Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Democratic Accountability of Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector

  • Chapter
Democracy and Crisis

Abstract

There is a growing demand for public innovation in most Western societies (Borins, 2008; OECD, 2010), and new research suggests that both policy and service innovation can be spurred by multi-actor collaboration that creates a better understanding of the problem, facilitates the cross-fertilisation of ideas, triggers mutual learning processes and creates joint ownership of new and bold solutions (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011). The participation of a broad range of public and private actors in collaborative governance helps to generate innovative solutions to the growing number of i ll-defined, complex, hard-to-solve problems that in governance literature are known as ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Collaborative innovation also enables the public sector to escape the crossfire between citizens’ growing expectations and the dire economic constraints emanating from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (Bason, 2010; Pollitt, 2010). Finally, collaborative innovation facilitates the realisation of political visions and professional ambitions to citizens’ new and changing needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agranoff, R. (2007) Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albury, D. (2005) ‘Fostering innovation in public services’, Public Money and Management, 25(2): 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2007) ‘Collaborative governance in theory and practice’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2012) ‘Stewards, mediators and catalysts: Toward a model of collaborative leadership’, The Innovation Journal, 17(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bason, C. (2010) Leading Public Sector Innovation (Bristol: The Policy Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. and Bowen, W. G. (1968) Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma (Boston, MA: The MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability (Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C. and Vedung, E. O. (1998) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A. and Papadopoulos, Y. (eds) (2006) Governance and Democracy (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommert, B. (2010) ‘Collaborative innovation in the public sector’, International Public Management Review, 11(1): 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borins, S. (2001) ‘Encouraging innovation in the public sector’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3): 310–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borins, S. (ed.) (2008) Innovations in Government (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2006) ‘Analyzing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework’, European Governance papers, no. C-06-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. and T Hart, P. (2008) ‘Does public accountability work? An assessment tool’, Public Administration, 86(1): 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1986) Democracy and Capitalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. and Osborne, S. P. (2012) ‘Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services’, Public Management Review, 15(2), 186–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bysted, R. and Hansen, J. R. (2011) ‘Comparing public and private sector employees’ innovative behavior: Understanding the role of the job, organizational characteristics and sub-sectors’, Paper presented at the conference Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector, Roskilde University, 7–8 December 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, B. E., Dalton, R. J. and Scarrow, S. E. (eds) (2006) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York, NY: Harper Collins).

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, B. and Singh, S. (2009) The Public Innovators Playbook (Washington, DC: Harvard Kennedy School of Government).

    Google Scholar 

  • Esmark, A. (2007) ‘Democratic accountability and network governance: Problems and potentials’, in Sørensen and Torfing (eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2004) Empowered Participation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2007) ‘Mini-publics: Deliberative designs and their consequences’ in Rosenberg (ed.) Can the People Govern? (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. and Olin Wright, E. (eds) (2003) Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (London: Verso).

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, R. T. and Vidoga, E. (2000) ‘Organizational innovation and the science/craft of management’ in Rahim, Golembiewski and Mackenzie (eds) Current Topics in Management (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I. and Røste, R. (2005) ‘On the differences between public and private sector innovation’, Publin Report, D9 (NIFU STEP, Oslo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2005) ‘Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present’, Public Money and Management, 25(1): 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindess, B. (1997) ‘Democracy and disenchantment’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 32(1): 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. R. and Summers, L. H. (2009) ‘How globalization affects tax design’, NBER Working Paper no. 14664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1986) The Tools of Government (Chatham: Chatham House).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991) ‘A public management for all seasons?’, Public Administration, 69(1): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State (Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Brown, K. and Mandell, M. (2007) ‘Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies’, International Public Management Journal, 10(1): 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M. (eds) (1997) Managing Complex Networks (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2000) ‘Politicians and interactive decision-making: Institutional spoilsports or playmakers?’, Public Administration, 78(2): 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E. (2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks: Public Private Controversies (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. and Triantafillou, P. (2012) ‘From performance measurement to learning: A new source of government overload?’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4): 597–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C. B. (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair P. and van Biezen, I. (2001) ‘Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000’, Party Politics, 7(1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1995) Democratic Governance (New York: The Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, L. (2008) Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets (Heidelberg: Physica Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1991 [1861]) Considerations on Representative Government (London: Prometheus Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. (1955 [1820]) An Essay on Government (London: Liberal Arts Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G. and Albury, D. (2003) ‘Innovation in the public sector’, Working Paper, Version 1.9, October, Strategy Unit, UK Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. (2008) Transforming Government through Collaborative Innovation (Washington, DC: Harvard Kennedy School of Government).

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G. and Weisberg, H. F. (2001) Controversies in Voting Behaviour (Washington, DC: CQ Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government (Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010) The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow (Paris: OEC).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. B. (eds) (2009) The Collaborative Public Manager (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1993) Re-inventing Government (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L. J. (1997) ‘Implementing public innovations in network settings’, Administration & Society, 29(2): 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2005) Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2010) ‘Public management reform during financial austerity’ in Swedish Government Report (Stockholm: Statskontoret).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2002) ‘Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council Scheme’, Public Administration, 80(2): 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973) ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. C. and Bradley, R. T. (1991) ‘Stakeholder collaboration and innovation’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 27(2): 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. C. and King, P. J. (1996) Transforming Public Policy (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirianni, C. (2009) Investing in Democracy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C. and Torfing, J. (2010) ‘Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe’, Regulation and Governance, 4(1): 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2006) ‘Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance’, The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2012) ‘Measuring the accountability of collaborative innovation’, The Innovation Journal, 17(1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2005a) ‘Network governance and post-liberal democracy’, Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(2): 197–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2005b) ‘The democratic anchorage of governance networks’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3): 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (eds) (2007) Theories of Democratic Network Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance’, Public Administration, 87(2): 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2011) ‘Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector’, Administration and Society, 43(8): 842–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2012) ‘Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector’, The Innovation Journal, 17(1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, D. (2002) How to Make Collaboration Work (San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Peter, B. G., Pierre, J. and Sørensen, E. (2012) Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vigoda, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N. and Ayalla, R. (2008) ‘Public sector innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of citizens’ perspectives’, Public Administration, 86(2): 307–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.E. (2002) ‘What can democratic participation mean today?’, Political Theory, 30(5): 677–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E. (2009) ‘Governance-driven democratization’, Critical Policy Studies, 3(1): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. and Bergrud, E. (eds) (2008) Civic Engagement in a Network Society (Charlotte, NC: IAP).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jacob Torfing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Citizenship and Globalization, Deakin University, Australia

    Benjamin Isakhan (Senior Research Fellow) (Senior Research Fellow)

  2. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Australia

    Steven Slaughter (Senior Lecturer in International Relations) (Senior Lecturer in International Relations)

Copyright information

© 2014 Jacob Torfing

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Torfing, J. (2014). The Democratic Accountability of Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. In: Isakhan, B., Slaughter, S. (eds) Democracy and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326041_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation