The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

No abstract

This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a systematic literature review, we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empirically based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We put forward three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method approaches; (2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and (3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation. INTRODUCTIONScholars and practitioners have become increasingly interested in innovation in the public sector (Osborne and Brown 2011;Walker 2014). Many embrace the idea that innovation can contribute to improving the quality of public services as well as to enhancing the problem-solving capacity of governmental organizations in dealing with societal challenges (Damanpour and Schneider 2009). Frequently, public sector innovation is linked to reform movements such as New Public Management (NPM) (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), electronic government (Bekkers and Homburg 2005), the change from government to governance (Rhodes 1996) and, most recently, to the discussions on the retreating role of government in a 'Big Society' (Lowndes and Pratchett 2012).In the private sector, innovation is an established field of study that tries to explain why and how innovation takes place (Fagerberg et al. 2005). General literature reviews and systematic reviews have been carried out to assess the state-of-the-art in this field as well as to generate new avenues for theory-building and research (Perks and Roberts 2013). There are even some meta-analyses, such as that of Damanpour (1991), that pull together the results of empirical research on the relationships between organizational variables such as slack resources and innovation.However, what is known about innovation in the public sector? What topics have been addressed in the innovation studies to date, and what are the possible avenues for future research? Moreover, what can be added to the current methodological state-of-the-art when it comes to public innovation research?The first contribution of this article is methodological in that we have elected to conduct a systematic review (Moher et al. 2009). These differ from traditional literature reviews in that they are replicable and transparent, involving several explicit steps such as using a standardized way to identify all the likely relevant publications. In public administration, such systematic reviews have ...

Street-level bureaucrats implementing public policies have a certain degree of autonomyor discretion -in their work. Following Lipsky, discretion has received wide attention in the policy implementation literature. However, scholars have not developed theoretical frameworks regarding the effects of discretion, which were then tested using large samples. This study therefore develops a theoretical framework regarding two main effects of discretion: client meaningfulness and willingness to implement. The relationships are tested using a survey among 1,300 health care professionals implementing a new policy. The results underscore the importance of discretion. Implications of the findings and a future research agenda is shown.

This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a systematic literature review we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empiricallybased framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We propose three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method approaches;(2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and(3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation.

Many public organizations implement teleworking: an organizational innovation expected to improve the working conditions of public servants. However, it is unclear to what extent teleworking is beneficial for public servants. This study adds to the literature by studying the effects of teleworking on a day-to-day basis. We used a daily diary methodology and followed public servants across five consecutive working days. Studies that apply a daily survey method are more accurate than cross-sectional measures because they reduce recall bias. The results highlight that public servants experience quite negative effects from teleworking, including greater professional isolation and less organizational commitment on the days that they worked entirely from home. Contrary to predictions, working from home did not affect work engagement. We also found that higher leader–member exchange (LMX) reduced the impact of teleworking on professional isolation. These findings not only contribute to the literature by showing the unfavorable effects of teleworking but also highlight that LMX can, to some extent, reduce these negative effects.

No abstract

The willingness of public professionals to implement policy programmes is important for achieving policy performance. However, few scholars have developed and tested systematic frameworks to analyze this issue. In this study, we address this by building and testing an appropriate framework. The aims have been: (1) to build a three‐factor model (policy content, organizational context, and personality characteristics) for explaining willingness to implement policies; and (2) to quantitatively test the model through a survey of Dutch professionals. The results show that policy content is the most important factor in explaining willingness. Nevertheless, organizational context and the personality characteristics of implementers also have a significant effect and should be considered when studying the attitudes of professionals towards policies. This research helps in understanding the willingness or resistance of professionals when it comes to implementing policies.