Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T15:34:53.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Can Public Governance Be Changed to Enhance Innovation?

from Part III - Transforming Governance to Enhance Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Jacob Torfing
Affiliation:
Roskilde Universitet, Denmark
Peter Triantafillou
Affiliation:
Roskilde Universitet, Denmark
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J. P. 1993. The Reforming Organization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, P. 2012. “Policy as palimpsest,” Policy & Politics 40(3): 423–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, C. 2005. “Learning/Becoming/Organizing,” Organization 12(2): 147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, P. A. 2001. “Path dependence, its critics, and the quest for ‘Historical Economics,’ ” in Garrouste, P. and Ionnides, S. (eds.), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, M. A. H. and Wildavsky, A. 1979. “On change: Or, there is no magic size for an increment,” Political Studies 27(3): 371–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimaggio, P. and Powell, W. 1983. “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,” American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. 2005. “Organization routines and macro-actors,” in Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T. (eds.), Actor-Network Theorizing and Action. Malmö: Liber, pp. 91111.Google Scholar
Goodhart, C, A. E. 2008. “The regulatory response to the financial crisis,” Journal of Financial Stability 4(4): 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, M. T. 2006. Incrementalism and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. W. and Peters, B. G. 1986. Policy Dynamics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Kaufman, H. A. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Koppenjan, J. F. M. 2012. The New Public Governance in Public Service Delivery. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G. and Verhoest, K. 2011. “Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies,” Organization Studies 32(10): 1321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, P. C. 2002. Government’s Greatest Achievements: From Civil Rights to Homeland Defense. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
MacCarthaigh, M. 2014. “Agency termination in Ireland: Culls or bonfires, or life after death?Public Administration 92(4): 1017–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, A. 2010. Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Moore, M. and Hartley, J. 2008. “Innovations in governance,” Public Management Review 10(1): 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payan, T. 2006. Cops, Soldiers, and Diplomats: Explaining Agency Behavior in the War on Drugs. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. 2001. The Future of Governing, 2nd edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. 2002. “The politics of policy instruments,” in Salamon, L. M. (ed.), The Tools of Government. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 552–64.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. and King, D. S. 2005. “The politics of path dependency: political conflict in historical institutionalism,” Journal of Politics 67(4): 12751300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. 2000. “Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics,” American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. and Davies, P. L. 1984. Inheritance in Public Policy: Change without Choice in Britain. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. 2007. “The advocacy-coalition: Innovations and clarifications,” in Sabatier, P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview, pp. 117–68.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. 2010. “Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth new institutionalism,” European Political Science Review 2(1): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J. E. 1984. America’s Hidden Success: A Reassessment of Twenty Years of Public Policy. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S. 2008. “Historical institutionalism,” in Della Porta, D. and Keating, M. (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–38.Google Scholar
Streek, W. and Thelen, K. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Styhre, A. 2007. The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonurist, P., Kattel, R. and Lember, V. 2015. “Discovering innovation labs in the public sector,” Working Papers in Technology, Governance and Economic Dynamics 61. Tallinn: Tallinn University of Technology.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. 1980. “Policy as its own cause,” in Wildavsky, A. (ed.), Policy: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zito, A. R. 2001. “Epistemic communities, collective entrepreneurship and European integration,” Journal of European Public Policy 8(4): 586603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittoun, P. 2014. The Political Process of Policymaking. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×