Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Government and Non-profit Collaboration in Times of Deliverology, Policy Innovation Laboratories and Hubs, and New Public Governance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the implications of the move from public administration to new public management to new public governance for relations between the state and non-profit organizations using the example of the development of policy hubs and innovation laboratories under the operational theory of deliverology. Much of the literature suggests that the move towards these collaborative arrangements is providing non-profits with more access and influence in the policy process. Another stream suggests that the changes may be less significant and less positive than assumed for non-profits. This article weighs in with a preliminary examination of policy hubs and innovation laboratories in Canada. It confirms that while collaborative arrangements between the two sectors are expanding and increasingly drawing non-profit actors into the centre of policy-making, non-profit organizations may be wise to heed certain cautions when choosing their partners and terms of the partnerships or they may find their ability to create and influence policy in a meaningful way is limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almog-Bar, M. (2018). Civil society and nonprofits in the age of new public governance: Current trends and their implications for theory and practice. Nonprofit Policy Forum,8(4), 343–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almquist, R., Grossi, G., van Helden, G., & Reichard, C. (2013). Pubic sector governance and accountability. Journal of Critical Perspectives on Accounting,24(7/8), 479–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aucoin, P. (2012). New political Governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions,25(2), 177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aucoin, P., Bakvis, H., & Jarvis, M. (2013). Constraining executive power in an era of New Political Governance. In J. Bickerton & B. Peters (Eds.), Governing: Essays in honour of Donald J. Savoie (pp. 32–50). Montréal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aucoin, P., & Heinzman, R. (2000). The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences,66(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M. (2015). How to run a government. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besrest, V. (2012). Presentation to a seminar on results based budgeting: Objectives, expected results and performance indicators. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, I., & Brandsen, T. (2014). State-third sector partnerships: A short overview of key issues in the debate: Introduction to the special issue on state-third sector partnerships. Public Management Review,16(8), 1055–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckeart, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Dekker, P., & Evers, A. (Eds.). (2010). Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public Management Review,8(4), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgespan Group. (2014). 2014 innovation labs survey. Bridgespan and the Rockefeller Foundation. Accessed by June 2018 at Bridgespan.org/Publications-and-Tools/Innovation-Labs-Insight-Center.aspx.

  • Brock, K., Burbidge, M., & Nator, J. (2010). A resilient state: The federal public service, challenges and paradoxes and a new vision for the twenty-first century. In C. Dunn (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed.). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (2013). Accountability in a collectivized environment: From G lassco to digital public administration. In J. Craft & A. Clarke (Eds.), Issues in Canadian Governance. Toronto: Emond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, A. (1990). The past and future of the Canadian Administrative State. University of Toronto Law Journal,40(3), 319–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canada. (2014). Destination 20/20. Ottawa: Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada. Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). (2017). National capital region location offers new model for government-business collaboration. Ottawa: ISED. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/governemnt-innovation-lab-toco-late-with-ottawa-busienss-accelerator-656376553.html. Accessed by November 9.

  • Canada. Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). (2018). Innovation lab website disclaimer. Ottawa: ISED. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/096.nsf/eng/home.

  • Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA). (2018). RC 563 Ethnography of homeless and housing-insecure Canadians’ experiences filing taxes and assessing benefits. Ottawa: CRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carstenson, H., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help? The Innovation Journal,17(1), 2–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Policy Innovation and Public Engagement (CPI&PE). (2018). The rise of policy innovation labs across Canada. Toronto: Ryerson University, CPI&PE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouinard, J., & Milley, P. (2015). From new public management to new political governance: Implications for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,30(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2018). The civil service in the westminster tradition. In J. Craft & A. Clarke (Eds.), Issues in Canadian Governance. Toronto: Emond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conteh, C. (2018). Public administration and management reforms in Canada. In J. Craft & A. Clarke (Eds.), Issues in Canadian Governance. Toronto: Emond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society,32(3), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canada. Impact and Innovation Unit. (2018a). “What we do.” https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-hub/services/what-we-do.html. Accessed by June 2018.

  • Canada. Impact and Innovation Unit. (2018b). Theory of change for the impact and innovation unit. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-hub/services/blog/iiu-theory-change/theory-change-impact-innovation-unit.html. Accessed by June 2018.

  • Canada. Impact and Innovation Unit. (2018c). Networks/partnerships. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-hub/services/networks-partnerships.html. Accessed by June 2018.

  • Creative Destruction Lab. (2018). Government of Canada invests in artificial intelligence and start-up innovation across Canada. Toronto: CDL. Accessed at https://creativedestructionlab.com/2019/10/government-of-canada-invests-in-artificial-intelligence-and-startup-innovation-across-canada/.

  • Dean, T. (2016). Innovation, accountability and deliverology. Canadian Government Executive,22, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H. (2014). Performing governance: Partnerships, culture and new labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H. (2016). From new public management to new public governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’. In J. Butcher & D. Gilchrist (Eds.), The three sector solution: Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business (pp. 41–60). Canberra: Australian National University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobell, R., & Zussman, D. (2018). Sunshine, scrutiny, and spending review in Canada, Trudeau to Trudeau: From program evaluation and policy to commitment and results. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,32(3), 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Rowe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money and Management,14(3), 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,16(3), 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, O., & Gow, J. (1999). From Bureaucracy to public management: The Administrative Culture of the Government of Canada. Toronto: Broadview.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elson, P. (2011). High Ideals and noble intentions: Voluntary Sector-Government Relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., & Andresani, G. (2006). Understanding current developments in public-sector management—New public management, governance or other theoretical perspectives? Public Management Review,8(3), 389–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gidron, B., & Bar, M. (Eds.). (2010). Policy initiatives towards the third sector in international perspective. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, D. (2003). The politics of public management. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow, J. I., & Dufour, C. (2000). Is the new public management a paradigm? Does it matter? International Review of Administrative Sciences,66(4), 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grube, D. (2015). An invidious position: The public dance of the promiscuous partisan. The Political Quarterly,85(4), 420–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, J. (2018). How Denmark lost its Mindlab.” APolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution_article/how-denmark-lost-its-minlab-the-inside-story/. Accessed by June 5.

  • Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy,3(2), 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintzman, R., & Juillet, L. (2012). Searching for new instruments of accountability: New political governance and the dialectics of accountability. In H. Bakvis & M. Jarvis (Eds.), From new public management to new political governance (pp. 342–379). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, P. (2002). Democracy and Governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance, authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, I. (2000). Is the British state hollowing out? Political Quarterly, 71(2), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration,69(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1995). The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society,20(2/3), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle ageing of new public management: Into an age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,4(3), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, M. (2016). Creating a high performance civil service against a background of disruptive change. Toronto: Mowat Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–116). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. (2016). Rethinking regulation delivery: The service lab at ISED.” Canadian Government Executive. https://canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca/rethinking-regulation-delivery-the-service-lab-at-ised/. Accessed by March 23.

  • Klijn, E. H. (2012). Public management and governance: A comparison of two paradigms to deal with modern complex problems. In D. Levi Faur (Ed.), The handbook of governance (pp. 201–214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, E. (2016). Deliverology: Lessons and prospects. Canadian Government Executive,22, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L., Jr. (2010). What endures? Public governance and the cycle of reform. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G., Dale, A., & Stoney, C. (2017). A preliminary analysis of the Canadian Social Innovation Lab landscape. https://www.changingtheconversation.ca/social-innovation-labs. Accessed by June 2018.

  • May, K. (2016). Perception of politicization of the public service is a problem for Liberals. Ottawa Citizen. http://ottawacitizen.com. Accessed by March 7.

  • McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. (2018). The rise of public sector innovation labs: Experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9315-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Gabler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass: Adison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. (Ed.). (2010). New public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review,8(3), 377–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., & Brandsen, T. (2007). Co-production: The third sector and the delivery of public services. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2012). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,8(2), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Savoie, D. (Eds.). (2000). Governance in the twenty-first century: Revitalizing the public service. Montreal, Kingston: Canadian Centre for Management Development and McGill-Queen’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (2000). Externalities and relationships: Rethinking the boundaries of the public service. In B. G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in the twenty-first century: Revitalizing the public service. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public sector reform. A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, J. (2018). Liberals spend on tax filing program for homeless, newcomers. Ipolitics. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/04/liberals-spend-tax-filing-program-homeless-newcomers/. Accessed by March 4.

  • Pross, P. (1992). Group politics and public policy (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pross, P. (2003). Embedded regulation: Advocacy and the federal regulation of public interest groups. In K. Brock (Ed.), Delicate dances: Public policy and the nonprofit sector. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, School of Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Policy Forum. (2013). Change labs and government in Canada, Summary Report. Ottawa: Public Policy Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puttick, R., Baeck, P., & Colligan, P. (2014). I-Teams: The teams and funds making innovation happen in governments around the world. London: Nesta and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, G., Gallo, C., & Kronick, M. (2017). Does ‘deliverology’ deliver? Canadian Government Executive,23, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2002). A fragile State: Federal public administration in the twentieth century. In C. Dunn (Ed.), The Handbook of Canadian Public Administration. Toronto: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (2015). The resilient sector revisited: The new challenge to non-profit America. Washington: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in Public Service: Government-non-profit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Toepler, S. (2015). Government-non-profit cooperation: Anomaly or Necessity. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,26(6), 2155–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savoie, D. (1999). Governing from the Centre: The concentration of power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savoie, D. (2003). Breaking the Bargain: Public servants, ministers and Parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Savoie, D. (2008). Court government and the collapse of accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Savoie, D. (2015). What is government good at? Canadian answer. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, D., & Tonurist, P. (2017). Innovation in the public sector: Exploring the characteristics and potential of living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management Review,7(1), 6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing images of the state: Overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and Administration,15(3), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2012). Measuring the accountability of collaborative innovation. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,17(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sossin, L. (2010). Democratic administration. In C. Dunn (Ed.), The handbook of Canadian public administration. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorburn, H. (1985). Interest groups in the Canadian Federal system. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tõnurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2017). Innovation labs in the public sector: What are they and what do they do? Public Management Review,19(10), 1455–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torjman, L. (2012). Labs: Designing the future. Toronto: MaRS Discovery District.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudeau, J. (2018). Prime Minister releases new ministerial mandate letters. Media release. Ottawa: Office of Prime Minister of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Group (UNDG). (2011). Results-based management handbook: Harmonizing RBM concept and approaches for improved development results at Country level. New York: UNDG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Acker, W., & Bouckaert, G. (2018). What makes public sector innovation survive? An exploratory study of the influence of feedback, accountability and learning. International Review of Administrative Sciences,84(2), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1988). Socializing the welfare state. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Democracy and the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westly, F., Geobey, S., & Robinson, K. (2011). What is a change lab/design lab?. Waterloo: Social Innovation Generation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2015). Governing methods: Policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History,47(3), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Waterman, R. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review,85(3), 801–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, V. (2000). Blurring the public-private divide. In B. G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in the twenty-first century: Revitalizing the public service. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zussman, D. (2016a). The Trudeau government and results. Canadian Government Executive. 22:7, September 20. Accessed by June 2018.

  • Zussman, D. (2016b). Treasury board and policy suites. Canadian Government Executive. 22:9, November 23. Accessed by June 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 138 Union Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

    Kathy L. Brock

Authors
  1. Kathy L. Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathy L. Brock.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brock, K.L. Government and Non-profit Collaboration in Times of Deliverology, Policy Innovation Laboratories and Hubs, and New Public Governance. Voluntas 31, 257–270 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00145-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00145-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation