovation. Managerial process innovation is defined as the

restructuring of organizational structure, management process and practices (Walker

2008). Though managerial innovation is also process innovation, it is distinct from

technological innovation. The former concerns the adoption of new elements in

management systems, whereas the latter is mainly about the newness of operational

processes or the means of service delivery (Birkinshaw, Hamel, and Mol 2008;

Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda 2009). The adoption of total quality management

(TQM), result-based management, strategic human resource management (SHRM),

restructuring, and empowerment are examples of managerial innovations.

4) Collaborative innovation. ‘Ancillary innovation’ identified by Damanpour

(Damanpour 1987) and ‘interorganizational innovation’ advocated by Mandell and

Steelman (Mandell and Steelman 2003) are combined in our analysis within what

we term ‘collaborative innovation’, defined in the paper as boundary spanning

activities in the process of service delivery and management (e.g. alliances,

partnerships, collaborations and networking). Collaborative innovation is not merely

among governments or their agencies, but increasingly involves collaboration with

NPOs and private enterprises.

5) Governance innovation. ‘Innovation in governance’ is distinctively different

type of innovation from product, service, and process innovation and deserves greater

research attention (Moore and Hartley 2008). We define governance innovation as

7

new approaches and practices to manage democratic institutions, trigger citizen

participation, and fight corruption; it is more political and polycentric than other

innovation types and becomes increasingly the prerequisite for in-depth

administrative reforms (Ngok and Zhu 2007). Governance innovation is prevailing in

developing countries (e.g. China), and can be found in grassroots democratic elections,

public engagement, and administrative delegate (Saich and Yang 2003).

The second dimension we use relates to the scale of innovation. As mentioned

above, we classify innovation in the line with the generation-adoption dichotomy

(Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006) into threefold to investigate the innovativeness

of local governments: 1) generation, the innovation is creatively invented by the

initiator; 2) adaptation, the adopter modifies simulated innovation to satisfy their

specific needs; 3) adoption, the innovation is transplanted without any change. From

the perspective of innovativeness, we can understand which types of innovation are

more capable of creativity.

DATA AND METHODS

Sample

The program application materials and case studies of 83 award winners and

finalists from four biennial awards of ‘The Innovations and Excellence in Chinese

Local Governance’ (IECLG) Program (2001-2008) (table 1)2, which is similar to the

‘The Innovations in American Government Awards Program’ in the United States, are

2 The Chinese Language Website of the program is available at: http://www.chinainnovations.org/; the English Language Website of the program, the innovation database of the Government Innovators Network, is available at: http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/award_landing.html.

8

analyzed in the paper. These creative policy or program initiatives were selected

carefully from more than 1100 applicants by an expert committee composed of

distinguished academics and practitioners, and may be considered representative of

innovations in the public sector of contemporary China (Saich and Yang 2003; Wu,

Ma, and Yang 2007).

The IECLG Program was jointly initiated in 2000 by the China Center for

Comparative Politics and Economics (CCCPE) at the Central Compilation &

Translation Bureau, the Center of Comparative Studies on Political Parties (CCSPP)

at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC),

and the Center of China Government Innovations (CCGI) at Peking University.

Undertaken every two years since 2001, the program has successfully operated for

four rounds, with a fifth round in 2009 independently sponsored by the CCGI. Widely

acknowledged within and outside China, the IECLG Program is the pioneering prize

program promoting reforms and innovations at the local government level in China.

In the first four rounds, the program has received approximately 1200 applications

from more than 500 local governments or quasi-governments at provincial, city,

county, township, and village level, and 40 winners and 43 finalists have been

recognized.

The program aims at encouraging, communicating and disseminating local

government reforms and innovations, particularly in the area of public governance,

public administration, and public service delivery. All local governments and public

organizations (e.g. Party committees of the CPC, governments and their agencies,

9

people’s congresses, people’s political consultative committees, and NPOs) are

eligible to apply for the awards. The Expert Committee of the program selects a

short-list of 20-30 finalists from all the nominations, according to the six criteria of

innovativeness, promise of public participation, effectiveness, significance, economy,

and potential for replication. The program researchers then conduct independent field

surveys of the finalists, and prepare research reports which provide the main evidence

for the final selection. The finalists are invited to make a presentation about their

experience and the National Selection Committee of highly reputable experts

determines the final 10 awards in every round with prizes of up to ￥50,000 for each.

The impetus for each nominated innovation, and information on policy issues,

beneficiaries, the creative aspects, effectiveness and other background, are set out in

formal applications, this providing the main information base for our analysis. The

information supplied by the applicants is reviewed in the subsequent case study

reports prepared by the program researchers, thus ensuring it is reliable for use in our

research.

According to the updated data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China

(2008), there are 23 provinces (including Taiwan), 5 autonomous regions, 4

municipalities, and two special administrative regions (Hong Kong and Macao),

which are further divided into 333 prefectures or cities, 2859 counties, districts, or

cities at county level, 40813 towns or street communities, and tens of thousands of

villages or communities.3 Winners and finalists from the IECLG Program comprise a

3 http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2008/indexch.htm, date accessed: 2009/12/07.

10

relatively small sample of innovative governments in China, and their use as

representative of ‘best practices’ has been criticized by some methodologists for lack

of comparability and generalizability (Bretschneider, Marc-Aurele, and Wu 2005;

Kelman 2008). Due to their innovativeness and the robustness of the selection

procedure, however, we consider they do provide a reliable basis for analysis of

innovation in China. We also note, such an approach has been employed by several

studies (Borins 1998), generating valuable findings for comparative research.

Procedure

The unit of our analysis is each innovative program, though the organization

introducing it and the context are also examined in each case. The sample innovative

programs are coded and analyzed, utilizing the literature-based innovation output

indicator (LBIOI) method, which is similar to content analysis into multi-case

materials (Light 1998; Borins 1998). Walker et al. apply the LBIOI method developed

by Coombs et al. (Coombs, Narandren, and Richards 1996) in private sectors to

analyze 257 innovations from English housing associations, demonstrating the

appropriateness of such an approach in the public sector (Walker, Jeanes, and

Rowlands 2002).

A draft codebook was first developed in line with the classifications we developed

from our literature review. We then randomly selected two cases (one winner and the

other finalist) from each of the four rounds of the awards, constituting eight pilot

cases in total to test the validity of the codebook. Two of the authors independently

11

coded these cases and then compared their results to test the consistency and

appropriateness of the coding and the basis in the codebook. They went back to the

source material whenever there was disagreement and the third author recoded the

cases to be confident they were the right ones. Such an approach provided the

opportunity for us to modify the codebook, and we then formally coded all the cases

in accordance with our improved codebook, still following the above procedure.

On this basis we examine innovation types and their distribution on various

dimensions (table 2). We first identify the year the program innovation was initiated

to understand the time distribution of innovations. Then, we code the geographical

distribution of innovations across China as eastern, central and western regions,

according to the standard socioeconomic trichotomy approach.4 The eastern region is

more developed and wealthy, then the central region, and lastly the largely

undeveloped western region. Prior research has shown environmental factors

(especially limited resources) are highly related with innovation (Walker 2008). We

also take the urban-rural duality of contemporary China into account, and analyze the

target populations of the innovation.

In contrast to the central/federal-state/regional-local government arrangement of

most Western countries, the hierarchy system of China is divided into five formal

levels: central, provincial, prefecture or city, county, and township governments.

Autonomic agencies at village or community level (the grassroots level) are also

4 The eastern 11 provinces, including Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Liaoning, Shandong, Shanghai, Tianjin and Zhejiang, are commonly regarded as developed regions, whereas the 12 western provinces, including Chongqing, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Yunnan, are relatively less developed. The remaining 8 provinces, including Anhui, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Jilin, Shanxi, are geographically and socio-economically between the above regions.

12

referred to as quasi-governments. Provincial and all of the below levels are defined as

local governments in the paper.

The power distribution among different sectors in China’s political system is

complex and overlapping (as distinct from the ‘separation of powers’ common in

Western countries). Party committees of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

represent the underlying authority at each level, while government is its executive

organ. The people’s congress has the authority of a legislature with elements of

representative democracy, but its influence is still developing. In addition, NPOs are

not independent of the public sector during China’s transition.

In the next section, we describe the distribution of innovation programs according

to the above variables (by frequency and percentage). Then we apply

cross-tabulations and statistical tests to examine linkages with innovation types.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Findings

Innovations in Chinese public sectors mostly involve managerial innovations (65%),

as shown in table 3. Most innovations in local government involve re-engineering

administrative process and practices, aimed at reducing costs and improving

efficiency. For instance, establishing new administrative centers, integrating

traditionally distributed functions, and restructuring redundant agencies. Collaborative

and service innovations are also common in the public sector of China, with 56% and

48% of the innovations respectively involving such initiatives. Many innovations are

13

sponsored by several organizations at different levels, by means of alliances,

cooperation, or contracting, to obtain collaborative benefits. Public service delivery is

increasingly important for local government, especially after the advocacy of

‘Service-oriented Government’ by the central government. The adoption of one-stop

services, electronic tax paying, and social security for migrant workers are some

examples. Governance and technological innovations are relatively common in the

public sector, though their significance attracts considerable public attention. Most

governance innovations involve election reforms at the grassroots level, whether

within party committees or tied to people’s congresses. IT is more and more adopted

and integrated into existing operational and managerial systems and privatization and

public-private partnerships are also key forms of technological innovation.

The proximity analysis of innovation types shows that service innovation is

positively correlated with technological innovation, implying that service innovation

often goes hand in hand with technological innovation, and vice versa (table 4).

Though service and managerial innovations are not correlated highly, they are both

interrelated with collaborative innovation, demonstrating the requirement of

cooperation in these areas. Lastly, governance innovation as the only type of

distinctive innovation is negatively correlated with other types of innovation.

Our analysis of the degree of innovativeness of sample cases demonstrates that

51.8% of the winning and commended innovations are generation, 34.9% are

adaptation, and only 13.3% are adoption (table 5). The requirement of the IECLG

Program may of course give considerable weight to the innovativeness of award

14

winners, and our result should probably not be taken as representative of innovations

more generally. However, our analysis does indicate local adopters are not merely

learners and imitators but also significantly improve and modify others’ innovations

(Christensen, Dong, and Painter 2008).

Figure 2 reveals that most innovations were initiated during the end of the 20th

Century and the beginning of 21st Century, particularly from 2001 to 2004, which

accounts for more than half of the innovations. The 16th National Party Congress was

held in 2002, when the concentrated party and state cadre succession was conducted.

We may attribute the springing up of innovations in part to the incentives at that time

for leaders to demonstrate high performance in their areas of responsibility (Wu and

Ma 2009). Another alternative explanation is that the time the program was

undertaken reinforced the time distribution of innovations across four rounds of the

program.

The geographical distribution of innovation in Chinese public sectors does appear

to be influenced by the socioeconomic landscape, with more developed regions

usually generating relatively more innovations, as illustrated in figure 3. East coast

provinces adopted nearly 60% of the innovations. Zhejiang Province, for example, has

been awarded 13 times, with approximately 3 winners per round. However, we should

note that some inland provinces also demonstrate above average innovativeness, e.g.

Sichuan Province (10), and Guangxi Province (5). Though much less innovative than

the eastern region, the western region is more innovative than central region (25% and

17% respectively). Although the resource-based theory argues innovation is a

15

resource dependent activity, being in a disadvantaged position may also simulate

creativity (Saich and Yang 2003). As demonstrated in table 6, 57.8% of innovations

are urban based, while 42.2% are rural based. It may be that both urban and rural

areas adopt innovation, but the urban areas are the more innovative.

As for the level of government, we find that counties and prefecture cities are the

most innovative levels in the Chinese system, contributing 45% and 34% of

innovations respectively (table 7). Both cities and counties are crucial to connecting

between upper and lower level governments, and are in a good position to absorb and

generate new ideas and apply them at the grassroots level. Provincial and township

governments are less innovative, with village or community level dominating the last

category. Our analysis is based on the administrative level of innovators, but a good

deal of innovation is inspired and conducted at village or community level, deserving

further examination.

As indicated in table 8, some innovations were initiated by several types of sector,

implying their collaboration in the journey of innovation. At all four levels,

governments and their agencies are the most innovative sectors (66%), followed by

party committees (30%). In reality, governments and party committees are the most

powerful agents in China’s party-state regime. With appropriate incentives, they are in

a strong position to pursue innovation. Innovations by people's congresses and NPOs

are emerging, but their influence in the public sphere still needs more expansion.

Table 9 reveals that all types of innovation are adopted more often in eastern

regions than western and central regions. There are more managerial and collaborative

16

innovations in both eastern and central regions, and we can not conjecture significant

difference among innovation types in western region. Managerial and collaborative

innovations are more prevalent in urban areas, whereas governance innovation is

relatively more common in rural areas (table 10). Almost all technological innovations

(95.5%) are found in urban area, partially due to the costliness of technology usage in

rural area. About one third of governance innovations, which are principally

concerned about election reforms in the grassroots level, were adopted in rural area.

Table 11 demonstrates that managerial, service, and collaborative innovations are

mainly adopted by public sectors at county level, while technological innovation is

more commonly initiated by prefecture-level organizations. Public sectors at

prefecture and county levels adopt many more managerial innovations than other

innovation types. For township governments, governance innovations are their major

approach.

As shown in table 12, party committees adopt fewer service and technological

innovations than other innovation types, reflecting their dominant policy making roles

rather than executive functions. Since their duties are principally administrative and

service delivery, local governments conduct many more managerial and technological

innovations than other types of innovation.

Lastly, as shown in table 13, most innovations of all types are more generating than

adapting or adopting (except for technological innovation), and managerial and

collaborative innovations appear more innovative than other innovation types. For

some types of innovation, generation of entirely new approaches is more frequent

17

than adoptions and adaptations of others’ ideas, while for other innovation types

(particularly technological innovation) simulation and reinvention is more common.

Contributions

Following the path of previous studies and armed with rich case studies, the types,

characteristics, as well as attributes of innovators are studied and compared with

findings derived from other countries. We believe our research sheds light on the

exploration of the ‘black box’ of innovations in China and contributes to current

debates on comparative public administration.

Our study is descriptive in nature but, though preliminarily, it is a prerequisite for

future research as it is essential to develop a deep understanding of innovations in the

public sector. Our contributions are twofold. First, we synthesize previous theories

and studies on the typology of innovations in the public sector, and empirically

employ them in the context of China. Most of the research on types of public service

innovations has been partial or merely derived from literature on the private sector;

some more recent studies (e.g. Hartley 2005) involve theoretical predictions and have

not been substantiated by empirical evidence. We refine prior classification

approaches and offer evidence to support our approach, and thereby contribute to the

knowledge of innovation types.

Second, we systematically analyze the attributes of winners and finalists of the

IECLG Program, and identify their characteristics and distributions. Our classification

scheme of government innovations is particularly appropriate for developing

18

countries and transition economies, where administrative reforms demonstrate

profound economic and political dynamics and distinctive arrangements. Such

analysis supplies further evidence for international comparison of economically

advanced with other countries, and contributes to our more integrated understanding

of the spread of government innovation globally.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Some methodologists criticize the ‘best practices’ research approach for its lack of

rigorous testing of norms (Bretschneider, Marc-Aurele, and Wu 2005), and suggest

that more systematical research methods ought to be applied (Kelman 2008).

Accordingly, our use of ‘best practices’ derived from innovation awards winners,

suggests our findings should be treated cautiously in terms of generalizations about

innovation across the public sector. The findings are only suitable for our sample of

cases, and we should not go too far.

Second, we do not compare our results with previous similar studies from Western

countries owing to our different and improved code scheme, but future comparison

would be valuable. Our strong impression is that there are diverse variations amongst

different regions and different levels of government in China. With appropriate

sampling and scheme design, we could conduct international comparisons to test such

conclusions.

Third, our approach is based mainly on analysis of application material, without

more in-depth field study. Our perceptions and understanding are constrained by the

19

content, format and length of this material. The interaction and configuration among

innovation types are potentially key issues to be examined in the future. Future

research could be implemented through surveys or case studies to collect more

first-hand information, which would be helpful to complement and interpret our

findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many case studies of innovation in the Chinese public sector have been

published, our knowledge about innovation deserves more systematic examination.

We empirically analyze types and distributions of public sector innovations in China

by using more than 80 winners and finalists of the Innovations and Excellence in

Chinese Local Governance (IECLG) Awards Program. Our results show that

managerial, service and collaborative innovations are the main types of innovation in

the Chinese public sector, though technological and governance innovations are

emerging. State and party agencies at city and county level in the eastern region

appear more innovative than their counterparts. We also tabulate innovation types

with several attributes of their initiators, and generate further specific results. Our

analysis contributes to the understanding of the state of the art of public sector

innovations in China, and suggests there would be benefits from further

internationally comparative research.

20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Andrew Podger for his valuable comments, and Richard

Walker for his inspiring suggestions. We are also grateful to the financial support from

the General Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NFSC)

(70873092); and the New Century Excellent Talents Program of the Ministry of

Education of China (NCET-06-0851).

REFERENCES

Altshuler, Alan A., and Robert D. Behn, eds. 1997. Innovation in American Government Challenges, Opportunities, and Dilemmas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1999. Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research. In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by P. A. Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press.

Birkinshaw, Julian, Gray Hamel, and Michael J. Mol. 2008. Management Innovation. Academy of Management Review 33 (4):825-845.

Borins, Sandford. 1998. Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

———. 2000. Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers. Public Administration Review 60 (6):498-507.

———. 2000. What Border? Public Management Innovation in the United States and Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19 (1):46-74.

———. 2001. Public Management Innovation in Economically Advanced and Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 67 (4):715-731.

———. 2001. Public Management Innovation: Toward a Global Perspective. The American Review of Public Administration 31 (1):5-21.

———, ed. 2008. Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition, and Replication. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Bretschneider, Stuart, Frederick L. Marc-Aurele, and Jiannan Wu. 2005. "Best Practices" Research: A Methodological Guide for the Perplexed. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (2):307-323.

Chan, Hon S., and King W. Chow. 2007. Public Management Policy and Practice in Western China: Metapolicy, Tacit Knowledge, and Implications for Management Innovation Transfer. The American Review of Public Administration 37 (4):479-498.

Christensen, Tom, Lisheng Dong, and Martin Painter. 2008. Administrative reform in China's central government -- how much `learning from the West'? International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (3):351-371.

21

Coombs, R., P. Narandren, and A. Richards. 1996. A literature-based innovation output indicator. Research Policy 25 (3):403-413.

Daft, Richard L. 1978. A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation. The Academy of Management Journal 21 (2):193-210.

Damanpour, Fariborz. 1987. The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors. Journal of Management 13 (4):675-688.

Damanpour, Fariborz, Richard M. Walker, and Claudia N. Avellaneda. 2009. Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations. Journal of Management Studies 46 (4):650-675.

Damanpour, Fariborz, and Daniel J. Wischnevsky. 2006. Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 23 (4):269-291.

Dewar, Robert D., and Jane E. Dutton. 1986. The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science 32 (11):1422-1433.

Foster, Kenneth W. 2006. Improving Municipal Governance in China: Yantai's Pathbreaking Experiment in Administrative Reform. Modern China 32 (2):221-250.

Hartford, Kathleen. 2005. Dear Mayor: Online Communications with Local Governments in Hangzhou and Nanjing. China Information 19 (2):217-260.

Hartley, Jean. 2005. Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money and Management 25 (1):27-34.

———. 2006. Innovation and its Contribution to Improvement: A Review for Policy-makers, Policy Advisers, Managers and Researchers. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration 69 (1):3-19. Kamarck, Elaine Ciulla. 2004. Government Innovation around the World. In Faculty Research Working

Paper. Cambridge, MA: Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F Kennedy School of Government.

Kelman, Steve. 2008. The 'Kennedy School School' of Research on Innovation in Government. In Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition, and Replication, edited by S. Borins. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kettl, Donald F. 2005. The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, Paul C. 1998. Sustaining Innovation: Creating Nonprofit and Government Organizations that Innovate Naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lin, Justin Yifu. 2008. The Needham puzzle, the Weber question, and China's miracle: Long-term performance since the Sung dynasty. China Economic Journal 1 (1):63 - 95.

Mandell, Myrna P., and Toddi A. Steelman. 2003. Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations -- The importance of typologies, context and management strategies. Public Management Review 5 (2):197-224.

Meeus, Marius, and Charles Edquist. 2006. Introduction to Part I: Product and Process Innovation. In Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Research Handbook, edited by J. Hage and M. Meeus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moore, Mark H. 2005. Break-Through Innovations and Continuous Improvement: Two Different Models of Innovative Processes in the Public Sector. Public Money and Management 25

22

(1):43-50. Moore, Mark, and Jean Hartley. 2008. Innovations in governance. Public Management Review 10

(1):3-20. Ngok, K., and G. B. Zhu. 2007. Marketization, globalization and administrative reform in China: a

zigzag road to a promising future. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73 (2):217-233.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, Stephen P., and Norman Flynn. 1997. Managing the Innovative Capacity of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations in the Provision of Public Services. Public Money and Management 17 (4):31-39.

Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press. Saich, Tony, and Xuedong Yang. 2003. Township Elections in China: Extending Democracy or

Institutional Innovation. China Report 39 (4):477-497. Scott, Graham, Ian Ball, and Tony Dale. 1997. New Zealand's Public Sector Management Reform:

Implications for the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16 (3):357-381.

Utterback, James M., and William J. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3 (6):639-656.

Vigoda-Gadot, Eran, Aviv Shoham, Nitza Schwabsky, and Ayalla Ruvio. 2008. Public Sector Innovation for Europe: A Multinational Eight-Country Exploration of Citizens' Perspectives. Public Administration 86 (2):307-329.

Walker, Richard M. 2006. Innovation Type and Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis of Local Government. Public Administration 84 (2):311-335.

———. 2008. An Empirical Evaluation of Innovation Types and Organizational and Environmental Characteristics: Towards a Configuration Framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4):591-615.

Walker, Richard M., Emma Jeanes, and Robert Rowlands. 2002. Measuring Innovation - Applying the Literature-Based Innovation Output Indicator to Public Services. Public Administration 80 (1):201-214.

Wolfe, Richard A. 1994. Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies 31 (3):405-431.

Wu, Jiannan, and Liang Ma. 2009. Does Government Performance Really Matter? An Event History Analysis of the Promotion of Provincial Leaders in China. In the 10th Public Management Research Association Conference. John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Wu, Jiannan, Liang Ma, and Yuqian Yang. 2007. The Impetus, Characteristics and Performance of Local Government Innovations in China: A Content Analysis Based on Multiple cases from "Chinese Local Governance Innovations Awards". Management World (Guanli Shijie) (8):43-51.

Yang, Kaifeng. 2007. China's 1998 Administrative Reform and New Public Management: Applying a Comparative Framework. International Journal of Public Administration 30 (12):1371-1392.

23

FIGURE 1 Innovation type in the Chinese local government

Technological Innovation

Managerial Innovation

Service Innovation

Organizational boundary

Governance Innovation

Collaborative Innovation

TABLE 1 Description of applicants, finalists and awards of the IECLG Program Total applicants Awards Finalists (excluding awards) No.1 (2001~2002) 325 10 10 No.2 (2003~2004) 245 10 8 No.3 (2005~2006) 283 10 15 No.4 (2007~2008) 337 10 10 Total 1180 40 43

Sources: adapted and summarized from the website of the IECLG Program.

24

TABLE 2 Codebook of our analysis Question Protocol of analysis

Innovation identification Year of initiating Province Geographical distribution 1. Eastern region

2. Central region 3. Western region

Level of government [mark all that apply]

1. Province, autonomous region, or municipality 2. Prefecture city 3. County, district, or county-level city 4. Town or street community (subdistrict) 5. Village or village-level community

Type of government [mark all that apply]

1. Party committee 2. Government 3. People’s congress 4. No-for-profit organization (NPO)

Location of the innovation [mark all that apply]

1. Urban 2. Rural

Dimensions of the innovation [mark all that apply]

1. Service innovation 2. Technological innovation 3. Managerial innovation 4. Governance innovation 5. Collaborative innovation

Innovativeness of the innovation 1. Generation 2. Adaptation or re-innovation 3. Adoption

25

TABLE 3 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors

Innovation type N Percent of Responses Percent of Cases Binominal test (Sig.)

Service innovation 40 20.5% 48.2% .826

Technological innovation 22 11.3% 26.5% .000

Managerial innovation 54 27.7% 65.1% .008

Governance innovation 31 15.9% 37.3% .028

Collaborative innovation 48 24.6% 57.8% .187

Total 195 100.0% 234.9%

TABLE 4 Proximity matrix among innovation types in Chinese public sectors

Service innovation

Technological innovation

Managerial innovation

Governance innovation


.240


.151 .039


-.446 -.464 -.479

Collaborative innovation

.238 .071 .346 -.299

TABLE 5 Innovativeness of innovation adoption in Chinese public sectors

Innovation type N Percent of Cases

Generation 42 50.6

Adaptation 29 34.9

Adoption 12 14.5

Total 83 100.0

26

FIGURE 2 Time distribution of innovation in Chinese public sectors

FIGURE 3 Geographical distribution of innovation in Chinese public sectors5

Number of finalists

3 - 13 (11)2 - 3 (5)0 - 2 (17)

5 The Chongqing Municipality is not depicted on the map due to a drawback of the Microsoft Excel software.

27

TABLE 6 Urbanization of innovation in Chinese public sectors

Innovation type N Percent of Cases

Urban 48 57.8

Rural 35 42.2

Total 83 100.0

TABLE 7 Hierarchical levels of Chinese innovative public sectors

Hierarchical level N Percent of Responses Percent of Cases

Province, autonomous region, or municipality 8 9.6% 9.6% Prefecture city 28 33.7% 33.7% County, district, or county-level city 37 44.6% 44.6% Town or street community (subdistrict) 9 10.8% 10.8% Village or village-level community 1 1.2% 1.2% Total 83 100.0% 100.0% TABLE 8 Type of Chinese innovative public sectors

Sector type N Percent of Responses Percent of Cases

Party Committee 25 24.5% 30.1%

Government 55 53.9% 66.3%

People's congress 7 6.9% 8.4%

NPO 15 14.7% 18.1%

Total 102 100.0% 122.9%

28

TABLE 9 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors by geographical distribution

Eastern Central Western

Count 25 7 8

% within innovation type 62.5% 17.5% 20.0%

% within region 52.1% 50.0% 38.1%

Service innovation

% of Total 30.1% 8.4% 9.6%

Count 15 1 6


% within region 31.2% 7.1% 28.6%


% of Total 18.1% 1.2% 7.2%

Count 35 9 10


% within region 72.9% 64.3% 47.6%


% of Total 42.2% 10.8% 12.0%

Count 15 6 10


% within region 31.2% 42.9% 47.6%


% of Total 18.1% 7.2% 12.0%

Count 28 9 11


% within region 58.3% 64.3% 52.4%


% of Total 33.7% 10.8% 13.3%

Count 48 14 21 Total

% of Total 57.8% 16.9% 25.3%

29

TABLE 10 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors by targeted population

Urban Rural

Count 24 16

% within innovation type 60.0% 40.0%

% within targeted population 50.0% 45.7%

Service innovation

% of Total 28.9% 19.3%

Count 21 1




% of Total 25.3% 1.2%

Count 38 16




% of Total 45.8% 19.3%

Count 10 21




% of Total 12.0% 25.3%

Count 31 17




% of Total 37.3% 20.5%

Total Count 48 35

% of Total 57.8% 42.2%

30

TABLE 11 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors by hierarchical level

Province Prefecture County Township Village

Count 6 12 18 4 0

% within innovation type

15.0% 30.0% 45.0% 10.0% .0%

% within level 75.0% 42.9% 48.6% 44.4% .0%

Service innovation

% of Total 7.2% 14.5% 21.7% 4.8% .0%

Count 3 12 7 0 0


13.6% 54.5% 31.8% .0% .0%

% within level 37.5% 42.9% 18.9% .0% .0%


% of Total 3.6% 14.5% 8.4% .0% .0%

Count 4 19 27 4 0


7.4% 35.2% 50.0% 7.4% .0%

% within level 50.0% 67.9% 73.0% 44.4% .0%


% of Total 4.8% 22.9% 32.5% 4.8% .0%

Count 3 6 14 7 1


9.7% 19.4% 45.2% 22.6% 3.2%

% within level 37.5% 21.4% 37.8% 77.8% 100.0%


% of Total 3.6% 7.2% 16.9% 8.4% 1.2%

Count 5 14 22 7 0


10.4% 29.2% 45.8% 14.6% .0%

% within level 62.5% 50.0% 59.5% 77.8% .0%


% of Total 6.0% 16.9% 26.5% 8.4% .0%

Count 8 28 37 9 1 Total

% of Total 9.6% 33.7% 44.6% 10.8% 1.2%

31

TABLE 12 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors by sector type

Party Committee Government

People's congress NPO

Count 7 30 2 8


17.5% 75.0% 5.0% 20.0%

% within agency 28.0% 54.5% 28.6% 53.3%

Service innovation

% of Total 8.4% 36.1% 2.4% 9.6%

Count 0 21 1 0


.0% 95.5% 4.5% .0%

% within agency .0% 38.2% 14.3% .0%


% of Total .0% 25.3% 1.2% .0%

Count 15 44 2 9


27.8% 81.5% 3.7% 16.7%

% within agency 60.0% 80.0% 28.6% 60.0%


% of Total 18.1% 53.0% 2.4% 10.8%

Count 17 12 5 8


54.8% 38.7% 16.1% 25.8%

% within agency 68.0% 21.8% 71.4% 53.3%


% of Total 20.5% 14.5% 6.0% 9.6%

Count 16 36 3 11


33.3% 75.0% 6.2% 22.9%

% within agency 64.0% 65.5% 42.9% 73.3%


% of Total 19.3% 43.4% 3.6% 13.3%

Count 25 55 7 15 Total

% of Total 30.1% 66.3% 8.4% 18.1%

32

33

TABLE 13 Type of innovation in Chinese public sectors by innovativeness

Generation Adaptation Adoption

Count 19 17 4

% within type 47.5% 42.5% 10.0%

% within innovativeness 45.2% 58.6% 33.3%

Service innovation

% of Total 22.9% 20.5% 4.8%

Count 8 11 3

% within type 36.4% 50.0% 13.6%



% of Total 9.6% 13.3% 3.6%

Count 30 17 7

% within type 55.6% 31.5% 13.0%



% of Total 36.1% 20.5% 8.4%

Count 17 12 2

% within type 54.8% 38.7% 6.5%



% of Total 20.5% 14.5% 2.4%

Count 23 19 6

% within type 47.9% 39.6% 12.5%



% of Total 27.7% 22.9% 7.2%

Count 42 29 12 Total

% of Total 50.6% 34.9% 14.5%

Documents

Innovations in Contemporary Chinese Public Sectors: Myths