
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/">
  <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
  <dc:title xml:lang="eng">Public Sector’s Innovativeness : Theoretical and Methodological Perplexities</dc:title>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:format>243410 bytes</dc:format>
  <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
  <dc:source>Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies  23(1)</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xml:lang="eng">Key words: innovation, innovativeness, public sector, private sector, measuring</dc:subject>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:creator id="https://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/sr/sr/conor/12370535">Joksimović, Ljubinka</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator id="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2730-3215 https://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/sr/sr/conor/12719207">Manić, Slavica</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator id="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-2820 https://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/sr/sr/conor/12661351">Jović, Danica</dc:creator>
  <dc:identifier>https://phaidrabg.bg.ac.rs/o:28665</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>doi:10.7595/management.fon.2018.0001</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>ISSN: 1820-0222</dc:identifier>
  <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
  <dc:description xml:lang="eng">Abstract: 
Research question: This article considers the problems of measuring public sector innovation by
asking the question whether and why interpretation of the achievements regarding the public sector
innovativeness might be questionable. Motivation: The most recent literature on public sector innovation
reveals two perspectives. One of them is assertion that the public sector suffers an innovation deficit, while the
other claims that it is actually more innovative than a common credit. Insights in the results from recent large
studies of measuring public sector innovation have shown very high rates of innovations, higher than in private
sector (between 50 % and 80 % of respondents have recorded at least one type innovation during the period
of two years). The lack of a uniquely, or at least dominant, attitude regarding the above-mentioned standpoints
represents the basic inspiration for the actualization of this problem. Idea: The aim of the paper is twofold: 1)
to offer an overview of three established theoretical attempts (assimilation, demarcation and integrative) dealing
with public sector innovation, in order to present the evolution of the issue; 2) to prove that the inclination to
more general over contextually specific understanding of innovation (and vice versa) has an impact both on
its operationalization and on the interpretation of the achievements. Findings: In spite of the fact that theoretical
considerations show noticeable detachment from assimilation perspective, empirical studies still copy this
approach and the associated methodology. Surveys introduced subjectivity through arbitrary interpretation of
the innovation concept, choice of research techniques and respondents and using of non-measurable goals
as indicators of innovation outputs. Since this has affected and overrated their outcomes, we have found that
empirical studies have not provided reliable depiction of the state of affairs regarding the PSI. Contribution:
Having presented theoretical and methodological arguments why relying on the assimilation approach is
neither the only nor even the most adequate way to answer the question whether the public sector is more
innovative than the private one, we point to the necessity of using the other two approaches, particularly
integrative one in order to find a coherent method of PSI measurement.</dc:description>
</oai_dc:dc>
