This article provides a systematic review of the empirical literature on barriers within public sector innovation processes, based on data from 63 articles. We investigate the nature of barriers. The studies were analysed based on four dimensions of barriers: i) their classification; ii) their interrelations; iii) whether they play distinct roles within stages of innovation process and iv) whether they vary in the types of innovations. We develop an empirically based framework to capture the complex nature of barriers. For this purpose, a new classification is also introduced to show that interaction-specific barriers emerge during the collaborative innovation process. Significantly we identify that the nature of barriers are more complex than has previously been recognized: they differ in process stages and innovation types. Moreover, they show interrelations across the innovation process by reinforcing each other. The findings show there is an emphasis on organizational barriers and implementation phase studies. We conclude with a discussion on how future research use quantitative and cross-national methods to examine: (1) interaction specific barriers, in particular, barriers with businesses and political bodies (2) design and sustainment phases of innovation (3) interrelations between barriers. 4 the concept of innovation in a normative positive way. Similarly, we do not approach the concept of barriers in a normative negative way. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The first section details the methodology used for the systematic review. The second section and its subsections detail the results of the systematic review, initially providing details of the studies included and subsequently exploring the nature of barriers by examining their types, process characteristics, interrelations, and distinct variations on types of innovation. Finally, from our findings, we reach conclusions and provide a research agenda on barriers to PSI. METHODOLOGY Database Search Three strategies were used to identify eligible articles. First, we carried out an electronic search in Web of Science restricted to Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in title, abstract and keywords of articles. The term [innov*] was searched along with the terms for barriers: [obstacle* OR barrier* OR challeng* OR hinder* OR deter* OR difficult* OR bottleneck* OR problem* OR setback* OR hurdle* OR hamper* OR imped* OR obstruct*]. To define the public sector character of innovation we use the following terms: [municipal* OR "public administrat*" OR "public organi$ation*" OR "public management" OR government* OR "public service" OR "local government*" OR "e-govern*" OR "egovern* OR governance OR "public sphere" OR "public sector"]. Public or policy entrepreneurship has been studied connected with innovation (Roberts and King 1996) and so we searched the terms for barriers and public sector with the combination of [entrepreneur*]. This strategy resulted in a total of 3,524 articles. Second we selected EBSCO Business Source database ...

This study deepens our knowledge on innovation barriers within public sector innovation (PSI) processes. Our research contributes to the barrier approach to innovation. We develop a conceptual framework, which expands the conventional view of barriers. The exploratory empirical evidence based on 99 cases from Italy, Japan and Turkey identifies the dynamic nature of the barriers within innovation processes. We uncover tactics that are used to overcome these barriers and the mechanisms that can surprisingly contribute to fruitful outcomes.

The importance of involving citizens in the early stages of public sector innovation and bottom‐up governance arrangements for collaboration has been proposed in a number of theoretical papers. However, to date, few empirical studies are evident in the literature. To deepen our understanding of collaborative public sector innovation, our exploratory article analyses: (i) the actors of collaboration, (ii) collaboration across the innovation stages, (iii) the perceived aspects of collaboration for innovative outcomes, and (iv) the governance of collaboration. Our analysis covers 99 innovations from Italy, Japan, and Turkey. We reveal that collaboration still largely occurs within the bureaucracy of public sector organizations. Attempts to include civic and private sectors are evident, depending on the country context. Further, we uncover that a mutual understanding and shared goals are crucial for success, which is accomplished through top‐down governance as opposed to self‐governed bottom‐up networks.

No abstract

Migration can offer both significant benefits and costs. This article reviews and synthesises approaches and related critiques on managing migration. Precautionary approaches to migration are guided by securitisation and governmentality paradigms that imply a potential impediment, whereby models are informed by security-and threat-nexus (cost), making the paradigm one-dimensional. The need for a holistic model for consistent migration management is frequently expressed in migration literature. Here, inclusive risk governance is proposed as a viable alternative model that can produce better policy outcomes by fulfilling four conditions: (a) enhancing inclusion and participation; (b) appraising costs and benefits; (c) considering the impact on all affected stakeholders; and (d) facilitating constructive deliberation. Incorporating these elements to support coherent goals makes the model a valid enabler, corresponding better to the diversity of the migration policy context. This model is demonstrated through a critical reading of the literature that has suggested that migration is managed through securitisation, governmentality, and risk.