LIPSE MIDTERM CONFERENCE ON
Drivers & Barriers of Social Innovation
in the Public Sector
Organized by
- Erasmus University Rotterdam
- Hertie School for Governance
- KU Leuven
Introduction
by Victor Bekkers
Introduction
Prof. dr. Victor Bekkers
Erasmus University Rotterdam
www.lipse.org
Twitter with us via @EULIPSE #LIPSE #Socialinnovation
The social innovation challenge in the
public sector
• Merger of several
developments that create a
‘policy window’ for change
• Societal challenges as
‘wicked problems’
• Retreat of government and
rediscovering the strengths
of communities
• Budget austerity
• To produce need-oriented
outcomes that really matter
• Open process of co-creation
with relevant stakeholders:
collaborative innovation
networks
• Game-changer:
fundamentally changes
existing relations, positions
and playing rules
• Beyond technological
innovations
• Re-allocation of public
values thereby reinventing
publicness
LIPSE




To identify relevant drivers and barriers that explain the
success or failure of social innovations in the public
sector, and to give policy recommendations.
To learn from cross-national and cross-sectoral
comparisons to understand how social innovation
practice convergence or diverge between states
To advise policymakers and researchers on potential
future pathways for social innovation in the public
sector that can enhance productivity, growth and
competitiveness in countries
To contribute to the governance of social innovation in
the public sector
LIPSE Partners
1.
2.
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Ecole Nationale
d'Administration
3. ESADE
4. Hertie School of Governance
5. KU Leuven
6. Luigi Bocconi Commercial
University
7. Matej Bel University Banska
Bystrica
8. National School of Political
Studies and Public
Administration
9. Radboud University Nijmegen
10. Roskilde University
11. Tallinn University of
Technology
12. The University of
Edinburgh
The LIPSE Puzzle: themes and working
packages
Accountability,
ombudman and
audit
Innovation
capacity of
innovation
environments:
leadership and
trust
Cocreation
citizens
Trends and
scenarios: the
future of social
innovation
Social
innovation
indicators
Risk
selection
and risk
govenance
Dissemination of
results
Diffusion,
adoption
and
upscaling
Conference setup – Feb 3
11:00 – 11:10: Opening (Victor Bekkers)
11:10 – 11:20: Welcome by European Commission
11:20 – 11:50: Keynote: Where Innovation is Unavoidable (Christopher Pollitt)
11:50 – 12:05: Innovation capacity of innovation environments (Lykke Ricard)
12:05 – 12:30: Plenary discussion
12:30 – 13:30: Complimentary lunch
13:30 – 13:45: Risk-definition and risk governance in social innovation processes
(Sophie Fleming)
13:45 – 14:00: Adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT-driven innovation
(Maria Cucciniello)
14:00 – 14:15: Developing public sector innovation indicators (Rainer Kattel)
14:15 – 14:50: Plenary discussion
14:50 – 15:15: Coffee break
15:15 – 15:45: Interactive group discussions: Implications & poster
presentation
15:45 – 16:00: Closing remarks
16:00 – 17:00: Reception
Conference setup – Feb 4
9:00 – 10:00: Coffee
10:00 – 10:10: Opening (Victor Bekkers & Geert Bouckaert)
10:10 – 10:40: Keynote presentation by Gerhard Grill, director of the European
Ombudsmen
10:40 – 11:05: The sustainability of social innovations: the possible role of
auditors & ombudsmen (Geert Bouckaert)
11:05 – 11:30: Coffee break
11:30 – 12:15: Expert panel on social innovation: Mr. Weekers (Flemish
Ombudsman), Mr. Put (Audit Manager, Belgian Court of Audit) &
Mr. Daglio (OECD Observatory for Public Sector Innovation)
12:15 – 13:30: Complimentary lunch
13:30 – 14:00: Understanding co-creation with citizens during social innovation
(Lars Tummers)
14:00 – 14:30: Plenary discussion: Implications for social
innovation
14:30 – 15:00: Concluding remarks & farewell (Victor Bekkers)
15:00 – 16:00: Farewell & coffee
Keynote: Where Innovation is Unavoidable
by Christopher Pollitt
INNOVATION AND LIPSE: AN
INTERIM ASSESSMENT OF AN
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH
PROJECT
Christopher Pollitt
KU Leuven Public Governance Institute
SPEECH TO LIPSE CONFERENCE: ROYAL FLEMISH ACADEMY OF BELGIUM, BRUSSELS, 3
FEBRUARY 2015
INNOVATION – A DANGEROUS
CONCEPT
• Conceptually unstable
• Normatively loaded
1. Always a good thing
2. The career of the concept
3. Innovation-centricity
LIPSE – THE PROMISE
• Aware of normative dimension
• Treats innovation as embedded/contextualized
• Comparative (states and sectors)
LIPSE – THE ANXIETIES
•
•
•
•
Failed innovations?
Transcending case studies – representativeness?
Temporal dimension?
Evaluation of innovations?
CONCLUSIONS
• LIPSE – once-in-a-decade opportunity
• Doing better than well
A CLOSING THOUGHT FOR PUBLIC SECTOR
INNOVATORS – AND FOR LIPSE RESEARCHERS
’He that will not apply new remedies must expect
new evils, for time is the greatest innovator’
(Francis Bacon, English philosopher, lawyer,
essayist, courtier, in his essay Of Innovation 1625)
Work Package 1:
Innovation capacity of innovation environments
by Lykke Ricard
Innovation environment and innovation capacity in
the public sector (LIPSE: WP1)
• Dr. Lykke Margot Ricard, Roskilde Universitet
lykker@ruc.dk
&
• Professor Jenny M. Lewis, University of Melbourne
jmlewis@unimelb.edu.au
4 Nations/municipalities in the study
Nation/municipality
Strength of local
government (rank
amongst these)
Innovation Union score
2013 (rank amongst
these) a
Innovation City score
2014 -rank in the
world (amongst
these) b
DK/ Copenhagen
2
.728 (1)
9 (1)
ES/ Barcelona
1
.414 (4)
56 (2)
NL/ Rotterdam
2
.629 (2)
66 (3)
UK/ Edinburgh c
3
.613 (3)
71 (4)
a. Measure of strength of national economy
b. Measure of cultural assets, human infrastructure, and networked markets
c. Proxy for Scotland/ West Lothian
Data gathering
Several methods were used to gather information on the
innovation capacity of these environments.
These were:
• Document analysis of the organizational structure of the
municipalities
• Survey of administrators and politicians in each of the
municipalities, administered as an online survey in all except
West Lothian (paper-based). 175 responses to the survey were
received for Copenhagen (173 administrators and 2 politicians);
171 responses were received for Rotterdam (162 administrators
and 9 politicians); 73 for Barcelona (66 administrators and 7
politicians); and 52 for West Lothian (all administrators)
• Interviews with community-based innovators were conducted
with individuals who had been nominated through the survey.
City
Main current and future
Innovations
Drivers
socioeconomic challenges
(5 most nominated)
(5 most nominated)
1.Financial (cuts)
1. organization development (trust
1 municipal election
2.Demography (growth in size,
based management i.e. getting rid of
campaigns
aging population)
time-taking
2. the municipality statutory committee
3.environmental( infrastructure,
2. citizen outreach (empowerment,
meetings
pollution, securing green areas)
involving citizens )
3. the municipality advisory committee
4. political (inclusion business,
3. IT and organizational development
meetings
citizens, users etc.)
(Digitalization)
4. the business elite of the city
5. social equity (poverty, and social
4. new service (after hours etc.)
5. pay and promotion system
isolation)
5. new services (empowering weak
(5 most nominated)
Copenhagen
citizens , i.e . rehabilitation of elderly)
Rotterdam
1.unemployment/poverty
1.Digital public service (incl. use of social 1.Contact with and involvement of citizens
2.education attainment/youth
media)
(mismatch, school dropout)
2.uniform digital management (internal) 2.the current economic crisis
3.diversity/segregation
3. citizen engagement and consultation
and community groups
3.the business elite of the city
(multiculturalism, social segregation 4. collaborative governance (new role
4.media attention
4.physical environment (housing,
for government)
5.National government pressure on
pollution etc.)
5. organization of public health care
municipalities
1.assistance to vulnerable persons
1.new services (sustainable public
1.quality of proposals coming from local
2.unemployment
procurement, payment within 30 days)
politicians
3.exemplary management of public
2.new service (bus network,)
2.municipal election campaigns
administrations
3. new services (smart city)
3.pay and promotion system
4.economic revitalization
4.organization (co-responsibility tables)
4.values and culture of executive
5.consolidation of the Barcelona
5. recognition (international events)
management (not politicians)
5. organization of health care
(decentralization, budget cuts)
Barcelona
brand
Table 1: Socioeconomic challenges, innovations and drivers of innovation
5.contact with and involvement of citizens
and community groups
Innovation context:
challenges, innovations, drivers
Concluding that:
1) There are striking similarities in the socioeconomic
challenges that are mentioned for each city (demographic
changes, economic growth, unemployment, health care and
educational problems), but the types of innovations and
drivers are contextually determined.
Recommending that different municipalities will need to
encourage innovation at the point where it is able to have the
greatest impact. In one municipality this might mean focusing on
politicians and the political system, while in another it might
mean focusing on internal structures and procedures and in yet
another, innovation is likely to be externally driven.
Innovativeness measures
Ranking
(out
of Copenhagen Rotterdam
Barcelona
these 4)
Innovation
West
Lothian
city
1
4
2
3
3
4
2
1
1
3
2
N/A
1
3
4
2
index*
Self-rated
innovativeness
Innovativeness
(community rated)
Innovation drivers
Table 2: Rank order of municipalities on innovation measures
* Edinburgh used as a proxy for West Lothian
Concluding that 2) A a good way to gauge a municipality’s innovativeness might be
to assess the drivers and barriers to innovation, based on its procedures and
structures and local contextual factors, rather than using internal perceptions of
innovativeness.
Networking activities
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Copenhagen
Rotterdam
Barcelona
West Lothian
Concluding 3) The amount and type
of external communication is also
context dependent and linked to selfrated innovativeness, suggesting that
municipalities with a stronger
external focus see themselves as
more innovative (perhaps because of
this focus).
Concluding 4) Boundary spanning
follows a similar pattern to external
communication, suggesting that
municipalities that do more of this
see themselves as more innovative
(perhaps because of this).
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Copenhagen
Rotterdam
Barcelona
West Lothian
Who do you go to: Work and strategic
information networks
Formal hierarchical structures tend to be slow in sensing changes in the environment, whereas
informal networks are more dynamic and so, are crucial for innovation.
In each of the municipalities, the informal networks are shaped by the formal organizational
structure.
Who do you go to: Work and strategic
information networks
Concluding that:
5) In order to increase innovation capacity, the organizational structure
should be the focus, because getting the right structure shapes the informal
networks which are crucial to innovation and its operational efficiency.
6) The informal structure needs to support the creation and use of both
strong and weak (or bonding and bridging) ties, so that there is enough
internal support from peers, and enough openness to gain new information
from different actors within and outside the organization, to support
innovation.
7) Increasing the innovative capacity of any municipality will depend on
gaining the support of the ‘go to’ people. They might be politicians in some
cases, directors in others, and managers or other individuals in other cases.
Network brokers
Brokers play an important function in innovation through their capacity to act
effectively because of the diverse sources of information they can draw upon. The
brokers in the strategic information networks tend to be at different levels in differen
municipalities.
Two types of brokers were observed – one with an entrepreneurial structure of ties
(diversity) and one with ties that are linked to each other (closure),
This is shown for Copenhagen in
figure 2.
Person 170 has diverse ties while
person 25 has ties that are linked
to each other (closure).
Three main conclusions
Structure &
internal
environments
Public sector organizations need some degree of rule-following, hierarchy
and agreed procedures. Municipalities that are better able to provide a
safe environment for risk-taking and motivating others will do better in
terms of social innovation. This likely translates into less emphasis on
hierarchical control and more freedom for individuals and groups to
initiate ideas.
Network &
external
environments
Involving the community in both defining socioeconomic challenges and
aligning innovations with these should prove beneficial. The amount of
overlap between the inside and outside view suggests at least some
degree of agreement in each municipality, while the differences highlight
the possible additional richness to be gained from an outside
perspective.
Leadership
Leadership styles are more ‘social’ than the classical entrepreneurial
leadership styles in the private sector and they are also more related to
organizational motivational factors and network governance qualities
The LIPSE project’s work package 1 (WP1) study provides, an important
advance in linking innovation environments to innovation capacity in
the public sector (specifically, municipalities).
Additional research will progress this even further and generate much
needed information on how to increase social innovation capacity.
The report and policy brief can be downloaded via www.LIPSE.org
Thank you
Work Package 4:
Risk-definition and risk governance in
social innovation processes
by Sophie Flemig
WP4:
Risk Definition and Risk Governance
in Social Innovation Processes
A comparative case-study across four countries
LIPSE Midterm conference
Presented by Sophie Flemig
Developed with Stephen Osborne, Tony Kinder, Juraj Nemec, Beata
Mikusova, Valentina Mele, Taco Brandsen and Marieke van Genugten
WP4 Research Goals
• To identify the current range of approaches to risk in
innovation in public services across European countries as
well as to identify the key contingencies in two policy sectors.
• To empirically identify and evaluate current approaches for
relevant stakeholders to engage in discussions about levels of
risk for public service innovations and how these discussions
are translated into specific risk management and governance
models.
• To make recommendations regarding the formulation of
relevant principles for effective risk governance in innovation
in public services.
• To disseminate the results and policy recommendations
among relevant policy makers and within the public
management community
WP4 Research Question and
Participants
• How does the definition and
governance of risk influence
social innovation?
• 4 country study: Italy,
Netherlands, Slovakia, UK
• 2 fields: mental health and
sustainable public services
WP4 Methodology
• Document Analysis
– Websites
– Internal communications
– Risk management tools
• Survey Analysis
• 200 contacts per country, 717
responses in total
• Case Study Analysis
• 4 case studies per country: 2 on
mental health, 2 on sustainable public
services
• 6-8 interviews per case study
• Total of 16 case studies and 96-128
interviews
WP4 Conceptual Framework
WP4 Survey Findings:
Cross-National
•
Respondents showed difficulty in conceptualising risk
• Managerial staff more aware of “risk management”
• Risk management strategies still in place, described as “everyday activities”
• Very few dedicated risk managers
•
Connection between risk and innovation affirmed but most often not incorporated in
work and planning processes
•
In relation to innovation capacity, most often referred to …
• Sustainability
• Financial risks
• Reputational risks
• Regulatory/bureaucratic risks
• Mental Health
• Health and safety risks (service users)
• Financial risks
• More hard risk management in mental health, more soft tools in
sustainability
• Accounted for by top-down regulatory system in mental health
•
•
•
•
•
•
WP4 Survey Findings:
National Differences
Italy
“all roads lead to lack of participation of the local community”
• Engagement of local community as proactive risk management
Mostly non-profit organisations
• Difference in risk management for innovations between associations and
cooperatives
Netherlands
Innovation mostly bottom-up in sustainability, top-down in mental health
Few formal risk management strategies (new, small organisations in sustainability,
more surprising in larger, established mental health
organisations)
•
Slovakia
• Strong public sector presence in both mental health and sustainability
• Explicitly acknowledged PPPs as ambivalent (more risk than source of innovation, esp.
partnerships with local government)
•
UK
•
•
Decentralised risk management standards, esp. in mental health (informal sharing)
Regulatory/bureaucratic risk management seen as stifling innovation in
environmental sustainability
WP4 Emerging Case Study
Findings
• Interviews just completed (by 31st January 2015)
-> emerging results only
• Confirmed that financial risks most important
overall
• Service user risk for mental health
• Reputational risk for sustainability
• Top-down risk management approaches, esp. in mental
health, implementation driven by local stakeholders
• Institutionally-driven risk management in sustainability
• Driven by funding calls
• Often minimise risk as part of funding contract
• Innovation still precondition for new funding
• Resulting tension leads many organisations to
become more risk averse when it comes to
innovation that is task/service driven
WP4 Emerging Implications
Policy
• Recognising the role of regulation and institutional frameworks rather than
an understanding of innovation processes as driver for risk management
• Move away from minimisation of risk if policy is meant to encourage
innovation
• Encourage/provide follow-up funding to make innovations sustainable
(funding risk paramount!)
Practice
• Acknowledge effects of risk
management on innovation
in funding calls (i.e. level of detail)
• Raise awareness and acknowledge risk as core
of the process
of innovation
•
•
Make connection explicit within organisation
Differentiate types of risk and adjust hard/soft risk management
approaches accordingly
Work Package 5:
Adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICTdriven innovation
by Maria Cucciniello
LIPSE – “Learning from Innovation in Public Sector Environments”
Mid term conference
First Findings and Policy
Recommendations of LIPSE WorkPackage 5
“Adoption, Diffusion and Upscaling of ICT-driven Social Innovations”
Prof. Maria Cucciniello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management
Bocconi University
Brussels, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts
February 3rd – 4th, 2015
Agenda
 WP5 Objectives
 WP5 Timeline
 WP5 Theoretical Framework
 Scope of WP5 Empirical Analysis
 WP5 Qualitative Analysis
 Schedule of Activities in Progress
 WP5 Key Researchers
WP5 Objectives
Which focuses of analysis?



To theoretically and empirically identify
the drivers and barriers that play a role in
the upscaling of ICT driven innovations, in
relation to the specific characteristics of
followers, late adopters and laggards;
To develop policy guidelines and
instruments that public decision-makers
can use to improve adoption, diffusion
and upscaling of ICT driven innovations;
To disseminate the research results and
policy recommendations.
ICT-driven social innovation
Types of adopter that intervene
in late stages of the innovation
lifecycle
(i.e. followers, late adopters,
laggards)
The stage of upscaling
Two ICT driven innovation
(e-procurement and telework)
Six European countries that
differ in terms of ICT readiness
(France, Italy, the Netherlands,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain)
WP5 Timeline
Achievements and next steps
JAN.
2014
Launch
of the
WP
FEBR.
2014
Submission
of the PID
Deliverable
5.1
JULY
2014
WP5
Qualitative
Analysis
Protocol
SEPT.
2014
WP5
Theoretical
Framework
JAN.
2015
WP5
Working
Paper
Presented
at EGPA
2014
Released
FEBR.
2015
WP5
Empirical
Analyses
APRIL
2015
WP5
Research
Report
Deliverable
5.2
MAY
2015
WP5 Policy
Brief and
Presentation
of Main
Findings
Deliverables
5.3 & 5.4
WP5 Theoretical Framework
“Determinants and Barriers of Adoption, Diffusion and Upscaling of
ICT-driven Social Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review”
Sources








LIPSE systematic literature review;
EU social innovation projects (e.g. LIPSE,
TEPSIE, COCOPS, WILCO);
PA journals
E-Government journals;
Management journals;
Public procurement journals;
Organizational studies journals;
Books.
Use of a
methodology
similar to
WP2
Applicable filters







Public sector;
Determinants;
Barriers;
Adoption;
Diffusion;
Upscaling;
Level of government.
Study of determinants and
barriers as a common objective
of WP1, WP2, WP3 and WP4
Steams of research



(Social) Innovation;
ICT-driven innovation (in the
public sector);
E-Government;
 E-Procurement;
 Telework.
454 records
[6 on upscaling]
194 final
records
[3 on upscaling]
Records
excluded
WP5 Timeline
Structure
Clustering of determinants and barriers on the basis of:
STAGE OF THE
INNOVATION CYCLE
TYPES OF ADOPTER
(i.e. pioneers, followers, late
adopters, laggards)
(i.e. adoption, diffusion,
upscaling)
TYPOLOGY OF
INNOVATION
(focus on e-procurement
and telework)
Unpacking of determinants and barriers on three levels:
1
INNER vs. OUTER CONTEXTS
2
DIMENSIONS WITHIN THE
CONTEXTS
3
SPECIFIC DETERMINANTS
AND BARRIES
WP5 Timeline
Findings
Upscaling is
strongly driven
by isomorphism
of later
adopters
Legal
constraints can
be a great
barrier to
upscale eprocurement
Early adopters
are set in richer
and greater
geographical
contexts
ICT
infrastructures
(e.g.
broadband) are
crucial drivers
of telework
adoption
OUTER CONTEXT
INNER CONTEXT
Inter-institutional dynamics
(Isomorphism – Mimicking –
Competition)
Legal factors
(Legislative imposition – Law
clarity – Law complexity)
Organizational factors
(Slack resources – Organizational
size – Managerial leadership and
political support –
Risk-averse culture)
Political factors
(Political cycle – Form of
government – Autonomy)
Economic factors
(Economic wealth – Employment
– Fiscal capacity – Budget
constraints)
Social factors
(Education and cultural
wellbeing – Stakeholders’
attitude – Public opinion and
pressures)
Demographic factors
(Population size – Population
density)
Technological factors
(ICT infrastructures – Citizens’
ICT readiness)
Individual factors
(Individual perceptions –
Managers’ personal
characteristics – Professionalism
of public personnel – Employees’
ICT readiness – Employees ICT
acceptance)
Technological factors
(Innovation’s complexity –
Innovation’s security and
reliability – Organizational ICT
readiness)
Cultural inertia
strongly hinder
adoption,
diffusion and
upscaling of
most innovations
Early adopters
are usually
involved in PPPs
The upscaling of
e-procurement is
hindered by
individual
skepticism and
ICT scarce
readiness
Scope of WP5
Empirical Analyses
Identification of determinants and barriers that play a role in the
implementation and upscaling of ICT-driven innovation, in relation to
the specific characteristics of followers, late adopters and laggards
Two policy fields
E-PROCUREMENT and TELEWORK
Six countries
FRANCE, ITALY, NETHERLANDS, ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SPAIN
WP5 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
WP5 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
WP5 Qualitative Analysis
Process
2 CASES
E-PROCUREMENT
TELEWORK
Per each country, one agency at the
regional level that has adopted and
upscaled e-procurement
Per each country, one agency that has
been exposed to telework *
* The analysis has shown how not all the countries
present analyzable cases at the local level. The EU
has consented to change the focus at the regional or
national level when needed. Works have been
slightly protracted by this contingency.
Five in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key internal stakeholders
[5 interviews * 2 innovations * 6 countries = 60 interviews in total]
ANALYSIS OF THE
INTERVIEWS
CROSS-COUNTRY
COMPARISON
SURVEY OF THE
QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS
WP5 Qualitative Analysis
First empirical findings on e-procurement
OVERALL EVALUATION OF FINDINGS
FROM THE SIX CASES ANALYZED
Outer
Context
Inner
Context
Inter-institutional
✓
Legal
✓
Political
✓
Social
=
Economic
✓
Demographic
✓
Technological
✓
Organizational
=
Individual
✓
Technological
✓
* A portion of the findings are preliminary
WP5 Qualitative Analysis
First empirical elements on telework
CASES ANALYZED IN EACH COUNTRY
France
Italy
Netherlands
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Paris’
department
Autonomous
Province of
Trento
Municipality of
Krimpen aan
den IJssel
Cases virtually
absent and no
regulation –
Further
scouting in
progress
Slovak
National
Library
Autonomous
Government of
Catalonia
(Local)
(Local)
(Local)
(National)
(Regional)
Most experiences are implemented on a limited basis and/or very peculiar in
nature (“fit-for-purpose”);
Severe difficulties in identifying telework cases in the public sector;
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON DETERMINANTS AND BARRIERS
Positive
Negative
Outer
context
Social cohesion, governmental
autonomy and budget constraints
Labor regulations
Inner
context
“Bottom-up” entrepreneurial
attitude and internal ICT facilities
Risk-averse culture
WP5 Schedule of
Activities in Progress
Aug
‘14
Sep
‘14
Oct
‘14
Nov
‘14
Dec
‘14
Jan
‘15
Feb
‘15
Mar
‘15
Apr
‘15
May
‘15
Execution of qualitative
analysis
Development of crosscountry comparison
Quantitative and statistical
analysis
Development of research
report
A
Development of policy
guidelines and
recommendations
B
Presentation of main
findings
C
A
Deliverable 5.2 “Research Report”
B
Deliverable 5.3 “Policy Brief”
C
Deliverable 5.4 “Presentation of Main Findings”
WP5 Key Researchers
Institution
CERGAS, Bocconi University
Department of Public
Administration, Erasmus University
Rotterdam
Ecole Nationale d’Administration
Institute for Public Governance and
Management of Ramon Llull
University ESADE
The Faculty of Public Administration,
National School of Political Studies
and Public Administration
The Faculty of Economics, Matej Bel
University
Country
Key researchers working on
WP5
Italy
Greta Nasi (WP leader)
Maria Cucciniello
Valentina Mele
Giovanni Valotti
Raffaele Bazurli
The Netherlands Hanna de Vries
Victor Bekkers
Lars Tummers
France
Michel Eymeri-Douzans
Erwane Morette Monthubert
Vanessa de Froidcourt
Spain
Mila Gascó
Tamyko Ysa
Charlotte Fernández
Adrià Albareda
Romania
Ani Matei
Carmen Savulescu
Catalina Antonie
Elis Bianca Balaceanu
Slovakia
Nemec Juraj
Mária Svidroňová
Beata Mikusova Merickova
Marta Oviska
Thank you