IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v44y2015i7p1271-1282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Arundel, Anthony
  • Casali, Luca
  • Hollanders, Hugo

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Arundel, Anthony & Casali, Luca & Hollanders, Hugo, 2015. "How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1271-1282.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:7:p:1271-1282
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315000670
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexy, Oliver & Reitzig, Markus, 2013. "Private–collective innovation, competition, and firms’ counterintuitive appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 895-913.
    2. Arundel, Anthony & Huber, Dorothea, 2013. "From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the public sector," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 146-159.
    3. Bloch, Carter & Bugge, Markus M., 2013. "Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 133-145.
    4. Anneli Kaasa & Maaja Vadi, 2010. "How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 583-604.
    5. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Hayes, Richard, 2004. "Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1329-1354, November.
    6. Leiponen, Aija & Drejer, Ina, 2007. "What exactly are technological regimes?: Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1221-1238, October.
    7. Anthony Arundel & Edward Lorenz & Bengt-Åke Lundvall & Antoine Valeyre, 2007. "How Europe's economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1175-1210, December.
    8. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    9. Rune Bysted & Kristina Risom Jespersen, 2014. "Exploring Managerial Mechanisms that Influence Innovative Work Behaviour: Comparing private and public employees," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 217-241, February.
    10. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    11. George A. Boyne, 2002. "Public and Private Management: What’s the Difference?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 97-122, January.
    12. Jean Hartley, 2005. "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 27-34, January.
    13. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    14. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    15. Mark Moore & Jean Hartley, 2008. "Innovations in governance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 3-20, January.
    16. Rosenbusch, Nina & Brinckmann, Jan & Bausch, Andreas, 2011. "Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 441-457, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    2. Srholec, Martin & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "The Voyage of the Beagle in Innovation Systems Land.Explorations on Sectors, Innovation, Heterogeneity and Selection," MERIT Working Papers 2008-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Torugsa, Nuttaneeya (Ann) & Arundel, Anthony, 2017. "Rethinking the effect of risk aversion on the benefits of service innovations in public administration agencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 900-910.
    4. Laurin Buchheim & Alexander Krieger & Sarah Arndt, 2020. "Innovation types in public sector organizations: a systematic review of the literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 509-533, November.
    5. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    6. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    7. Jagoda Kaszowska-Mojsa, 2021. "Innovation Strategies of Polish Manufacturing Companies through the Business Cycle," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 2, pages 39-65.
    8. Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Audretsch, David B., 2017. "Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1681-1691.
    9. Barrutia, Jose M. & Echebarria, Carmen & Aguado-Moralejo, Itziar & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, Vanessa & Hartmann, Patrick, 2022. "Leading smart city projects: Government dynamic capabilities and public value creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Trigo, Alexandre & Vence, Xavier, 2012. "Scope and patterns of innovation cooperation in Spanish service enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 602-613.
    11. Alp Eren Yurtseven & Mehmet Teoman Pamukçu, 2022. "Innovation patterns in firms and intra-industry heterogeneity empirical evidence from Turkey," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 645-679, September.
    12. Marcel Ausloos & Francesca Bartolacci & Nicola G. Castellano & Roy Cerqueti, 2018. "Exploring how innovation strategies at time of crisis influence performance: a cluster analysis perspective," Papers 1808.05893, arXiv.org.
    13. Rammer, Christian & Krieger, Bastian & Peters, Bettina, 2022. "Studie zu den Treibern und Hemmnissen der Innovationstätigkeit im deutschen Mittelstand," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 270421.
    14. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2015. "Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 698-710.
    15. Peneder, Michael, 2010. "Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 323-334, April.
    16. Diana Suárez, 2015. "This paper analyzes changes in the firm’s innovative strategy and how this impacts firm’s performance. The methodology is based on a cluster analysis over 800 Argentinean manufacturing firms with info," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-04, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    17. Marco Capasso & Marina Rybalka, 2022. "Innovation Pattern Heterogeneity: Data-Driven Retrieval of Firms’ Approaches to Innovation," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Holger Graf, 2013. "Inventor Networks in Emerging Key Technologies: Information Technology vs. Semiconductors," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 55-76, Springer.
    19. Arundel, Anthony & Bloch, Carter & Ferguson, Barry, 2019. "Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 789-798.
    20. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:7:p:1271-1282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.