Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study centers on a mailed survey of Ohio local government finance officers that recorded a 43% response rate. It seeks to determine the extent to which the represented jurisdictions have adopted innovative administrative management tools and techniques, to identify possible determinants of adoption, and to explore potential outcomes of adoption. The authors conducted a longitudinal analysis to provide for the identification of potential outcomes. they found that Ohio local governments have been less innovative than jurisdictions surveyed in national surveys and that smaller local governments in Ohio tend to be more innovative than larger governments. The authors were unable to identify determinants of adoption or to construct a model of adoption. The article concludes that the adoption of administrative innovations appears to be an idiosyncratic process. Adoption does not appear to lead to greater satisfaction with the quality of the services provided by the respondent's jurisdiction or with the overall efficiency of the service delivery system. However, the adoption of administrative innovations appears to be positively related to fund balances in future years—that is, innovation appears to pay off.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ammons, D. N. (1985). Common barriers to productivity improvement in local government. Public Productivity Review, 7(2), 293-310.

Ammons, D. N. , & King, J. C. (1983). Productivity improvement: Its place among competing priorities. Public Administration Review, 43(2), 123-130.

Benton, J. E. , & Daley, J. L. (1996). County impact fee adoptions as policy innovations: A search for theory. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(7), 1037-1064.

Berman, E. M. (1996). Innovation in local government: Past, present, future. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(7), 1027-1036.

Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322-330.

Chi, K. S. , & Grady, D. O. (1990). Innovators in state governments: Their organizational and professional environment. In The Book of the States 1990-1991 (pp. 382-404). Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.

Cyert, R. M. , & March, J. C. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 193-213.

Damanpour, F. , & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 392-409.

10.

Deutsch, K. (1985). On theory and research in innovation. In R. L. Merritt & A. J. Merritt (Eds.), Innovation in the public sector (pp. 17-35). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Doig, J. W. , & Hargrove, D. A. (1987). Leadership and innovation: A biographical perspective on entrepreneurs in government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.

Downs, G. W. , & Larkey, P. D. (1986). The search for government efficiency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

13.

Downs, G. W. , & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700-714.

14.

Downs,G. W. , & Mohr, L. B. (1979). Towards a theory of innovation. Administration and Society, 10(4), 379-408.

15.

Grady, D. O. (1992). Promoting innovations in the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review, 16(2), 157-172.

16.

Hannah, S. (1995). The correlates of innovation: Lessons from best practices. Public Productivity and Management Review, 19(2), 216-228.

17.

Matzer, J. Jr. (1986). Local control of fiscal stress. In M. Gottdiener (Ed.), Cities in stress (pp. 23-45). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

18.

Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63(1), 111-126.

19.

Pagano, M. A. , & Russo, P. A. Jr. (1993, August). Meeting the challenge of local government: Fiscal condition of Ohio's cities and villages in 1993. Ohio Cities and Villages, pp. 7-19.

20.

Poister, T. H. , & McGowan, R. P. (1984). The use of management tools in municipal government: A national survey. Public Administration Review, 44(3), 215-223.

21.

Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past decade. Public Administration Review, 49(3), 240-248.

22.

Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1994). Municipal management tools from 1976 to 1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity and Management Review, 18(2), 115-125.

23.

Roessner, J. D. (1977). Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations. Administration and Society, 9(3), 341-365.

24.

Reed, B. J. , & Swain, J. W. (1990). Public finance administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

25.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

26.

Swiss, J. E. (1992). Adapting total quality management to government. Public Administration Review, 52(4), 356-362.

27.

Tushman, M. L. , & Nelson, R. R. (1990). Introduction: Technology, organizations, and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 1-8.

28.

Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.

29.

Willoughby, K. G. , & Finn, M. A. (1994). Organizational professionalism and technological sophistication: Budget offices in the south. Public Productivity and Management Review, 18, 19-36.

30.

Zaltman, G. , Duncan, R. , & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley.

Administrative Innovation among Ohio Local Government Finance Officers

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References