Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:29:03.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Design for Local Innovation: The Effects of Competition in Public Schooling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Michael Mintrom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

State governments have recently adopted many policies creating competition in service provision. These policies typically are expected to reduce costs and improve quality through organizational innovation. I present an analysis of one such initiative—the creation of charter schools. Using evidence from a survey-based study comparing charter schools and traditional public schools, I explore the relationship between competition and organizational innovation. I find that competition does appear to promote innovative local practices. But the evidence also suggests that competition can limit communication within the practitioner community, which, in turn, can stifle the diffusion of innovative ideas. Thus, policy design for local innovation may be more effective when competition is augmented with state-level strategies that promote inter-organizational cooperation and learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Winter 2001 , pp. 343 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashford, Susan J., Rothbard, Nancy P., Piderit, Sandy Kristin, and Dutton, Jane E.. 1998. “Out on a Limb: The Role of Context and Impression Management in Selling Gender-Equity Issues.” Administrative Science Quarterly 43:23–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzelay, Michael. 1992. Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing Government. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances S., and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84:395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandl, John. 1998. Money and Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Or, Why a Liberal Democrat Thinks States Need Both Competition and Community. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Center for Education Reform. 2001. “About Charter Schools.” Website publication, www.edreform.com.Google Scholar
Chubb, John E., and Moe, Terry M.. 1990. Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Fink, Arlene, and Kosecoff, Jacqueline. 1998. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step by Step Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and Nachmias, David. 1992. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 4th ed. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geletkanycz, Marta A., and Hambrick, Donald C.. 1997. “The External Ties of Top Executives: Implications for Strategic Choice and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 654–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, William T. Jr., ed. 1991. Privatization and Its Alternatives. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, Eric. 1986. “The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools.” Journal of Economic Literature 24:1141–1177.Google Scholar
Henig, Jeffrey R., and Sugarman, Stephen D.. 1999. “The Nature and Extent of School Choice.” In School Choice and Social Controversy: Politics, Policy, and Law, eds. Sugarman, Stephen D. and Kemerer, Frank R.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Hill, Paul T., Pierce, Lawrence C., and Guthrie, James W.. 1997. Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting Can Transform America's Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Eric D. 1999. The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Howell, Jane M., and Higgins, Christopher A.. 1990. “Champions of Technological Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35:317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1992. “The Dynamics of Technology Change: Salients, Critical Problems, and Industrial Revolutions.” In Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective, eds. Dosi, Giovanni, Giannetti, Renato, and Toninelli, Pier Angelo. New York: Clarendon/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1998. “Designing, Developing, and Reforming Systems.” Dœdalus 127:215–232.Google Scholar
Hula, Richard C., ed. 1988. Market-Based Public Policy. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, David, and Kuklinski, James H.. 1982. Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolderie, Ted. 1997. “What Does It Mean to Ask: ‘Is” Charter Schools“ Working?‘?” Center for Policy Studies, St. Paul, MN. Typescript.Google Scholar
Lemann, Nicholas. 1999. The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Loveless, Tom, ed. 2000. Conflicting Missions? Teachers Unions and Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Sevón, Guje. 1988. “Gossip, Information and Decision-Making.” In Decisions and Organizations, ed. March, James G.. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Michigan Department of Education. 1999a. Michigan School Report. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.Google Scholar
Michigan Department of Education. 1999b. Michigan K-12 Database, Pupil Headcount Data for 1999 (School Enrollments Fall 1998). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2000a. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2000b. Leveraging Local Innovation: The Case of Michigan's Charter Schools. Policy report. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. 1997. “Charter Schools as a State Policy Innovation: Assessing Recent Developments.” State and Local Government Review 29:43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” Journal of Politics 60:126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, Lawrence B. 1969. “Determinants of Innovation in Organizations.” American Political Science Review 63:111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C., and Rosenberg, Nathan. 1998. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murnane, Richard. 1986. “Comparisons of Private and Public Schools: The Critical Role of Regulations.” In Private Education: Studies in Choice and Public Policy, ed. Levy, Daniel. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, Joe. 1996. Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Osborne, David E., and Plastrik, Peter. 1997. Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government. New York: Penguin-Putnam.Google Scholar
Powell, Walter W., Koput, Kenneth W., and Smith-Doerr, Laurel. 1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41:116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravitch, Diane. 2000. Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt, ed. 2000. Public-Private Policy Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Savas, E.S. 1987. Privatization: The Key to Better Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Sutton, Robert I., and Hargadon, Andrew. 1996. “Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41:685–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
True, Jacqui, and Mintrom, Michael. 2001. “Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming.” International Studies Quarterly 45:27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viadero, Debra. 2000. “High-Stakes Tests Lead Debate At Researchers' Gathering.” Education Week 19 (May 3): 6.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1981. “The Diffusion of Knowledge, Policy Communities, and Agenda Setting.” In New Strategic Perspectives on Social Policy, eds. Tropman, John E., Dluhy, Milan J., and Lind, Roger M.. London, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Witte, John F. 2000. The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America's FirstCrossRefGoogle Scholar