Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a systematic literature review we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empirically-based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We propose three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method approaches; (2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and (3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation.

Full text

Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and
Future Research Agenda
Hanna de Vries1, Victor Bekkers2, Lars (L.G.) Tummers3
Final version for Public Administration
Address correspondence to the author at Devries@fsw.eur.nl
To be cited as: De Vries, H.A., Bekkers, V.J.J.M., L.G. Tummers (forthcoming).
Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Public
Administration
1 Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
Devries@fsw.eur.nl
2 Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
Bekkers@fsw.eur.nl
3 Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands & Center
for the study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley, The United States,
Tummers@fsw.eur.nl

2
Abstract
This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a
systematic literature review we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation,
published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1)
the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of
innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empirically-
based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We
propose three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a
qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method
approaches; (2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and
(3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different
governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation.
Keywords:
 Systematic review
 Innovation
 Public sector
 Public entrepreneurship

3
1 Introduction
Scholars and practitioners have become increasingly interested in innovation in the public sector
(Osborne and Brown 2011; Walker 2014). Many embrace the idea that innovation can contribute
to improving the quality of public services as well as to enhancing the problem-solving capacity
of governmental organizations in dealing with societal challenges (Damanpour and Schneider
2009). Frequently, public sector innovation is linked to reform movements such as New Public
Management (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), electronic government (Bekkers and Homburg 2005),
the change from government to governance (Rhodes 1996) and, most recently, to the discussions
on the retreating role of government in a ‘Big Society’ (Lowndes and Pratchett 2012).
In the private sector, innovation is an established field of study that tries to explain why
and how innovation takes place (Fagerberg et al. 2005). General literature reviews and systematic
reviews have been carried out to assess the state-of-the-art in this field as well as to generate new
avenues for theory building and research (Perks and Roberts 2013). There are even some meta-
analyses, such as that of Damanpour (1991), that pull together the results of empirical research on
the relationships between organizational variables, such as slack resources, and innovation.
However, what is known about innovation in the public sector? What topics have been
addressed in the innovation studies to date, and what are the possible avenues for future research?
Moreover, what can be added to the current methodological state-of-the art when it comes to
public innovation research?
The first contribution of this article is methodological in that we have elected to conduct
a systematic review (Moher et al. 2009). These differ from traditional literature reviews in that
they are replicable and transparent, involving several explicit steps such as using a standardized
way to identify all the likely relevant publications. In public administration, such systematic
reviews have become increasingly popular (e.g. Tummers et al. forthcoming). Nevertheless, a
comprehensive systematic overview of public sector innovation is still lacking.
Second, most of the literature reviews on public innovation that have been conducted in
recent years aim to conceptually, rather than empirically (for example, based on explicit data
such as in case studies and surveys), grasp the meaning and importance of public sector

4
innovation (examples are Osborne and Brown 2011; Sørensen and Torfing 2011). Others address
this challenge through a normative approach (for instance, Bason 2010). This can be seen as a
substantial shortcoming as systematic overviews of empirical evidence are essential to
summarize the existing, evidence-based body of knowledge and to establish a future research
agenda (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 2004). As such, our investigation is able to identify areas where
substantial progress has been made, and point to areas where future studies could best be
directed.
A third related contribution concerns the antecedents in the innovation process. Given the
predominance of conceptual or normative overviews, the question can be raised as to how much
we currently know about the underling process of public sector innovation as mapped in the
innovation studies. Do we really know the impeding and the stimulating antecedents?
In addressing this topic, we embed our research questions in the open innovation debate
that stresses the content, course and outcome of the innovation process as the result of complex
interactions between intra-organizational antecedents, resources and actors and external,
environmental antecedents, resources and actors. This interaction presupposes rather open
boundaries between an organization and the environmental context in which it operates, and can
be understood in terms of drivers and barriers (Chesbrough 2003). Recently, such approaches can
also be seen in research into public sector innovation (Osborne and Brown 2013, p. 7).
As a result of these porous boundaries, antecedents that need to be further explored in
public innovation research include both the environmental and the organizational contexts in
which innovations take place, their nature, and also the enabling antecedents and their underlying
contingencies. Moreover, there is a need to look deeper into the goals and effects of the
innovation process since, whilst innovation and improvement have often been assumed
synonymous, this is by no means always the case (Osborne and Brown 2013, p. 4; see also
Hartley 2005).
In response to these questions, this article provides a comprehensive overview of how
public innovation has been studied by addressing (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation
types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents in the innovation process and (5) outcomes. This

5
research design is aligned with other systematic reviews in the social science field such as that of
Greenhalgh et al. (2004).
Based on this, our overall guiding research questions can be phrased as follows:
1. What definitions of public sector innovation are being used?
2. What public sector innovation types can be distinguished?
3. What are the goals of public sector innovation?
4. Which antecedents influence the public sector innovation process?
5. What are the outcomes of the public sector innovation process?
This brings us to the outline of this article. The next section describes the methodology used
to conduct the review. When reporting, we will follow the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) approach (Moher et al. 2009, see
Appendix). Then, Section 3, the ‘Results of systematic review’, presents the characteristics of the
eligible studies found and provides answers to the research questions listed above. Based on these
results, we draw conclusions in Section 4 and develop a future research agenda on innovation in
the public sector in Section 5.
2 Methodology
2.1 Literature search
Four strategies were used to identify eligible studies (Cooper 2010). We selected the period from
January 1990 to March 2014 to include two important publications published in the early 1990s,
namely Hood (1991) and Osborne and Gaebler (1992). These provided strong inputs to the NPM
debate, which in turn stimulated new ways of working in governmental organizations and
resulted in growing attention being given to public sector innovation.
First, we carried out an electronic search in two databases, ISI Web of Knowledge and
Scopus, to ensure we included a broad range of scientific output. We started with the search term

6
[innovat*], and this search generated more than 9,000 studies and was last conducted in April
2014. We decided to also search on the term [entrepreneur*] as innovation is often connected to
entrepreneurship. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter (1942), the founding father of modern
innovation theory, defined innovation as a process of creative destruction in which new
combinations of existing resources are achieved. He defines entrepreneurship as ‘Die
Durchsetzung neuer Kombinationen’: that is, the will and ability to achieve new combinations
that can compete with established combinations. Hence, entrepreneurship is inherently connected
to innovation as this is all about the will and ability of individuals to achieve new combinations
(Bekkers et al. 2011).
Second, we searched for journal articles on innovation published in five top public
administration journals, as we wanted to cover how innovation was defined there. These journals
were Governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Sciences,
Public Administration and Public Administration Review. The last search was conducted in April
2014 and this generated 34 possible studies for inclusion. Additionally, we also added three non
UK/USA oriented journals, Canadian Public Administration, International Review of
Administrative Sciences and Chinese Public Administration Review, to minimize the risk of bias
in the selection. This search generated 36 possible studies for inclusion.
Third, we sought relevant books using Google Books and similar information sources.
This search was last conducted in April 2014 and generated 89 possible studies for inclusion.
Fourth, we contacted experts in the field of public innovation and asked them to check
the list of eligible publications, and to indicate possible gaps. They identified 35 further studies.
We received the last expert e-mail in April 2014.
Although we used four search strategies, we must acknowledge a potential limitation
caused by the search criterion of seeking the terms innovation and entrepreneurship. As such, we
were placing our work firmly within the public administration discipline. However, it is possible
that we missed studies dedicated to innovation because different terminology, such as change,
was used. Although adding more terms is potentially worthwhile (and ‘change’ might have
thrown up more negative findings than ‘innovation’ which has positive overtones), this would

7
have been extremely time consuming as we already had to scan around 10,000 article titles.
Hence, we decided to limit ourselves to the search terms innovation and entrepreneurship (or
derivatives thereof).
2.2 Eligibility criteria
In reporting the systematic review, we adhere to the widely used ‘Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA, see Appendix). Studies from our original
searches were included in the systematic review if they met all of the following inclusion criteria:
 Field – Studies should deal with innovation in the public sector. We defined the public
sector as the ‘those parts of the economy that are either in state ownership or under
contract to the state, plus those parts that are regulated or subsidized in the public
context’ (Flynn 2007, p. 2).
 Topic – Studies should contain the words innovat* or entrepreneur* in their title and/or
abstract in order to prevent confusion with related concepts. For the first search term, it
was not necessary for the word ‘public’ to be in the title or abstract since some studies
are carried out in a specific public policy field (such as education) without mentioning
the term ‘public’. However when we searched for the term ‘entrepreneur*’, the word
‘public’ had to be included in the title or abstract as our review was focused on
innovation in the public sector.
 Study design - Only empirical studies were eligible as we are interested in empirical
evidence on public sector innovation. All research designs were allowable (e.g.
questionnaire, case study, experiment) but case studies that were purely illustrative in
nature were excluded. We also excluded systematic reviews (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 2004)
to avoid including studies twice.
 Year of publication - Studies were retrieved that were published in the period from
January 1990 to March 2014.
 Language - Only studies written in English were considered.

8
 Publication status - Only international peer-reviewed journal articles and books from
well-established publishers in the field of public administration and innovation were
included.
2.3 Study selection
In total, we screened around 10,000 studies. Based on the eligibility criteria, we eventually
included 181 studies in our analysis. Our selection process is presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow diagram
First, we screened the studies by scanning the abstracts and titles. Here we checked if all our
inclusion criteria (e.g. topic, language and year) were met. For instance, one of our inclusion
criteria was that the word innov* or entrepreneur* had to be included in the title and/or abstract.
For many studies this was not the case. We also found studies in other languages (e.g. Spanish or
French) or not conducted in the public sector. In this step, we also removed duplicates.
Records identified
through Scopus (n
= 4,746) and Web
of Knowledge (n =
5,175)
Records screened based on publication titles and abstracts (n = 10, 115)
Records screened by full reading of
abstract and/or articles (n = 268)
Records excluded
(e.g. research
design)
(n = 87)
Records included in review
(n = 181)
Records identified
through journals
(n = 70)
Records
identified through
Google books
(n = 89)
Records
identified
through experts
(n = 35)
Records excluded
(e.g. duplicates,
inappropriate topic
and language)
(n = 9,847
)

9
In the second step, we screened studies by reading the full abstracts and/or the full text.
Here, we excluded further studies mainly because they were theoretical in nature or had a weak
empirical design (such as case studies that were only illustrative in nature to support a theoretical
argument, e.g. Moore and Hartley 2008). This was not always clear from the abstracts, requiring,
in some cases, the full paper to be read.
For each empirical study, we developed a data extraction form to summarize the author(s),
publication year, title, journals, methods used, definition used, innovation types applied,
antecedents in the innovation process and outcomes. We then inductively divided the primary
studies' findings on the antecedents into four broad categories that refer to four levels: (1) the
environmental level, (2) the organizational level, (3) the innovation itself and (4) the individual
level. Within each category of antecedents, we identified subtopics such as, on the organizational
level, slack resources and leadership. These labels were frequently discussed among the
researchers. A similar process was conducted to code the innovation types, goals and outcomes.
We acknowledge that such coding is inherently subjective, and that there are many
connections between, for instance, the different types of antecedents (e.g. Borins 2000).
Nevertheless, we believe that the distinctions made can serve as a useful analytical tool to guide
the extraction of findings on innovation.
The studies were independently coded by one of three researchers. To safeguard the quality
of the review, the researchers discussed ‘difficult’ fragments by phone, Skype or in face-to-face
meetings. In this process, new labels for antecedents, goals or outcomes were introduced and
others deleted. Additionally, we also used CitNetExplorer, a new software tool that has been
developed for analysing and visualizing direct citation networks (Van Eck and Waltman 2014), to
see if they were any underlying patterns in the antecedents included. The main aim of this tool is
to study the development of a research field over time as ‘by showing the most important
publications in a field, ordered by the year in which they appeared, and the citation relations
between these publications, one obtains a picture of the development of a field over time’ (p. 2).
Since bibliographic data reflect the references that authors cite in scholarly publications,

10
bibliometric maps can be said to represent the self-portrait of a scientific community that its
members have unconsciously drawn over time.
In the next section we describe our findings.
3 Results of systematic review
3.1 Journals and countries
The articles included in the systematic review were published in 90 different journals. Many were
published in Public Management Review (16), Public Administration (12), Public Administration
Review (10) and the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (10). Besides these
public administration journals, articles were also found in very specific and dedicated journals
such as Health Care Management Review. When looking to the various book publishers, most of
the books included were published by well-established publishers such as Palgrave Macmillan.
The synthesized results of all the records identified show that the number of studies has increased
rapidly in recent years: 61% of all the selected studies were published between 2009 and 2014,
the others between 1990 and 2009.
Many of the studies were conducted in the USA and in the UK (25%, and 19%
respectively). This suggests that the American - Anglo-Saxon perspective is central when
studying innovation, which could have important implications as there might be an institutional
bias present. This might also influence the external validity of the findings, raising questions as to
how applicable they might be in other western or non-western (e.g. China) settings. A further
finding was that most of the studies included (144; 80%) were conducted in a single country,
indicating a lack of cross-country comparisons.
3.2 Research methods
Most of the studies analysed were qualitative in nature (101; 56%), mainly adopting a multiple
(50) or single case (21) study approach. Quantitative studies were less common (56; 31%). Only
a small group of studies (24; 13%) were based on data that were both quantitative and qualitative

11
in nature (e.g. Nählinder 2010). As such, a qualitative bias prevails. Given this approach, the
context of innovation and the antecedents within this context have received substantial attention.
3.3 Policy fields and government layers
Given the broad sweep of our review of public sector innovation studies in general, we were
interested in identifying the specific policy fields in which the innovations took place as well as
the dominant layer of government. The largest group of innovation studies were conducted on the
local government level (58; 27%, some studies included more than one policy field or
government layer), followed by central government (39; 18%) and healthcare (30; 14%), with
many of the latter being carried out in the UK (e.g. Turner et al. 2011). This significant presence
of both healthcare and local government can be largely attributed to the UK Labour government’s
programme of supporting public management reform since this encouraged innovation studies.
Only a few studies were conducted in the welfare (17; 8%) or education subsectors (11; 6%, e.g.
Brown 2010). Some studies also referred to the public sector in general terms without identifying
subsectors (e.g. Kumar and Rose 2012).
In the following sections, we provide the answers to our research questions: the definitions of
innovation used (RQ1, Section 3.4), innovation types (RQ2, Section 3.5), goals (RQ3, Section
3.6), antecedents in the innovation process (RQ4, Section 3.7 for general and Section 3.8 for
adoption/diffusion) and outcomes (RQ5, Section 3.9). Finally, in Section 3.10, we describe the
relationships between innovation types and antecedents and between innovation types and
outcomes.
3.4 Definitions used
In this section, we look at the various definitions applied in the studies. The most remarkable
finding is that most articles do not provide a definition of innovation (137; 76%). Often, the
boundaries of the concept were not referred to; for instance because the main topic of the study
was innovators rather than innovation itself (e.g. Meijer 2014). When innovation was defined, the

12
definition was often quite general (44 of our sample (24%) used a general definition). Most
definitions were based on Rogers (2003, p. 12) who defines innovation as ‘an idea, practice, or
object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’. Also based on Rogers,
various authors defined innovation as ‘the adoption of an existing idea for the first time by a
given organization’ (e.g. Borins 2000). Twenty-seven studies defined a specific type of
innovation (such as a product innovation).
When turning to the studies including a general definition, two main dimensions were
stressed in the definitions used. First, the perceived novelty was mentioned in 37 of the 44
general definitions (e.g. Bhatti et al. 2011). Second, the first adoption of an idea by a given
organization was also noted (five studies, e.g. Borins 2000). Seventeen studies included both
elements (e.g. Salge and Vera 2012). Interestingly, only one study referred to the extent that a
discontinuity with the past was present. This can be considered a substantial weakness since its
inclusion offers the possibility to distinguish between innovation and incremental change. For
instance, Osborne and Brown (2013, p. 3) argue how the distinctive nature and challenges of
innovation, as opposed to ‘continuous’ change, can otherwise become lost as innovation can be
considered a specific discontinuous form of change.
The next step is to look at the different innovation types included.
3.5 Innovation types
As the definition of innovation in the public sector is often quite broad, innovation types are often
specified (Moore and Hartley 2008). Past research has argued that distinguishing types of
innovation is necessary for understanding organizations’ innovative behaviour because they have
different characteristics and their adoptions are not affected identically by, for instance,
organizational antecedents (Walker 2006).
Based on a review of the innovation literature, we have classified four innovation types
as shown in Table 1. These types are sometimes defined as dimensions of innovation, particularly
in the private sector literature (Damanpour 1991). We consider dimensions and types to both
refer to the same phenomenon and indeed the terms are often used interchangeably.

13
TABLE 1 Public sector innovation types applied
Innovation type
Focus
References
Examples
Process innovation
Improvement of quality and
efficiency of internal and
external processes
Walker (2014)
Administrative process
innovation
Creation of new
organizational forms, the
introduction of new
management methods and
techniques and new
working methods
Meeus and Edquist (2006)
Creation of a ‘one-stop
shop’ by a municipality,
where citizens can access
various services at a single
location
Technological process
innovation
Creation or use of new
technologies, introduced in
an organization to render
services to users and
citizens
Edquist et al. (2001)
Digital assessment of taxes
Product or service
innovation
Creation of new public
services or products
Damanpour and Schneider
(2009)
Creation of youth work
disability benefits
Governance innovation
Development of new forms
and processes to address
specific societal problems
Moore and Hartley (2008)
Governance practice that
attempts to enhance the
self-regulating and self-
organizing capacities of
policy networks
Conceptual innovation
Introduction of new
concepts, frames of
reference or new paradigms
that help to reframe the
nature of specific problems
as well as their possible
solutions
Bekkers et al. (2011)
The introduction of the
paradigm that, when
assessing a person’s work
disability, insurance
physicians no longer
analyse what people cannot
do, but instead analyse what
they can still do, hence

14
focusing on potential work
ability
When analysing the studies, each innovation identified was allocated to one of the
abovementioned categories depending on its main goal (as identified in the publication studied).
Although we have four main categories of innovation, we recognize that, in practice, these types
are often intertwined creating hybrid forms. Nevertheless, this distinction serves as a helpful
analytical tool to focus on the different forms of innovation
Occurrences of the different innovation categories identified are summarized in Table 2.
Overall, our analysis shows that the dominant focus in the body of empirical knowledge on
public sector innovation is on internal administrative, often technology-driven, processes.
TABLE 2 Types of public sector innovation
Innovation type
Number
Process innovation
105 (47%)
Administrative process innovation
89 (40%)
Technological process innovation
16 (7%)
Product or service innovation
49 (22%)
Governance innovation
29 (13%)
Conceptual innovation
4 (2%)
Other
35 (16%)
Total N = 222 (100%) - some studies included more than one type
By far the largest category consisted of administrative process innovations (a subset of process
innovations). These are often driven by NPM–like reform ideas. For instance, Hansen (2011)
analysed the relationship between leadership and the adoption of innovations associated with
NPM among 262 Danish public managers. Innovations examined in this study included the
outsourcing of initiatives by municipalities. The next largest category was product or service
innovations (e.g. Pärna and Von Tunzelmann 2007).

15
In the literature, much less attention has been paid to technological process innovations
(a subset of process innovations, often related to e-government and redesign), governance
innovations and conceptual innovations. An example of a governance innovation can be found in
the study by Schoeman et al. (2012) where partnerships with private partners are put forward as a
way to address societal challenges. This type of innovation is, however, receiving growing
attention (65% of all studies about governance innovations have been published since 2009).
Finally, the category ‘Other’ included many topics. For instance, there were studies that focused
to varying extents on the behavioural components of innovation such as on the public
entrepreneur involved (Meijer 2014).
In summing up, we can say that the literature seems to lean towards intra-organizational
process innovations, which are often closely related to two major reform movements in public
administration, namely NPM and e-government. This suggests that other types, especially
governance and conceptual but also inter-organizational innovations, have not been thoroughly
investigated.
We now turn to the innovation goals encountered in our review.
3.6 Innovation goals
Table 3 shows, based on the studies analysed, the goals that public sector innovations sought to
achieve.

16
TABLE 3 Public sector innovation goals
Goals
Number
Increasing effectiveness
47 (18%)
Increasing efficiency
41 (15%)
Tackling societal problems (e.g. addressing unemployment, overweight)
28 (10%)
Increasing customer satisfaction
19 (7%)
Involving citizens
15 (6%)
Involving private partners
6 (2%)
Other
19 (7%)
No goals mentioned
92 (35%)
Total N = 267 (100%) – some studies included more than one goal
The first striking observation is that 35% of the articles studied failed to mention any goals. One
reason is that some studies did not focus on the goals of the innovation but, for instance, on the
innovation process (e.g. Piening 2011).
The most often mentioned motivation for innovation (on 88 occasions) was improving
performance, expressed in terms of effectiveness or efficiency. Studies that referred to this
highlighted notions such as ‘performing with less’ (e.g. Kim and Lee 2009). This was especially
the case in the UK healthcare sector (e.g. Turner et al. 2011) where government programmes
stimulated hospitals to adopt management practices that often reflected NPM ideas. This goal
was quite closely followed by goals related to participation and cooperation (on 68 occasions),
for instance through involving citizens (e.g. Carter and Bélanger 2005).
These findings can be related to the two logics of action put forward by March and Olsen
(1989) when trying to understand the functioning of the public sector: the logic of consequence
and the logic of appropriateness. The logic of consequence looks at the effects of various
alternatives while the logic of appropriateness relates actions to situations by means of rules
organized into identities. The stressing of efficiency and effectiveness is often related to the logic
of consequence (Weber et al. 2004). The logic of appropriateness typically refers to the
legitimacy of government and the trust that citizens have that governments are able to deal with
the problems they are concerned about, implying that citizens have to get more involved (e.g.

17
Carter and Bélanger 2005). The appropriateness logic was present in 23% of the identified logics
(whereas the consequence logic was present in 33%), perhaps indicating that public innovations
are not as strongly inspired by the private sector as many NPM reformers suggest (Hood 1991).
That is, public sector innovation is not only about efficiency but also focused on acquiring trust
and legitimacy (e.g. Bekkers et al. 2011).
Our next step was to identify the ways in which these goals were established.
3.7 Antecedents in the innovation process
In this section, we analyse antecedents that were identified as influential in the innovation
process. Antecedents can, depending on their level and the specific context, be either a driver or a
barrier. For instance, Borins (2001) mentioned the risk-averse public administration culture as a
key aspect that hindered innovation. Conversely, other authors have identified a learning culture
favouring innovation (e.g. Kumar and Rose 2010). As such, these two studies report distinct roles
for organizational culture. As described in the ‘Methodology’ section, these antecedents have
been categorized into drivers and barriers that relate to four main categories on four levels:
 environmental level: external context (e.g. political mandates)
 organizational level: aspects that include the structural and cultural features of an
organization (e.g. organizational slack resources)
 innovation level: intrinsic attributes of an innovation (e.g. complexity of the
innovation)
 individual/employee level: characteristics of individuals who innovate (e.g.
empowerment)
Further, in Section 3.8 we explicitly distinguish between antecedents related to the innovation
generation stage and those related to the adoption/diffusion stage of the innovation process.
Innovation generation is ‘a process that results in an outcome that is new to an organizational
population’ (Damanpour and Schneider 2009, p. 497). Innovation adoption is ‘the voluntary
and/or coercive process through which an organization passes from first knowledge of an

18
innovation, to forming an attitude towards the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to
implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision’ (Rogers 2003, p. 20). The
diffusion of an innovation can be seen as ‘a process in which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system’ (Rogers 2003, p. 5).
In the literature, it is generally assumed that antecedents related to the diffusion and
adoption stage are mainly centred on intrinsic innovation attributes (Rogers 2003), and that this
makes this stage rather different from the innovation generation stage. Our question is whether
the studies examined support this supposition.
In the following subsection, we will first describe the various antecedents encountered
and then relate these antecedents to the various stages.
Antecedents related to the environmental level
Table 4 presents an overview of the antecedents related to the environmental level. This category
covers those studies that analyse innovation activities that do not take place on the organizational,
individual or innovation level. Very often, these antecedents were linked to the specific context in
which an organization operated. This underlines the importance attached in the innovation
literature to the idea that innovations are locally embedded and the result of co-evolution between
different demands and pressures that stem from different but closely related (public, political and
media) environments (Bekkers et al. 2011).
TABLE 4 Environmental antecedents
Antecedent
Number
Environmental pressures (media attention, political demands, public demands)
22 (29%)
Participation in networks and inter-organizational relationships
21 (27%)
Regulatory aspects
12 (16%)
Compatible agencies/organizations/states adopting the same innovation
8 (10%)
Competition with other organizations
5 (6%)
Other
9 (12%)
Total N = 77 (100%

19
When considering the studies most often referred to in our sample, both DiMaggio and Powell
(1991) and Borins (2000; 2001) are frequently cited. DiMaggio and Powell (1991) stress the
notion of isomorphism or ‘looking alike’ as organizations in the same field become more similar.
Conformity can be achieved through the adoption of specific rules and regulations through
which, in an obligatory way, changes have to be implemented (coercive isomorphism), through
the adoption of specific values and norms that are pushed forward by relevant peers and
professional organizations (normative isomorphism) or through copying and mimicking (mimetic
isomorphism).
Table 4 also shows that on eight occasions the number of compatible organizations
adopting an innovation was addressed and this, at least partially, fits the notion of normative
isomorphism. An example can be found in the work of Berry (1994) who noted that the greater
the number of neighbouring state agencies that had already adopted strategic planning the greater
the likelihood of innovation.
When further reflecting on antecedents related to the environmental level, we see that
environmental antecedents such as media attention and political aspects are the most often
mentioned. Further, participation with other partners and the adoption of their norms is frequently
noted (e.g. Mintrom and Vergari 1998), which could also reflect a form of mimetic isomorphism.
Finally, regulatory aspects were also identified. In general, regulation is considered to
hamper innovation (e.g. Johns et al. 2006). However, Rogers-Dillon (1999) argued that the
prevailing wisdom, that limiting the federal role in welfare will free states to be more innovative,
can be oversimplistic. In his study, the establishment of Florida's Family Transition Program
(FTP), a pilot welfare-to-work programme, was the direct result of imposed federal requirements.
Federal regulation, in this case, promoted innovation.
Antecedents related the organizational level
Many of the antecedents found in our review can be linked to the organizational context. On 44
occasions, Damanpour is cited. His work can be considered as a milestone on innovation in
organizations and, in his meta-analysis on organizational innovations (Damanpour 1991), he

20
highlighted how determinants such as slack resources and professionalism are positively
connected to the adoption of innovations.
However, we would argue that, overall, our results do not show a clear citation network
given that of the 369 included citations (insofar as CitNetExplorer depicts the citation networks
for each study, see ‘Methodology’ section) only a minority refer to the most common sources
(e.g. Damanpour 1991). Moreover, these multiple citations often come from the same author
(Walker in the case of Damanpour).
Table 5 presents an overview of the organizational antecedents, which we defined as
those aspects that reflect the structural and cultural features of an organization.
TABLE 5 Organizational antecedents
Antecedent
Number
Slack resources (time, money, ICT facilities)
30 (22%)
Leadership styles
28 (21%)
Degree of risk aversion/room for learning
25 (18%)
Incentives/rewards
22 (16%)
Conflicts
10 (8%)
Organizational structures
10 (8%)
Other
9 (7%)
Total N = 134 (100%)
First, the availability of organizational resources, especially in terms of organizational ‘slack’
(e.g. size, personnel, ICT facilities), is the most mentioned antecedent. For instance, Walker
(2006) argues that the larger an organization is, the more ‘slack’ it has because it has more
opportunities to cross-fertilize ideas as well as a larger range of relevant skills that can be
exploited. Besides size, other often-discussed slack antecedents are organizational wealth and
capacity (e.g. Bhatti et al. 2011) and the presence of talented employees in the organization (e.g.
Maranto and Wolf 2013).

21
Second, studies have frequently examined the kind of leader required, such as leaders
who ‘have a vision’ and are ‘credible’ (Gabris et al. 2001). The degree of risk aversion is also
mentioned in various studies, including in the description of an administrative culture that
hampers innovation (e.g. Borins 2001). Several publications also considered, given the
importance of ‘trial and error’ in exploring new ideas, that a learning cultural environment was
necessary for innovation to be promoted (e.g. Pärna and Von Tunzelmann 2007).
Antecedents related to innovation characteristics
In this section, we analyse the antecedents identified in our review that are related to the
characteristics or key attributes of innovations (as perceived by prospective adopters). For
instance, some innovations are subsequently abandoned, for instance because they offer little
advantage (e.g. Korteland and Bekkers 2008). The main point of reference in these studies is an
innovation’s intrinsic characteristics as outlined in Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory
(2003). Five of the ten studies on adoption and diffusion referred to this (e.g. Carter and Bélanger
2005). Table 6 summarizes the characteristics identified in these studies.
TABLE 6 Innovation characteristics
Antecedent
Number
Ease in use of innovation
3 (20%)
Relative advantage
2 (13%)
Compatibility
2 (13%)
Trialability
2 (13%)
Other (e.g. cost, trustworthiness, mouldability)
6 (41%)
Total N = 15 (100%)
Relative to the previous two dimensions, we found that there has been less empirical attention to
the influence of characteristics of the innovation itself. Only a few studies, often when discussing
the adoption and diffusion of innovations, mentioned them as being relevant. The innovation
characteristics most often mentioned were an innovation’s perceived ease-of-use (e.g. Carter and

22
Bélanger 2005; Damanpour and Schneider 2009), its relative advantage, its trialability and its
compatibility (e.g. Korteland and Bekkers 2008).
Antecedents related to the individual level
Table 7 shows the antecedents related to the individual levels that were identified in the reviewed
studies.
TABLE 7 Individual antecedents
Antecedent
Number
Employee autonomy (empowerment)
11 (20%)
Organizational position (tenure, mobility)
10 (19%)
Job-related knowledge and skills (professionalism)
8 (15%)
Creativity (risk-taking, solving of problems)
Demographic aspects (age, gender)
6 (11%)
5 (11%)
Demographic aspects (age, gender)
6 (11%)
Commitment/satisfaction with job
5 (9%)
Shared perspective and norms
2 (4%)
Innovation acceptance
2 (4%)
Other
4 (7%)
Total N = 54 (100%)
Key publications include Borins (2000) who highlights the importance of creative individual
entrepreneurs who are able to break through a risk-averse administrative culture. This finding
also aligns with the notion of empowered employees, who are frequently mentioned as an
important source of successful innovation. In addition, we observe that job-related skills are
highly valued. When combining these findings with results from the previous section
(organization level antecedents), we see that agents have an import role in enabling innovation
both on the organizational level (encompassing a strong focus on leadership) and the individual
level (where there is a strong focus on innovative employees and their characteristics).

23
Having identified these various antecedents, it is also interesting to see whether they are
present in both the generation and the diffusion/adoption stages of the innovation process.
3.8 Antecedents related to the two stages of the innovation process
This section looks at antecedents that are distinctly related to either the generation or the
diffusion/adoption stage of the innovation process. Almost half of the studies identified (73;
40%) dealt with diffusion and/or adoption, indicating that the diffusion and adoption process is
rather well covered, although some authors disagree (e.g. Hartley 2005; Korteland and Bekkers
2008).
Whereas the characteristics of an innovation were only considered in studies on the
diffusion and adoption stages (e.g. Carter and Bélanger 2005), environmental, organizational and
individual antecedents were seen as present in both the generation and the adoption stages. This
overlap reflects that the adoption stage, to some extent, resembles the innovation generation
stage. When looking at these common antecedents, similar patterns can be found. For instance,
on the organizational level, we encountered a strong emphasis on the role of organizational slack
or innovative leaders in both stages (e.g. Bartlett and Dibben 2002). Studies related to the
individual level similarly include autonomy and skills in both stages. These findings suggest that
the differences between these two stages are not as large as sometimes suggested if one looks at
relevant drivers and barriers. Nevertheless, we found that innovation characteristics are only
mentioned in the adoption stage (e.g. Korteland and Bekkers 2008), while regulatory aspects
(such as the influence of national rules) are mentioned more often in the innovation generation
stage.
3.9 Innovation outcomes
Our last research question concerns the outcomes of innovation. In line with Kuipers et al.
(2014), we define the outcomes of an innovation as the ‘substantive results of the implementation
of an innovation that can be intended or unintended and positive or negative’. The types of
outcomes reported in the identified publications are summarized in Table 8.

24
TABLE 8 Outcomes of public sector innovation
Outcome
Number
Effectiveness
59 (28%)
Increased effectiveness
56 (27%)
Decreased effectiveness
3 (1%)
Increased efficiency
21 (10%)
Private partners involved
13 (6%)
Citizens involved
11 (5%)
Increased customer satisfaction
10 (5%)
Other (safety, fairness etc.)
13 (6%)
No outcomes mentioned
84 (40%)
Total N = 211 (100%) – some studies included more than one outcome
The first observation is that nearly half of the studies did not report outcomes (84; 40%). Studies
often mentioned some objective of the innovation in their introduction, such as improving
effectiveness and efficiency, but failed to report whether these goals had been realized (e.g.
Bartlett and Dibben 2002). In addition, many articles focused on the positive effects of
innovations, and only a few considered specific innovation failures or reported a reduction in
innovative activity (e.g. Piening 2011).
Where outcomes are reported, studies often record, in line with the goals, increased
effectiveness and efficiency (e.g. Young et al. 2001). Other outcomes, such as achieving citizen
satisfaction, were less often reported. Only a few studies describe the pursuit of traditional public
sector values such as safety and equality in schooling (Maranto and Wolf 2013). Studies that
mentioned this kind of outcome (i.e. involving citizens) often also included performance features
as relevant outcomes. For instance, the study by Pope et al. (2006) examined the way UK
National Health Service (NHS) Treatment Centres reduced waiting lists for elective care. This
outcome can be considered as both user-oriented (citizens get improved services) and efficiency
focused (providing services with less effort).
From our review, we conclude that innovation is often considered as a value in itself, a
finding in line with previous observations regarding the lack of reported goals when embarking

25
on the innovation journey. This could imply that the process of generating or adopting an
innovation is seen as sufficiently important in itself, which is also reflected in the process-
oriented outcomes that were mentioned in terms of involving private partners and increasing the
role of citizens.
3.10 Relationship between innovation types, outcomes and antecedents
After having described the main antecedents and outcomes, we analyse whether some innovation
types are more closely related to certain antecedents and outcomes than to others. Table 9
summarizes, for each innovation type, the frequency with which the different antecedents
(environmental, organizational, innovation and individual) are mentioned.
TABLE 9 Relationship between innovation types and antecedents in the public sector innovation
process
Innovation type
Environmental
Organizational
Innovation
Individual
Total
Process innovation
25%
52%
8%
15%
100%
Product or service innovation
38%
34%
14%
14%
100%
Governance innovation
55%
39%
3%
3%
100%
Conceptual innovation
14%
72%
0%
14%
100%
Other
24%
49%
0%
27%
100%
Two main conclusions can be drawn. First, we observe that organizational antecedents play the
largest role in enabling all innovation types. This is in line with our previous findings in this
section, reflecting a strong emphasis on internal-oriented organizational antecedents. Table 9
shows, for instance, that 52% of all process innovations can be linked to organizational
antecedents, such as leadership (e.g. Damanpour and Schneider 2009). Second, governance
innovations are frequently connected to environmental antecedents, including the resources of
private partners. For instance, Schoeman et al. (2012) examine how private sector organizations
contribute to public sector innovation, showing that innovative solutions can be fostered by
public and private partners working together.

26
Related to this, we examine whether innovation types differ in the way they are
connected with certain outcomes (see Table 10). The results show that all the innovation types
described in our studies are most frequently reported in terms of the outcome of effectiveness.
This is especially the case for process innovations. Further, Table 10 also highlights the failure of
many of the studies to address outcomes.
TABLE 10 Relationship between innovation types and outcomes of public sector innovation
4 Conclusions
The goal of this article was to present a systematic review of the literature on innovation in the
public sector. In so doing, we aimed to take stock of the available empirical knowledge by
integrating the insights developed elsewhere. Further, we aimed to develop a research agenda for
the future, thereby contributing to the further institutionalization of the innovation theme in
public administration.
More than half of the studies we found used qualitative methods, such as interviews or
focus groups. Quantitative studies, and especially mixed-method studies, were less common. We
also found that innovation was often weakly conceptualized, while the main body of knowledge
is focused on internal-driven, often administrative, process innovations. Moreover, outcomes are
often not reported, limiting what we know about the effects of innovation efforts.
Innovation type
Effecti-
veness
Efficiency
Involving
citizens
Involving
private
partners
Customer
satisfaction
Other
No
outcome
Total
Process innovation
33%
12%
4%
6%
3%
6%
36%
100%
Product or service innovation
26%
8%
4%
8%
4%
9%
41%
100%
Governance innovation
17%
7%
15%
17%
4%
17%
23%
100%
Conceptual innovation
14%
0%
14%
14%
14%
14%
30%
100%
Other
21%
15%
0%
0%
0%
3%
61%
100%

27
The main limitations of such a review are bias in the selection of publications included
and inaccuracy in data extraction. To help to ensure that the process of selection was unbiased,
we developed a research protocol in advance that defined the research questions. Similarly, as
described in Section 2, a multistage process was utilized that documented the reasons for
inclusion/exclusion at every step. Further, since our focus was on empirical research, we
excluded articles that were focused on providing theoretical statements.
Figure 2 presents the unifying heuristic framework that we derived from our synthesis of
empirical findings. This framework is intended as a guide when considering the various aspects
of a complex situation and their many interactions, and should not be viewed as a prescriptive
formula. As such, the components of this framework do not represent a comprehensive list of
public sector innovations, but reflect only those areas on which research has been undertaken and
findings published. For instance, we found that little attention had been paid to innovation
outcomes such as legitimacy, and also that conceptual innovations had scarcely been researched.

28
FIGURE 1 Heuristic framework of public sector innovation
Environmental antecedents
 Environmental pressures (e.g.
media attention/public demands)
 Participation in networks
 Regulatory aspects
 Compatible agencies/
organizations/states
adopting the same innovation
 Competition with other
organizations
Organizational antecedents
 Slack resources
 Leadership styles
 Degree of risk aversion/room for
learning
 Incentives/rewards
 Conflicts
 Organizational structures
Innovation characteristics
 Ease in use of innovation
 Relative advantage
 Compatibility
 Trialability
Individual antecedents
 Employee autonomy
 Organizational position
 Job-related knowledge and skills
 Creativity
 Demographic aspects
 Commitment/satisfaction with job
 Shared perspective and norms
 Innovation acceptance
Outcomes of public sector innovation
 Effectiveness
o Increased effectiveness
o Decreased effectiveness
 Increased efficiency
 Private partners involved
 Citizens involved
 Increased customer satisfaction
Innovation types
 Process innovation
o Administrative process innovation
o Technological process innovation
 Product or service innovation
 Governance innovation
 Conceptual innovation

29
A number of important conclusions can be drawn from the systematic review of the literature.
First, we found a lack of a clear theoretical underpinning in the studies reviewed. We saw
that only a few studies referred to existing theories such as those of Rogers (2003) on the
diffusion of innovations and of Damanpour (1991) on innovations within organizations.
Moreover, only a small group of authors are regularly cited. Our review also indicates that the
empirical research to date has been largely unsuccessful in identifying and explaining what
occurs after innovations are initiated, and this is largely because the emphasis primarily lies on
the innovation process or the adoption of an innovation. By establishing links with existing
theories, it could be possible to develop better explanations of the actual impacts of innovations,
thereby answering the question: did these innovations really matter and really make a difference?
Most of the empirical studies on innovation examined failed to address this issue.
Second, what typically is the ‘publicness’ (Bozeman and Bretschneider 1994) of public
sector innovations? We found environmental antecedents that appeared to be typical of public
sector innovation, such as political and public demands (e.g. Borins 2000). However, it was not
always possible to disentangle the importance of these antecedents relative to others not
specifically related to the public sector. Here, the concept of ‘publicness’ might be a useful
addition (Bozeman and Bretschneider 1994) as this can make the distinction clear between public
and private sector innovations. This can be defined as ‘a characteristic of an organization which
reflects the extent the organization is influenced by political authority’ (Bozeman and
Bretschneider 1994, p. 197). Here, an important challenge is to understand how the role of
political authority influences the shaping and outcomes of public sector innovations as well as the
antecedents that influence the legitimacy of political authority. The latter also relates to the
previous remark that, when discussing the influence of the logics of consequence and of
appropriateness in Section 3.6, an important driver for public sector innovation is the desire to
secure the trust in and the legitimacy of government.
Third, we found that antecedents were often addressed independently, ignoring possible
connections between them. Only a few studies explicitly looked for combined effects, for
instance by combining environmental and organizational antecedents (e.g. Borins 2000). Further,

30
when analysing combinations of antecedents in future research, it would be particularly
interesting to analyse the process dynamic that occurs between particular antecedents. Which
antecedents are first employed, and why? For instance, do organizations start innovations because
of peer pressure (behaviour of similar organizations) and then adapt their organizational
structure?
5 Future research agenda
Having completed this review, what do our findings imply about the current status of public
sector innovation and where should innovation research go from here? Based on the results of the
review, we now outline possible methodological, theoretical and empirical avenues.
First, we suggest that the next generation of research on public sector innovations should
employ multi-method studies that cross countries or sectors. More than half of the studies we
found used qualitative methods, such as interviews. Quantitative studies were less common.
Further, there were almost no cross-national studies with many in the form of single country
(often the US or the UK) qualitative case studies. While this is understandable given the
importance of the local context when studying innovation, comparative studies that cut across
countries or sectors could show to what extent antecedents are generalizable. Moreover, using a
wider range of methods (such as participant observations and experiments) in public
administration research could increase understanding since all methods have strengths and
weaknesses. For instance, we do not know the impact of structural organizational characteristics,
such as size, compared to that of organizational antecedents such as leadership. In order to
determine the strength of these possible causal linkages, experiments are required.
A second suggestion is theoretical in nature, and relates to the fact that we found many
studies that did not link to existing theories. A number of avenues for linking public innovation
research to existing theories could be explored. Research on the diffusion of innovation could
provide a theoretical underpinning for predicting how patterns of innovation are developed and
adopted by organizations. This might also help in developing arguments for how innovations are
diffused within a certain population of organizations. Neo-institutional theory, which is

31
concerned with the spread of organizational practices within groups of similar organizations
(DiMaggio and Powell 1991), could be further explored in investigating the relative influence of
environmental antecedents on innovation. Central to neo-institutional theory is the assumption
that the pursuit of legitimacy leads organizations within a field to adopt a limited range of
structures, strategies and process, and hence become isomorphistic within that organizational
field. How and under what circumstances might this be the case for public sector innovations?
Finally, the published findings do not enable us to address differences in national culture
and governance traditions. There is therefore a gap in our understanding of innovation processes
across different cultural contexts. This is largely a consequence of the strong UK/USA focus in
the studies available for our analysis and the lack of cross-country analyses. Hence, future
research could usefully link different types of governance and state traditions to the extent that
innovativeness is seen in the public sector as well as to the antecedents that shape public sector
innovations and their outcomes (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011).
Concluding, this article has reported on a systematic review of the literature on
innovations in the public sector. Public sector innovation is an important issue on the agenda of
policymakers and academics when discussing the role of government in dealing with ‘wicked
problems’ in an age of austerity. It is often considered as a ‘magic concept’ (Pollitt and Hupe
2011). This study is a first step in looking beyond the rhetoric of many public sector innovations
and reform programmes. It has shown how little we know about public sector innovation and
suggests the kind of empirical and theoretical knowledge and research that is needed to
understand and criticize the innovation journeys on which many governments have embarked.
Acknowledgements
In order to conduct the systematic review of the literature, we among else consulted a number of
experts to help us find eligible studies on public sector innovation. We thank these experts,
specifically Prof. Sandford Borins from the University of Toronto-Scarborough, Prof. Richard
Walker from the City University of Hong Kong, and Prof. Stephen Osborne from the University
of Edinburgh. We would furthermore like to thank the four anonymous referees who offered

32
valuable critiques and provided us with constructive suggestions, thereby improving the article
substantially.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [320090]
(Project Learning from Innovation in Public Sector Environments, LIPSE), Socio-economic
Sciences and Humanities. LIPSE is a research program under the European Commission’s 7th
Framework Programme as a Small or Medium-Scale Focused Research Project (2011–2014). The
project focuses on studying social innovations in the public sector (www.lipse.org).
References
*References included in the systematic review and cited in this article. Note that not all publications included in our
review have been cited.
*Bartlett, D. and P. Dibben. 2002. 'Public Sector Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Case Studies
from Local Government', Local Government Studies, 28, 4, 107-121.
Bason, C. 2010. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society. Bristol:
Policy Press.
* Bekkers, V.J.J.M., J. Edelenbos and B. Steijn. 2011. Innovation in the Public Sector. Linking
Capacity and Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and V.M.F. Homburg (eds). 2005. The Information Ecology of E-Government:
E-Government as Institutional and Technological Innovation in Public Administration.
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
*Berry, F.S. 1994. 'Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of Strategic Planning',
Public Administration Review, 54, 5, 322-330.
*Bhatti, Y., A.L. Olsen and L.H. Pedersen. 2011. 'Administrative Professionals and the Diffusion
of Innovations: The Case of Citizen Service Centres', Public Administration, 89, 2, 577-594.

33
Borins, S. 2001. ‘Encouraging innovation in the Public Sector’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2,
3, 310-319.
*Borins, S. 2000. 'Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence
about Innovative Public Managers', Public Administration Review, 60, 498-507.
Bozeman, B. and S. Bretschneider. 1994. ‘The “Publicness Puzzle” in Organization Theory: A
Test of Alternative Explanations of Differences between Public and Private Organizations’,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 2, 197-224.
*Brown, L. 2010. 'Balancing Risk and Innovation to Improve Social Work Practice', British
Journal of Social Work, 40, 4, 1211-1228.
*Carter, L. and F. Bélanger. 2005. 'The Utilization of E-government Services: Citizen Trust,
Innovation and Acceptance Antecedents', Information Systems Journal, 15, 1, 5-25.
Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Cooper, H. 2010. Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach, 4th edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Damanpour, F. 1991. 'Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants
and Moderators', Academy of Management Journal, 34, 3, 555-590.
*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, 19, 3, 495-522.
DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Edquist, C., L. Hommen and M.D. McKelvey. 2001. Innovation and Employment: Process
versus Product Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fagerberg, J., D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson (eds). 2005. The Oxford Handbook of
Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flynn, N. 2007. Public Sector Management, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34
*Gabris, G.T., R.T. Golembiewski and D.M. Ihrke. 2001. 'Leadership Credibility, Board
Relations, and Administrative Innovation at the Local Government Level', Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 1, 1, 89-108.
Greenhalgh, T., G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate and O. Kyriakidou. 2004. 'Diffusion of
Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations', Milbank
Quarterly, 82, 4, 581-629.
*Hansen, M.B. 2011. 'Antecedents of Organizational Innovation: The Diffusion of New Public
Management into Danish Local Government', Public Administration, 89, 2, 285-306.
Hartley, J. 2005. 'Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present', Public Money
& Management, 25, 1, 27-34.
Hood, C. 1991. 'A Public Management for All Seasons?’, Public Administration, 69, 1, 3-19.
*Johns, C.M., P.L. O’Reilly and G.J. Inwood. 2006. 'Intergovernmental Innovation and the
Administrative State in Canada', Governance, 19, 4, 627-649.
*Kim, S.E. and J.W. Lee. 2009. 'The Impact of Management Capacity on Government
Innovation in Korea: An Empirical Study', International Public Management Journal, 12, 3,
345-369.
*Korteland, E. and V.J.J.M. Bekkers. 2008. 'The Diffusion of Electronic Service Delivery
Innovations in Dutch E-policing: The Case of Digital Warning Systems', Public
Management Review, 10, 1, 71-88.
Kuipers, B.S., M. Higgs, W. Kickert, L.G. Tummers, J. Grandia and J. Van der Voet. 2014. ‘The
Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review’, Public
Administration, 92, 1, 1-20.
*Kumar, N. and R.C. Rose. 2012. 'The Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Islamic Work Ethic on
Innovation Capability', Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19, 2, 142-
165.
Lowndes, V. and L. Pratchett. 2012. 'Local Governance under the Coalition Government:
Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’', Local Government Studies, 38, 1, 21-40.

35
*Maranto, R. and P.J. Wolf. 2013. ‘Cops, Teachers, and the Art of the Impossible: Explaining the
Lack of Diffusion of Innovations that Make Impossible Jobs Possible’, Public
Administration Review, 73, 2, 230-240.
March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of
Politics. New York: Free Press.
Meeus, M.T.H. and C. Edquist. 2006. ‘Introduction to Part I: Product and Process Innovation’, in
Hage, J. and M.T.H. Meeus (eds), Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 23–37.
*Meijer, A.J. 2014. 'From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An In-Depth Analysis of the
Role of Individuals in Public Sector Innovation', Public Management Review, 16, 2, 199-
216.
*Mintrom, M. and S. Vergari. 1998. 'Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of
State Education Reforms', The Journal of Politics, 60, 1, 26-148.
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff and D.G. Altman. 2009. 'Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement', Annals of Internal
Medicine, 151, 4, 264-269.
Moore, M. and J. Hartley. 2008. 'Innovations in Governance', Public Management Review, 10, 1,
3-20.
*Nählinder, J. 2010. 'Where are all the Female Innovators?: Nurses as Innovators in a Public
Sector Innovation Project', Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5, 1, 13-29.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Osborne, S.P. and L. Brown. 2011. 'Innovation, Public Policy and Public Services Delivery in the
UK. The Word that Would Be King?', Public Administration, 89, 4, 1335-1350.
Osborne, S.P. and L. Brown (eds). 2013. Handbook of Innovation in Public Services.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
*Pärna, O. and N. Von Tunzelmann. 2007. 'Innovation in the Public Sector: Key Features
Influencing the Development and Implementation of Technologically Innovative Public

36
Sector Services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia', Information Polity, 12, 3, 109-
125.
Perks, H. and D. Roberts. 2013. 'A Review of Longitudinal Research in the Product Innovation
Field, with Discussion of Utility and Conduct of Sequence Analysis', Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30, 6, 1099-1111.
*Piening, E.P. 2011. 'Insights into the Process Dynamics of Innovation Implementation: The
Case of Public Hospitals in Germany', Public Management Review, 13, 1, 127-157.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis -New
Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pollitt, C. and P. Hupe. 2011. ‘Talking about Government: The Role of Magic Concepts’, Public
Management Review, 13, 5, 641-658.
*Pope, C., G. Robert, P. Bate, A. Le May and J. Gabbay. 2006. 'Lost in Translation: A
Multi-level Case Study of the Metamorphosis of Meanings and Action in Public Sector
Organizational Innovation', Public Administration, 84, 1, 59-79.
Rhodes, R.A.W. 1996. 'The New Governance: Governing without Government', Political Studies,
44, 4, 652-667.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. New York: Free Press.
*Rogers-Dillon, R.H. 1999. 'Federal Constraints and State Innovation: Lessons from Florida's
Family Transition Program', Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 2, 327-332.
*Salge, T.O. and A. Vera. 2012. 'Benefiting from Public Sector Innovation: The Moderating Role
of Customer and Learning Orientation', Public Administration Review, 72, 4, 550-559.
*Schoeman, M., D. Baxter, K. Goffin and P. Micheli. 2012. 'Commercialization Partnerships as
an Enabler of UK Public Sector Innovation: The Perfect Match?', Public Money &
Management, 32, 6, 425-432.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
Sørensen, E. and J. Torfing. 2011. 'Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector',
Administration & Society, 43, 8, 842-868.

37
Tummers, L.G., V.J.J.M. Bekkers, E. Vink and M. Musheno (forthcoming). ‘Coping during
Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature’,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
*Turner, S., P. Allen, W. Bartlett and V. Pérotin. 2011. 'Innovation and the English National
Health Service: A Qualitative Study of the Independent Sector Treatment Centre
Programme', Social Science & Medicine, 73, 4, 522-529.
Van Eck, N.J. and L. Waltman. 2014. ‘CitNetExplorer: A New Software Tool for Analyzing and
Visualizing Citation Networks’, Journal of Informetrics, 8, 4, 802-823.
*Walker, R.M. 2006. 'Innovation Type and Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis of Local
Government', Public Administration, 84, 2, 311-335.
Walker, R.M. 2014. ‘Internal and External Antecedents of Process Innovation: A Review and
Extension’, Public Management Review, 16, 1, 21-44.
Weber, J.M., S. Kopelman and D.M. Messick. 2004. 'A Conceptual Review of Decision Making
in Social Dilemmas: Applying a Logic of Appropriateness', Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 3, 281-307.
*Young, G. J., M.P. Charns and S.M. Shortell. 2001. ‘Top Manager and Network Effects on the
Adoption of Innovative Management Practices: A Study of TQM in a Public Hospital
System’. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 10, 935-951.

38
Appendix PRISMA checklist (based on Moher et al. 2009)
Note: some checks are not applicable as they are meant for a meta-analysis, not a systematic
review.
TITLE
page
Title
1
Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis or both.
1
ABSTRACT
Structured
summary
2
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives;
data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study
appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and
implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
2
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
3
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
3-5
Objectives
4
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to
participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design (PICOS).
5
METHODS
Protocol and
registration
5
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web
address) and, if available, provide registration information including registration
number.
N.A.
Eligibility criteria
6
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report
characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as
criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
7
Information
sources
7
Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact
with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last
searched.
5-6
Search
8
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any
limits used, such that it could be repeated.
5-6
Study selection
9
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in
systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
7-9
Data collection
process
10
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms,
independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data
from investigators.
7-9

39
Data items
11
List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding
sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
5-6
Risk of bias in
individual studies
12
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies (including
specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how
this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
N.A.
Summary measures
13
State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
N.A.
Synthesis of results
14
Describe the methods for handling data and combining results of studies, if done,
including measures of consistency (e.g., I) for each meta-analysis.
N.A.
Risk of bias across
studies
15
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence
(e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
6-7
Additional
analyses
16
Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses,
meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
N.A.
RESULTS
Study selection
17
Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility and included in the
review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
8
Study
characteristics
18
For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study
size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
9
Risk of bias within
studies
19
Present data on risk of bias for each study and, if available, any outcome level
assessment (see item 12).
N.A.
Results of
individual studies
20
For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a)
simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and
confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
N.A.
Synthesis of results
21
Present the main results of the review. If meta-analyses are done, include for
each, confidence intervals and measures of consistency
10-26
Risk of bias across
studies
22
Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).
N.A.
Additional analysis
23
Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses,
meta-regression [see Item 16]).
N.A.
DISCUSSION
Summary of
evidence
24
Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main
outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users,
and policy makers).
18-20
Limitations
25
Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-
level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
27

40
Conclusions
26
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and
implications for future research.
26-30
==FUNDING
Funding
27
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g.,
supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
See
funding
note