CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Public Procurement and PolicyPublic Policy and Administration ResearchInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

Positioning public procurement as a procedural tool for innovation: an empirical study

Open access
Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif, Vivona, Roberto·2021·Policy and Society
DOI 10.1080/14494035.2021.1955465
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Procurement has received scholarly attention as a valuable policy tool to reach desired outcomes in society, such as innovation. While interest has grown in analyzing the impact of the ‘substantive’ function of procurement (purchasing of goods and services), procurement is much more than purchases, and most public buyers’ activities are ‘procedural’, as they are aimed at improving the many internal stages of the procurement process. This study explains how procurement can be both a substantive and procedural tool, particularly in terms of innovation. Using the 2010 Innobarometer dataset that consist of 4,063 public organizations from 29 European countries, this study answers how public procurement, as a procedural policy tool, affects the implementation of public sector innovations. We find that procurement activities are positively related to innovation within public organizations. In particular, procurement as R&D for new technologies and services has an important and meaningful effect. We discuss implications for policy tools and public sector innovation literature, and we suggest that policy makers make use of more procedural tools such as procurement to increase innovation within public organizations.

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 · 10.1080/14494035.2021.1955465

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Public procurement has been successfully deployed as a policy lever in other areas, for example to encourage socially or environmentally beneficial outcomes.

    “Indeed, public procurement has been successfully deployed as a policy lever in other areas, for example to encourage socially or environmentally beneficial outcomes [58, 79].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [58]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Albury, D. (2011). Creating the Conditions for Radical Public Service Innovation. Australian Journal of Public Administration,70(3), 227-235.
  2. Andres, A., Assalino, M., Oldani, G., Toso, C., & Berney, T. (2017). Procurement professionaliza- tion: A mandatory step to improve the availability and quality of whole pancreas grafts. Transplant International, 30(2), 115-116.
  3. Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48(3), 789-798.
  4. Aschhoff, B., & Sofka, W. (2009). Innovation on demand-Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Research Policy, 38(8), 1235-1247.
  5. Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2021a). Unpacking policy portfolios: Primary and secondary aspects of tool use in policy mixes. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-17. 10.1080/ 17516234.2021.1907653 · DOI
  6. Bolton, P. (2006). Government procurement as a policy tool in South Africa. Journal of Public Procurement, 6(3), 3.
  7. Chicot, J., & Matt, M. (2018). Public procurement of innovation: A review of rationales, designs, and contributions to grand challenges. Science & Public Policy, 45(4), 480-492.
  8. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
  9. Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681-1691.
  10. Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Conditions for complex innovations: Evidence from public organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(3), 820-843.
  11. Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation-Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36(7), 949-963.
  12. Edler, J., & Yeow, J. (2016). Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 414-426.
  13. Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2000). Public technology procurement and innovation theory. In C. Edquist, L. Hommen, & L. Tsipouri (Eds.), Public technology procurement and innovation (pp. 5-70). New York, NY: Springer.
  14. Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1725-1753.
  15. Edler, J., Georghiou, L., Uyarra, E., & Yeow, J. (2015). The meaning and limitations of public procurement for innovation: a supplier's experience. In C. Edquist, N. S. Vonortas, J. M. Zabala- Iturriagagoitia, & J. Edler (Eds.),Public procurement for innovation (pp. 1-34). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  16. Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757-1769.
  17. El Amry, A. (2018). Professionalization of public buyers: Determining primordial effectiveness of public order. European Scientific Journal, 14(22), 54-62.
  18. Freudlsperger, C. (2018). More voice, less exit: Sub-federal resistance to international procurement liberalization in the European Union, the United States and Canada. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1686-1705.
  19. Geroski, P. A. (1990). Procurement policy as a tool of industrial policy. Int Rev Appl Econ, 4(2), 182-198.
  20. Grandia, J., & Meehan, J. (2017). Public procurement as a policy tool: Using procurement to reach desired outcomes in society. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(4), 302-309.
  21. Hameduddin, T., Fernandez, S., & Demircioglu, M. A. (2020). Conditions for open innovation in public organizations: Evidence from Challenge. gov. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(2), 111-131.
  22. Hommen, L., & Rolfstam, M. (2008). Public procurement and innovation: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Public Procurement, 8(3), 17-56.
  23. Howlett, M. (2017). Policy tools and their role in policy formulation: Dealing with procedural and substantive instruments. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of Policy Formulation (pp. 96-111). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  24. Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2010). Public procurement as an industrial policy tool: An option for developing countries? Journal of Public Procurement, 10(3), 368-404.
  25. Lapuente, V., & Suzuki, K. (2020). Politicization, bureaucratic legalism, and innovative attitudes in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 454-467.
  26. Lember, V., Kattel, R., & Kalvet, T. (2014). Public procurement and innovation: Theory and practice. In V. Lember, R. Kattel, & T. Kalvet (Eds.), Public procurement, innovation and policy: International perspectives (pp. 13-34). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
  27. Lundberg, S., & Marklund, P. O. (2013). Green public procurement as an environmental policy instrument: Cost effectiveness. Environmental Economics, 4(4), 75-83.
  28. McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural resources forum, 28(4), 257-267.
  29. Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. D. (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge. gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882-890.
  30. Miller, F. A., & Lehoux, P. (2020). The innovation impacts of public procurement offices: The case of healthcare procurement. Research Policy,49(7), 104075.
  31. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. OECD. (2017a). Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  32. Osei-Tutu, E., Offei-Nyako, K., Ameyaw, C., & Ampofo, K. T. (2014). Conflict of interest and related corrupt practices in public procurement in Ghana. International Journal of Civil Engineering Construction and Estate Management, 1(2), 1-15.
  33. Peters, B. G. (2000). Policy instruments and public management: bridging the gaps. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,10(1), 35-47.
  34. Petersen, O. H., Lember, V., Scherrer, W., & Robert, Å. (2016). 10 the role of private actors in public sector innovation. In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Enhancing public innovation by transforming Public Governance (pp. 197-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  36. Rainville, A. (2017). Standards in green public procurement-A framework to enhance innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1029-1037.
  37. Rolfstam, M. (2009). Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: The role of institutions. Science & Public Policy, 36(5), 349-360.
  38. Rolfstam, M., Phillips, W., & Bakker, E. (2011). Public procurement of innovations, diffusion and endogenous institutions. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(5), 452-468.
  39. Sahni, N. R., Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. 2013. Unleashing breakthrough innovation in government: Stanford social innovation review, 27-31.
  40. Smith, K. (2005). Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations (pp. 86-106). New York, NY: Routledge.
  41. Taeihagh, A. (2017). Crowdsourcing: A new tool for policy-making? Policy Sciences, 50(4), 629-647.
  42. Thai, K. V. (2001). Public procurement re-examined. Journal of Public Procurement, 1(1), 9-50.
  43. Torbica, A., & Cappellaro, G. (2010). Uptake and diffusion of medical technology innovation in Europe: What role for funding and procurement policies? Journal of Medical Marketing, 10(1), 61-69.
  44. Torugsa, N., & Arundel, A. (2016). Complexity of Innovation in the public sector: A workgroup-level analysis of related factors and outcomes. Public Management Review, 18(3), 392-416.
  45. Torugsa, N. A., & Arundel, A. (2017). Rethinking the effect of risk aversion on the benefits of service innovations in public administration agencies. Research Policy, 46(5), 900-910.
  46. Verbeek, M. (2008). A guide to modern econometrics. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
  47. Vivona, R., Demircioglu, M. A., & Raghavan, A. (2021). Innovation and Innovativeness for the Public Servant of the Future: What, Why, How, Where, and When. In H. Sullivan & H. Dickinson (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant (pp. 1643-1664). Switzerland: Springer.
  48. Wibowo, R. (2019). Impact of procurement professionalization on the efficiency of public procurement. Operations Excellence: Journal of Applied Industrial Engineering, 11(3), 228.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Demircioglu, M. A., & Vivona, R.
Affiliations
  • Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, The National University of Singapore, Singapore
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
Venue
Policy and Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-07-03
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
379-396
ISSN
  • 1449-4035 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-3373
DOI
10.1080/14494035.2021.1955465
OpenAlex
W3184261564
Cited by
65
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
7.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Policy and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National University of Singapore
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
public procurement, public sector innovation, innovation implementation, public sector organizations, policy instruments

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