The Association Between Administrative Characteristics and National Level Innovative Activity: Findings from a Cross-National Study

References

• Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic backwardness in political perspective. American political science review, 100(01), 115–131.
   Google Scholar
• Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aragón Amonarriz, C., Iturrioz, C., Narvaiza, L., & Parrilli, M. D. (2017). The role of social capital in regional innovation systems: Creative social capital and its institutionalization process. Papers in Regional Science. doi:10.1111/pirs.12329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arundel, A., & Huber, D. (2013). From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the public sector. Structural change and economic dynamics, 27, 146–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aucoin, P. (2012). New political governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance, 25(2), 177–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, N. B. (2016). Transaction costs in public–private partnerships: The weight of institutional quality in developing countries revisited. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(2), 431–455. doi:10.1080/15309576.2016.1244092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch, C., & Bugge, M. M. (2013). Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement. Structural change and economic dynamics, 27, 133–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boräng, F., Nistotskaya, M., & Xezonakis, G. (2017). The quality of government determinants of support for democracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 17(1–2), e1643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2014). What to make of social innovation? Towards a framework for policy development. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 411–421.
   Google Scholar
• Broberg, J. C., McKelvie, A., Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., & Wan, W. P. (2013). Political institutional structure influences on innovative activity. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2574–2580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantwell, J. (2005). Innovation and competitiveness (pp. 543–567): Nueva York, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlino, G. A. (2001). Knowledge spillovers: cities’ role in the new economy. Business Review Q, 4, 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Charron, N., Dahlström, C., & Lapuente, V. (2016). Measuring meritocracy in the public sector in Europe: a new national and sub-national indicator. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), 499–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2014). The Global Innovation Index 2014: The Human Factor In Innovation Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2014-v5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2016). The Global Innovation Index. Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator
   Google Scholar
• Cornell, A. (2014). Why bureaucratic stability matters for the implementation of democratic governance programs. Governance, 27(2), 191–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornell, A., & Grimes, M. (2015). Institutions as incentives for civic action: Bureaucratic structures, civil society, and disruptive protests. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 664–678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespo, N. F., & Crespo, C. F. (2016). Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5265–5271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Bo, R., Khomenko, A., & Svensson, R. (2017a). The Quality of Government Basic Dataset, version Jan17. Retrieved from: http://qog.pol.gu.se/data/datadownloads/qogbasicdata
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Bo, R., Khomenko, A., & Svensson, R. (2017b). The Quality of Government Basic Dataset, version Jan17: Codebook. Retrieved from: http://qog.pol.gu.se/data/datadownloads/qogbasicdata
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., & Lapuente, V. (2017). Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Making of Good Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, J. (2010). Dimensions of bureaucracy. A cross-national dataset on the structure and behavior of public administration. QoG Working Paper Series, 13, 3–59.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, J. (2012a). The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 656–668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, J. (2012b). Public administration around the world. In S. Holmberg & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science (40–67). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Hartmann, F., Lindberg, A., & Nistotskaya, M. (2015). The QoG expert survey dataset II. Gothenburg, Sweden: Quality of Government Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F. (1996). Bureaucracy and innovation revisited: Effects of contingency factors, industrial sectors, and innovation characteristics. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 149–173.
   Google Scholar
• Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017a). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research policy, 46(9), 1681–1691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017b). Public sector innovation: the effect of universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• DiRienzo, C., & Das, J. (2015). Innovation and role of corruption and diversity: A cross-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 15(1), 51–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, D., & Corse, S. M. (1995). When it comes to product innovation, what is so bad about bureaucracy? The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 6(1), 55–76.
   Google Scholar
• Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2014). The Global Innovation Index 2014: WIPO.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M. (2012). How Bureaucratic Structure Matters: An Organizational Perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 157–168). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, M. K. (2002). Practical business forecasting. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, P., & Rauch, J. E. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J., & Godinho, M. M. (2005). Innovation and catching-up. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, 514–543.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research policy, 37(9), 1417–1435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Carro, R., & Lapuente-Giné, V. (2016). The Emperor’s clothes and the Pied Piper: Bureaucracy and scientific productivity. Science and Public Policy, 43(4), 546–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick, J., Goggin, M., Heikkila, T., Klingner, D., Machado, J., & Martell, C. (2011). A new look at comparative public administration: Trends in research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 821–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press Paperbacks.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeannot, G., Van de Walle, S., & Hammerschmid, G. (2018). Homogeneous national management policies or autonomous choices by administrative units? Inter-and intra-country management tools use variations in European central government administrations. Public Performance & Management Review, 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaasa, A. (2017). Culture and innovation: Evidence from the European union and neighbouring countries. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 108(1), 109–128. doi:10.1111/tesg.12194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaasa, A., Parts, E., & Kaldaru, H. (2012). The role of human and social capital for innovation in catching-up economies. In E. G. Carayannis, U. Varblane, & T. Roolaht (Eds.), Innovation Systems in Small Catching-Up Economies: New Perspectives on Practice and Policy (pp. 259–276). New York, NY: Springer New York.
   Google Scholar
• Kaasa, A., & Vadi, M. (2010). How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries. Economics of innovation and new technology, 19(7), 583–604.
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2015). Transitions in civil service systems: Robustness and flexibility in human resource management. In F. M. van der Meer, J. C. N. Raadschelders & T. A. J. Toonen (eds), Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century (pp. 203–222). New York, NY: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A., Mudambi, R., Cano-Kollmann, M., Oh, C. H., & Oh, C. H. (2016). An analysis of Japan’s connectivity to the global innovation system. Multinational Business Review, 24(4).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., Rutherford, A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (Eds.). (2017). Comparative Public Management: Why National, Environmental, and Organizational Context Matters. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meissner, D. (2015). Measuring Innovation-A Discussion of Innovation Indicators at the National Level.
   Google Scholar
• Meissner, D., Polt, W., & Vonortas, N. S. (2017). Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1184–1211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. (2000). Above politics: Credible commitment and efficiency in the design of public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 289–328. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024271
   Google Scholar
• Milward, B., Jensen, L., Roberts, A., Dussauge‐Laguna, M. I., Junjan, V., Torenvlied, R., … Durant, R. (2016). Is public management neglecting the state? Governance, 29(3), 311–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, P. S., & Bloch, C. W. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: technology, governance, globalization, 1(2), 145–162.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated.
   Google Scholar
• Neshkova, M. I., & Kostadinova, T. (2012). The effectiveness of administrative reform in new democracies. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 324–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nistotskaya, M., Charron, N., & Lapuente, V. (2015). The wealth of regions: quality of government and SMEs in 172 European regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1125–1155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nistotskaya, M., & Cingolani, L. (2016). Bureaucratic structure, regulatory quality, and entrepreneurship in a comparative perspective: Cross-sectional and panel data evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 519–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2015). Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 237–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector: Reading, mass. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government: ERIC.
   Google Scholar
• Park, J., Lee, K.-H., & Kim, P. S. (2016). Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 316–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2010). The Politics of Bureaucracy–an introduction to comparative public administration (6 utgåvan). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, O. H., Lember, V., Scherrer, W., & Ågren, R. (2016). 10 The Role of Private Actors in Public Sector Innovation Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance (pp. 197–214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pianta, M. (2006). Innovation and Employment. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford university press.
   Google Scholar
• Raghupathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2017). Innovation at country-level: association between economic development and patents. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 4.
   Google Scholar
• Rauch, J. E., & Evans, P. B. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of public economics, 75(1), 49–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, A., Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T., & Nadella, V. K. (2016). Radical and Incremental Innovation and the Role of University Scientist Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship (pp. 131–207). Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-cultural research, 46(2), 91–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, A. (2018). The aims of public administration: Reviving the classical view. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 73–85. doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvx003
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di Cataldo, M. (2014). Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schillemans, T., & van Twist, M. (2016). Coping with complexity: Internal audit and complex governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(2), 257–280. doi:10.1080/15309576.2016.1197133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuster, C. (2016). What causes patronage reform? It depends on the type of civil service reform. Public Administration, 94(4), 1094–1104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao, J., & Tu, D. (1995). The jackknife and bootstrap. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K. (2005). Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations (pp. 86–106). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K. H. (2006). Measuring Innovation. In F. Jan & C. M. David (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.
   Google Scholar
• Sohn, S. Y., Kim, D. H., & Jeon, S. Y. (2016). Re-evaluation of global innovation index based on a structural equation model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(4), 492–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundell, A. (2014). Are formal civil service examinations the most meritocratic way to recruit civil servants? Not in all countries. Public Administration, 92(2), 440–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., Khomenko, A., & Svensson, R. (2017). The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan17. Retrieved from: http://qog.pol.gu.se/data/datadownloads/qogstandarddata
   Google Scholar
• Teorell, J., Dahlström, C., & Dahlberg, S. (2011). The QoG Expert Survey Dataset. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Walle, S., Hammerschmid, G., Oprisor, A., & Stimac, V. (2016). Comparative Research in Public Administration and the Contribution of the COCOPS Top Executive Survey. Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top, 12.
   Google Scholar
• van der Wal, Z. (2017). The 21st Century Public Manager. London: Macmillan Education UK.
   Google Scholar
• Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research policy, 35(7), 1083–1090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verspagen, B. (2005). Innovation and economic growth. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waarts, E., & Van Everdingen, Y. (2005). The influence of national culture on the adoption status of innovations: An Empirical Study of Firms Across Europe. European Management Journal, 23(6), 601–610.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C. (2013). Can institutions explain cross country differences in innovative activity? Journal of Macroeconomics, 37, 128–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small business economics, 24(3), 335–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., & Verhoest, K. (2016). Internal performance-based steering in public sector organizations: Examining the effect of organizational autonomy and external result control. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 535–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K. (2009). American public administration: Are we prepared for the challenges? Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 579–584.
   Google Scholar
• Zhan, S., Bendapudi, N., & Hong, Y. Y. (2015). Re‐examining diversity as a double‐edged sword for innovation process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 1026–1049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar