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

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.

[1]  J. Potts.  The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure , 2009 .

[2]  Maaja Vadi,et al.  How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries , 2010 .

[3]  Markus M. Bugge,et al.  Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement , 2013 .

[4]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  The Nature and Incidence of Workgroup Innovation in the Australian Public Sector: Evidence from the Australian 2011 State of the Service Survey , 2016 .

[5]  Richard M. Walker,et al.  INNOVATION TYPE AND DIFFUSION: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT , 2006 .

[6]  George A. Boyne,et al.  Explaining the Adoption of Innovation: An Empirical Analysis of Public Management Reform , 2005 .

[7]  D. Third.  OECD/Eurostat . Oslo Manual-Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Paris, France: , 2005 .

[8]  K. Pavitt.  Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[9]  George A. Boyne,et al.  Public and Private Management: What's the Difference? , 2002 .

[10]  R. Veugelers,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY MAKE AND BUY IN INNOVATION STRATEGIES : EVIDENCE FROM BELGIAN MANUFACTURING FIRMS , 1998 .

[11]  S. Borins,et al.  Encouraging innovation in the public sector , 2001 .

[12]  Younhee Kim,et al.  Stimulating Entrepreneurial Practices in the Public Sector , 2010 .

[13]  S. Osborne,et al.  INNOVATION, PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC SERVICES DELIVERY IN THE UK. THE WORD THAT WOULD BE KING? , 2011 .

[14]  Tim Kastelle,et al.  Public sector innovation research: What’s next? , 2010 .

[15]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[16]  J. Hartley,et al.  Collaborative innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship , 2013 .

[17]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present , 2005 .

[18]  S. Borins.  Making Narrative Count: A Narratological Approach to Public Management Innovation , 2012 .

[19]  Victor Bekkers,et al.  Innovation in the Public Sector , 2011 .

[20]  Nick von Tunzelmann,et al.  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 , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[21]  Jeffrey L. Furman,et al.  Catching up or standing still? , 2004 .

[22]  A. Leiponen,et al.  What exactly are technological regimes?: Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities , 2007 .

[23]  Orietta Marsili,et al.  The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms , 2006 .

[24]  M. Wedel,et al.  A CROSS -NATIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL CULTURAL ANTECEDENTS OF CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS , 1999 .

[25]  Marguerite Schneider,et al.  Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers , 2006 .

[26]  K. R. Jespersen,et al.  Exploring Managerial Mechanisms that Influence Innovative Work Behaviour: Comparing private and public employees , 2014 .

[27]  Mark H. Moore,et al.  Innovations in governance , 2008 .

[28]  A. Arundel,et al.  From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the public sector , 2013 .

[29]  Nina Rosenbusch,et al.  Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs , 2011 .

[30]  M. Reitzig,et al.  Private-Collective Innovation, Competition, and Firms’ Counterintuitive Appropriation Strategies , 2011 .

[31]  A. Kaasa.  Culture as a Possible Factor of Innovation: Evidence from the European Union and Neighboring Countries , 2016 .

[32]  Réjean Landry,et al.  Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services , 2008 .

[33]  Tom Christensen,et al.  The Whole‐of‐Government Approach to Public Sector Reform , 2007 .

[34]  G. Hofstede.  Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context , 2011 .

[35]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance , 2005 .

[36]  Jacob Torfing,et al.  Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector , 2011 .

[37]  Koen Verhoest,et al.  Explaining the Innovative Culture and Activities of State Agencies , 2011 .