Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship

TLDR

Public sector innovation faces growing pressure but disagreement on how to achieve it. The article compares three major public innovation strategies using institutional and organizational analysis. It systematically analyzes New Public Management, the neo‑Weberian state, and collaborative governance, highlighting their differing emphases on market competition, organizational entrepreneurship, and multiactor engagement. The study finds that both public and private sectors share some innovation drivers and barriers, yet also have sector‑specific ones, and that selecting an innovation strategy is contingent rather than absolute, with specific contingencies outlined.

Abstract

There are growing pressures for the public sector to be more innovative but considerable disagreement about how to achieve it. This article uses institutional and organizational analysis to compare three major public innovation strategies. The article confronts the myth that the market-driven private sector is more innovative than the public sector by showing that both sectors have a number of drivers of as well as barriers to innovation, some of which are similar, while others are sector specific. The article then systematically analyzes three strategies for innovation: New Public Management, which emphasizes market competition; the neo-Weberian state, which emphasizes organizational entrepreneurship; and collaborative governance, which emphasizes multiactor engagement across organizations in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. The authors conclude that the choice of strategies for enhancing public innovation is contingent rather than absolute. Some contingencies for each strategy are outlined.