How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Factor and cluster analysis are used to identify different methods that public sector agencies in Europe use to innovate, based on data from a 2010 survey of 3273 agencies. The analyses identify three types of innovative agencies: bottom-up, knowledge-scanning, and policy-dependent. The distribution of bottom-up agencies across European countries is positively correlated with average per capita incomes while the distribution of knowledge-scanning agencies is negatively correlated with income. In contrast, there is no consistent pattern by country in the distribution of policy-dependent agencies. Regression results that control for agency characteristics find that innovation methods are significantly correlated with the beneficial outcomes of innovation, with bottom-up and knowledge-scanning agencies out-performing policy-dependent agencies. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1271-1282
Number of pages12
JournalResearch Policy
Volume44
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Keywords

  • Innovation outcomes
  • Innovation survey
  • Public sector innovation
  • Taxonomy of innovation
  • Cluster analysis
  • Surveys
  • Bottom up
  • European Countries
  • Factor and cluster analysis
  • Innovation methods
  • Per capita income
  • Public sector
  • Public sector agencies
  • Scanning

Cite this

@article{bbb485361bba4c6ea44bd3a0745f809b,
title = "How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods",
abstract = "Factor and cluster analysis are used to identify different methods that public sector agencies in Europe use to innovate, based on data from a 2010 survey of 3273 agencies. The analyses identify three types of innovative agencies: bottom-up, knowledge-scanning, and policy-dependent. The distribution of bottom-up agencies across European countries is positively correlated with average per capita incomes while the distribution of knowledge-scanning agencies is negatively correlated with income. In contrast, there is no consistent pattern by country in the distribution of policy-dependent agencies. Regression results that control for agency characteristics find that innovation methods are significantly correlated with the beneficial outcomes of innovation, with bottom-up and knowledge-scanning agencies out-performing policy-dependent agencies. {\circledC} 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.",
keywords = "Innovation outcomes, Innovation survey, Public sector innovation, Taxonomy of innovation, Cluster analysis, Surveys, Bottom up, European Countries, Factor and cluster analysis, Innovation methods, Per capita income, Public sector, Public sector agencies, Scanning",
author = "A. Arundel and L. Casali and H. Hollanders",
note = "Cited By :2 Export Date: 8 December 2016 CODEN: REPYB Correspondence Address: Arundel, A.; Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Australia and UNU-MERIT, University of Maastricht, Sandy Bay, Netherlands; email: anthony.arundel@utas.edu.au References: Alexy, O., Reitzig, M., Private-collective innovation, competition, and firms' counter intuitive appropriation strategies (2013) Res. Policy, 42, pp. 895-913; Amara, N., Landry, R., Traore, N., Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services (2008) Res. Policy, 37, pp. 1530-1547; (2011) State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2010-2011, , (australian Public Service Commission) A. Commonwealth of Australia Canberra; Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.-A., Valeyre, A., How Europe's economies learn: A comparison of work organization and innovation method for the EU-15 (2007) Ind. Corporate Change, 16, pp. 1175-1210; Arundel, A., Huber, D., From too little to too much innovation? Issues in monitoring innovation in the public sector (2013) Struct. Change Econ. Dyn., 27, pp. 146-149; Commission, A., (2007) Seeing the Light: Innovation in Local Public Services, , Audit Commission London; Bloch, C., Bugge, M.M., Public sector innovation - From theory to measurement (2013) Struct. Change Econ. Dyn., 27, pp. 133-145; Borins, S., Encouraging innovation in the public sector (2001) J. Intellectual Capital, 2, pp. 310-319; Borins, S., (2006) The Challenge of Innovating in Government, , IBM Center for Business of Government; Borins, S., Making narrative count: A narratological approach to public management innovation (2012) J. Public Admin. Res. Theory, 22, pp. 165-189; Boyne, G.A., Public and private management: What's the difference? (2002) J. Manage. Stud., 39, pp. 97-122; Boyne, G.A., Gould-Williams, J.S., Law, J., Walker, R.M., Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform (2005) Environ. Plann. C: Govt. Policy, 23, pp. 419-435; Bugge, M.M., Mortensen, P.S., Bloch, C., (2011) Measuring Public Innovation in Nordic Countries: Report on the Nordic Pilot Studies, , Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy (CFA), University of Aarhus Denmark; Bysted, R., Jespersen, K.R., Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees (2014) Public Manage. Rev., 16, pp. 217-241; Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., The whole-of-Government approach to public sector reform (2007) Public Admin. Rev., 67, pp. 1059-1066; Damanpour, F., Schneider, M., Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers (2006) Br. J. Manage., 17, pp. 215-236; Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J., New public management is dead - Long live digital governance (2005) J. Public Admin. Res. Theory, 16, pp. 467-494; Commission, E., (2011) Innobarometer 2010: Analytical Report Innovation in Public Administration (Flash Eurobarometer 305), , DG Enterprise Brussels; (2012) Final Consumption Expenditures of General Government at Current Prices, Percent of GDP, and General Government Gross Fixed Capital Formation for EU-27, , http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, Eurostat (downloaded on 16 January 2012, from); (2015) Final Consumption Expenditures of General Government at Current Prices, 2003 to 2014, , http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NAGIGP01EUA661S Eurostat (downloaded on 17 April 2015, from) and FRED data for EU GDP deflators (downloaded on 17 April 2015; Furman, J.L., Hayes, R., Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999 (2004) Res. Policy, 33, pp. 1329-1354; Hartley, J., Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present (2005) Public Money Manage., 25, pp. 27-34; Hartley, J., Sorensen, J., Torfing, J., Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship (2013) Public Admin. Rev., 73, pp. 821-830; Hofstede, G., Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context (2011) Online Readings Psychol. Culture, 2, p. 1014. , arxiv:/dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919; Hughes, A., Moore, K., Kataria, N., (2011) Innovation in Public Sector Organizations: A Pilot Survey for Measuring Innovation Across the Public Sector, , NESTA Index Report London; James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias (1984) J. Appl. Psychol., 69, pp. 85-98; De Jong, J.P.G., Marsili, O., The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms (2006) Res. Policy, 35, pp. 213-229; Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries (2010) Econ. Innov. New Technol., 19, pp. 583-604; Kaasa, A., (2013) Culture As A Possible Factor of Innovation: Evidence from the European Union and Neighbouring Countries, , SEARCH Working Paper, European Commission Brussels; Kim, Y., Stimulating entrepreneurial practices in the public sector: The roles of organizational characteristics (2010) Admin. Soc., 42, pp. 780-814; Koch, P., Hauknes, J., On Innovation in the Public Sector (2005) Publin Report No. D20, NIFU-STEP, Oslo, , http://thelearningnetwork.net/Downloads/Library/PUBLIN-publicsectorinnovation.pdf, downloaded on 3 June 2013; Laegreid, P., Rones, P.G., Verhoest, K., Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies (2011) Org. Stud., 32, pp. 1321-1347; Leiponen, A., Drejer, I., What exactly are technological regimes? Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities (2007) Res. Policy, 36, pp. 1221-1238; Moore, M., Hartley, J., Innovations in governance (2008) Public Manage. Rev., 10, pp. 3-20; Mulgan, G., (2007) Ready or Not? Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously, , NESTA London; Mulgan, G., Albury, D., (2003) Innovation in the Public Sector, , Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office London; (2006) Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organizations, , National Accounting Office (NAO) National Accounting Office London; (2005) Oslo Manual Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, , Oecd/eurostat OECD Paris; Osborne, S.P., Brown, L., Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king? (2011) Public Admin., 89, pp. 1335-1350; P{\"a}rna, O., Von Tunzelmann, N., (2007) Innovation in the Public Sector: Key Features Influencing the Development and Implementation of Technologically Innovative Public Sector Services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia, 12, pp. 109-125. , Information Polity; Pavitt, K., Sectoral patterns of technical change - Towards a taxonomy and a theory (1984) Res. Policy, 13, pp. 343-373; Potts, J., The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure (2009) Innov.: Manage. Policy Pract., 11, pp. 34-43; Potts, J., Kastelle, T., Public sector innovation research: What's next? (2010) Innov.: Manage. Policy Pract., 12, pp. 122-137; Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., Bausch, A., Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs (2011) J. Bus. Venturing, 26, pp. 441-457; Sorensen, E., Torfing, T., Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector (2012) Admin. Soc., 43, pp. 842-868; Steenkamp, J.-B., Ter Hofstede, F., Wedel, M., A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness (1999) Am. Marketing Assoc., 63, pp. 55-69; Torugsa, A., Arundel, A., The nature and incidence of workgroup innovation in the Australian public sector: Evidence from the Australian 2011 state of the service survey (2015) Aust. J. Public Admin.; Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms (1999) Res. Policy, 28, pp. 63-80; Walker, R.M., Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government (2006) Public Admin., 84, pp. 311-335",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "1271--1282",
journal = "Research Policy",
issn = "0048-7333",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

How European public sector agencies innovate : The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. / Arundel, A.; Casali, L.; Hollanders, H.

In: Research Policy, Vol. 44, No. 7, 2015, p. 1271-1282.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How European public sector agencies innovate

T2 - The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods

AU - Arundel, A.

AU - Casali, L.

AU - Hollanders, H.

N1 - Cited By :2 Export Date: 8 December 2016 CODEN: REPYB Correspondence Address: Arundel, A.; Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Australia and UNU-MERIT, University of Maastricht, Sandy Bay, Netherlands; email: anthony.arundel@utas.edu.au References: Alexy, O., Reitzig, M., Private-collective innovation, competition, and firms' counter intuitive appropriation strategies (2013) Res. Policy, 42, pp. 895-913; Amara, N., Landry, R., Traore, N., Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services (2008) Res. Policy, 37, pp. 1530-1547; (2011) State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2010-2011, , (australian Public Service Commission) A. Commonwealth of Australia Canberra; Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.-A., Valeyre, A., How Europe's economies learn: A comparison of work organization and innovation method for the EU-15 (2007) Ind. Corporate Change, 16, pp. 1175-1210; Arundel, A., Huber, D., From too little to too much innovation? Issues in monitoring innovation in the public sector (2013) Struct. Change Econ. Dyn., 27, pp. 146-149; Commission, A., (2007) Seeing the Light: Innovation in Local Public Services, , Audit Commission London; Bloch, C., Bugge, M.M., Public sector innovation - From theory to measurement (2013) Struct. Change Econ. Dyn., 27, pp. 133-145; Borins, S., Encouraging innovation in the public sector (2001) J. Intellectual Capital, 2, pp. 310-319; Borins, S., (2006) The Challenge of Innovating in Government, , IBM Center for Business of Government; Borins, S., Making narrative count: A narratological approach to public management innovation (2012) J. Public Admin. Res. Theory, 22, pp. 165-189; Boyne, G.A., Public and private management: What's the difference? (2002) J. Manage. Stud., 39, pp. 97-122; Boyne, G.A., Gould-Williams, J.S., Law, J., Walker, R.M., Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform (2005) Environ. Plann. C: Govt. Policy, 23, pp. 419-435; Bugge, M.M., Mortensen, P.S., Bloch, C., (2011) Measuring Public Innovation in Nordic Countries: Report on the Nordic Pilot Studies, , Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy (CFA), University of Aarhus Denmark; Bysted, R., Jespersen, K.R., Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees (2014) Public Manage. Rev., 16, pp. 217-241; Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., The whole-of-Government approach to public sector reform (2007) Public Admin. Rev., 67, pp. 1059-1066; Damanpour, F., Schneider, M., Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers (2006) Br. J. Manage., 17, pp. 215-236; Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J., New public management is dead - Long live digital governance (2005) J. Public Admin. Res. Theory, 16, pp. 467-494; Commission, E., (2011) Innobarometer 2010: Analytical Report Innovation in Public Administration (Flash Eurobarometer 305), , DG Enterprise Brussels; (2012) Final Consumption Expenditures of General Government at Current Prices, Percent of GDP, and General Government Gross Fixed Capital Formation for EU-27, , http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, Eurostat (downloaded on 16 January 2012, from); (2015) Final Consumption Expenditures of General Government at Current Prices, 2003 to 2014, , http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NAGIGP01EUA661S Eurostat (downloaded on 17 April 2015, from) and FRED data for EU GDP deflators (downloaded on 17 April 2015; Furman, J.L., Hayes, R., Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999 (2004) Res. Policy, 33, pp. 1329-1354; Hartley, J., Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present (2005) Public Money Manage., 25, pp. 27-34; Hartley, J., Sorensen, J., Torfing, J., Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship (2013) Public Admin. Rev., 73, pp. 821-830; Hofstede, G., Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context (2011) Online Readings Psychol. Culture, 2, p. 1014. , arxiv:/dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919; Hughes, A., Moore, K., Kataria, N., (2011) Innovation in Public Sector Organizations: A Pilot Survey for Measuring Innovation Across the Public Sector, , NESTA Index Report London; James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias (1984) J. Appl. Psychol., 69, pp. 85-98; De Jong, J.P.G., Marsili, O., The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms (2006) Res. Policy, 35, pp. 213-229; Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries (2010) Econ. Innov. New Technol., 19, pp. 583-604; Kaasa, A., (2013) Culture As A Possible Factor of Innovation: Evidence from the European Union and Neighbouring Countries, , SEARCH Working Paper, European Commission Brussels; Kim, Y., Stimulating entrepreneurial practices in the public sector: The roles of organizational characteristics (2010) Admin. Soc., 42, pp. 780-814; Koch, P., Hauknes, J., On Innovation in the Public Sector (2005) Publin Report No. D20, NIFU-STEP, Oslo, , http://thelearningnetwork.net/Downloads/Library/PUBLIN-publicsectorinnovation.pdf, downloaded on 3 June 2013; Laegreid, P., Rones, P.G., Verhoest, K., Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies (2011) Org. Stud., 32, pp. 1321-1347; Leiponen, A., Drejer, I., What exactly are technological regimes? Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities (2007) Res. Policy, 36, pp. 1221-1238; Moore, M., Hartley, J., Innovations in governance (2008) Public Manage. Rev., 10, pp. 3-20; Mulgan, G., (2007) Ready or Not? Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously, , NESTA London; Mulgan, G., Albury, D., (2003) Innovation in the Public Sector, , Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office London; (2006) Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organizations, , National Accounting Office (NAO) National Accounting Office London; (2005) Oslo Manual Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, , Oecd/eurostat OECD Paris; Osborne, S.P., Brown, L., Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king? (2011) Public Admin., 89, pp. 1335-1350; Pärna, O., Von Tunzelmann, N., (2007) Innovation in the Public Sector: Key Features Influencing the Development and Implementation of Technologically Innovative Public Sector Services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia, 12, pp. 109-125. , Information Polity; Pavitt, K., Sectoral patterns of technical change - Towards a taxonomy and a theory (1984) Res. Policy, 13, pp. 343-373; Potts, J., The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure (2009) Innov.: Manage. Policy Pract., 11, pp. 34-43; Potts, J., Kastelle, T., Public sector innovation research: What's next? (2010) Innov.: Manage. Policy Pract., 12, pp. 122-137; Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., Bausch, A., Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs (2011) J. Bus. Venturing, 26, pp. 441-457; Sorensen, E., Torfing, T., Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector (2012) Admin. Soc., 43, pp. 842-868; Steenkamp, J.-B., Ter Hofstede, F., Wedel, M., A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness (1999) Am. Marketing Assoc., 63, pp. 55-69; Torugsa, A., Arundel, A., The nature and incidence of workgroup innovation in the Australian public sector: Evidence from the Australian 2011 state of the service survey (2015) Aust. J. Public Admin.; Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms (1999) Res. Policy, 28, pp. 63-80; Walker, R.M., Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government (2006) Public Admin., 84, pp. 311-335

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Factor and cluster analysis are used to identify different methods that public sector agencies in Europe use to innovate, based on data from a 2010 survey of 3273 agencies. The analyses identify three types of innovative agencies: bottom-up, knowledge-scanning, and policy-dependent. The distribution of bottom-up agencies across European countries is positively correlated with average per capita incomes while the distribution of knowledge-scanning agencies is negatively correlated with income. In contrast, there is no consistent pattern by country in the distribution of policy-dependent agencies. Regression results that control for agency characteristics find that innovation methods are significantly correlated with the beneficial outcomes of innovation, with bottom-up and knowledge-scanning agencies out-performing policy-dependent agencies. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

AB - Factor and cluster analysis are used to identify different methods that public sector agencies in Europe use to innovate, based on data from a 2010 survey of 3273 agencies. The analyses identify three types of innovative agencies: bottom-up, knowledge-scanning, and policy-dependent. The distribution of bottom-up agencies across European countries is positively correlated with average per capita incomes while the distribution of knowledge-scanning agencies is negatively correlated with income. In contrast, there is no consistent pattern by country in the distribution of policy-dependent agencies. Regression results that control for agency characteristics find that innovation methods are significantly correlated with the beneficial outcomes of innovation, with bottom-up and knowledge-scanning agencies out-performing policy-dependent agencies. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

KW - Innovation outcomes

KW - Innovation survey

KW - Public sector innovation

KW - Taxonomy of innovation

KW - Cluster analysis

KW - Surveys

KW - Bottom up

KW - European Countries

KW - Factor and cluster analysis

KW - Innovation methods

KW - Per capita income

KW - Public sector

KW - Public sector agencies

KW - Scanning

U2 - 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 1271

EP - 1282

JO - Research Policy

JF - Research Policy

SN - 0048-7333

IS - 7

ER -