Innovative Public Procurement Failure: A Case Analysis from Poland

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15678/PG.2023.64.2.02

Keywords:

innovation policy, innovation public procurement, policy failure

Abstract

Objectives: The rising popularity of Innovation Public Procurement (IPP) raises questions about its effectiveness as a tool for transformative policies, including governance levels, coordination, and strategic development. The purpose of the article is to explore the failure of governance in a Polish IPP to present how IPP guidelines are implemented empirically.

Research Design & Methods: The research article presents conclusions from the case study of first large-scale trial of public procurement procedure with respect to an innovative partnership in Poland.

Findings: The case is a rarely analysed example of policy failure and shows that ignoring stakeholders’ needs, timeline constrains, and market capacity can result in policy failure. Programme history highlights that proper risk analysis and adaptation to the market context can prevent programme failure.

Implications/Recommendations: The article opens up a field for considering what steps are crucial in formulating IPP, especially in country with lower level of innovativeness. The analysis leads to the main conclusion that transformative policy frameworks using demand-pull tools need to be embedded in the market realities and capabilities of national innovation systems.

Contribution/Value Added: The article strives to fill a gap in the literature on implementing transformational innovation policies in peripheral countries, which are less frequently described. The other contributions refer to merging the DARPA’s approach and IPP.

Article classification: research article

Keywords: innovation policy, innovation public procurement, policy failure

JEL classification: O380

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrecka, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Danish public procurement. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 12(3), 333–345.

Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Improving policy implementation through collaborative policymaking. Policy & Politics, 45, 1332–1348.

Bergek, A., Hellsmark, H., & Karltorp, K. (2023). Directionality challenges for transformative innovation policy: Lessons from implementing climate goals in the process industry. Industry and Innovation, 30(8), 1110–1139.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press.

Dolfsma, W., & Seo, D. (2013). Government policy and technological innovation-a suggested typol- ogy. Technovation, 33(6-7), 173–179.

Dziadecki, B., & Miętek, A. (2018). Partnerstwo innowacyjne na rzecz innowacyjnej gospodarki [Innovative partnership for innovative economy]. In A. Dobaczewska (Ed.), Potrzeby i kierunki zmian w Prawie zamówień publicznych [Needs and directions of changes in public procurement law] (pp. 217-234).

Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23

Edler, J., & Yeow, J. (2016). Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procure- ment of innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), 414–426.

Edquist, C. (2014). Striving towards a holistic innovation policy in European countries – But linearity still prevails! STI Policy Review, 5, 1–19.

Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2021). The strategic use of public procurement for innovation in the digital economy: Final report. Publications Office.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

Frenken, K. (2017). Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2095). Geroski, P. A. (1990). Innovation, technological opportunity, and market structure. Oxford Economic Papers, 42(3), 586–602.

Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., & Moodysson, J. (2019). Innovation policy for system- wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden. Research Policy, 48(4), 1048–1061.

Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 1–14.

Iossa, E., Rey, P., & Waterson, M. (2022). Organising competition for the market. Journal of the European Economic Association, 20(2), 822–868.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215-254). Sage.

Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge University Press.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State. Demos.

McConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 27–45.

NIK (2019). Informacja o wynikach kontroli Wsparcie Rozwoju Elektromobilności, KGP.430.016.2019 Nr ewid. 7/2020/P/19/020/KGP.

OECD (2021). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook.

Public Procurement Law and Certain Other Laws (2016), Journal of Laws, item 1020.

Przetargowa (2021). Co z tym partnerstwem? Analizy Eksperckie [What about this partnership? Expert Analysis], available at: https://przetargowa.pl/analizy-eksperckie/co-z-tym-partnerstwem/ (accessed: 13.11.2023).

Russ, H., Ciscar, M. J., Saveyn B., Soria Ramirez, A., Szabo, L., Van Ierland, T., Klaassen, G., & Virdis, R. (2009). Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen. In Climate change: global risks, challenges and decisions; 10 March 2009; Conference hall. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 6(58); JRC54976.

Ruttan, V. (2006). Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? Military Procurement and Technology Development. Foreign Affairs, 85(4), 116–130.

Schot, J., Daniels Ch.,, Torrens, J., Bloomfield, G., & Schot, J. (2017). Developing a shared understanding of transformative innovation policy. TIPC Research Brief 1.

Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567.

Uyarra, E., Ribeiro, B., & Dale-Clough, L. (2019). Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: Responsibility and the quest for public value. European Planning Studies, 27(12), 2359–2375. Uyarra, E., Shapira, P., & Harding, A. (2016). Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the UK: Challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 264–272.

Wesseling, J., & Edquist, C. (2018)..Public procurement for innovation to help meet societal challenges: A review and case study. Science and Public Policy, 45, 493–502.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 5(14), 359–386.

Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2022). Fostering regional innovation, entrepreneurship and growth through public procurement. Small Business Economics, 58, 1205–1222.

Additional Files

Published

2023-06-30

How to Cite

Woźniak, M. (2023). Innovative Public Procurement Failure: A Case Analysis from Poland. Journal of Public Governance, 64(2), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.15678/PG.2023.64.2.02