The constraining impact of bureaucracy on creative problem solving has been a recurring theme in research on public innovation, and public actors increasingly seek to “steer” innovation through interactive spaces for collaboration and competition. This article examines this form of “meta-governance” in the case of the Swedish Transport Administration and reveals a pattern where the initial opening of arenas for innovation is followed by a countermovement toward organization. Findings suggest that the introduction of elements of organization, such as hierarchy, rules, and membership, in governance spaces is a key strategy for coming to grips with a new innovation promoting role.
AgranoffR. (2014). Reconstructing bureaucracy for service: Innovation in the governance era. In AnsellC.TorfingJ. (Eds.), Public innovation through collaboration and design (pp. 44-62). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AhrneG.AspersP.BrunssonN. (2015). The organization of markets. Organization Studies, 36, 7-27.
3.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (2010). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18, 83-104.
4.
AnsellC.TorfingJ. (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BekkersV.EdelenbosJ.SteijnB. (2011). An innovative public sector? Embarking on the innovation journey. In BekkersV.EdelenbosJ.SteijnB. (Eds.), Innovation in the public sector: Linking capacity and leadership (pp. 197-222). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BekkersV.TummersL. (2017). Perspectives on public sector reform: An innovation perspective. In Van de WalleS.GroenveldS.M. (Eds.), Theory and practice of public sector reform (pp. 61-78). London, England: Routledge.
7.
BorinsS. (2001). The challenge of innovating in government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
8.
CastellsM. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
9.
ConsidineM.LewisJ.AlexanderD. (2009). Networks, innovation and public policy: Politicians, bureaucrats and the pathways to change inside government. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
de BruijnH.ten HeuvelhofE.in’t VeldR. (2002). Process management: Why project management fails in complex decision making processes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11.
de VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94, 146-166.
12.
du GayP.(Ed). (2005). The values of bureaucracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
EdlerJ.UyarraE. (2013). Public procurement of innovation. In OsborneS.BrownL. (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services (pp. 224-237). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
14.
ForesterJ. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
JacobssonB.PierreJ.SundströmG. (2015). Governing the embedded state: The organizational dimension of governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
KickertW. J. M. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8, 135-157.
17.
LemberV.KalvetT.KattelR. (2011). Public sector innovation at the urban level: The case of public procurement. In BekkersV.EdelenbosJ.SteijnB. (Eds.), Innovation in the public sector: Linking capacity and leadership (pp. 82-104). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
MooreM.HartleyJ. (2010). Innovations in governance. In OsborneS. (Ed.), The new public governance? (pp. 52-71). London, UK: Routledge.
19.
OlsenJ. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1-24.
20.
OsborneS. (2010). Introduction. In OsborneS. (Ed.), The new public governance? (pp. 1-16). London, UK: Routledge.
21.
OsborneS.BrownL. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king?Public Administration, 89, 1335-1350.
22.
PetersB. G. (2010). Meta governance and public management. In OsborneS. (Ed.), The new public governance? (pp. 36-51). London, UK: Routledge.
23.
PierreJ. (2012). Governance and institutional flexibility. In Levi-FaurD. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 187-200). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
PollittC.HupeP. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13, 641-658.
25.
QvistM. (2017). Meta-governance and network formation in collaborative spaces of uncertainty: The case of Swedish refugee integration policy. Public Administration, 95, 498-511.
26.
Schultz LarsenT. (2015). The ambivalent relations between bureaucracy and public innovation: The case of the successful failure of dial police. International Journal of Public Administration, 38, 92-103.
27.
SkelcherC.JeffaresS.SullivanH. (2013). Hybrid governance in European cities: Neighbourhood, migration and democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
SkelcherC.MathurN.SmithM. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83, 573-596.
29.
SørensenE. (2012). Governance and innovation in the public sector. In Levi-FaurD. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 215-227). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43, 842-868.
31.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47, 826-839.
32.
Swedish Government. (2009a). Ny myndighetsstruktur på transportområdet [New governance structure in transport policy]. (Government Bill 2009/10:59).
33.
Swedish Government. (2009b) Effektiva transporter och samhällsbyggande [Effective transports and society development]. Swedish Official Government Reports, SOU 2009:31. Stockholm, SE: Fritzes.
34.
Swedish Government. (2012a). Vägar till förbättrad produktivitet och innovationsgrad i anläggningsbranschen [Roads to improved productivity and innovation in the civil engineering market]. Swedish Official Government Reports, SOU 2012:39. Stockholm, SE: Fritzes.
35.
Swedish Government. (2012b). Planeringssystem för transportinfrastruktur [Planning system for transport infrastructure]. (Government Bill 2011/12:118).
36.
Swedish Transport Administration. (2014). Strategic choice of measures—A new step for planning of transportation solutions (Document reference: 2013:176). Borlänge, SE: Trafikverket.
37.
Swedish Transport Administration. (2015). Vägen till trafikverket: Så byggdes ett statligt verk på 180 dagar [The road to Trafikverket: How a government agency was built in 180 days] (Document reference: 100742). Borlänge, SE: Trafikverket.
Swedish Transport Analysis. (2017). Trafikverkets arbete för ökad produktivitet och innovation i anläggningsbranschen [Trafikverket’s work for increased productivity and innovation in the civil engineering market] (Report No. 2017:5). Stockholm, SE: Swedish Transport Analysis.
42.
TorfingJ.PetersB. G.PierreJ.SørensenE. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
TorfingJ.TriantafillouP.(Eds.). (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
TouatiN.DenisJ.-L.GrenierC.SmitsP. (2016). Implementing spaces to favor the emergence of ecologies of complex innovation in the public sector: An empirical analysis. Administration & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0095399716659734
45.
UyarraE.EdlerJ.Garcia-EstevezJ.GeorghiouL.YeowetJ. (2014). Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier perspective. Technovation, 34, 631-645.
46.
VoetsJ.VerhoestK.MolenveldA. (2015). Coordinating for integrated youth care: The need for smart metagovernance. Public Management Review, 17, 981-1001.
47.
WillsonR. (2001). Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation, 28, 1-31.
