LIST OF PANELS

In a post-NPM world, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) is considered one of the most important reform trajectory and framing involving the current public sector reform landscape (De Vries et al. 2015). Part of this literature has analyzed how public sector collaboration with other public sector organization(s), businesses, universities, and citizens is increasingly becoming the main driver for PSI (Cinar et al. 2022), with recent studies showing a positive relationship between public sector collaboration and innovation outcomes (e.g, Clausen et al. 2020). To meet this practical transformation in public sector policymaking, a few theoretical and analytical studies has introduced the term “Collaborative Public Sector Innovation - CPSI”. This concept captures the capacity and potentialities of these new governance networks to solve wicked, emerging problems and to act as a new, unexplored framework for public sector innovation.

Despite this emerging interest on CPSI within the public policy and public administration community, a set of weaknesses on the nature of current collaboration for public sector innovation continue to be present. These weaknesses limit the theoretical and empirical understanding of this approach to public sector reforms.

A first, theoretical weakness concerns the relationship between CPSI and other post-NPM concepts and ideas, such as new public governance, neo-Weberian state, public value, digital-era governance, and public service logic. As a matter of fact, less is known about the layering effect between the CPSI and other post-NPM reform trajectories, as well if and how CPSI’ concepts, practices and measures are combined with them. In this direction, the analytical dimensions of the two canonical approaches used to distinguish the governance of public sector collaboration and to understand the complexities of the actors involved – respectively, the top-down/hands-on (Vento, 2020) and the bottom-up/hands-off (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017) – have never been placed side-by-side with the other post-NPM principles, and their empirical understanding is lacking. Furthermore, relatively little is known about in which stage of the policy-making process collaboration mainly occurs, as well as in which stage a greater positive relationship between collaboration and public sector innovation outcomes can be found. While it is established that collaboration can occur at the level of co-initiation, co-development, co-implementation, and co-evaluation, the analysis of the type of collaborative actors involved in this process and how they ultimately contribute on innovation continue to be limited. In the same direction, the analysis of which constructs of collaboration are critical for positive innovation outcomes across different jurisdictions and policy sectors has not yet been a particular subject of investigation until now. Similarly, empirical research has been limited to single country studies, and they mainly involved Western countries and areas, like North America, Western Europe, or Australia. Cross-country and cross-sectorial studies of how collaboration in the public sector differs and how it ultimately impacts on innovation outcomes continue to be circumscribed, thus limiting the possibility of reaching generalizations on CPSI knowledge and of providing a theoretical advance on CPSI concept and practices.

The purpose of this Panel is to respond the recent calls coming from policy analysts and public administration scholars to overcome these theoretical and empirical knowledges on CPSI.

The purpose of this Panel is to respond the recent calls coming from policy analysts and public administration scholars to overcome the theoretical and empirical knowledges on Collaborative Public Sector Innovation (CPSI) underlined within General Section of this Call.

We invite scholars to present both theoretical and empirical contributions, especially including comparative analysis (both cross-sectorial and -national), that reflect on:

1)  the concept of CPSI;

2) the theory underlining this emerging post-NPM approach to public administration reforms;

3) the added value of specific collaborative practices implemented, and how they ultimately impact on public sector innovation outcomes.

Either theoretical and empirical contributions are expected to consider these emerging practices of collaboration in the public sector as both independent and dependent variables. Contributions with a qualitative or quantitative approach are equally appreciated. Some examples (not exhaustive) of possible research questions of the abstracts proposed can therefore be:

- Given the complexity, hybridity and layering of the current public sector reform landscape, how are CPSI concepts, and practices combined with other post-NPM ones (such, as new public governance, the neo-Weberian state, digital-era governance, public value)?
- What implications do the possible co-existence of CPSI’ reform trajectories with other post-NPM concepts have for public policy and administration theory and practice?
- Which are the main analytical dimensions underlining the concept of “collaboration” in public sector innovation?
- Is the distinction between top-down/hands-on and bottom-up/hands-off approach to CPSI valid? How does this distinction fits with the new inter-institutional relationships characterizing the public sector, such as highlighted by the neo-Weberian state’ approach?
- Which political and institutional factors can facilitate collaboration for public sector innovation?
- Which are the main actors involved in CPSI (e.g., other public sector organizations businesses, universities, and citizens)? Is their involvement equally distributed in the different phases of the policy-making process (e.g., at the level of co-initiation, co-development, co-implementation, and co-evaluation)?
- How does collaboration ultimately impact on innovation outcomes within different public administration sectors?
- Is CPSI a concept used and usable to explain the reform trajectory and framing involving the current public sector reforms in not-Western countries and areas (such as, Africa, South-America, Asia)?

The Panel will be designed to be a forum for in-depth discussion on research in progress, and collaboration among participants. We intend to facilitate and encourage the participation of and the interaction between young ICPP members, advanced scholars, and well-established researchers. Each participant is expected to contribute and present an own paper as well as participate in the discussion of the other papers presented. For each paper, there will be a discussant designated by the Chairs. As final outcomes, the chairs will summarize the main results of the workshop within the last session and open a broader discussion on the general topic. In the aftermath of the workshop, the Chairs will work on a Special Issue proposal for a leading journal on public policy/public administration.

The Panel will adopt a hybrid format.