Conference Agenda

This article presents a systematic review of the main literature on the application of lean management principles in the public sector. The theoretical framework is based on the identification of four fundamental “pillars” of lean methodology: ‘pull’ logic, waste elimination (muda), continuous improvement (kaizen), and employees empowerment. Each pillar has been adapted to the public administration context through specific operationalizations. Using the PRISMA 2020 standard, we selected and analyzed 85 scientific articles published between 2003 and 2023, extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The results show a growing scientific interest in this phenomenon, with a higher concentration of cases analyzed in Europe, followed by North America and South America. The health sector emerges as the area of greatest application, followed by central and local government. Waste elimination emerges as the most prevalent pillar, while the other three pillars appear with less presence in the analyzed cases. Significant differences in lean pillar adoption are observed by geographic area and policy area. This paper aims to offer new perspectives on the global spread of these practices in the public sector.

Public sector innovation (PSI) is increasingly vital in responding to societal challenges, yet the environments where innovation emerges—the “where” of innovation—remain underexplored. While research has thoroughly examined the types, drivers, and outcomes of PSI, the spatial and social contexts—the "where" of innovation—have not received equal attention. This paper addresses that gap by conducting a systematic literature review of 112 peer-reviewed empirical articles published between 2014 and 2024. The study conceptualizes innovation spaces as micro-level environments—physical, virtual, and cognitive—that foster the social and interactive dynamics of innovation in public sector organizations.

The analysis synthesizes current knowledge on how innovation spaces support collaboration, creativity, and the dismantling of organizational silos, especially in contexts constrained by bureaucracy and risk aversion. By mapping key definitions, types, objectives, enablers, inhibitors, and outcomes of innovation spaces, the study offers a cohesive framework for understanding their role in enabling diverse forms of public sector innovation.

This contribution is threefold. First, it responds to a notable gap in PSI literature by emphasizing the importance of spatial and social conditions in fostering innovation. Second, it reveals how innovation spaces function as boundary-spanning environments that support organizational adaptability and inclusivity. Third, it provides actionable insights for designing innovation-supportive environments in the public sector and explores the future research streams. This research advances theoretical and practical understanding of how innovation spaces can catalyze change within increasingly complex public governance landscapes.

This research explores the potential for the model of Agile Government (DeSeve, 2021) to provide a practical framework for improving public performance and be responsive to the range of challenges facing public administrators. The research considers public performance management within the context of responses needed to build public trust as an enduring challenge of government (OECD, 2011 and 2024). Specifically the paper explores the conceptual relation of agile government practices- illustrated by case studies- to the links between service performance and building trust. sponse addresses a set of wicked problems (Kettl, 2006) essential for building trust.

The conceptual framework connects Agile Government to explore the theoretical and empirical foundations of the received wisdom that service delivery improves state legitimacy” (McLouglin, 2015, 342; Jean, 2019). Specifically, the conceptual research considers how Agile Government best practices address barriers to building performance to increase trust in public agencies (Pahlka, 2023).

Methodologically, the best practices of Agile Government are identified, then specifically related to the challenges identified by Mcloughlan (2015) and in creating place value (Kirlin, 1996) in building state legitimacy. Agile government is described as “A mindset and actions designed to achieve the missions of government by developing and implementing policies, regulations and programs in an integrated way to increase trust in government through improving competence while promoting values people care about” (DeSeve, 2021).

The best practices of Agile Government (DeSeve, 2021) are summarized as

• Integration is critical to execution.

• Leaders at all levels need to analyze and understand trust in and across their organization.

• Agile government must begin with understanding end-users

• Public values must be respected and the public must be engaged.

• Networks should form the default development and implementation pathway wherever possible.

• Cross-functional teams should drive integrated solutions to problems.

• Appropriate speed and persistent iteration will enable the organization to shape and reshape successful approaches.

• Simultaneous execution of agile government actions is required.

These steps are applied to the four key challenges identified by McLaughlin (2015) facing building state legitimacy.

• Shifting expectations

• perceptions of impartiality

• relationship – who is perceived as delivering

• who gets credit

This paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of how Agile Government best practices to build public trust can address foreseeable patterns of wicked problems (Kettl,2006), including relationship between politics and administration (Callahan and Mau, 2024), In addition, such trends have implications for the future of how public administration shapes representative government (Bertelli, 2021).

References

Bertelli, A.M. Democracy Revisited: How Public Administration Shapes Representative Government. Cambridge University Press. (2021).

Callahan, R., & Mau, T. A. 2024. Reconceptualizing the politics-administration dichotomy .The American Review of Public Administration, 54(3) 229-241.

DeSeve, G.E. 2022. The Future of Agile Government. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/future-agile-government

McLoughlin, C. (2015), When does service delivery improve the legitimacy of a fragile or conflict affected state?, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, (2015): 28:2: 341-356, doi: 10.1111/gove.12091.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation. 2024. Trust in Government. June. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/trust-in-government.html

Social currencies (SCs), innovative instruments designed to address local economic, social, and environmental challenges, are increasingly adopted by public entities as instruments of public policy, reflecting a broader trend towards “new municipalism” and proactive local governance across Europe. This trend is particularly evident in the implementation of cash transfer programs (CTPs), which offer a novel approach to addressing inequalities in contexts often marked by austerity and neoliberal constraints. Despite the growing interest in SCs among public entities, their formulation processes remain insufficiently understood, warranting closer examination of the relationship between design choices, contextual conditions, and both intended and unintended outcomes.

This paper addresses the question: How are social currency projects involving public entities formulated across different territories, and what are the key variations, commonalities, and critical interactions among their design elements? To explore this question, this study aims to: (i) characterise and comparatively analyse the design configurations of multiple SCs involving public actors; (ii) identify patterns, variations, and interdependencies among design elements; and (iii) clarify the multifaceted roles of public entities in shaping both processes and outcomes. The Design Science Research (DSR) framework is proposed as a productive analytical lens, revealing hybrid institutional arrangements that transcend the binary between top-down state action and bottom-up community initiatives.

Employing a qualitative meta-analysis of documented SC cases, the research extends Diniz et al.'s (2024) framework (Context, Goals, Mechanisms, Evaluation) by incorporating ‘Users, Motivations and Practices of Navigation’ and ‘Operationalization’ as crucial elements. These additions underscore the need for user-centred approaches — ensuring alignment with beneficiaries' needs and behaviours — and the importance of practical execution managed by dedicated teams and clearly defined routines.

Findings reveal that SC design is shaped by a dynamic interplay among scheme elements, local institutional conditions, and the degree of public involvement. Effective initiatives align user needs with operational capacity, adopt adaptive governance models, and incorporate continuous evaluation, effectively navigating tensions between social goals, financial sustainability, and community autonomy. The research reinforces the understanding of SCs as socio-technical systems, contributing theoretically by refining Diniz et al.'s (2024) framework and practically by offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners engaged in the formulation, implementation, or evaluation of SCs. More broadly, it contributes to ongoing debates on public innovation by proposing an integrated model for understanding effective governance, institutional action, and practices in the context of SCs and the wider "new municipalism" movement across Europe and globally.