The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M., Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,454
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Fukuyama, F., & Schumpeter, J. A. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048211 · Cited by 15,264
Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States.
Tullock, G., & Hirschman, A. O. (1970) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.2307/2325604 · Cited by 10,904
(2003) · Cited by 9,368
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 · Cited by 8,256
Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition
Lazega, E., & Burt, R. S. (1995) · Revue Française de Sociologie · doi:10.2307/3322456 · Cited by 7,853
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001 · Cited by 7,250
Cited by
INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
DE VRIES, H., BEKKERS, V., & TUMMERS, L. (2016) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12209 · Cited by 1,214
Public value creation through collaborative innovation
Crosby, B. C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165 · Cited by 455
Self-citationE-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies
Meijer, A. (2015) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001 · Cited by 365
Myeong, S., & Bokhari, S. A. A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152015075 · Cited by 30
Bokhari, S. A. A., & Seunghwan, M. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16104246 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-10-25
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 821-830
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2120124394
- Cited by
- 768
- References
- 106
- FWCI
- 71.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/puar.12136
- The paper
- Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12136
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
