Public sector innovation research: What’s next?

By Jason Potts, T. Kastelle. 2010

159 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract This paper introduces the analytic context of public sector innovation studies along with an overview of the nine papers in this volume. But it also seeks to advance a new research agenda in public sector innovation studies from the economic perspective of the incentives to innovation in the public sector. This argues for a practical model of public sector innovation that is less about imitation of the market sector or other public sector best practice and more cognizant of the scientific method of randomised controlled experiments.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Marketing, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2906166fd74a5f29d401c824da03337f146c1d5f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Marketing

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals (2019, background): “Risk-averse conditions can be created by political damage to elected officials from media scrutiny of failed policies (Albury, 2005; Borins, 2001; Potts and Kastelle, 2010), reputational risks for managers (Pärna and von Tunzelmann, 2007) and self-selection effects whereby risk-averse individuals ar”
How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods (2015, background): “Concerns over political ‘embarrassment’ or creating an opportunity for opposition party scrutiny and criticism (Koch and Hauknes, 2005; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Potts and Kastelle, 2010) could result in riskaverse politicians limiting the discretionary freedom of managers to innovate.”
Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing (2017, background): “Of particular importance is the need to integrate and balance bottom up, coproduction models with a more centralised strategic direction without this being overly bureaucratic and stifling of innovation (Osborne and Brown, 2013; Potts and Kastelle, 2010).”