The chapters are focused very much on the British and American cases of democracy. But there are obvious problems in describing individuals as being entrepreneurs merely because they have brought about an innovation of however humble a degree. In a later description of politicians raising issues, he did draw a very important distinction between standard and non-standard political activities but he was making a point about motivation rather than innovation — about an entrepreneurial-like lack of the standard, careerist motivation. This is also true of the more modern examples of British and British-style Prime Minister James, 1995: 77; Weller, 1985: 78. The most obvious feature was his downplaying of the traditional parliamentary and Cabinet aspects of British democracy. Curtis eds , The Vertical Mosaic Revisited Toronto. In each case the technological and organisational innovations were fathered by a scientistengineer Oppenheimer, von Braun and Korolev who displayed politicaladministrative as well as technological virtuosity.
In fact these cases highlight the importance of high-quality adaptive leadership in providing the diversity and strength of competition that reduces rigidity and its resistance to adaptation. Quoted by Marsh, 1991: 460. Another assumption of those discussions is that sufficient economic and political competition ensures that the variations that are selected as adaptations are useful to both the individual businessman or leader 38 Leadership in Democracy and the community. And the nature of the Cabinet as a forum also includes the extensive set of powerful Cabinet committees that is a distinctive characteristic of the British form of Cabinet government when compared to even the British-derived Canadian and Australian examples as well as to European examples of collective government Andeweg, 1997: 77, 81. Whether by trial and error or by simply imitating a more successful competitor they will have to adopt this response or else suffer the consequences — join the many other entities that have had their future prospects endangered by not being in accord with the evolutionary selection of what is appropriate. The iceberg method of assessment assumes that fluctuations in the number of highly prominent examples of a phenomenon will provide a rough and ready indicator of fluctuations in the prevalence of less prominent, more regular examples. There is nothing to distinguish the selling of pioneering proposals from the selling of proposals for adaptive responses.
See 93 for his description of entrepreneurial motivations. As the title of the Butler et al. They had each introduced a modifying form of innovation by founding a new type of farm group, such as the Farmers Union established by Gresham. The personal traits and policy idiosyncrasies of the leader were key features of the many dictatorships that allowed their leader to achieve some autonomy from the party or military that had brought him to power. However, this also seems very like issue rigidity and indeed Schumpeter went on to show how it could be counteracted, as would be expected of rigidity, by the breadth of political competition. They privately give one another and often politicians in the governmental or legislative sectors a lead by selling proposals for administrative policies, government policies or legislative bills.
Such marked lack of competitiveness can allow a marked degree of rigidity to exist and to cause inordinate delays in adaptation, despite the fact that resistance to adaptation can be even more costly in politics than in the economy. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection. But such an extreme case reveals how flexible and broad an Olsonist approach can be when it takes account of the variety of motivations for entrepreneurship rather than implying that political entrepreneurs are nothing more than businesslike profit-seekers. What she supported tended to happen. Schumpeter was well within this classical tradition. The majority of her Cabinet Ministers, including the party heavyweights, were sceptical about the monetarist approach to economic policy.
Another sector in which political leaders, albeit civil servants rather than formal leaders, sell proposals to one another is the administrative sector. Otherwise, more mainstream candidates than McGovern and Goldwater would have been just as likely to have raised these issues, and these two innovators would not have suffered electoral defeats of historic proportions. His belief in the importance of leadership was also displayed in his disparaging remarks about the electorate. The Truman Doctrine can be argued to have had some of the unpredictability of a creative response, and certainly there has been controversy over whether this innovation was an improvement — a question that is often asked of creative responses. As Macfarlane pointed out in his work on British political issues, a policy decision does not necessarily settle or close an issue if another party opposes the new policy. It is true that in his later writings Schumpeter paid less attention to the spontaneous, initiative aspect of entrepreneurship.
Hennessy, 2001: 517, 482—3, 518. Nor have democracies experienced a political or policy equivalent of the recurring creative-destructive economic revolutions instigated by Schumpeterian entrepreneurs. Ever since the Democratic party caucus replaced three committee chairmen in 1975, all committee and subcommittee chairs have realised that they do not have secure tenure of their position. As has been noted in earlier chapters, every careerist can be expected to indulge in pioneering at least once in his or her career. Nelson and Winter acknowledged that these responses may eventually be adopted by other firms in the industry through imitation of a more successful firm or through learning from trial and error feedback. Huntington argued that the first two global waves of democratisation were each followed by a reverse wave in which the globally predominant form of regime change was from democracy to authoritarianism and that the third wave of democratisation, too, might be followed by a reverse wave ibid. Pioneering and Adaptive Leadership 33 Of course the same leader can be adaptive in one crisis Marshall Plan and partly pioneering Truman Doctrine in another.
As in many other cases of innovation, there is at least a suspicion that this may have been an adaptive innovation rather than a case of pioneering or partly pioneering leadership. The ramifications of overly imperfect competition include high levels of issue, policy and institution rigidity, with the resulting costly delays in making appropriate, adaptive responses. See Weber, 1968: 268 and 269 for examples of the term Fuehrerdemokratie being left in the original German rather than being translated into English. However, a pioneering Prime Minister can overcome the problem of staff resources — and remove a source of ministerial competition — by having the proposal developed and sold under the auspices of the Minister specialising in that area of government and policy. A somewhat similar effect occurs when positive feedback leads to an increasingly rapid opening of veto gates to let through the increasingly laden bandwagon.
It worked and the others did not. The former was the dominating leader of the most innovative government of the era and the latter seemed to institutionalise his dominance through a structural centralisation of government that may have significantly enhanced the prime-ministerial potential for pioneering leadership. See also 263, 270—1, on such natural factors as economies of scale and scope versus such firm-created factors as not only artificial barriers to entry but also the anti-competitive strategies of buying out rivals, merging with rivals or using predatory practices against them. Without a supply of powerful and determined pioneering leadership, the entrepreneurial role will not be performed and innovative democracy is unlikely to survive, let alone spread throughout the world. Satisficing would therefore severely limit the strength of competition among politicians at all but the earliest stages of their careers. In most other cases the pioneering party-founder has simply imported a new type of party that has been invented and used in other parts of the world. Theorists of political entrepreneurship — or business? But the other dominant Prime Minister of the 1960s—90s era, Tony Blair, established in his first term a more centralised structure of government that seemed to give the Prime Minister a greater ability to engage in personal pioneering.
The core sectors are based on the state institutions used: 1 in the competitive struggle for votes that determines who shall have the power to decide electoral machinery ; 2 in exercising that power to decide government and legislature ; and 3 in implementing and informing those decisions the civil service bureaucracy. They are particularly important in the case of the office of Prime Minister because it is so weak in formal powers party as well as constitutional when compared to the constitutional powers of the Presidency in a presidential system. So it provides in all three cases the only or best basis for making an assessment of whether there is a tendency for pioneering to become more prevalent. Competition between policy advocates, too, ranges from being as public as an electoral campaign to being as private as the competition in the administrative sector. As the Appendix describes, such evolutionary notions as the adaptive response had played an important part in his early theory of economic development. Some outstanding adaptive leadership might be an answer to the problem of delayed adaptation. But Ilchman and Uphoff were using an implicitly Sayian concept of political entrepreneurship, which therefore lacked the typical Schumpeterian concern with entrepreneurial motivation and innovativeness.
In this and subsequent examples of his policy advocacy he seems to have combined the softening-up and coupling stages of sales promotion. On the other hand, democracies have often experienced more humble political or policy innovations, and the analogy with economic entrepreneurship helps to distinguish the innovative, pioneering kind of political leadership from the standard, adaptive kind that is concerned merely with making adaptive responses to events. On closer examination, though, Brandeis appears a much less effective consumer advocate than Nader. Instead of providing this innovative leadership, it would be more rational for careerist political leaders to wait for a crisis to arise and create a innovation-favouring situation in which it seems self-evident that something innovative has to be done and that there is no alternative to innovation. But instead of being state employees they are lobbyists for interest groups including public-interest groups and charitable organisations or they are employed by universities, think tanks or the media as experts who are encouraged to sell as well as buy new policy ideas. Although these mutations take many generations to occur and take effect, the process appears distinctly rapid when compared to the stasis in the ancestral species and in comparison to the geological-time standards of the fossil record. What was unexpected was the creativity of their legislative response.