Innovation Perspectives in Local Administration at the Beginning of the “Age of Cities”

Gabriela Virginia POPESCU


This paper represents an insight of the public administration process to adapt to innovation. The particularities consist in the fact that, at least in Romania and other CEE countries, this process is rooted not only in the objective reality, but also this process has to include the adaptation of the (centralized) “state” to the market conditions. Somehow, it may be a contradiction between state/central/local administration and the market. Traditionally (or conservatively), the public administration is known as an exponent of the state, a state that must address equally, equitably and objectively the whole community and to ensure the right conditions for its correct functioning. The latter concept – market – is the opposite of the state, it implies competition, preferences, some kind of democratic (as opposite to central) participation at the city life. The nowadays realities put public and private face to face, forcing them to find a way to co-exist and co-create for the benefit of the whole community. The two sectors have all the conditions to collaborate, considering the scale of the flows, including the flows of innovation and knowledge that characterize our society today. The research is focused on the ”status” of innovation in Romania, in general, and in public administration, in particular. In spite of its evolution from the centralized state to the EU democratic state, the innovation in public administration is perceived more as a restructuration or reorganization process required by the European Union. The underestimate of the innovation in the public administration is explained by the generally reduced interest paid to innovation both in the private as well as public sector, as revealed by the secondary data analyze we conducted within the documentation for this paper. The in-depth interviews are trying to explain how the local administration practically works, considering the innovation process. The results should be understood and further discussed from the larger perspective of new development trends, models and performance of cities all worldwide.

Full Text:



Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity. The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Anholt, S. (2010a). Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2014). The Political Economy of City Branding. New York: Routledge.

Bobek, V., Macek, A., and Jankovic, P. (2015). Cities in the Global Economy. London:

Borins, S. (2000). Loose Cannons and the rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidnece about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(1), 498-507.

Borins, S. (2001). The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Cappellin, R. (2009, Jan. 21). Knowledge Intensive Business Services and the Evolution of Cities in the Knowledge Economy. Lecture on the course on Regional Economics. Insubria - Varese. doi:

Cappellin, R., and Brondoni, S. (2011). Ouverture de ”Global Cities and Knowledge Management - 1”. SYMPHONYA Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 1-6.

Caraus, M. (2012). Structuri, mecanisme si institutii adminsitrative in Uniunea Europeana. Bucharest: Tritonic.

Carmeiro, R., and Menicucci, T. (2011). Gestao publicano secula XXI: As reformas pendenies. Textos para Discussao, 1(1), 1-76.

Carrillo, F.J. (2006). Knowledge cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspective. Burlinghton: Elsevier.

Cavalcante, P., and Camoes, M. (2016). Do the Brazilian innovation in public management constitute a new model? RAI Revista de Administracao e Inovacao, 14(1), 1-7.

Chirico, J. (2014). Globalization. Prospects and Problems. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Clark, D. (2016, Aug. 15). View form Europe: How to beat the Brexit blues. Retrieved from

Danson, M., and Todeva, E. (2016). Regional Dimensions of the Triple Helix Model. Industry and higher Education, 30(1), 5-11.

European Commission (2000). The virtual economy gets real. Retrieved from

European Commission (2012). European Citizenship. Retrieved from

European Commission (2013a). Eurobarometer - Quality of Life in European Cities. Retrieved from

European Commission (2013b). Powering European Public Sector Innovation: Towards a New Architecture. DGRI-IU. Retrieved from on-union/pdf/psi_eg.pdf.

European Commission (2013c). European Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard 2013. A Pilot Exercise. Retrieved from on-scoreboard-2013-pbNBAZ13001/;pgid=GSPefJMEtXBSR0dT6jbGakZD000001dHT0J-;sid=YQrSESVxImzSHH3KiINMtkdULGnMY4eyHVo=?CatalogCategoryID=C5gKABstvcoAAAEjZJEY4e5L.

European Commission (2015a). Quality of life in cities. Retrieved from

European Commission (2015b). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. Retreived from

European Commission (2016). European Commission Innovation Scoreboard. Retrieved from

European Commission (2016). European Innovation Scoreboard. Retrieved on February 5, 2017, from

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of University - Industry - Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337.

Fagerberg, J. (2011). Innovation: a guide to the literature. In Fagerberg, J., Mower, D., and Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp.1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2015). Global Cities of the Future 2014-2015: FDI Strategy. Retrieved on June 20, 2015, from (2016). European Cities and Regions of the Future 2016/17. Retrieved from 6-17 (2012). European Cities and Regions of the Future 2012-2013. Retrieved from

Florida, R. (2002, May). The Rise of the Creative Class. The Washington Monthly, 15-25. Retrieved from the_creative_cl ass.pdf.

Glodeanu, I., Hoffman, O., Leovaridis, C., Nica, E., Nicolaescu, A., Popescu, G., and Rașeev, S. (2009). Noile paradigme ale inovării. Studiu de caz - Universitatea corporativă. Bucharest: Editura Expert.

Halemane, M., Janszen, F., and Go, F. (2010). Orchestrating the Innovation Process of Place Branding. In Go, F., and Govers, R. (Eds.), International Place Branding Yearbook 2010 (pp.172-183). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Govenance and Public Sector: Past and Present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27-34.

Ilinca, N. (2011). Geografia așezărilor urbane. Bucharest: CD Press.

INS (2016). Innovation in Business Area Enterprises. Bucharest: National Institute of Statistics.

Iordan, I. (1974). O metodă de determinare a procesului de urbanizare. Studii și cercetări de geologie, geofizică și geografie, XXI(1), 53-67.

Jayne, M. (2006). Cities and Consumption. London: Routledge.

Kattel, R. (2014). What would Max Weber Say abour Public Sector Innovation? NISPAcee Annual Conference. Retrieved from nispa.2015.8.issue-1/nispa-2015-0001/nispa-2015-0001.pdf.

Kavaratzis, M. (2007). City Marketing: The Past, the Present and Some Unresolved Issues. Geography Compass, 1(3), 695-712.

Khanna, P. (2015). The dual trend of rapid urbanization and sofistication of technology will enentually give rise to smart cities around thje world. As new chalanges merge, what are Assian cities doing to ensure their success in the future. Assian Management Insight, 2(2), 53-59.

Khanna, P. (2016). Connectography. Mapping the future of the global civilization. New York: Random House.

Knight, R. (1995). Knowledge-based development. Urban Studies, 32(2), 225-260.

Knight, R. (2008). Knowledge based development. In Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyolgu, K., and Baum, S. (Eds.), Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era (pp.13-18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Kunzmann, K. (2008). Spatial dimension of knowledge production. In Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyolgu, K., and Baum, S. (Eds.), Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era (pp.296-300). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Leovaridis, C. (2014). Innovation as societal diffusion of invention - a theoretical perspective. In Cismaru, D., and Leovaridis, C. (Eds.), Innovation and organizational learning (pp.9-37). Bucharest: Tritonic.

Leydersdorff, L., and Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Hlix as a model for innovation in innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203.

MDRAP (2013). Strategia de dezvoltare teritoriala a Romaniei. Retrieved from ang%20si%20importanta.pdf.

Mulgan, G. (2007). Ready or not? Taking innovation in the public sector seriously. London: NESTA Provocation 03.

Nedelea, A. (2006). Marketing în administrația publică. Bucharest: Didactica & Pedagocica.

Nicola, I. (2010). Managementul serviciilor publice locale. Bucharest: C.H. Beck.

Nicolae, M. (2013). Managementul inovației organizaționale. Drumul spre excelență. Bucharest: Tritonic.

Nordstrom, K., and Schlingmann, P. (2015). Expressul Urban. 15 reguli urbane pentru a naviga în oua lume modelata de femei și orașe. Bucharest: Publica.

OECD (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreding Innovation Data. Retrieved from 100-en.

Pacione, M. (2001). Urban geography: a global perspective. London: Routledge.

Paunescu, M. (2008). Introducere. In Paunescu, M. (Ed.), Management public în România (pp.9-13). Iași: Polirom.

Paunescu, M. (2008). Managementul sectorului public. In Paunescu, M. (Ed.), Management public în Romania (pp.17-44). Iași: Polirom.

Promberger, K., and Rauskala, I. (2003). New Public Management - An Introduction from the UK Perspective. Retrieved from 106557009510.pdf.

Ranga, M., and Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(3), 237-262.

Riordan, S. (2004). Noua diplomatie. Relatii internationale moderne. Prahova: Antet.

Rittgasszer, I. (2013). Knowledge-based Urban Development, as a New Development Paradigm. In Lengyel, I. and Vas, Z. (Eds.), Regional Growth, Development and Competitiveness (pp.36-46). Szeged: University of Szeged.

Romanelli, M. (2017). Towards Sustainable Cities. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 119-135.

Secchi, I. (2009). Modelos organizacionais e reformas da aministracao publica. Revista de Administracao Publica, 43(2), 347-369.

Todeva, E., and Danson, M., (2016). Government and Governance of Regional Triple Helix Interactions. Industry and Higher Education, 30(1), 13-26.

Todeva, E., and Ketikidis, P. (2017). Regional Entreprenuership and Innovation Management: Actors, Helices and Consensus Space. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 57-76.

Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Govenrment Agencies Do and why the Do It. New York: Basic Book.

World Bank (2011). Knowledge for Development Program. Context. Retrieved from

Yigitcanlar, T., and Bulu, M. (2015). Dubaizaton of Istanbul. Insights from the knowledge-ased urban development journey of an emerging local economy. Environment and Planning, 47, 89-107.

Yigitcanlar, T., and Lonnqvist, A. (2013). Benchimarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki. Cities, 31, 357-369.

Zenker, S., and Braun, E. (2010). The Place Brand Centre - A conceptual Approach for the Brand Management of Places. 39th European Marketing Academy Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© Faculty of Management (SNSPA)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC

The opinions expressed in the papers published are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of the editors of this journal. The authors assume all responsibility for the ideas expressed in the materials published.

ISSN 2392-8042 (online)