Public sector innovation: the effect of universities

  • Mehmet Akif DemirciogluEmail author
  • David B. Audretsch


A growing literature in public management has identified the key role that innovation can play in enhancing agency efficiency, effectiveness, performance and legitimacy. However, considerably less is known about the actual sources of knowledge generating innovative activity in the public sector. This paper fills this crucial gap in the literature by explicitly analyzing the link between a key source of knowledge and ideas, universities, and the innovative activities of public organizations. By utilizing a new source of data, this paper is able to show that not only do universities play a key role in generating innovative activity in public organizations, but the nature of innovations and their impact on public sector performance are related to the role played by universities. The findings suggest that universities play a key role in generating innovative activity in public organizations as doing so can increase the quality of public services, employee job satisfaction, and interagency collaboration.


Innovation Sources of innovation University Benefits of innovation Public sector 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O38 M38 


  1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. The American Economic Review, 78, 678–690.Google Scholar
  2. Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arundel, A., & Huber, D. (2013). From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the public sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). The entrepreneurial society and the role of the University. Economia Marche-Journal of Applied Economics, 32(2), 6–16.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Management Advisory Committee (MAC). (2010). Empowering Change: Fostering innovation in the Australian Public Service, edited by Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). (2011a). State of the Service Report 2010–2011: Australian Public Service Employee Survey Results. edited by Australian Public Service Commission. Canberra: Australian Public Service Commission.Google Scholar
  9. Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). (2011b). Employee Survey Results: State of the Service Series 2010–2011, edited by Australian Public Service Commission. Canberra: Australian Public Service Commission.Google Scholar
  10. Baldwin, J., & Lin, Z. (2002). Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers. Research Policy, 31(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bankins, S., Denness, B., Kriz, A., & Molloy, C. (2017). Innovation agents in the public sector: Applying champion and promotor theory to explore innovation in the Australian public service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becker, S. W., & Whisler, T. L. (1967). The innovative organization: A selective view of current theory and research. Journal of Business, 40(4), 462–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bloch, C. (2011). Measuring public innovation in the Nordic countries (MEPIN). Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  15. Bloch, C., & Bugge, M. M. (2013). Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borins, S. (2001). The challenge of innovating in government. PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  17. Bugge, M. M., & Bloch, C. W. (2016). Between bricolage and breakthroughs—framing the many faces of public sector innovation. Public Money & Management, 36(4), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bugge, M., Mortensen, P. S., & Bloch, C. (2011). Measuring Public Innovation in Nordic Countries. Report on the Nordic Pilot studies-Analyses of methodology and results.Google Scholar
  19. Collm, A., & Schedler, K. (2014). Strategies for introducing organizational innovation to public service organizations. Public Management Review, 16(1), 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Demircioglu, M. A. (2016). Organizational innovation. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Demircioglu, M. A. (2017a). Reinventing the wheel? Public sector innovation in the age of governance. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 800–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Demircioglu, M. A. (2017b). Three essays on public sector innovation. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  26. Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Demircioglu, M. A., Audretsch, D., & Slaper, T. (2017). The effects of sources of innovation on innovation type: Firm-level evidence from the United States Working paper.Google Scholar
  28. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Understanding employee motivation to innovate: Evidence from front line employees in United States federal agencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), 202–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fiebig, D. G. (2001). Seemingly unrelated regression. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), A companion to theoretical econometrics (pp. 101–121). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. George, B., & Pandey, S. K. (2017). We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. Guerzoni, M., Taylor Aldridge, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Desai, S. (2014). A new industry creation and originality: Insight from the funding sources of university patents. Research Policy, 43(10), 1697–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haukka, S. (2005). Research training and national innovation systems: Finland compared to Australia and the USA. National Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes).Google Scholar
  37. InnoSupport. (2009). Innovation Guide. Accessed 2 July.
  38. Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jung, J., Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2017). Impact of research collaboration cosmopolitanism on job satisfaction. Research Policy, 46(10), 1863–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50(1), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, Y.-N., & Walsh, J. P. (2016). Inventing while you work: Knowledge, non-R&D learning and innovation. Research Policy, 45(1), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linden, R. M. (2010). Leading across boundaries: Creating collaborative agencies in a networked world. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1997). Science-based technologies and interdisciplinarity: Challenges for firms and policy. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation (pp. 298–317). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  44. Moon, H. R., & Perron, B. (2006). Seemingly unrelated regressions. Retrieved from
  45. Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The U.S. national innovation system. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National systems of innovation: a comparative study. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nasi, G., Cucciniello, M., Mele, V., Valotti, G., Bazurli, R., de Vries, H., Bekkers, V., Tummers, L., Gascó, M., Ysa, T., C. Fernández, C., Albareda, A., Matei, A., Savulescu, C., Antonie, C., Balaceanu, E. B., Juraj, N., Svidroňová, M., Mikusova Merickova, B., Marta Oviska, de Froidcourt, V., Eymeri-Douzans, M., & Morette Monthuber, E. (2015). Determinants and barriers of adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT-driven social innovation in the public sector: A comparative study across 6 EU countries. In LIPSE Research Report #5.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, B. (2003). Mapping Australian science and innovation. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  48. Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual. In Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris.Google Scholar
  50. Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among US federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richardson, A., Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T., & Nadella, V. K. (2016). Radical and Incremental innovation and the role of University scientist. In D. B. Audretsch & A. L. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 131–207). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, K. H. (2006). Measuring innovation. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. The Australian Public Sector Innovation Indicators Project (APSII). (2011). Measuring innovation in the public sector: A literature review. edited by Department of Industry Australian Government, Science and Research. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Department of Industry, Science and Research.Google Scholar
  57. Thompson, J. R., & Sanders, R. P. (1997). Strategies for reinventing federal agencies: Gardening versus engineering. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21(2), 137–155. Scholar
  58. Torugsa, N., & Arundel, A. (2016a). Complexity of innovation in the public sector: A workgroup-level analysis of related factors and outcomes. Public Management Review, 18(3), 392–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Torugsa, N. A., & Arundel, A. (2016b). The nature and incidence of workgroup innovation in the Australian public sector: Evidence from the Australian 2011 State of the Service Survey. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(2), 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., & Bouckaert, G. (2007). Pressure, legitimacy, and innovative behavior by public organizations. Governance, 20(3), 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walsh, J. P., Lee, Y.-N., & Nagaoka, S. (2016). Openness and innovation in the US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation. Research Policy, 45(8), 1660–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wettenhall, R. (1988). Local government as innovators. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47(4), 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Windrum, P. (2008). Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. In P. Windrom & P. Koch (Eds.), Innovation in public sector services: entrepreneurship, creativity and management (pp. 3–22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wise, L. R. (1999). The use of innovative practices in the public and private sectors. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(2), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yencken, J., & Hindle, K. (2005). Finding and filling the gaps in the Australian governments’ innovation and entrepreneurship support spectra. AGSE 2005: Regional frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2005: Complilation of papers of the second AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange.Google Scholar
  67. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lee Kuan Yew School of Public PolicyThe National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Institute for Development Strategies, School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University-BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations