Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1271-1282 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Research Policy |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
JEL classifications
- o32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
- o31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Research Policy, Vol. 44, No. 7, 2015, p. 1271-1282.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-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
SN - 0048-7333
VL - 44
SP - 1271
EP - 1282
JO - Research Policy
JF - Research Policy
IS - 7
ER -