SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE “INNOVATION POLICY MIX” CONCEPT: EXTENDING LEADERS’ VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Edwin Rommel; Amin Wibowo; Nurul Indarti; Ely Susanto

doi:10.22146/jlo.64765

SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE “INNOVATION POLICY MIX” CONCEPT: EXTENDING LEADERS’ VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

https://doi.org/10.22146/jlo.64765

Edwin Rommel^(1*), Amin Wibowo⁽²⁾, Nurul Indarti⁽³⁾, Ely Susanto⁽⁴⁾

(1) Doctoral Program in Management Science, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia; Regional Planning and Development Agency of Sungai Penuh City, Jambi Province, Indonesia.
(2) Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(3) Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(4) Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study aims to depict the scientific landscape for the innovation policy mix (IPM) from 2012 to 2019 since its re-conceptualization by Flanagan, Uyarra, and Laranja (2011).

Background Problems: The seminal work has broadened policy mix thinking with social issues impacting innovation. Since every organization is part of the innovation policy system, this study takes the first step to introduce IPM into management fields by identifying and discussing subsequent works in research trajectories.

Novelty: This study shows the remarkable progress toward a mature concept through IPM’s definition, characteristics, and boundaries. As a new string of interdisciplinary social science research, some opportunities and challenges are revealed, allowing future studies to be conducted in more theoretically sounding research traditions.

Research Methods: This study applies systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) relying on objective measures from keyword co-occurrences and co-citations networks. It includes 60 articles analyzed using open-source software, i.e., Publish or Perish, Google Scholar database, VOSviewer, and the web-based Local Citation Network.

Finding/Results: There are three clusters in the main path of research trajectories, i.e., IPM’s conceptualization, its characteristics for evaluation and measurement, and contextualization. Future research directions are proposed to advance our understanding of the organizational environment and its impact on innovation.

Conclusion: IPM studies have opened opportunities to test and extend theories in strategic management and organization studies, especially for leaders who make decisions in the face of dynamic and demanding environments. Moreover, contextualization in developing countries would be a worthwhile exercise by considering the institutional and cultural context.

Keywords

bibliometric analysis; innovation policy mix; organizational environment; systematic literature network analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References

Bamel, U. K., Pandey, R., & Gupta, A. (2020). Safety climate: Systematic literature network analysis of 38 years (1980-2018) of research. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 135(March 2019), 105387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105387

Barney, J. B. (2005). Should strategic management research engage public policy debates? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 945–948. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573092

Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002

Bouma, J. A., Verbraak, M., Dietz, F., & Brouwer, R. (2019). Policy Mix: Mess or Merit? Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1494636

Bozeman, B. (2004). All Organizations are Public: Comparing Public and Private Organizations. Beard Books.

Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative Publicness : A Framework for Public Management Strategy and Performance. 21(1977), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur031

Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2017). Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Management Review, 00(00), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111

Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can Cooperation be Fostered? The Cultural Effects of Individualism-Collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533227

Colicchia, C., & Strozzi, F. (2012). Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246558

Costantini, V., Crespi, F., & Palma, A. (2017). Characterizing The Policy Mix and Its Impact on Eco-Innovation: A Patent Analysis of Energy-Efficient Technologies. Research Policy, 46(4), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.004

Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. (2017). Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2590

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead - Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. (2019). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 48(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010

Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the “Policy Mix” for Innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005

Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Publish or Perish. Retrieved from https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish

Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017). Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3

Harzing, A.-W., & Wal, R. van der. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 115–118.

Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002

Hermans, F., Geerling-Eiff, F., Potters, J., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments – Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, Vol. 88, pp. 76–95. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.10.001

Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., & Radošević, S. (2015). Convergence of National Innovation Policy Mixes in Europe - Has It Gone Too Far? An Analysis of Research and Innovation Policy Measures in the Period 2004-12. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12221

Johnstone, P., Stirling, A., & Sovacool, B. (2017). Policy mixes for incumbency: Exploring the destructive recreation of renewable energy, shale gas ‘fracking,’ and nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Energy Research and Social Science, 33, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.005

Kern, F., Kivimaa, P., & Martiskainen, M. (2017). Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes. Energy Research and Social Science, 23, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002

Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, pp. 1–15. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832

Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Support? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008

Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward A Theory of Public Entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1–15.

Lanahan, L., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Multilevel Innovation Policy Mix: A Closer Look at State Policies that Augment The Federal SBIR Program. Research Policy, 44(7), 1387–1402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.002

Lindberg, M. B. (2019). The EU Emissions Trading System and Renewable Energy Policies: Friends or Foes in the European Policy Mix? Politics and Governance, 7(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i1.1800

Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

Liu, Z. (2013). The research tax credit in the policy mix for innovation: the French case. Journal of Innovation Economics, Vol. 12, p. 199. cairn.info. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.012.0199

Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Main-path analysis and path-dependent transitions in HistCiteTM-based historiograms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1948–1962. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20903

Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). Coordination-mix: The hidden face of STI policy. Review of Policy Research, 31(5), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12090

Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42(9), 1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.005

Mahzouni, A. (2015). The “Policy Mix” for Sustainable Urban Transition: The city district of Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(4), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1688

McGahan, A. M., Zelner, B. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Entrepreneurship in the Public Interest: Introduction to the Special Issue. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1151

Meissner, D., & Kergroach, S. (2019). Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09767-4

Meynhardt, T., & Diefenbach. (2012). What Drives Entrepreneurial Orientation in The Public Sector? Evidence from Germany’s Federal Labor Agency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 761–792. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus013

Miller, C. C. (2008). Decisional Comprehensiveness and Firm Performance: Towards a More Complete Understanding. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.607

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morse, J. M., Mitcham, C., Hupcey, J. E., & Tason, M. C. (1996). Criteria for Concept Evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(2), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.18022.x

Mundell, R. A. (1962). The Appropriate Use of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Internal and External Stability. Staff Papers - International Monetary Fund, 9(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3866082

Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing Government. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(4).

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935

Ossenbrink, J., Finnsson, S., Bening, C. R., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2018). Delineating policy mixes: Contrasting top-down and bottom-up approaches to the case of energy-storage policy in California. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.014

Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public Value Creation by Cross-Sector Collaborations: A Framework and Challenges of Assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12161

Park, C., Lee, J., & Chung, C. (2015). Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea. Policy Sciences, 48(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2

Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.43479264

Pfeffer, J. (2003). Introduction to the Classic Edition. In The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (2nd ed., pp. xi–xxix). California: Stanford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Reichardt, K., Negro, S. O., Rogge, K. S., & Hekkert, M. P. (2016). Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 106, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.029

Reichardt, K., & Rogge, K. (2016). How the policy mix impacts innovation: Findings from company case studies on offshore wind in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.08.001

Rogge, K. S., & Dütschke, E. (2018). What makes them believe in the low-carbon energy transition? Exploring corporate perceptions of the credibility of climate policy mixes. Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 87, pp. 74–84. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.009

Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2017). Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 33, pp. 1–10. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025

Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004

Rogge, K. S., & Schleich, J. (2018). Do Policy Mix Characteristics Matter for Low-Carbon Innovation? A Survey-Based Exploration of Renewable Power Generation Technologies in Germany. Research Policy, 47(9), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.011

Rosenow, J., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. (2017). The need for comprehensive and well targeted instrument mixes to stimulate energy transitions: The case of energy efficiency policy. Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 33, pp. 95–104. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.013

Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2020). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. Leadership Quarterly, (November), 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning Collaborative Innovation in Governance Networks. American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643181

Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583

Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Noè, C. (2017). Literature review on the ‘smart factory’ concept using bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1326643

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In Advances in data analysis: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the German Classification Society (pp. 299–306). Heidelberg: Springer.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Vitola, A. (2015). Innovation policy mix in a multi-level context: The case of the Baltic Sea Region countries. Science and Public Policy, 42(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu059

Wallner, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Public Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00275.x

Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From New Public Management to New Public Governance? Hybridization and Implications for Public Sector Consumerism. Financial Accountability and Management, 30(2), 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12033

Wölfle, T. (2018). Local Citation Network. Retrieved February 21, 2020, from https://timwoelfle.github.io/Local-Citation-Network/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jlo.64765