Public sector innovation in context: A comparative study of innovation types

Figures & data

Table 1. Empirical innovation types studies and contextual factors.

Study	Theory and Methods	National Context	Innovation Types	Context Factors
Walker (2006)	Adoptionof Innovation Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	ENGLAND	Product Process Ancillary	Political disposition (proportion of Labour votes)	Changes in the social, political and economic context • Service need	Diffusion determinants: Public pressures: external sources Diversity of service need
Damanpour and Schneider (2009)	Adoptionof innovation Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	USA	Administrative	Urbanization Community wealth	Population Growth Unemployment rate
Walker (2007)	Adoptionof Innovation Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	ENGLAND	Product Process Marketization Ancillary	Service need Diversity of need Increasesin population	Turbulent external political climates	An organization’s perceived ability to influence the environment
Damanpour, Walker, and Avellaneda (2009)	Resource-based view Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	ENGLAND	Service Technological process Administrative process	Urbanization	Service need Indexof Multiple Deprivation	Service diversity-Ethnic Diversity
Wu, Ma, and Yang (2013)	Innovation typology Content analysis Bestpractice research Provincialand local governments	CHINA	Service Technological Management Collaborative Governance	Level of economic development	Level of administrative unit
Arundel and Huber (2013)	Innovation measures Innovation typology Quantitative methods Federal agencies	AUSTRALIA	Product-service Process Communication Policy	The study did not include any contextual variables
Gonzalez, Llopis, and Gasco (2013)	Strategic management Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	SPAIN	Product Process Collaborative	The study did not include any contextual variables
Bloch and Bugge (2013)	Innovation measures Innovation typology Quantitative methods Central, regional, local govs	DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN, FINLAND, ICELAND	Product Process Organizational Communication	The study did not include any contextual variables
Arundel, Casali, and Hollanders (2015	Innovation measures Innovation typology Quantitative methods Central, regional, local govs	EU COUNTRIES, NORWAY, AND SWITZERLAND	Service Organizational Process	Economic context
Walker et al. (2015)	Resource-based view Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local Governments	ENGLAND	Service Process: marketization, organizational, and technological Ancillary	Capacity: ○Political ○Economic ○Social variables ○Community	Complexity: ○Concentration ○Heterogeneity diversity	Dynamism ○Uncertain socioeconomic context, ○Uncertain political context
Bugge and Bloch (2016)	Innovation typology Content Analysis Central, regional, local governments	DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN, FINLAND, ICELAND, UK	Product Process Organizational Communication Bricolage Systemic	The study did not include any contextual variables
Torugsa and Arundel (2016)	Total innovativeness Innovation typology Quantitative methods Federal government	AUSTRALIA	Policy Service Service Delivery Administrative Conceptual	The study did not include any contextual variables
Korac, Saliterer, and Walker (2017)	Resource dependency Innovation typology Quantitative methods Local governments	AUSTRIA	Organizational Service Marketization Ancillary	Public pressures: ○Citizen demands ○Media pressures	Vertical pressures: central government mandate	Contextual Pressures: social, economic, and political changes competition
Chen, Walker, and Sawhney (2020)	Innovation Typology Public Value Content Analysis Best Practice Research Federal, State, Local govs	USA	Mission Policy Management Partner Service Citizen	The study did not include any contextual variables

Figure 1. Conceptual framework to study the role of national context on PSI.

Table 2. Characteristics of Italy, Japan and Turkey.

	Italy	Japan	Turkey
Region	Southern Europe	Asia	Eurasia
OECD Membership Year	1962	1964	1961
Administrative Context	Path-dependently centralistic and unitary. Fragmented administrative structure, due to the recent administrative reforms. A traditional Weberian approach which puts the state and the bureaucracy at the centre. The recent modernization efforts were regarded as a New-Weberian State model.	Path-dependently centralistic and unitary. The boundaries between central and local governments have become unclear due to complex tax and employment relationships. Path dependent attempts to shift from Weberian governance model to NPM and then to NPG.	Strongly Centralized. A traditional Weberian approach which puts the state and the bureaucracy at the centre, although the bureaucracy is highly politized and clientelist. There has been attempts to introduce NPM reforms due to EU membership process. The e-government reforms aim to modernize the state.
Political Context	Frequently changing prime ministers and governing party. Europeanization politics.	Strong prime ministers governing for long periods. The political nature of strong prefecture governors. Asian and Pacifist regional politics based on trade.	Strong Prime Minister and governing party engaged with the EU membership process between 2004 and 2012.
Economic andTechnological Context	High income group country but highly impacted by the 2008 crisis. Historically high-level of knowledge and technology outputs by SMEs and corporations.	High income group country but highly impacted by the 2008 crisis. Relatively highest level of knowledge and technology outputs by large corporations.	Upper middle-income group country. Sustained economic growth since 2000s. Low level of knowledge and technology outputs. Dependent on technology transfer.
Social Context	Social inequalities across regions. Ageing population. Immigration from developing countries. Historical organized crime problem.	Ageing population. Domestic population movements to industrialized cities and urbanization.	Social inequalities across regions. Relatively young population. Domestic population movements to industrialized cities and urbanization.
Temporal Context	Top-down policy based e-government and NPM reforms from 1990s initiated by the central government.	E-government and NPM reforms were adopted by governors and mayors from 1990s and diffused by administrative guidance by central government. A recent shift to NPG through the same mechanism.	Top-down policy based e-government and modernization reform from 2000s initiated by the governing party.

Source: OECD (2020) and Literature.

Table 3. Typology of innovations as a percentage of total cases and comparison with previous studies.

Innovation Types	Italy (40)		Japan (27)		Turkey (41)
	Number of Occurrences	%	Number of Occurrences	%	Number of Occurrences	%
PROCESS	27	67.5%	9	33.3%	34	82.9%
Technological Process	21	52.5%	9	33.3%	29	70.7%
Administrative Process	7	17.5%	0	0.0%	5	12.2%
Systemic	12	30.0%	9	33.3%	21	51.2%
Governance	14	35.0%	14	51.9%	2	4.9%
New service	5	12.5%	6	22.2%	7	17.1%
Social	5	12.5%	7	25.9%	3	7.3%
Conceptual	3	7.5%	6	22.2%	4	9.8%

Table 4. Data structure.

Table 5. The cross-country configuration of contexts and most common innovation types.

	Contexts					Innovation Types
	Administrative	Economic & Technological	Political	Social	Temporal
ITALY	Fragmented by large central ministries, new regions and small municipalities. A combination of NPM and NWS to modernize the bureaucracy and to gain legitimacy and citizen trust.	Low level of technology, economic recession and austerity	Transition of central governments. Local councils	Immigration and crime	2008 financial crisis and reform period since 1990s	1. High frequency of technological process innovations to introduce first generation of e-government reforms (From manual to digital) 2. Governance innovations to gain the destroyed citizen trust to governments. 3. Systemic innovations to coordinate fragmented central, regional, municipal governments.
JAPAN	Central governments, prefectures and small municipalities under a chain of unitary administrative control. A combination of NWS and NPG for citizen participation and legitimacy.	High level of technology, economic recession despite the past economic growth, Importance of highly skilled businesses	Strong elected political executives and central government audit	Ageing population andurbanization	2011Earthquake, 2008 financial crisis	1. Governance innovations to ensure citizen participation along with the legitimacy of elected local political executives. 2. Technological process innovations to deal with big data, social media and coordination of first generation e-government reforms 3. Systemic innovations to coordinate small municipalities under the prefectures and integrate businesses/citizens to the first generation e-government reforms 4. Local social innovations to deal with unemployment, urbanization and economic recession
TURKEY	Highly centralized. NPM to modernize bureaucracy, economic gains for businesses, clientelist,citizen satisfaction but strongly path-dependent to Weberian.	Low technology level and income, but sustained periodic economic growth	Strong political party and prime minister	Immigration and social inequalities	Unique reform period since 2002	1. The dominance of technological process innovations to introduce first generation of e-government reforms. (From manual to digital) 2. Systemic innovations to coordinate periphery organizations of central large organizations

Walker, R M. 2006. ”Innovation Type and Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis of Local Government.” Public Administration 84 (2): 311–335. Wiley Online Library. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00004.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Damanpour, F, and M Schneider. 2009. “Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (1): 259. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walker R M. 2007. An Empirical Evaluation of Innovation Types and Organizational and Environmental Characteristics: Towards a Configuration Framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 591–615. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum026.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Damanpour, F, R M. Walker, and C N. Avellaneda. 2009. ”Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations.” Journal of Management Studies 46 (4): 650–675. Wiley Online Library. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, J, L Ma, and Y Yang. 2013. “Innovation in the Chinese Public Sector: Typology and Distribution.” Public Administration 91 (2): 347–365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02010.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arundel, A, and D Huber. 2013. “From Too Little to Too Much Innovation? Issues in Measuring Innovation in the Public Sector.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 27: 146–159. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gonzalez, R, J Llopis, and J Gasco. 2013. “Innovation in Public Services: The Case of Spanish Local Government.” Journal of Business Research 66 (10): 2024–2033. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.028.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bloch, C, and M M. Bugge. 2013. “Public Sector Innovation-From Theory to Measurement.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 27: 133–145. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arundel, A, L Casali, and H Hollanders. 2015. “How European Public Sector Agencies Innovate: The Use of Bottom-Up, Policy-Dependent and Knowledge-Scanning Innovation Methods.” Research Policy 44 (7): 1271–1282. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walker R M, Berry F S and Avellaneda C N. 2015. LIMITS ON INNOVATIVENESS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: EXAMINING CAPACITY, COMPLEXITY, AND DYNAMISM IN ORGANIZATIONAL TASK ENVIRONMENTS. Public Admin 93 (3): 663–683. doi:10.1111/padm.12159.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bugge, M M., and C W. Bloch. 2016. “Between Bricolage and Breakthroughs—framing the Many Faces of Public Sector Innovation.” Public Money and Management 36 (4): 4. doi:10.1080/09540962.2016.1162599.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Torugsa, N A., and A Arundel. 2016. “Complexity of Innovation in the Public Sector: A Workgroup-Level Analysis of Related Factors and Outcomes.” Public Management Review 18 (3): 392–416. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.984626.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Korac, S, I Saliterer, and R M. Walker. 2017. “Analysing the Environmental Antecedents of Innovation Adoption Among Politicians and Public Managers.” Public Management Review 19 (4): 566–587. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1200119.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Jiyao, Richard M Walker, and Mohanbir Sawhney. 2020. ”Public Service Innovation: A Typology.” Public Management Review 22 (11): 1674–1695. Routledge. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1645874.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020. OECD Statistics. Retrieved 17 August 2021. https://stats.oecd.org/

 Google Scholar