Revitalizing the Concept of Public Procurement for Innovation (PPI) from a Systemic Perspective: Objectives, Policy Types, and Impact Mechanisms

  • Kiyoon Shin
  • Yeongjun YeoEmail author
  • Jeong-Dong Lee


Recently, demand-side innovation policies for securing new driving-force for economic growth centered on developed countries, especially on the importance of public procurement for innovation, (PPI) are emphasized. Although the previous studies on PPI have presented various innovations and economic effects of PPI, they are still focused on specific case-based analysis, failing to provide implications for policy decision-making. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the economy-wide effects of PPI within the innovation system in generalized terms including technology, market, institution-related elements. To be specific, this study reveals direct and indirect impact channels within the innovation system incorporating demand-pull and technology-push effects. In addition, we propose four different types of PPI in terms of the policy impact channels and analyze electric vehicle (EV) PPI case in Korea using this proposed taxonomy. This study has contributions both on academic research and policy decision-making dimensions, by stressing out the systemic perspective to understand the potential impact mechanisms across the innovation system induced by the implementation of PPI.


Demand-side innovation policy Public procurement for innovation Innovation system Taxonomy Policy impact Causal loop diagram 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (No. NRF-2016K2A9A1A01952079).


  1. Act on the Promotion of Development and Distribution of Environment-Friendly Automobiles (2016). (Kor)Google Scholar
  2. Albano GL, Nicholas C (2016) The law and economics of framework agreements: designing flexible solutions for public procurement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow KJ (1971) The economic implications of learning by doing. In: Readings in the theory of growth. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aschhoff B, Sofka W (2009) Innovation on demand – can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Res Policy 38(8):1235–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer B, Christensen J, Christensen K (2010) Benefits of green public procurement. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BDL (2003) The power of customers to drive innovation. Report to the European Commission. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Blalock G, Gertler PJ (2008) Welfare gains from foreign direct investment through technology transfer to local suppliers. J Int Econ 74(2):402–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borras S, Edquist C (2013) The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(8):1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brammer S, Walker H (2011) Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international comparative study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31(4):452–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brannlund R, Lundberg S, Marklund PO (2009) Assessment of green public procurement as a policy tool: cost-efficiency and competition considerations (Umeå Economic Studies No. 775). Umeå University, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer E, Kleinknecht A (1999) Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: an exploration of CIS micro data. Res Policy 28(6):615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabral L, Cozzi G, Denicolò V, Spagnolo G, Zanza M (2006) Procuring innovations. In: Dimitri N, Piga G, Spagnolo G (eds) Handbook of Procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 483-529Google Scholar
  13. Chirinko RS, Fazzari SM, Meyer AP (1999) How responsive is business capital formation to its user cost?: an exploration with micro data. J Public Econ 74(1):53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crespo N, Fontoura MP (2007) Determinant factors of FDI spillovers–what do we really know? World Dev 35(3):410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalpé R (1994) Effects of government procurement on industrial innovation. Technol Soc 16(1):65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalpé R, DeBresson C, Xiaoping H (1992) The public sector as first user of innovations. Res Policy 21(3):251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edler J (2013) Review of policy measures to stimulate private demand for innovation. Concepts and Effects. Manchester institute of innovation Research, Manchester business school, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Edler J, Georghiou L (2007) Public procurement and innovation – resurrecting the demand side. Res Policy 36(7):949–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edler J, Ruhland S, Hafner S, Rigby J, Georghiou L, Hommen L, Rolfstam M, Edquist C, Tsipouri L, Papadakou M (2005) Innovation and public procurement: review of issues at stake (ENTR/03/24). European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Edquist C (1996) Government technology procurement as an instrument of technology policy. In: Technological infrastructure policy. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 141–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edquist C, Hommen L (1999) Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technol Soc 21(1):63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edquist C, Hommen L (2000) Public technology procurement and innovation theory. In: Edquist C, Hommen L, Tsipouri L (eds) Public technology procurement and innovation. Springer, Boston, pp 5–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edquist C, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM (2012) Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Res Policy 41(10):1757–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edquist C, Vonortas NS, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM, Edler J (eds) (2015) Public procurement for innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Ejermo O, Kander A (2006). The Swedish paradox. CIRCLE electronic working paper series 2006/01, CIRCLE, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Erridge A, Nondi R (1994) Public procurement, competition and partnership. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 1(3):169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission (2012) Green public procurement: a collection of good practices. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission (2014) EU R&D scoreboard: the 2014 EU industrial R&D investment scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  29. European Commission. (2017). EU R&D scoreboard: The 2017 EU industrial R&D investment Scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  30. Fazzari SM (1993) The Investment-Finance Link: Investment and U.S. Fiscal Policy in the 1990s (public policy brief, 9). Jerome levy economics institute of bard collegeGoogle Scholar
  31. Flanagan K, Uyarra E, Laranja M (2011) Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Res Policy 40(5):702–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gallup (2011) Flash Eurobarometer 315 attitudes of European entrepreneurs towards eco-innovation, Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization, Hungary upon the request of Directorate-General Environment of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  33. Georghiou L, Edler J, Uyarra E, Yeow J (2014) Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: choice, design and assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 86:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geroski PA (1990) Procurement policy as a tool of industrial policy. Int Rev Appl Econ 4(2):182–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ghisetti C (2017) Demand-pull and environmental innovations: estimating the effects of innovative public procurement. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 125:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hawkins DI, Mothersbaugh DL, Best RJ (2013) Consumer behavior: building marketing strategy. McGraw-Hill IrwinGoogle Scholar
  37. Hommen L, Rolfstam M (2009) Public procurement and innovation: towards a taxonomy. Journal of public procurement 9(1):17–56Google Scholar
  38. Hopwood B, Mellor M, O'Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13(1):38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IISD (2012). Procurement, innovation and green growth: the story continues….Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)Google Scholar
  40. Izsak K, Edler J (2011) Trends and challenges in demand-side innovation policies in Europe, Thematic Report 2011 Under Specific Contract for the Integration of INNO Policy Trendchart with ERAWATCH (2011–2012), Brussels: Technopolis Group BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  41. Javorcik BS (2004) Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. Am Econ Rev 94(3):605–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korkmaz KA, Syal M, Harichandran RS, Korkmaz S (2012) Implementation of sustainable and green design and construction practices for bridges (RC-1586). Michigan State University, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  43. Kouvaritakis N, Soria A, Isoard S (2000) Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. Int J Glob Energy Issues 14(1–4):104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laranja M, Uyarra E, Flanagan K (2008) Policies for science, technology and innovation: translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Res Policy 37(5):823–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marron D (2004) Greener public purchasing as an environmental policy instrument. OECD J Budg 3(4):71–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moon TW, Jang WJ (2011) A study on global LED standardization trends and dissemination policies. The Korean Institute of Illuminating and Electrical Installation Engineers 2011 Annual Autumn Conference, 11-12. (in Korean)Google Scholar
  47. Morrison PD, Roberts JH, Von Hippel E (2000) Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Manag Sci 46(12):1513–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mowery D, Rosenberg N (1979) The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Res Policy 8(2):102–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mytelka LK (2001) Innovation theory and innovation policy: bridging the gap. In OECD (ed). (2001). Social sciences and innovation. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  50. Nemet GF (2009) Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res Policy 38(5):700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD (2011) Demand-side innovation policy. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. OECD (2015) Government at a glance 2015. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD (2016) OECD reviews of innovation policy: Sweden 2016, OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris,
  54. OFT (2002) Innovation and competition policy part I – conceptual issues. Office of Fair Trading, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. OFT (2004) Assessing impact of public sector procurement on competition. Office of Fair Trading, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Palmberg C (2004) The sources of innovations–looking beyond technological opportunities. Econ Innov New Technol 13(2):183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Payne C, Weber A, Semple A (2013) Energy efficient public procurement: best practice in program delivery. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Qiu Y, Anadon LD (2012) The price of wind power in China during its expansion: technology adoption, learning-by-doing, economies of scale, and manufacturing localization. Energy Econ 34(3):772–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rolfstam M (2009) Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: the role of institutions. Sci Public Policy 36(5):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roolaht T (2010) The demand-side innovation policies in the context of small EU member country. Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy 18:404–427Google Scholar
  61. Rothwell R (1994) Toward the fifth-generation innovation process. Int Mark Rev 11(1):7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rothwell R, Zegveld W (1981) Industrial innovation and public policy. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Saarinen J (2005) Innovations & industrial performance in Finland, 1945–1998 (Lund Studies in Economic History). Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  64. Stern P, Hellman J, Rijnders-Nagle M, Terrell M, Astrom T (2011) How public procurement can stimulate innovative services (report to nordic innovation Centre). Faugert & Co Utvärdering AB, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  65. Stiglitz JE (1987) Learning to learn, localized learning and technological progress. In Dasgupta, P., & Stoneman, P. (Eds). (2015). Economic Policy and Technological Performance (pp. 125–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  66. Urban GL, Von Hippel E (1988) Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Manag Sci 34(5):569–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Uyarra E, Flanagan K (2010) Understanding the innovation impacts of public procurement. Eur Plan Stud 18(1):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uyarra E, Edler J, Garcia-Estevez J, Georghiou L, Yeow J (2014) Barriers to innovation through public procurement: a supplier perspective. Technovation 34(10):631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Valentova M, Quicheron M, Bertoldi P (2012) Public procurement of LED lighting in European Union member states (Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  70. van Calster G (2002) Green procurement and the WTO - shades of grey. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 18(1):298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vonortas, N. S. (2015). Innovation and public procurement in the United States. In Edquist, C., Vonortas, N. S., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Edler, J. (Eds.). (2015). Public procurement for innovation (pp. 147–178). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  72. Westling H (2000) Final management report – Annex III co-operative procurement of innovative technologies for demand-side management (EI 6:2000). IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  73. Woolthuis RK, Lankhuizen M, Gilsing V (2005) A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25(6):609–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. World Bank (2010) Innovation policy: a guide for developing countries. World Bank Group, Washington D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology Management, Economics and Policy ProgramSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations