Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning and Innovation in a Collaborative Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation in Public Planning

Abstract

As part of the new public governance regime, collaborative planning and innovation have become vital concepts in policy processes. Both collaborative planning and innovation involve attempts to combine instrumental and communicative rationality, link knowledge to action and organise multiple actors in networks. In addition, collaborative planning and innovation both need democratic legitimacy. This chapter discusses the similarities between planning and innovation as processes, how these processes are influenced by different governance regimes and how actors using wisdom in collaborative processes can increase the networks’ legitimacy and institutional capacity.

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 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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

References

  • Agger, A., Damgaard, B., Hagedorn Krogh, A., & Sørensen, E. (2015). Introduction. In A. Agger, B. Damgaard, A. H. Krogh, & E. Sørensen (Eds.), Collaborative governance and public innovation in Northern Europe (pp. 3–21). Sharjah: Bentham Sciences Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 242–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amdam, R. (2011). Planlegging og prosessleiing. Korleis lukkast i utviklingsarbeid. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amdam, R. (2014). An integrated planning, learning and innovation system in the decentralized public sector; a Norwegian perspective. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(3), article 3. Retrieved from http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/19_3_3_amdam_integrated-plan-learn452m.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2012). Stewards, mediators, and catalysts: Toward a model of collaborative leadership. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), article 7. Retrieved from http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/christoffer_nsell_alison_editit_v17i1a7.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2009). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons ltd.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Special issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G. March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buanes, A., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Building bridges: Institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures, 41(7), 446–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bukve, O. (2012). Lokal og regional styring – eit institusjonelt perspektiv. Oslo: Samlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., Johnsen, E., & Vanebo, J. O. (2003). Endringsledelse i det offentlige. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2004). Fragmented state – The challenges of combining efficiency, institutional norms and democracy. Working paper 3 – 2004. Bergen: Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaboration. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi, S. (2015). Planning as practice of knowing. Planning Theory, 14(3), 316–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy. Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1986). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1966). Planning as innovation: The Chilean case. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(4), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1978). The epistemology of social practice: A critique of objective knowledge. Theory & Society, 6, 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment. The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow, J. I. (2014). Public sector innovation theory revisited. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(2), article 1. Retrieved from http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/19_2_1_gow_public-invoate-theory.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdouch, A., (2007). Innovation clusters and networks: A critical review of the recent literature. Paper at the 19th EAEPE Conference, Universidade do Porto, 1–3 November 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen, G. S., & Hofstad, G. (2017). Regional planlegging som flernivåkoordinering. Kart og Plan, 77, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, T. L., & Stein, S. (2006). Dialogical planning in a fragmented society. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73, 821–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2009). The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higdem, U. (2007). Regionale partnerskap – en innovasjon med staten som partner? In H. Teigen & R. Rønning (Eds.), En innovativ forvaltning? Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reforms and changes in UK central government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, Å., & Larsen, A. C. (2015). Mål- og resultatstyring i norske kommuner: Virkninger for produktivitet og effektivitet? Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 17(1), 31–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausen, K. K. (2001). New public management – en fortolkingsramme for reformer. In T. Busch, E. Johnsen, K. K. Klausen, & J. O. Vanebo (Eds.), Modernisering av offentlig sektor. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003). Innovation in the public sector. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office. Retrieved from http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/mathieson/mis524/resources/readings/innovation/innovation_in_the_public_sector.pdf

  • Offerdal, A. (2005). Iverksettingsteori – resultatene blir sjelden som planlagt, og det kan være en fordel. In H. Baldersheim & L. E. Rose (Eds.), Det kommunale laboratorium, Teoretiske perspektiver på lokal politikk og organisering. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). 2011: Public management reform: A comparative analysis – New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance. Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, T. (1990). Communicate or calculate: Planning theory and social science concepts in a contingency perspective. Stockholm: Nordisk Institute for Studies in Urban and Regional Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995/2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Samarbejdsdrevet innovation i den offentlige sector. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Samarbejdsdrevet innovation – i den offentlige sector. København: Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction. Collaborative innovation in public sector. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 18(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative innovation in public sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2016). Transforming the public sector into arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and the way forward. Administration & Society, 28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057

  • Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance? In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Volda University College, Volda, Norway

    Roar Amdam

Authors
  1. Roar Amdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roar Amdam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

    Aksel Hagen

  2. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

    Ulla Higdem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Amdam, R. (2020). Planning and Innovation in a Collaborative Framework. In: Hagen, A., Higdem, U. (eds) Innovation in Public Planning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46136-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation