Much has been written about governance as well as public sector innovation, yet there remains a lack of research on how governance paradigms shape public sector innovation outcomes. Extant research, often within a single national context, has focused on innovation processes, strategies, organizational capacity and leadership, with some research suggesting that superior governance paradigms such as new public governance are better at facilitating the emergence of public sector innovation outcomes. We move beyond this literature by comparatively exploring how governance paradigms as institutional logics for public sector reforms shape public sector innovation. First, we review governance paradigms of traditional public administration, new public management, neo Weberian state and new public governance in relation to innovation outcomes. Second, we analyse 108 applications for the United Nations Public Service Awards Scheme from Italy, Japan and Turkey between 2009 and 2017. The contribution of the study is that research shows that no single governance paradigm is superior for public sector innovation outcomes, rather governance paradigms co-exist as institutional logics, layering and shaping innovations outcomes according to a country's public sector reform agenda.
Points for practitioners
• Governance paradigms shape which innovation outcomes public services prioritize.
• Governance paradigms are much broader than merely serving as strategies to facilitate innovation, rather serving as a context for public sector innovation outcomes.
• Governance paradigms act as legacies and norms with layering rather than there being a superior paradigm to support innovation.
• Public sector innovation outcomes are utilized pragmatically to accomplish reform agendas.
AgartanTIKuhlmannE (2019) New public management, physicians and populism: Turkey’s experience with health reforms. Sociology of Health and Illness41(7): 1410–1425.
2.
AnsellCTorfingJ (2021) Co-creation: The new kid on the block in public governance. Policy and Politics49(2): 211–230.
3.
AristovnikAMurkoERavšeljD (2022) From neo-Weberian to hybrid governance models in public administration: Differences between state and local self-government. Administrative Sciences12(1): 26–45.
4.
ArundelABlochCFergusonB (2019) Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy48(3): 789–798.
5.
BadellDDi MascioFNataliniA, et al. (2019) Too big to fail? The dynamics of EU influence and fiscal consolidation in Italy and Spain (2008–2016). Public Management Review21(9): 1307–1329.
6.
BorinsSF (1998) Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
7.
BorinsSF (2014) The Persistence of Innovation in Government. Innovative Governance in the 21st Century: Volume 8. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BurgersJHArundelACasaliGL (2024) Effect of knowledge search depth, user co-creation and moderating factors on the outcomes of service innovations by European public sector organizations. Public Management Review26(3): 746–769.
9.
CapanoG (2003) Administrative traditions and policy change: when policy paradigms matter. The case of Italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration81(4): 781–801.
10.
CastelnovoWSorrentinoM (2018) The digital government imperative: A context-aware perspective. Public Management Review20(5): 709–725.
11.
CetinZ (2015) The reflections of new public management on local government laws in Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences6(4): 36–36.
12.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2010) Increased complexity in public sector organizations—The challenges of combining NPM and post-NPM. In: LægreidPVerhoestK (eds) Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 255–275.
13.
CinarEDemirciogluMAAcikAC, et al. (2024) Public sector innovation in a city state: Exploring innovation types and national context in Singapore. Research Policy53(2): 104915.
14.
CinarETrottPSimmsC (2021) An international exploration of barriers and tactics in the public sector innovation process. Public Management Review23(3): 326–353.
15.
ClausenTHDemirciogluMAAlsosGA (2020) Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors. Public Administration98(1): 159–176.
16.
CouleTPatmoreB (2013) Institutional logics, institutional work, and public service innovation in non-profit organizations. Public Administration91(4): 980–997.
17.
CriadoJIAlcaide-MuñozLLiarteI (2023) Two decades of public sector innovation: Building an analytical framework from a systematic literature review of types, strategies, conditions, and results. Public Management Review27(3): 623–652.
18.
DemirciogluMA (2024) Public sector innovation: sources, benefits, and leadership. International Public Management Journal27(2): 190–220.
19.
DemirkayaY (2016) New Public Management in Turkey. New York: Routledge.
20.
De VriesHBekkersVTummersL (2016) Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration94(1): 146–166.
21.
DrechslerW (2005) The rise and demise of the new public management. Post-autistic Economics Review33(14): 17–28.
22.
EnangIAsenovaDBaileySJ (2022) Identifying influencing factors of sustainable public service transformation: A systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences88(1): 258–280.
23.
ErtugalE (2011) Institutional change and europeanisation: Explaining regional policy reform in Turkey. Policy and Politics39(2): 257–273.
24.
EshimaYKatayamaTOhnoT (2001) Public management innovation in Japan: Its characteristics and challenges. International Review of Administrative Sciences67(4): 699–714.
25.
FuglsangLHansenAV (2022) Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement. Research Policy51(1): 104390.
26.
GodenhjelmSJohansonJE (2018) The effect of stakeholder inclusion on public sector project innovation. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(1): 42–62.
27.
GoldfinchSWallisJ (2010) Two myths of convergence in public management reform. Public Administration88(4): 1099–1115.
28.
GoldfinchSYamamotoK (2019) Citizen perceptions of public management: Hybridisation and post-new public management in Japan and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration78(1): 79–94.
29.
GoldfinchSYamamotoKAoyagiS (2022) Does process matter more for predicting trust in government? Participation, performance, and process, in local government in Japan. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(3): 842–863.
30.
GuenduezAAFrischknechtRFroweinSC, et al. (2024) Government–university collaboration on smart city and smart government projects: what are the success factors?Cities144: 104648.
31.
HammerschmidGVan de WalleSAndrewsR, et al. (2019) New public management reforms in Europe and their effects: findings from a 20-country top executive survey. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(3): 399–418.
32.
HartleyJ (2005) Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management25(1): 27–34.
33.
HartleyJRashmanL (2018) Innovation and inter-organizational learning in the context of public service reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 231–248.
34.
HartleyJSørensenETorfingJ (2013) Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review73(6): 821–830.
35.
IacovinoNMBarsantiSCinquiniL (2017) Public organizations between old public administration, new public management and public governance: The case of the Tuscany region. Public Organization Review17: 61–82.
36.
IshiharaT (2021) Public sector reform and public management theory—Cases of Japan. Public Management Review24(11): 1653–1662.
37.
KickertWJVan Der MeerFB (2011) Small, slow, and gradual reform: What can historical institutionalism teach us?International Journal of Public Administration34(8): 475–485.
38.
KikuchiMNakamuraA (2008) Education, agenda setting and enforcement: Learning roles of local government in environmental governance in Japan. Asian Review of Public Administration20(1–2): 1–12.
39.
KimS (2010) Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter?Public Administration Review70(5): 801–810.
40.
KuhlmannS (2021) Managerial reforms from a comparative perspective: European subnational governments in the post-new public management era. In: CallananMLoughlinJ (eds) A Research Agenda for Regional and Local Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 111–131.
41.
LopesAVFariasJS (2022) How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences88(1): 114–130.
42.
LynnLE (2008) What is a neo-weberian state? Reflections on a concept and its implications. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy1(2): 17–31.
43.
MasseyAJohnstonK (2016) Governance: public governance to social innovation?Policy and Politics44(4): 663–675.
44.
MeleVOngaroE (2014) Public sector reform in a context of political instability: Italy 1992–2007. International Public Management Journal17(1): 111–142.
45.
NataliniAStolfiF (2012) Mechanisms and public administration reform: Italian cases of better regulation and digitalization. Public Administration90(2): 529–543.
46.
OECD (2015) The innovation imperative in the public sector: Setting an agenda for action. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-innovation-imperative-in-the-public-sector_9789264236561-en.html.
47.
O’KanePSmithALermanMP (2021) Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organizational Research Methods24(1): 104–139.
48.
OngaroE (2010) The napoleonic administrative tradition and public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In: PainterMPetersBG (eds) Tradition and Public Administration. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 174–190.
49.
PainterMPetersGB (2010) Administrative Traditions in Comparative Perspective: Families, Groups and Hybrids. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
50.
PeraltaARubalcabaL (2021) How governance paradigms and other drivers affect public managers’ use of innovation practices. A PLS-SEM analysis and model. Mathematics9(9): 1055–1083.
51.
PollittCBouckaertG (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
PollittCBouckaertG (2017) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis—Into the Age of Austerity, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
SezenS (2016) International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: The case of Turkey. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(2): 322–346.
54.
SuzukiK (2017) Government expenditure cuts and voluntary activities of citizens: The experience of Japanese municipalities. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration39(4): 258–275.
55.
SuzukiKDolleryBEKorttMA (2021) Addressing loneliness and social isolation amongst elderly people through local co-production in Japan. Social Policy and Administration55(4): 674–686.
56.
TorfingJAndersenLBGreveC, et al. (2020) Public Governance Paradigms: competing and Co-Existing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van AckerWBouckaertG (2018) What makes public sector innovations survive? An exploratory study of the influence of feedback, accountability and learning. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 249–268.
59.
WalkerRMDamanpourFDeveceCA (2011) Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(2): 367–386.
60.
Yalvaç F and Joseph J (2019) Understanding populist politics in Turkey: A hegemonic depth approach. Review of International Studies45(5): 786–804.
61.
YuanQGasco-HernandezM (2021) Open innovation in the public sector: Creating public value through civic hackathons. Public Management Review23(4): 523–544.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
