An entrepreneurial government is a government free of bureaucracy and red tape that is characteristic of the government it was meant to replace. Therefore, an entrepreneurial government is the transformation of the public sector to mirror the private sector in a few key aspects, such as the articulation of goals and freedom from central control agencies (Donahue & Nye, 2004). New Zealand is currently the best-case study about the potential of entrepreneurial governments and how it should be done. The contract design, management, and oversight of entrepreneurial governments are ones where leaders are chosen on a performance contract basis. If they deliver as promised, they get bonuses; otherwise, they are fired. Entrepreneurial governments have the advantage of being more efficient, focused on providing goals, and prioritizing accountability. In contrast, a networked government is best described as crowdsourcing solutions to public and national problems by involving both governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as private, not-for-profit, and semipublic stakeholders. The essential characteristic of a networked government is that it avoids doing its work alone and invites outsiders (Donahue & Nye, 2004). The US military-industrial complex is an example of one of the most successful networked governments in the world (Jensen, 2017). The only complication with a networked government is that its success heavily relies on the stakeholders fulfilling their contractual obligations, sometimes with little to no government oversight. The reward is a highly evolving, innovative, and fast-responding governance system that quickly delivers social services. Finally, a market government is distinct from the entrepreneurial and networked government in that it shreds the last resemblance to the traditional bureaucratic government. In contrast, the entrepreneurial government is a mere private sector disguise, while a networked government is a mask (Donahue & Nye, 2004). The 1991 Clean Air Act, as well as the laws that required deposits on bottles and soda cans to keep the highways clean, are two successful initiatives (Stavins, 2003; Balcers et al., 2019). From contract design, management, and oversight, the market government is least involved because the stakeholders have incentives to fulfill their obligations.
References
Balcers, O., Brizga, J., Moora, H., Raal, R., & Estonia, M. B. A. (2019). Deposit Return Systems for Beverage Containers in The Baltic States. Riga: Green Liberty.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Donahue, J. D., & Nye, J. S. (Eds.). (2004). Market-based governance: Supply side, demand side, upside, and downside. Brookings Institution Press.
Jensen, L. S. (2017). The twentieth-century administrative state and networked governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27 (3), 468-484.
Stavins, R. N. (2003). Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. In Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 355-435). Elsevier.
