Similarities and Differences between Public Policy and Political Leadership. And what does Entrepreneurship have to do with it?

Dossier / Travail , 2021 , 17 Pages , Note: 1.9

Sociologie - Travail, Education, Organisation

In this paper, the authors discussed public policy, political leadership, their similarities, and differences and how entrepreneurship interacts between public policy and political leadership. We are confronted by policies in our daily lives and as students of public policy, our quest is to understand how these policies are made: and if these policies or rules no longer meet our needs or the needs of our communities, then it concerns us how they can be changed. Being equipped with such knowledge, prepares us to work effectively in public or private management positions, as we direct and coordinate resources in a manner that advocates issues in a public and political context. The change we seek to have in our societies is spearheaded by leaders through a process of decision-making.

Leadership plays a big role in influencing and supporting others to work enthusiastically towards achieving objectives and in the implementation of policies. This fact creates a thin line between political leadership -the catalyst that transforms potential into reality, and public policy - which involves altering human interactions and relationships that transform culture, social orders, behaviors, and institutions over time impacting society.

Table of Contents

Abstract

1.0. Introduction

2.0. Public Policy

3.0. Political Leadership
3.1. Similarities between Public Policy and Political Leadership
3.2. Differences between Public Policy and Political Leadership
3.3. How Entrepreneurship interacts with Political Leadership and Public Policy

4.0. Conclusion

References

Abstract

We are confronted by policies in our daily lives and as students of public policy, our quest is to understand how these policies are made: and if these policies or rules no longer meet our needs or the needs of our communities, then it concerns us how they can be changed. Being equipped with such knowledge, prepares us to work effectively in public or private management positions, as we direct and coordinate resources in a manner that advocates issues in a public and political context. The change we seek to have in our societies is spearheaded by leaders through a process of decision-making. Leadership plays a big role in influencing and supporting others to work enthusiastically towards achieving objectives and in the implementation of policies. This fact creates a thin line between political leadership - the catalyst that transforms potential into reality, and public policy - which involves altering human interactions and relationships that transform culture, social orders, behaviors, and institutions over time impacting society. In this paper, therefore, we discussed public policy, political leadership, their similarities, and differences and how entrepreneurship interacts between public policy and political leadership.

1.0. Introduction:

A banker who drives to work in the morning, a nurse who boards a train back home after her night shift, and a Mayor who chairs a town hall meeting at the end of the month, have one thing in common, which is, policy. We are confronted by policies in our daily lives and as students of public policy, our quest is to understand how these policies are made: and if these policies or rules no longer meet our needs or the needs of our communities, then it concerns us how they can be changed. Being equipped with such knowledge, prepares us to work effectively in public or private management positions, as we direct and coordinate resources in a manner that advocates issues in a public and political context. Concisely, knowledge of policy formulation and implementation enhances our leadership skills and prepares us for future leadership opportunities. Therefore, this begs the questions: what is leadership, and why are good leadership skills important?

Leadership is a process of influencing and supporting others to work enthusiastically towards achieving objectives, whereas a leader is a catalyst that transforms potential into reality.¹ We have often heard sayings such as, “Stephen is a natural leader”. On the contrary, some scholars suggest that good leaders are developed through a continuous process of self­study, education, training, and experience.² It is through this rigorous process that one acquires the “know-how” of good public administration, organizational strategic management, or political leadership. Thus, the justification why good leadership skills are important. Be that as it may, is this reason enough to suggest that those, who have been entrusted with the power or authority to make decisions, or occupy positions of decision making, should as well possess or exhibit good leadership skills?

The above viewpoint unearths an old debate among scholars, whose varying positions are centered on (a) whether politics should be separated from the administration, (b) that there can be no dichotomy between politics and administration, and finally (c) public administration is synchronized with policymaking and the political process.³ Contrasting outcomes from this debate have, on one hand, drawn more ambiguities among scholars, and on the other hand, propelled practitioners such as policymakers, politicians, and business experts to innovate creative ways to deliver both public and private goods or services.

In the context of political advocacy, this paper attempts to establish the (a) similarities and differences in public policy and political leadership, (b) by discussing how the policy process interacts with leadership in public and political environments, (c) and portraying entrepreneurship as a plausible alternative to the one-size-fits-all bureaucratic leadership approach in public sector organizations.

2.0. Public Policy:

Policy, by description, is a rule made up and enforced to control the behavior of people in either a family, at a workplace, or in a country. It dictates what we can or cannot do. Influencing policy change at its core is about social change. It involves altering human interactions and relationships that transform culture, social orders, behaviors, and institutions over time impacting society.

Some of the normative motivations of public policy are based on (a) market failure, for instance, the cost versus the effect of health care coverage not being provided even though demand exists,⁴ (b) public interest such as the equitable distribution of health care costs, access to or supply of health care as a vital service for citizens, the responsibility of health care providers, and liability of providers, as was stipulated in the United States of America's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare,⁵ (c) demand for public policy as demonstrated by interest groups such as healthcare activists and political parties,⁶ (d) supply of public policy, for example, the "log rolling" and "pork-barrel" politics.⁷ It is against this backdrop that scholars have suggested various definitions of public policy, but with similar viewpoints that depict public policy as a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern”⁸, or as “whatever governments choose to do or not to do”.⁹

Policies are also deliberate systems of principles, procedures, and intended actions that can be found in organizations, businesses, and government.¹⁰ In a political advocacy context, public policies are adopted by policymakers, in consultation with experts and stakeholders, whose public input is made official by political leaders, the final decision-makers. This process takes place in structured institutional forums such as courts and legislatures, where elected officials receive various policy inputs and perspectives and then weigh the reasons, deliberate, and make empowered collective decisions. All this comes together through deliberative democracy: a version of democracy that legitimizes political decisions, by making procedures that permit decisions that are a result of mutual understanding, publicly expressed reason and broadened political inclusion.¹¹

Based on the above submissions, there is no doubt that policymaking is a process or activity that requires human interaction and representation in the structured institutional forums where decisions are made. This paradigm introduces the debate; (a) on whether to divorce politics from policymaking, (b) the arguments that either public administration has nothing to do with political leadership, or both are synchronized. Solving the known paradigm would require first, a better understanding of the notion of political leadership as depicted in the subsequent chapter.

3.0. Political leadership:

It is hard to envision leadership as a detached function, and so is it impossible to treat political leadership as a distinct concept, separate from the generic concept of leadership.¹² To fully grasp the concept of leadership, we must perceive it as a group function and a product of interactions among groups of individuals on whom authority is exercised or as several individuals succumbing to authority. Hence, the new outlook portrays leadership as a pattern, which comprises of three components: (a) the leader, (b) the followers, and (c) the function relationship that exists between the two.¹³ Consequently, these give new meaning to leadership as a function of social situation, personality, and the interaction of these two.¹⁴

Leadership as an Interaction Process

In earlier centuries, the world experienced leadership through the lenses of rulers that ruled their nations in various styles of leadership, thus contributing to political leadership discourse in the long run. The world experienced statesmen of classical Athens, pharaohs of ancient Egypt, Roman and Chinese emperors, Hellenic tyrants, and chiefs of European medieval city-states.¹⁵ It is scholars of the modern era that we owe the credit for the founding analysis of the skills and strategies essential in today’s understanding of political leadership. Case in point is Niccolo Machiavelli’s account of leadership as mere domination and Max Weber’s view of political leadership as a leader-follower relationship, in the context of Europe and the United States of America, the emerging democracies of the time.¹⁶

Max Weber ’s Theories of Leadership

Weber viewed political leadership as a leader-follower relationship, and this combination was a good catalyst for obtaining political power. However, arriving at the leader-follower relationship, one required pre-cultivation, for example, through political party support, although Weber feared that this approach could also be taken advantage of to advance a leaderless democracy controlled by a small group of individuals such as, party bureaucrats or mediocre representatives that would be problematic to remove. As a remedy to the un-intended outcomes of the leader-follower relationship, he proposed plebiscitary democracy as the suitable alternative. In Weber's opinion, a plebiscitary democracy would produce a prominent political leader, who achieved party support and legitimately obtained power by winning the popular vote.¹⁷ Max Weber categorized leadership into three types: (a) patriarchal, based on traditional authority, (b) charismatic, based on individual special attributes, and (c) bureaucratic based on legal and rational authority.

Traditional Authority

Weber traced authority in traditional leadership back to the patriarchal era, an era when authority was derived from custom, tradition, and established norms such as rules of a family inheritance. A patriarch was obeyed not because he had no real means of enforcing his authority but because it was the duty of his family members to respect his authority, as required by tradition. This style of leadership emphasizes a dominant personality and depends on an established tradition or order.

Charismatic Leadership

Weber's notion of the leader-follower relationship is the foundation upon which the theory of charismatic leadership is grounded. Weber equates charismatic leadership to (a) charisma, which implies leaders with extraordinary attributes, like those of religious prophets or revolutionary dictators, (b) a symbiotic relationship that emerges purely because the followers are in awe of their leader’s personal qualities, (c) the ability of a leader to turn a bad situation into a good one, in a way that depicts him or her as the people's savior or visionary. Therefore, charismatic leaders do not emerge because there was no resistance within the masses, but rather they emerge because of their powerful charisma, which replaces the masses’ rational realities with sensationalism.

Charismatic Leadership in Modern Democracies

Weber’s version of charismatic leadership is vivid in modern democracies such as, the United States of America; although not in its entirety but rather as a hybrid of charisma, rational-legal system, bureaucracy, and institutionalized rules that eventually form a leader democracy.¹⁸ In most recent years, this hybrid has produced both democratic presidents like the U.S’s Barack Obama, and totalitarians such as Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki, who emerged as a revolutionary but has since refused to relinquish power. Historically, the world has experienced different versions of charismatic leaders, this renders Weber’s notion of charisma as self-defeating: and as such, charismatic leadership should only be viewed as the ideal example of good leadership, not as the norm¹⁹

Rational-Legal or Bureaucratic Authority

Weber’s view of rational-legal authority is based on legitimate power, which is sanctioned by-laws, written rules, and regulations. Rational-legal authority portrays the power of the bureaucracy over the individual. In a bureaucracy, laws, and rules including institutional duties and protocols, take precedence. Hence the catchphrase, “the company is bigger than you”. Countries governed by the constitution are a good example of such authority, while in companies or organizations, an employee handbook bears the rational­legal authority as handed down by an institution through its preordained sets of standards. Whereas rational-legal authority is desirable, it falls short in providing universal solutions. It is excellent at facilitating consensus building and reaching agreements, although such agreements often lack flexibility.²⁰

New Public Management (NPM)

We live in a post-bureaucratic era that views Weber’s leadership styles as obsolete. Societies today demand inclusion in the policy-making process; people-centric services; public institutions that are efficient and effective in the delivery of public services. The old public administration style, which mostly followed the Weberian bureaucracy, has since transitioned into a new style of public management that emulates private-sector management techniques. Instead of the traditional and rule-following style of public administration, contemporary public administration is goal-oriented: meaning; there is more freedom to manage, institutional objectives are clearer, customers are at the center of service, employees' performance evaluation is results-oriented, market dynamics exist, budgets are streamlined and decentralized decision making is a norm.²¹ Some scholars even suggest that NPM is currently a popular standard model of administration against which all other models are now

compared.²²

All submissions in the above have labored to explain what political leadership is about: and at several intersections of the discussion, it was hard to address political leadership without relating it to policy implementation or public administration. Therefore, it is evident that the ever-changing environment of government operations has an impact on the interaction between political leaders and public administrators, who work closely during policy formulation and implementation. Hence the interest to examine similarities and differences between public policy and political leadership. In the interest of a clear-cut explanation in the subsequent chapters, we refer to public policy as public administration.

3.1. Similarities between Public Policy and Political leadership:

The similarities between public policy/administration and political leadership are well illustrated by Max Weber’s classic model of bureaucracy (1922, as cited in Joensuu & Niiranen, 2016).²³ Given Weber’s bureaucracy, the similarity between political leaders and public administrators is divulged every time political leaders represent the people's opinions, while the public administrators impartially administer them. Some scholars suggest that the way contemporary government business executed is a typical illustration of the interrelatedness between public administration and political leadership: for example,

(a) the issues addressed by local government such as social services, public health care, education, and infrastructure are the result of the citizenry's active participation a democratic dispensation,²⁴
(b) contemporary political participation engages in pork-barrel politics; in other words, it leans more to the supply-side of public policy. Research has shown that during elections, for politicians to lure more voters, they tend to promise support for the constituents’ social interest in return for the vote.²⁵
(c) the traditional political decision-making processes are under tremendous pressure because the ways people participate and communicate lately has significantly changed: and for this reason, leaders and public administrators have established new ways of acting in the local government decision-making process decision (Niiranen and Joensuu, 2014, as cited in Joensuu & Niiranen, 2016)²⁶
(d) Appleby (as cited in Makinde, 2015) states that public administration is the policymaking and part of the political process.²⁷

3.2. Differences between Public Policy and Political leadership:

The difference between public policy/administration and political leadership was a study of interest to several scholars such as Woodrow Wilson (1887, as cited in Joensuu & Niiranen, 2016).²⁸ His viewpoints referred to a public administration that existed outside the area of politics. Whereas politics deals with questions of policy, in Wilson’s view of public administration is more concerned with the implementation. Other scholars suggest that,

(a) public administration is more about efficiency in administering public services without involving partisan politics (Polinaidu, 2004, as cited in Makinde, 2015 ).²⁹
(b) Whereas as politics expresses the will of the state, the administration is the channel through which that will is executed (Goodnow, 1900, as cited in Makinde, 2015).³⁰

The emerging trends towards the assimilation of administration and politics render irrelevant the debate on whether there is a difference between public policy and political leadership. The reason for the irrelevance, as suggested by scholars, is that in constitutional practice, a clear-cut distinction cannot be made between political and administrative organizations (Riggs, 1961, as cited in Makinde, 2015).30³¹ Other scholars suggest further that the separation of politics and administration does not mean the disappearance of politics, but rather the conduct of administration in a political context. Hence, the foundations of public administration are deeply embedded in the permanent principles of politics (Nigro & Nigro, 1989, as cited in Makinde, 20 1 5).³² Based on the above submissions, it appears that political leadership and public policy are inseparable.

We, therefore, attempt to end the public policy/political leadership dichotomy by arguing that since political leadership is the authoritative allocation of resources and public policy is what government chooses to do or not to do, their interrelatedness and co-existence are inevitable.

3.3. How does Entrepreneurship Interact with Political Leadership and Public Policy?

In the past, entrepreneurship was solely seen as a practice by private individuals or organizations, who engage in trade through innovative means to enhance the profitability of their firms. Scholars recently have drawn an association between entrepreneurship, political leadership, and public policy. In identifying the linkage, several questions have been asked and answered. For example, what is entrepreneurship policy? What is the economic rationale for (not) undertaking entrepreneurship policy? Why has entrepreneurship policy become so important? What are the main instruments of entrepreneurship policy? Who implements entrepreneurship policy? What is the impact of entrepreneurship policy and how should it be assessed?³³ The above will provide us the tone to discuss how entrepreneurship interacts with political leadership and public policy.

Some scholars have referred to entrepreneurship as an opportunity for exploration and exploitation.³⁴ The aspiring entrepreneurs of today have a high appetite for risk. They are comfortable with change and innovation and are not fearful of it and the radical shifts that come with it. Entrepreneurship is about being passionate, inquisitive, and pursuing challenges that ordinarily, many will not go for. Entrepreneurs see continuous improvement as an automatic variable in their affairs. One of the best-selling books, Workplace 2000, indicates that entrepreneurship does not only affect our lives through change but also a factor in the world of work for the future for many. It is increasingly becoming clear the changes in organizations, work, and employment call for the recognition of these changes and prepare for them to best succeed in the dynamic environment. Accordingly, people are becoming conscious of their encounters with entrepreneurship through new technologies, global market space, international relations, or through their employment. As the New Public Management suggests, people must be involved in the policy formulation and implementation and this will require several actors are involved with no exception of entrepreneurs. Arguably the better public policy formulation picks an understanding of the marketplace (local and international), that policies can survive and thrive in this changing environment.

The understanding of entrepreneurship varies both temporally and geographically as it is seen as an interdisciplinary subject spanning across a range of other fields, including management, finance, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, and geography.³⁵ And this brings to an understanding that, for entrepreneurship to thrive two conditions must exist. First, freedom to be creative and innovative must be present for anyone to establish an economic venture. Second, there must be a favorable economic environment that offers entrepreneurs to grow their capital.³⁶ As seen as an engine for economic growth and employment,³⁷ entrepreneurship has become a cardinal focus of public policy especially in Europe, America, and some countries in the Global South.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) had been loud on their push for market reform and monetarism some decades traced before the period of Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister. Current happenings show several actors known as Civil Society Actors exist advocating for policies to support government interventions. These actors are known in the political sphere as Policy Entrepreneurs, Change Agents, and Political Entrepreneurs who serve as a bridge between developing new policy ideas.³⁸ According to Hogan and Feeney, the political entrepreneur sits at the center of the process of the policy change and policy change will not occur without a political entrepreneur to inject the new ideas of policy entrepreneurs into the political arena at times of crises, recessions, economic and political instability.³⁹

As earlier indicated, Entrepreneurship thrives under two conditions, and to achieve it, the network of actors referred to as policy entrepreneurs, political entrepreneurs, or change­makers offer valid and variable policy prepositions to boost the entrepreneurship agenda. In this regard, entrepreneurship pushes the agenda of government through policies and what political leaders can do in the underlined channels as postulated below by Audretsch et al.⁴⁰ and these channels can be linked to the business environment (Politics, legal, Economics, Social, Technological, Environment-PESTLE).

1. Entrepreneurship pushes for public policy intervention involving the demand side of entrepreneurship. This intervention affects the type, number, and accessibility of entrepreneurial opportunities. They distinguish the demand side into two policies; the first, stimulating technological developments and income policies. The second, competition policy which offers entrepreneurs to make use of technological advancements. Through subsidizing research and development, entrepreneurs can take advantage of the reduced expenditure to fund innovation. Also, income policy can create opportunities for entrepreneurship through higher wealth disparity, inducing demand for tailor-made products and services.
2. There is also a supply-side effect of entrepreneurship where intervention must look at the number of potential and future entrepreneurs at the aggregate(population) level. Policies on migration and regional development and influencing the composition and dispersion of the population have been proposed.
3. Also, entrepreneurship pushes for policies that can overcome finance and knowledge gaps by increasing the availability of financial and informational resources. For example, some governments have created policies for venture capital markets that help to improve the access of entrepreneurs to the financial capital needed to start or expand their businesses.
4. Another policy will be how to shape people’s preferences. Preferences of people, as expressed through values and attitudes, are developed through upbringing. These preferences include their evaluation of risks and, to a large extent determined by the cultural background which is usually difficult to influence or modify. According to Audretsch et al, the government can try to influence individual preferences by fostering an entrepreneurial culture. By introducing entrepreneurial elements in the education system and paying attention to entrepreneurship in the media.
5. Also, entrepreneurship pushes for relevant policies like taxation, influencing business earnings; social security arrangements, influencing the willingness of the people to give up their present state of (un)employment to become an entrepreneur; and labor market legislation regarding hiring and firing, thereby determining the flexibility of the business and the attractiveness of starting or expanding a business.

The above, though non-exhaustive, impacts the positive demonstration of potential entrepreneurs and leads to a level of entrepreneurial activity to an optimal level.

4.0. Conclusion:

Political leadership, public policy, and entrepreneurship are both engaged in the arts of possibilities. Analyzing public policy and political leadership gives the lenses for entrepreneurship discussions on what is possible, what is probable, and what is unlikely. As businesses operate in an environment with elements about politics, legal, technology, socio­economic (PESTLE) it is obvious that the political, legal, and governmental segment of the business environment is the arena in which different actors compete for attention and resources to advance their frontiers, establish their values, and achieve their own goals. As discussed in this paper, it is by the PESTLE elements that entrepreneurship interacts with political leadership and public policy.

References

Anderson, J.E. (2003). Public Policymaking: An Introduction 3 rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1-34. http://cpps.dyndns.info/cpps-docs- web/secgen/2015/pol-oceanica regional/Doc%2012.The%20study%20of%20the%20public%20policy.pdf

Barisione, M. (2016). Leadership, Political. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/978ni8541555.wbiepc158 Hogan, J., & Feeney, S. (2013). The Role of the Political Entrepreneur in the Context of Policy Change and Crisis. In Arrow@TUDublin. Retrieved from website: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=buschgracon

Christopher Ryan Maboloc. (2015, May). Max Weber’s 3 types of authority. Retrieved March 6, 2021, from INQUIRER.net website: https://opinion.inquirer.net/85293/max- webers-3-types-of-authority

Deliberative democracy, (2021). Retrieved March 4, 2021, from Oxford Reference website: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095708535

Dion, L. (1968). The Concept of Political Leadership: An Analysis. Canadian Journal of Political Science /Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 1(1), 2-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3231692.pdf

Dollinger, M. J. (2008). Entrepreneurship: strategies and resources.

Enthoven, A. C. (1986). Managed competition in health care and the unfinished agenda. Health Care Financing Review, 1986(Spec No), 105-119. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195085/

Garver, R. (2016). The 10 Most Outrageous Pork Barrel Projects of 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from The Fiscal Times website: https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/14/10- Most-Outrageous-Pork-Barrel-Proj ects-2016

Grimm, H. (2020). Leadership and Political Advocacy: Course Book. Willy Brandt School, University of Erfurt. Retrieved from https://elearning.uni- erfurt.de/pluginfile.php/261378/mod_label/intro/2%20Nov.%20Course%20Book_2020 .pdf

Grimm, H. (2020). Leadership and Political Advocacy: Paradigms of Public Administration. Presented at the Session 5, Willy Brandt School, University of Erfurt. Retrieved from https://elearning.uni- erfurt.de/pluginfile.php/280512/mod_resource/content/1/Upload_Session%20Paradigm s%2024%20Nov.pdf

Goldthau, A. (2019). Introduction to Public Policy: The Nature and Function of Public Policy. Presented at Session 1, Willy Brandt School, University of Erfurt. Retrieved from https://elearning.unierfurt.de/pluginfile.php/147108/mod_resource/content/0/IPP_Goldt hau_S1%20Introduction_PPT.pdf

Joensuu, M., & Niiranen, V. (2016). Political leaders and public administrators: Interaction patterns and pictures in Finnish local government decision-making processes. Public Policy and Administration, 33(1), 22-45. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0952076716673898

Kearney, C., Hisrich, R., & Roche, F. (2007). A conceptual model of public sector corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 295­313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-007-0048-x

Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.50

Makinde, T. (2015). Interface between Politics and Public Policy: A Relationship of Inseparableness. 4(3), 124-130. Retrieved from website: https://www.longdom.org/articles/interface-between-politics-and-public-policy-a- relationship-of-inseparableness.pdf

Mintrom, M. (2019). So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Retrieved from Policy Design and Practice website: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2019.1675989 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - HealthCare.gov Glossary. (2021). Retrieved March 4, 2021, from HealthCare.gov website: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act/

Pierre, J., & Rothstein, B. (n.d.). How Should the State Behave? The New Public Management versus The New Weberianism. Retrieved from website: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/efe8fa81-e89e-4031-88d0-199dd0b10138.pdf

[...]

---

¹ See Grimm (2020), Course Book, Leadership and Political Advocacy, Winter 2020/2021, p. 2.

² Ibid.

³ See Makinde (2015), Interface between Politics and Public Policy: A Relationship of Inseparableness, p. 124.

⁴ See Enthoven (1986), Managed competition in health care and the unfinished agenda, Health Care Financing Review, 1986, (Spec No), pp. 105-119.

⁵ See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HealthCare.gov, Glossary.

⁶ See Goldthau (2019), Introduction to Public Policy, Session I, Willy Brandt School, University of Erfurt, pp. 3-4.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ See Anderson (2003), Public Policymaking: An Introduction, p. 1.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ See Goldthau (2019), Introduction to Public Policy, Session I, Willy Brandt School, p. 5.

¹¹ See deliberative democracy (2021), from the Oxford Reference website.

¹² See Dion (1968), The Concept of Political Leadership: An Analysis, Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, p.17.

¹³ Ibid., p.4.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ See Barisione (2015), Leadership, Political - International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, p. 3.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ See Barisione (2015), Leadership, Political - International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, p. 3.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ See Christopher (2015, May), Max Weber’s 3 types of authority, from INQUIRER.net website.

²¹ See Grimm (2020), Leadership and Political Advocacy: Paradigms of Public Administration, presented at Session 5, Willy Brandt School, University of Erfurt, p.6.

²² See Pierre & Rothstein (n.d.), How Should the State Behave? The New Public Management versus The New Weberianism, p. 3.

²³ See Joensuu & Niiranen (2016), Political leaders and public administrators: Interaction patterns and pictures in Finnish local government decision-making processes, p. 23.

²⁴ See Joensuu & Niiranen (2016), Political leaders and public administrators: Interaction patterns and pictures in Finnish local government decision-making processes, p. 23.

²⁵ See Garver (2016), The 10 Most Outrageous Pork Barrel Projects of 2016, from The Fiscal Times website.

²⁶ See Joensuu & Niiranen (2016), Political leaders and public administrators: Interaction patterns and pictures in Finnish local government decision-making processes, p. 23.

²⁷ See Makinde (2015), Interface between Politics and Public Policy: A Relationship of Inseparableness, p. 124.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ See Makinde (2015), Interface between Politics and Public Policy: A Relationship of Inseparableness, p. 124

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid.

³³ Audretsch, D.B,.Grilo,. I., & Thurik, A.K.,2007.

³⁴ See Kearney et al. 2008; Klein 2008; Venkataraman 2000.

³⁵ Audretsch, D.B,.Grilo,. I.,&Thurik, A.K.,(2007); p.7.

³⁶ Dollinger, (2008).

³⁷ Carree and Thurik, (2003).

³⁸ Hogan & Feeney (2013).

³⁹ Hogan & Feeney (2012).

⁴⁰ Audretsch, D.B,.Grilo,. I.,&Thurik, A.K.,(2007); p.5,9-11.

• Université: University of Erfurt (Willy Brandt School of Public Policy)
• Cours: Public Policy
• Note: 1.9
• Auteurs: Stephen Tete Mantey (Auteur), Andrew Kisekka (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2021
• Pages: 17
• N° de catalogue: V1040147
• ISBN (ebook): 9783346457905
• ISBN (Livre): 9783346457912
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: similarities, differences, public, policy, political, leadership, entrepreneurship