Cited by 361Public Procurement and PolicyInnovation Policy and R&DInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment

Open access
Georghiou, Luke, Edler, Jakob, Uyarra, Elvira, Yeow, Jillian·2014·Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Abstract

Public procurement is increasingly seen as an important potential instrument of innovation policy. However, policy design has been underpinned largely by anecdotal evidence and without a clear theoretical or empirical basis for understanding how supplying to the public sector actually influences a firm's innovation capabilities and performance and in what ways desirable behaviour and outcomes can be promoted. This paper seeks to address the basis of innovation procurement policy. It establishes a broad taxonomy of procurement policies and instruments that have emerged in OECD countries in response to perceived deficiencies and then compares these with the perceptions of firms using an analysis of a dedicated survey of 800 public sector suppliers in the UK. It is observed that policy measures include the creation of framework conditions, establishing organisational frameworks and developing capabilities, identifying, specifying and signalling needs, and incentivising innovative solutions. The survey findings confirm that the barriers encountered by firms correspond to the deficiencies addressed by policies but do not address them sufficiently. This arises from lack of coverage, lack of ownership by purchasers, failure to address the whole cycle of acquisition and to address risk aversion. The scope of policy measures needs to be extended in time, breadth of reach and depth.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. J. Edler, S. Ruhland, S. Hafner, J. Rigby, L. Georghiou, L. Hommen, M. Rolfstam, C. Edquist, L. Tsipouri, M. Papadokou, Innovation and Public Procurement. Review of Issues at Stake, Study for the European Commission, Final Report, European Commission, Brussels, 2005.
  2. Y. Li, Public Procurement as a Demand-Side Innovation Policy Tool in China -A National Level Case Study, DRUID Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.
  3. J.S. Agejas, K. Husso, A. Mahr, X. Goenaga, P. Vock, 2011 Policy Mix Peer Review Belgium -Final Report, 2011.
  4. H. Vermeulen, Demand-side innovation policies in Flanders, in: OECD (Ed.), Demand Side Innovation Policies, OECD, Paris, 2011, pp. 115-121.
  5. S. Arrowsmith, S. Treumer, Competitive Dialogue in EU Procurement (forthcoming), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
  6. S. Treumer, E. Uyarra, Competitive dialogue and contractual design fostering innovation and need analysis, in: G. Piga, S. Treumer (Eds.), The Applied Law and Economics of Public Procurement (forthcoming), Routledge, London, 2012.
  7. V. Grimm, R. Pacini, G. Spagnolo, M. Zanza, Division into lots and competition in procurement, in: N. Dimitri, G. Piga, G. Spagnolo (Eds.), Handbook of Procurement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 168-192.
  8. J. Yeow, J. Edler, "Innovation Procurement as Projects.", Journal of Public Procurement 12 (no. 4) (2012) 472-504.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E., & Yeow, J.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Georghiou, Luke
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
86
Pages
1-12
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102897933
Cited by
361
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 2
FWCI
47.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Technological Forecasting and Social Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H008535/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Innovation Policy and R&D
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
public procurement, innovation policy, policy design, firm innovation capability, framework conditions, organizational framework, supplier incentives, risk aversion, barriers to innovation, OECD countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review