Journal of Leadership in Organizations, ISSN 2656-8829 (Print), ISSN 2656-8810 (Online)

Vol.3, No. 2 (2021) 72-98

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP
IN ORGANIZATIONS
Journal homepage: https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/leadership

SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE NETWORK ANALYSIS OF THE

“INNOVATION POLICY MIX” CONCEPT: EXTENDING LEADERS’
VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Edwin Rommel1*, Amin Wibowo2, Nurul Indarti3, Ely Susanto4
1 DoctoralProgram in Management Science, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
1Regional Planning and Development Agency of Sungai Penuh City, Jambi Province, Indonesia.
2,3Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
4Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study aims to depict the

Keywords: scientific landscape for the innovation policy mix (IPM) from 2012
Bibliometric analysis; to 2019 since its re-conceptualization by Flanagan, Uyarra, and
innovation policy mix; Laranja (2011). Background Problems: The seminal work has
organizational environment; broadened policy mix thinking with social issues impacting
systematic literature network innovation. Since every organization is part of the innovation policy
analysis. system, this study takes the first step to introduce IPM into
management fields by identifying and discussing subsequent works
Article History: in research trajectories. Novelty: This study shows the remarkable
Received progress toward a mature concept through IPM’s definition,
2021-03-17
Received in revised from
characteristics, and boundaries. As a new string of interdisciplinary
2021-03-18 social science research, some opportunities and challenges are
Received in revised from revealed, allowing future studies to be conducted in more
2021-04-21 theoretically sounding research traditions. Research Methods: This
Accepted
2021-06-07
study applies systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) relying
on objective measures from keyword co-occurrences and co-
DOI: 10.22146/jlo.64765 citations networks. It includes 60 articles analyzed using open-
source software, i.e., Publish or Perish, Google Scholar database,
VOSviewer, and the web-based Local Citation Network.
Finding/Results: There are three clusters in the main path of
research trajectories, i.e., IPM’s conceptualization, its characteristics
for evaluation and measurement, and contextualization. Future
research directions are proposed to advance our understanding of
the organizational environment and its impact on innovation.
Conclusion: IPM studies have opened opportunities to test and
extend theories in strategic management and organization studies,
especially for leaders who make decisions in the face of dynamic
and demanding environments. Moreover, contextualization in
developing countries would be a worthwhile exercise by
considering the institutional and cultural context.
___________
* Corresponding Author E-mail address: [email protected]

72
This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

1. Introduction article is useful, as it provides a scientific

landscape about IPM. However, a critique of
The policy mix is “the interactions and bibliometric studies emphasizes their failure
interdependencies between different policies to encompass the evolutionary aspect and
as they affect the extent to which intended the reliance on subjective criteria for
policy outcomes are achieved” (Flanagan, classifying research contributions on pre-
Uyarra, & Laranja, 2011, p.72). It was defined coding schemes (Strozzi, Colicchia,
adopted from economics studies to explain Creazza, & Noè, 2017). Consequently, more
the stability between the internal (fiscal objective measures are needed to detect
policies) and external (monetary policies) research trajectories into whether IPM is
conditions of a country (Mundell, 1962). This going toward a mature concept that is “well
concept emphasizes stability as an defined, with characteristics or attributes
environmental condition to gain investment. identified, boundaries demarcated,
A good mix, or stability, does not mean that preconditions specified, and outcomes
the environment will not change but it is described” (Morse, Mitcham, Hupcey, &
predictable and affects actors or Tason, 1996).
organizations. Therefore, organizations or This study focuses on the development
firms can cope with uncertainty to achieve of IPM in the literature and applies the
their organizational growth and stability systematic literature network analysis
(Dess & Beard, 1984). (SLNA) method introduced by Colicchia and
The development of this concept has Strozzi (2012). SLNA combines a systematic
been analyzed by Kern, Rogge, & Howlett literature review with network analysis by
(2019) using bibliometric networks. Their extracting quantitative information from
findings showed that the seminal work of bibliographic networks to identify emerging
Flanagan et al. (2011) was the most cited topics and research trajectories (Colicchia &
article (299 articles), both in innovation (2002 Strozzi, 2012; Strozzi et al., 2017). The
to 2017) and policy studies (2003 to 2017) (p. questions are: (1) Which studies are seminal
6). Centrality in the citation networks has works in the research trajectories? (2) What
been triggered by the call for has been done by previous research (from
reconceptualizing the “policy mix” for 2012 to 2019) in the main path of the research
innovation, the so-called innovation policy trajectories? (3) What are the future research
mix (IPM), beyond the ideal combination of directions? The paper is structured as
policy instruments (Kern et al., 2019, p. 2).
follows. First, we describe the methodology
They also emphasized that policy mix, as a used for data collection and the analysis
new string in interdisciplinary social science
techniques. Second, we discuss the results of
research, is a valuable concept for the bibliometric analysis and the
policymakers developing an innovation
interpretation of the evolutionary
system (p. 13). trajectories. Third, we propose some
Increasing connections between
directions for further research.
innovation and policy studies from 2012 to
2017 (Kern et al., 2019) have opened an
2. Literature Review
opportunity to investigate the response to
Reconceptualization by Flanagan et al. (2011)
Flanagan et al. (2011). A systematic review
has broadened the policy mix thinking (Kern
focusing on the seminal work as the root
et al., 2019). There are dynamic interactions
73
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

between multiple actors, multi-instruments, i.e. bounded rationality, information

and institutions shaping public policy. The asymmetry, and institutions within which
interactions evolve over time by modifying the actors interact (Flanagan et al., 2011).
the existing policy instruments or adding As acknowledged in management
new ones (Flanagan et al., 2011, p. 710). studies, public or private organizations could
Therefore, there are no unambiguously play one or more roles in the interactions. As
“good” mixes (Kern et al., 2019). policy beneficiaries or targets, organizations
Flanagan et al. (2011) borrowed are subject to public authority with a
terminology from the agency theory to particular degree of publicness (Bozeman,
explain the roles of the actors in innovation 2004). As policy implementation agents,
policy processes. First, policy principals are organizations may be involved through
the actors mobilizing government resources sponsorship, public-private partnerships or
to achieve policy goals. Second, policy collaborations, and other kinds of relations
entrepreneurs are the actors who promote (Hermans, Geerling-Eiff, Potters, & Klerkx,
policy problems or solutions. Third, policy 2019; McGahan, Zelner, & Barney, 2013). As
targets are the actors targeted by policy policy entrepreneurs, organizations are
actions for behavior changes, or new actors taken into account as internal or external
(organizations or networks) created by stakeholders of the government (Bryson,
policy actions to fill a perceived gap in the Edwards, & Van Slyke, 2017; Page, Stone,
system. Fourth, policy implementation Bryson, & Crosby, 2015) in promoting policy
agents are the existing or newly created problems. In relation to policy principals,
actors in receipt of resources from a policy organizations may have political activities as
principal to achieve a policy outcome. nonmarket strategies to influence the
Finally, policy beneficiaries are the actors environment (Dorobantu, Kaul, & Zelner,
who benefit (or lose out) from the 2017).
impacts/outcomes of the policy action. These Those possible roles are in line with the
roles are not mutually exclusive; one actor external control of organizations (Pfeffer &
may play multiple roles simultaneously. Salancik, 1978) and institutional pressures
Flanagan et al. (2011) argued that (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), especially in
policymakers tend to deny feedback from strategic management and organizational
other actors where interactions, conflicts, and studies. Moreover, in the face of increasingly
resistances occur. dynamic and demanding environments,
Flanagan et al. (2011) used a dynamic organizational adaptability is the main
view of innovation policy processes, where challenge for entrepreneurial, enabling, and
interactions can occur when targeting the operational leaders (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018)
same actors, different actors, and different as well as strategic leaders (Samimi, Cortes,
processes. There is also the possibility that Anderson, & Herrmann, 2020). Therefore,
the same instruments interact across IPM studies will potentially extend the
dimensions (policy space, government space, literature on the organizational environment,
geographical space, and time) as forms of especially within dynamic and demanding
influence from particular policies. In the innovation policy processes.
interactions, there are potential conflicts of To do so, we apply SLNA that mixes
rationales, goals, and implementation quantitative and qualitative aspects in
approaches from the attributes of the actors maximizing the objectivity of the analysis
74
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

and the repeatability of the results (Colicchia authorities, and the creation of public values
& Strozzi, 2012). The quantitative aspect at certain levels of “publicness” and
begins with the pre-selection process to “privateness” (Bozeman & Moulton, 2011).
obtain local citation and keyword networks. Therefore, this study limits the scope of the
Global citation scores are also important literature, by citing Flanagan et al. (2011), to
(Strozzi et al., 2017) to verify the that published from 2012 to 2019, without
representativeness of the networks. Then, the specifying the fields of study.
qualitative aspect is focused on the
interpretation of objective measures to 3.2. Locating Studies
answer the pre-defined questions. Therefore, This stage is determining the keywords for
SLNA can eliminate any bias and error issues searching for articles in the literature
of literature searches (Colicchia & Strozzi, (Colicchia & Strozzi, 2012; Strozzi et al.,
2012) as the rationale of systematic reviews 2017). This study combines keywords in the
(Linnenluecke, Marrone, & Singh, 2020). article’s title to cope with the inconsistencies
of the terms used (e.g., policy mix, policy
3. Method, Data, and Analysis mixes, policy mix for innovation, innovation
policy mix, and innovation policy mixes) and
This study adopts the procedure
focuses on a particular topic, as
recommended by Strozzi et al. (2017), which
recommended by Strozzi et al. (2017). This
is shown in Figure 1 and explained in the
study uses Publish or Perish (PoP) software
following sub-sections.
for locating articles in the Google Scholar
(GS) database (Harzing, 2007) with “policy
Figure 1. Systematic Literature Network Analysis
mix” OR “policy mixes” in the title and
“Flanagan et al. (2011)” OR “Flanagan et al.
2011” OR “Flanagan et al., 2011” in the
contents of the articles to anticipate different
styles of citations. The keyword in the title is
very important “in order to select the paper
[having the concept/construct of interest] as
the main goal of their analysis” (Strozzi et al.,
2017, p. 4). The combination will ensure
comprehensive results in both conceptual
and empirical studies.

3.3. Study Selection and Evaluation

Source: Adopted from Strozzi et al. (2017)
Locating studies (on February 20, 2020)
3.1. Scope of Analysis
returned 105 articles from various sources,
The first stage is determining the scope of the
summarized in Table 1. Then, we filtered
literature based on the objective (Colicchia &
these articles by manually selecting articles
Strozzi, 2012). IPM has been studied in
from scientific journals written in English
discussions about policymaking and
and avoiding duplication, especially in
implementation (Flanagan et al., 2011). It
papers before and after being published.
involves either private or public
organizations affected by policies, political

75
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Table 1. Number of Articles Based on the Source

1.6.11). Because of GS’s limitation on citation
Source N Articles
data to retrieve citation networks (Bamel,
Pandey, & Gupta, 2020), the Local Citation
Journal (in English)* 60
Network (Wölfle, 2018) is used, with the list
Q1 Journal 51
of DOI (digital object identifier) from selected
Q2 Journal 4
articles as input and the LCN based on the
No Rank Journal 5
Microsoft Academic (MA) database as
Books/Book Chapter/Report 8
output. As a new service relaunched in 2015
Conference Proceedings 1
(first launched in 2012), MA has broad
Working Papers, Theses, and 15
Dissertations coverage like GS but is more structured like
Unidentified, Repeated, Draft, and 21 Web of Service or Scopus (Harzing &
Non-English Alakangas, 2017). Since being limited by the
Total 105 scope of this study, LCN from MA and GS
Notes: * based on Scimago Journal and Country are most likely identical.
Rank (ScimagoJR) in 2018

This generated 60 articles. The top three Figure 2. Number of Publication from 2012–2019

journals based on the number of articles are

top tier journals (Q1) in the ScimagoJR (2018)
i.e. Research Policy (27.87%), Energy and
Social Sciences Research (18.03%), and
Technology Forecasting and Social Change
(6.56%). The list of journals and the number
of articles in each tier are presented in
Appendix 1.
The comparison between the initial Source: obtained from the primary data.
results and the selected articles in Figure 2 Notes: * one draft without publication year.
shows relatively identical trends, in terms of
the number of articles per year. Although
significant improvements began in 2015, Figure 3. Summary of Article Selection Process

some duplication with theses/dissertations,

working papers, and drafts between 2012
and 2015 (22 articles) indicate immediate
responses to the re-conceptualization.
Significant growth in 2019 also indicates that
policy mix studies were still an interesting
topic in scientific communities.
The use of GS has an advantage because of
the scope of interdisciplinary articles
(Harzing & Alakangas, 2017; Harzing & Wal,
2008). Keywords co-occurrence network is
retrieved using the VOS (visualization of
similarities) technique (Van Eck & Waltman,
2007, 2010) in VOSviewer software (version
76
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

4. Results and Findings are also in the top 10 highest LCS, except
LCN with Global Citation Score (GCS) and Lanahan & Feldman (2015) and Reichardt &
Local Citation Score (LCS) is used to identify Rogge (2016) (10th and 13th based on GCS;
breakthrough studies, while a keywords co- 16th and 5th based on LCS).
occurrence network is used to identify Summary of the top 10 highest GCS articles
research trends (Strozzi et al., 2017). Those plus Reichardt & Rogge (2016) and each
objective measures will be combined to position in LCN are detailed in Appendix 3.
interpret identified cluster(s) in the following Based on the quantitative aspect, main
sub-sections. path analysis is applied to identify the
4.1. The Main Path of Research evolutionary trajectory where “a node that
links many nodes and has many nodes
Trajectories in Local Citation
linking to it will probably be part of the main
Network
path” (Lucio-Arias & Leydesdorff, 2008, p. 5).
LCN is part of the Global Citation Network
Since the dominant articles are already
with articles as nodes and citations as ties
visualized in LCN (the size of the circles in
representing the flow of knowledge within
Figure 4), it can be done visually. Appendix
the scope of the analysis (Strozzi et al., 2017).
2 (LCS) and 3 (LCN) also provide detailed
As shown in Figure 4, all nodes (circles) are,
information to ensure objectivity. The main
of course, citing Flanagan et al. (2011) but not
path from Flanagan et al. (2011) includes
necessarily tied to each other. The top five
Magro and Wilson (2013), Kivimaa and Kern
articles based on LCS by their circle’s size are
(2016), and Rogge and Reichardt (2016).
(1) Rogge and Reichardt (2016), (2) Kivimaa
Interpretation of each cluster in the main
and Kern (2016), (3) Magro and Wilson
path is discussed in the following sub-
(2013), (4) Reichardt et al. (2016), and (5)
sections to answer the second question of this
Reichardt and Rogge (2016). Stars are articles
study.
suggested by MA outside the scope of
4.2. Research Trends in Keywords
analysis.
Co-occurrence Network
Figure 4. Local Citation Network of Selected Articles Network analysis in SLNA assumes the
author’s keywords are adequate descriptions
of the content (Strozzi et al., 2017). To ensure
comprehensiveness, VOSviewer is set with
minimum occurrences of keywords
gradually from one to 5. The network with
four minimum occurrences is selected
(Figure 5) since it gives an equal number of
patterned clusters with five minimum
occurrences (default settings in VOSviewer).
Notes: The network was modified by adding year axis
and labels for the top five biggest nodes.
Source: Obtained using Local Citation Network
(Wölfle, 2018) based on the primary data.

In comparison with GCS detailed in

Appendix 2, nine of the top 10 highest GCS
77
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Figure 5. Keywords Co-occurrence Networks complexity was explored by subsequent

studies (Lanahan & Feldman, 2015; Magro,
Navarro, & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2014;
Vitola, 2015) emphasizing the importance of
coherence (top-down and bottom-up) as
coordination-mix. They showed an
evaluation of IPM for creating an
entrepreneurial climate (Flanagan et al., 2011;
Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann, & Smits,
2007) is required before formulating policy as
Source: Obtained using VOSviewer based on the an input to existing policies and processes.
primary data. However, the old definition was still used by
Liu (2013) without subsequent studies in
Detailed information of each cluster in Table LCN.
2 can be elaborated with Figure 2 to show
indications of evolutionary trajectories. Figure 6. Local Citation Network of Cluster 1
Flanagan et al. (2011) used six keywords (i.e.
policy mix, policy complexity, policy
interactions, policy instruments, actors, and
innovation policy), and three of them were
identified in the first cluster. From 2012 to
2014, two of 4 keywords in the first cluster
(i.e. multi-level governance, policy
evaluation) indicated new discussions. In
2016, a new issue about sustainability
transitions also coincided with increasing
discussions about policy mix and the In 2016, “sustainability transition” emerged
formation of new clusters. Despite the in two breakthrough articles (i.e. Kivimaa &
decline in 2018, the number of studies Kern, 2016; Rogge & Reichardt, 2016) which
increased significantly in 2019 except for the provided conceptual extensions and insights
second cluster. As assumed, the spread of from case studies in different contexts. Using
new keywords in three clusters also showed the Schumpeterian perspective in innovation
inter-clusters trajectories, which are studies, Kivimaa & Kern (2016) (highest GCS;
discussed as follows. second-highest LCS) explained the role of
4.2.1. Cluster 1: Conceptualization of IPM as motors of creative destruction
IPM emphasizing the “destruction” of old
This cluster includes 47 articles (78.33%) as practices and the “creation” of new ones.
circles in Figure 6. The LCN shows seminal They encouraged further studies to take the
works in this cluster create the main path of transition into account by analyzing the
research trajectories. The first article (Magro impact on the strategies of policy agents or
& Wilson, 2013) focused on IPM's definition. targets who implement an innovation. Thus,
They discussed the complexity of multi-level IPM should also guarantee a successful
governance and emphasized the importance transition, as emphasized by articles from the
of policy evaluation and coordination. The Energy Research & Social Science journal

78
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Table 2. Occurrences of Keywords in Three Clusters

Total Year
Keywords Dominant authorsb
occurrencea 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Cluster #1
policy mix 42 (85) 1 1 2 8 10 4 16 Rogge (9); Kern (6)
sustainability 15 (32) - - - 2 2 2 9 Rogge (4); Kern (3); Kivimaa
transitions (2)
innovation policy 8 (19) 1 1 - 2 1 1 2 Kern, Magro, Uyarra (2)
multi-level 5 (8) 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 Magro, Wilts (2)
governance
policy evaluation 4 (9) 1 - - - 1 - 2 Magro, Wilson (2)
policy instrument 4 (11) - - 1 1 - - 2 N/A
Subtotal 4 3 4 13 15 7 32
Cluster #2
innovation 7 (12) - - 2 2 2 - 1 Rogge (3); Reichardt (2)
consistency 5 (6) - - - 2 1 2 - Rogge (5); Reichardt (2)
coherence 4 (6) - - - 1 1 2 - Rogge (4)
credibility 4 (4) - - - 2 - 2 - Rogge (4); Reichardt (2)
energy transition 4 (8) - - - - 2 1 1 Rogge (2)
Subtotal 0 0 2 7 6 7 2
Cluster #3
energy efficiency 5 (11) - - 1 2 2 - - Kern, Rosenow (2)
energy policy 4 (8) - - - - 1 - 3 Lindberg (2)
European union 4 (9) - - - 1 - - 3 Lindberg (2)
Subtotal 0 0 1 3 3 0 6
Total 4 3 7 23 24 14 40 11 authors
Notes: The number of authors (a) and documents of each dominant author (b) are in parentheses.

(e.g., Kern, Kivimaa, & Martiskainen, 2017; actors operated in the process. Focusing on
Rogge, Kern, & Howlett, 2017). Kivimaa & re-definition, this cluster is labeled as the
Kern (2016) also offered an extended conceptualization of IPM.
definition from the previous literature, as 4.2.2. Cluster 2: Characteristics of IPM
summarized in Table3. This cluster includes 12 articles (20%) as
Rogge & Reichardt (2016) (highest LCS; circles, shown in Figure 7. The LCN shows
second-highest GCS) also proposed an the seminal work by Rogge & Reichardt
extension of the policy mix concept and (2016) as part of the main path. Besides
analytical framework based on previous extending the IPM definition, four
studies. They emphasized interaction as the characteristics were also proposed from
main focus and explained the framework accumulated qualitative case studies. It was
covering policy elements (instruments and claimed to have “a great potential for further
strategies), policy processes, the interdisciplinary policy mix research”
characteristics of the policy mix, and the (Rogge et al., 2017).
dimensions or context of interactions. In line
with Kivimaa & Kern (2016), they extended
IPM to interactions by which policies and

79
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Figure 7. Local Citation Network of Cluster 2 highlighted in Table 3. As four of 5 keywords

in this cluster used by the seminal work, this
cluster is labeled as the characteristics of IPM
for evaluation and measurement.
4.2.3. Cluster 3: Contextualization of
IPM
This cluster includes 10 articles (16.67%) and
the seminal work by Kivimaa & Kern (2016)
in the main path as showed in Figure 8. Most
articles focus on energy policies in Europe
and are also included in other clusters. To
ensure sustainability in the energy sector,
In subsequent studies, two survey-based long-term targets should consider the
studies measured firms' perceptions of the institutional context of policy formulation
characteristics (Rogge & Dütschke, 2018;
and implementation (Kivimaa & Kern, 2016;
Rogge & Schleich, 2018), while five Rogge & Reichardt, 2016).
qualitative studies investigated IPM in Figure 8. Local Citation Network of Cluster 3
different countries or regions (Lindberg,
2019; Ossenbrink, Finnsson, Bening, &
Hoffmann, 2018; Reichardt & Rogge, 2016;
Vitola, 2015). As emphasized by Rogge &
Schleich (2018), further explorations in
different contexts are needed.
Increasing studies of firms or agencies
in policy implementation based on the
characteristics also provide evidence of IPM
as a valuable concept for policy targets or
agents. The critique of Flanagan et al. (2011),
"treating policymakers as translators’ As emphasized by Meissner & Kergroach
theoretical rationales into action, denies (2019), the contextualization revealed that
agency to the actors in relation to policy stimulating innovation had gone beyond
change ..." (p. 711), has been responded to. addressing market failures but focused on
Either agencies or firms are involved in the system failures from science to corporate
innovation process so that their perception of activities in the center of innovation.
the characteristics would be more relevant Legitimacy is the challenge for the actors, not
and informative to explain the impact of IPM. only the outcome as promised or expected
Although Meissner & Kergroach (2019) through innovation but also the process
criticized the lack of IPM measurement (p. 8), (Johnstone, Stirling, & Sovacool, 2017;
Rogge & Reichardt (2016) have triggered new Lindberg, 2019; Mahzouni, 2015; Rosenow,
research directions. Besides, Meissner & Kern, & Rogge, 2017). The process includes
Kergroach (2019) also didn't cite the designing policy, maximizing synergy,
subsequent works (i.e. Rogge & Dütschke, reducing conflicts, promoting coherence, and
2018; Rogge & Schleich, 2018) as attempts to coordinating activities (Wilts & O'Brien,
operationalize IPM characteristics 2019) as described in the policy mix
80
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Table 3. Conceptual Definitions of Innovation Policy Mix in Selected Articles

Article Conceptual explanation
Liu (2013) “The European Policy Mix experts group (2009) defines the R&D and
innovation policy mix as ‘the set of government policies which, by design or
fortune, has direct or indirect impacts on the development of an R&D and
innovation system’.”
Magro & Wilson “In the light of this paper, the policy-mix for innovation is understood as
(2013) and the combination of rationales, domains, and instruments that are
Magro et al. interplaying in a certain policy space or system.”
(2014)
Borrás & Edquist “A definition of the innovation policy instrument mix is: The specific
(2013) combination of innovation-related policy instruments which interact explicitly
or implicitly in influencing innovation intensities.”
Kivimaa & Kern “We do, however, extend from Borrás and Edquist in that we examine
(2016) policy mixes for transitions over several policy domains, not merely
‘classic’ innovation policy instruments. Analyses across domains are
important from the perspective of policy coherence and consistency, as
sub-optimal or even perverse outcomes of policies can frequently be
explained by clashing policies designed for different purposes across
different policy domains.”
Rogge & “… interaction is a central feature of the existing policy mix definitions.”
Reichardt (2016) The characteristics are: (1) Consistency as “how well the elements of the
policy mix are aligned with each over, thereby contributing to the
achievement of policy objectives.” (2) Coherence as “synergistic and
systematic policy making and implementation processes contributing –
either directly or indirectly – toward the achievement of policy
objectives.” (3) Credibility as “the extent to which the policy mix is
believable and reliable.” (4) Comprehensiveness as “how extensive and
exhaustive its elements are and the degree to which its processes are
based on extensive decision-making.”

characteristics. Because of the importance of mixes and innovation performance” (Izsak,

sensitivity to the prevailing system, this Markianidou, & Radošević, 2015, p. 790). It
cluster is labeled the contextualization of was confirmed in the subsequent
IPM. quantitative study that still relied “on recent
qualitative insights into the impact of policy
5. Discussion and Future mix characteristics for innovation” (Rogge &
Research Directions Schleich, 2018. p. 2).
Izsak et al. (2015) used the
IPM's research trajectories have put public
Schumpeterian growth theory and the
policy issues in the foreground. The
systems of innovation literature. They
extended definitions (the first cluster) are the
baseline to evaluate and measure IPM argued that policy mix is a reflection of the
through the characteristics (the second level and nature of technology challenges. As
cluster). Then, applying IPM to an empirical part of an innovation system, IPM addresses
market and institutional failures to enable
context focuses on the innovation policy
process, the resulting mix, and outcomes (the coping with uncertainty (p. 788). Their
third cluster). However, “no theory or policy attempt was not impactful since IPM was not
clearly defined and characterized yet. As a
model has yet been developed that
postulates the relationship between policy peripheral study in the main path of the
research trajectories (LCS = 0 and GCS = 12),
81
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

it is also reasonable that their critique is a systematic description of the complex

stationary. innovation policy processes and the others
The use of the Schumpeterian actors involved. Thus, leaders can react to
perspective in IPM studies (e.g.,Izsak et al., new opportunities (or new threats caused by
2015; Kivimaa & Kern, 2016) emphasizes the illegitimate activities) and drive the
way innovation policy disturbs or changes organizational transformation to cope with
existing patterns of resource allocation, uncertainty and gain legitimacy.
processes, or expected outcomes through Indeed, confronting public policy
bold and creative action (Klein, Mahoney, issues in strategic management and
McGahan, & Pitelis, 2010). In this sense, organization studies is not totally new.
public policies define “the rules of the game” Pfeffer (2003) admitted that "I would be
in response to the co-evolution and interplay remiss if I did not address public policy
between public and private interests within concerns" and called for the examination of
which organizations create and capture "the relations between the regulated and
value (Klein et al., 2010, p. 5). As shown in the regulators using the basic concepts and
third cluster of IPM studies, public interest in hypotheses" (p. xxv) in the resource
renewable energy and resource efficiency dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
through an energy-related policy has Peng, Sun, Pinkham, & Chen (2009) also
stimulated transitions in companies' criticized “strategy’s tendency to eschew
activities in the sector. engagement with major public policy issues”
In line with the creation of an (p. 75). There is no doubt that the benefit of
entrepreneurial climate (Flanagan et al., 2011; bringing strategic management theories
Hekkert et al., 2007), IPM has been described enables them to become more widely known,
as the condition of environments enabling (or tested, and extended (Barney, 2005). Because
hindering) innovations (e.g., Izsak et al., leadership studies also use the theories (e.g.,
2015; Rogge & Schleich, 2018). While IPM strategic leadership in Cortes & Herrmann,
studies (except Rogge & Schleich, 2018) 2021; Samimi et al., 2020), IPM potentially
examine macro-level (national or regional) extends leaders’ views about the
impacts, management studies have environment, allowing them to anticipate
opportunities to engage at meso-level where and predict changes.
organizational adaptability is one of the Analyzing the most cited article (Rogge
biggest challenges for leaders (Uhl-Bien & & Reichardt, 2016) also revealed two of 4
Arena, 2018). The challenge is not simply one policy mix characteristics closely related to
of changing the existing operational system management studies. Credibility and
to comply with the external environment, comprehensiveness were defined (p. 8) by
because internal stability would then be at citing Newell & Goldsmith (2001) (“The
risk. Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived
IPM has potentially become a valuable Corporate Credibility” in the Journal of
tool for leaders in the adaptive process. Business Research) and Miller (2008)
Gathering, processing, and using the (“Decisional Comprehensiveness and Firm
information available in external Performance: Toward a More Complete
environments is required to make decisions Understanding” in the Journal of Behavioral
and engage with external stakeholders Decision Making). It confirms that IPM
(Samimi et al., 2020). Using IPM, leaders have studies have been a new string of
82
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

interdisciplinary research (Rogge & (Suchman, 1995, p. 579). Evaluation of (1)

Reichardt, 2016; Kern et al., 2019) and outputs and consequences, (2) techniques
management studies have already been in a and procedures, (3) categories and
position to engage. structures, and (4) leaders and
Based on the findings and discussions representativeness would be worthwhile
above, we outline several promising exercises regarding consistency, coherence,
directions for future research. First, as comprehensiveness, and credibility. Of
emphasized in Kivimaa & Kern (2016) and course, more updated literature would be
Rogge & Reichardt (2016), IPM can be required for conducting exploratory or
defined as a set of different and interacting confirmatory studies.
policies to solve a problem, both elements Second, this study revealed that IPM is
(instruments and strategies) and policy not only valuable for policymakers but also
processes, in the innovation system. It has policy targets and implementation agents. It
been extended to the central issue of the was pioneered by measuring perceived
interaction between the policies and actors policy mix characteristics at the level of
involved in policymaking and corporate innovation (Rogge & Schleich,
implementation. 2018). Especially for public managers in
This definition implies that future agencies, their perception of the environment
research can explore the characteristics is more important than its actual existence
reflecting a good or bad mix. For example, (Meynhardt & Diefenbach, 2012).
some articles have emphasized the Nevertheless, the challenges for future
importance of legitimacy at the program, research are still wide open in responding to
district, city, province, national, and regional Izsak et al. (2015) as emphasized earlier.
levels (e.g., Edmondson et al., 2019; Since innovation is also popular in strategic
Johnstone, Stirling, & Sovacool, 2017; management and organization studies, in
Lindberg, 2019; Magro et al., 2014; Rogge et either public or private sectors, future
al., 2017). In public policy studies, legitimacy research can apply existing theories about
is categorized as the substantive, procedural, the organizational environment for a robust
political, and administrative/bureaucratic foundation in comparison and prediction.
feasibility in program/policy evaluations, For example, legitimacy is important
either before or after implementation (Park, for managing resource dependencies (Oliver,
Lee, & Chung, 2015; Wallner, 2008). Further 1991; Suchman, 1995) in line with the
explorations can emphasize the consistency resource effect of socio-technical changes in
in substantive legitimacy, coherency in policy mix studies (Edmondson et al., 2019).
procedural legitimacy, credibility in political As already emphasized in the resource
feasibility, or comprehensiveness in dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978),
administrative or bureaucratic feasibility. organizations are subsystems of a larger
In management studies, legitimacy has social system. Answering why and how IPM
been acknowledged in strategic and drives innovation decisions and predicts the
institutional approaches (Suchman, 1995). success of organizational innovation would
Since it is related to public interests, moral be valuable insights to fill some gaps in the
legitimacy might be more relevant study of this interdisciplinary concept. Of
concerning “a positive normative evaluation course, researchers should take the
of the organization and its activities” publicness (or privateness) of organizations
83
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

(Bozeman & Moulton, 2011) into account 6. Conclusion

based on their core purpose to create values This study represents the scientific landscape
(Moore, 1995). from 2012 to 2019 after its re-
Third, the extended definition above conceptualization by Flanagan et al. (2011)
emphasizes sensitivity to the context of guided by the main path of evolutionary
interaction. Future research in developing trajectories. Significant progress has been
countries will be a valuable contribution discussed in three connected clusters. IPM
since most studies were done in developed conceptualization and characteristics are the
countries, especially Europe. Moreover, there beginning of a mature concept, while
are different patterns of shifting or the contextualization is the next step to define
hybridization of public management boundaries and preconditions (Morse et al.,
paradigms (Wiesel & Modell, 2014) behind 1996) as proposed for future research
multi-level and multi-actor structures, such directions. Interdisciplinary scholars have a
as the New Public Management (NPM) big challenge to investigate the complexity of
(Osborne, 1993), Digital-Era Governance the innovation process based on the
(DEG) (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & prevailing regulation system in different
Tinkler, 2006), Public Value Management institutional contexts. Since being extended
(PVM) (Stoker, 2006), and New Public to social issues, there are some opportunities
Governance (NPG) (S. P. Osborne, Radnor, & to study IPM in more theoretically sounding
Nasi, 2013; Sørensen & Torfing, 2017). While research traditions. By sensitively to the
the convergence is in the importance of context, there are potential contributions to
innovation to improve performance explain interactions between policies and
(Meynhardt & Diefenbach, 2012; Stoker, actors (including organizations) in particular
2006), IPM in different settings would be domains. By taking IPM studies seriously,
highly relevant for further studies. future research will potentially advance our
Cultural context is also often neglected understanding of the organizational
in explaining interactions between actors environment, innovation decisions, and
(Flanagan et al., 2011) as behavioral factors in outcomes within dynamic and demanding
policy mix problems (Bouma, Verbraak, innovation policy processes.
Dietz, & Brouwer, 2019). Different This study also has several limitations.
cooperative mechanisms could also First, the citation data was limited to the
determine the actors' attitudes and behavior scope of the GS database. Second, citation
with their views of collective goals, identity, networks were not generated using common
accountability, communication, and bibliometric tools such as HistCite or Pajek.
incentives shaped by cultural characteristics Third, Matthew's effect, i.e., "the rich get
(Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998). Future richer" (Strozzi et al., 2017), could not be
research considering those effects would be a avoided by ignoring criticism or issues in
worthwhile exercise to enrich the unpopular articles (low GCS or LCS).
contextualization in different domains and Nonetheless, this study shows that the
levels of authorities. use of LCN (Wölfle, 2018) based on the MA
database can overcome the limitation to
generate the networks and support the
interpretation of identified clusters.
Collecting DOI as a unique identifier and
84
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

comparing citation scores (GCS and LCS) of Bouma, J. A., Verbraak, M., Dietz, F., &
the selected articles ensured identical citation Brouwer, R. (2019). Policy Mix: Mess or
networks (even by using different tools) and Merit? Journal of Environmental
Economics and Policy, 8(1), 32–47.
the representativeness of the populations.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.20
Consequently, the networks’ difference only 18.1494636
depends on the scope of the database where Bozeman, B. (2004). All Organizations are
the primary data are located. Future research Public: Comparing Public and Private
using a more sophisticated tool, such as Organizations. Beard Books.
RStudio (Linnenluecke et al., 2020), would be Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011).
a worthwhile upgrade for visualizing and Integrative Publicness : A Framework
for Public Management Strategy and
mapping the results.
Performance. 21(1977), 363–380.
Although not sufficient to overcome https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur0
the general limitation of bibliometric 31
analysis, this study has identified important Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke,
issues in unpopular articles, such as Izsak et D. M. (2017). Getting strategic about
al. (2015) and Meissner & Kergroach (2019), strategic planning research. Public
Management Review, 00(00), 1–23.
in line with the discussion and future
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.20
research directions. Future research
17.1285111
combining two or more databases would be Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R.
valuable to ensure more comprehensive data. (1998). How can Cooperation be
In terms of the objective measures in SLNA, Fostered? The Cultural Effects of
adding co-authorship networks would be a Individualism-Collectivism. Academy
worthwhile exercise to improve the of Management Review, 23(2), 285–
304.
comprehensiveness of the interpretation.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.53
3227
References Colicchia, C., & Strozzi, F. (2012). Supply
Bamel, U. K., Pandey, R., & Gupta, A. (2020). chain risk management: a new
Safety climate: Systematic literature methodology for a systematic
network analysis of 38 years (1980- literature review. Supply Chain
2018) of research. Accident Analysis Management: An International
and Prevention, 135 (March 2019), Journal, 17(4), 403–418.
105387. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.10 246558
5387 Cortes, A. F., & Herrmann, P. (2021).
Barney, J. B. (2005). Should strategic Strategic Leadership of Innovation: A
management research engage public Framework for Future Research.
policy debates? Academy of International Journal of Management
Management Journal, 48(6), 945–948. Reviews, 23(2), 224–243.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.19 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12246
573092 Costantini, V., Crespi, F., & Palma, A. (2017).
Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The Choice of Characterizing The Policy Mix and Its
Innovation Policy Instruments. Impact on Eco-Innovation: A Patent
Technological Forecasting and Social Analysis of Energy-Efficient
Change, 80(8), 1513–1522. Technologies. Research Policy, 46(4),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.20 799–819.
13.03.002
85
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-
.02.004 2454-3
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Harzing, A.-W., & Wal, R. van der. (2008).
Dimensions of Organizational Task Google Scholar as a new source for
Environments. Administrative Science citation analysis. Ethics in Science and
Quarterly, 29(1), 52. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 115–118.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080 Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O.,
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M.
Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional (2007). Functions of Innovation
Isomorphism and Collective Systems: A New Approach for
Rationality in Organizational Fields. Analysing Technological Change.
American Sociological Review, 48(2), Technological Forecasting and Social
147–160. Change, 74(4), 413–432.
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.20
Nonmarket strategy research through 06.03.002
the lens of new institutional Hermans, F., Geerling-Eiff, F., Potters, J., &
economics: An integrative review and Klerkx, L. (2019). Public-private
future directions. Strategic partnerships as systemic agricultural
Management Journal, 38(1), 114–140. innovation policy instruments –
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2590 Assessing their contribution to
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & innovation system function dynamics.
Tinkler, J. (2006). New public NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life
management is dead - Long live Sciences, Vol. 88, pp. 76–95. Elsevier.
digital-era governance. Journal of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.1
Public Administration Research and 0.001
Theory, 16(3), 467–494. Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., & Radošević, S.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui0 (2015). Convergence of National
57 Innovation Policy Mixes in Europe -
Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. S. Has It Gone Too Far? An Analysis of
(2019). The co-evolution of policy Research and Innovation Policy
mixes and socio-technical systems: Measures in the Period 2004-12.
Towards a conceptual framework of Journal of Common Market Studies,
policy mix feedback in sustainability 53(4), 786–802.
transitions. Research Policy, 48(10). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12221
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018 Johnstone, P., Stirling, A., & Sovacool, B.
.03.010 (2017). Policy mixes for incumbency:
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. Exploring the destructive recreation of
(2011). Reconceptualising the “Policy renewable energy, shale gas ‘fracking,’
Mix” for Innovation. Research Policy, and nuclear power in the United
40(5), 702–713. Kingdom. Energy Research and Social
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011 Science, 33, 147–162.
.02.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.0
Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Publish or Perish. 9.005
Retrieved from Kern, F., Kivimaa, P., & Martiskainen, M.
https://harzing.com/resources/publi (2017). Policy packaging or policy
sh-or-perish patching? The development of
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017). complex energy efficiency policy
Microsoft Academic is one year old: mixes. Energy Research and Social
the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Science, 23, 11–25.
Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894.

86
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.1 Liu, Z. (2013). The research tax credit in the

1.002 policy mix for innovation: the French
Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. (2019). case. Journal of Innovation Economics,
Policy mixes for sustainability Vol. 12, p. 199. cairn.info.
transitions: New approaches and https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.012.0199
insights through bridging innovation Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008).
and policy studies. Research Policy, Main-path analysis and path-
pp. 1–15. Elsevier. dependent transitions in HistCiteTM-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019 based historiograms. Journal of the
.103832 American Society for Information
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative Science and Technology, 59(12), 1948–
Destruction or Mere Niche Support? 1962.
Innovation Policy Mixes for https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20903
Sustainability Transitions. Research Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala-
Policy, 45(1), 205–217. Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015 Coordination-mix: The hidden face of
.09.008 STI policy. Review of Policy Research,
Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., 31(5), 367–389.
& Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward A https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12090
Theory of Public Entrepreneurship. Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex
European Management Review, 7(1), innovation policy systems: Towards an
1–15. evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42(9),
Kodama, M. (2019). Business Innovation 1647–1656.
Through Holistic Leadership- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013
Developing Organizational .06.005
Adaptability. Systems Research and Mahzouni, A. (2015). The “Policy Mix” for
Behavioral Science, 36(4), 365–394. Sustainable Urban Transition: The city
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2551 district of Hammarby Sjöstad in
Lanahan, L., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Stockholm. Environmental Policy and
Multilevel Innovation Policy Mix: A Governance, 25(4), 288–302.
Closer Look at State Policies that https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1688
Augment The Federal SBIR Program. McGahan, A. M., Zelner, B. A., & Barney, J. B.
Research Policy, 44(7), 1387–1402. (2013). Entrepreneurship in the Public
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015 Interest: Introduction to the Special
.04.002 Issue. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Lindberg, M. B. (2019). The EU Emissions Journal, 7(1), 1–5.
Trading System and Renewable https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1151
Energy Policies: Friends or Foes in the Meissner, D., & Kergroach, S. (2019).
European Policy Mix? Politics and Innovation policy mix: mapping and
Governance, 7(1), 105–123. measurement. Journal of Technology
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i1.18 Transfer.
00 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-
Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, 09767-4
A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic Meynhardt, T., & Diefenbach. (2012). What
literature reviews and bibliometric Drives Entrepreneurial Orientation in
analyses. Australian Journal of The Public Sector? Evidence from
Management, 45(2), 175–194. Germany’s Federal Labor Agency.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962198 Journal of Public Administration
77678 Research and Theory, 22(4), 761–792.

87
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus0 of energy-storage policy in California.

13 Research Policy.
Miller, C. C. (2008). Decisional https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018
Comprehensiveness and Firm .04.014
Performance: Towards a More Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., &
Complete Understanding. Journal of Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public Value
Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), Creation by Cross-Sector
598–620. Collaborations: A Framework and
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.607 Challenges of Assessment. Public
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Administration, 93(3), 715–732.
Strategic Management in Government. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12161
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Park, C., Lee, J., & Chung, C. (2015). Is
Press. “legitimized” policy always
Morse, J. M., Mitcham, C., Hupcey, J. E., & successful? Policy legitimacy and
Tason, M. C. (1996). Criteria for cultural policy in Korea. Policy
Concept Evaluation. Journal of Sciences, 48(3), 319–338.
Advanced Nursing, 24(2), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 9220-2
2648.1996.18022.x Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen,
Mundell, R. A. (1962). The Appropriate Use H. (2009). The Institution-Based View
of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod.
Internal and External Stability. Staff Academy of Management
Papers - International Monetary Fund, Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81.
9(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.4
https://doi.org/10.2307/3866082 3479264
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The Pfeffer, J. (2003). Introduction to the Classic
Development of a Scale to Measure Edition. In The External Control of
Perceived Corporate Credibility. Organizations: A Resource
Journal of Business Research, 52(3), Dependence Perspective (2nd ed., pp.
235–247. xi–xxix). California: Stanford
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148- University Press.
2963(99)00104-6 Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to External Control of Organizations: A
Institutional Processes. Academy of Resource Dependence Perspective.
Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. New York: Harper and Row.
Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing Reichardt, K., Negro, S. O., Rogge, K. S., &
Government. Public Productivity & Hekkert, M. P. (2016). Analyzing
Management Review, 16(4). interdependencies between policy
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). mixes and technological innovation
A New Theory for Public Service systems: The case of offshore wind in
Management? Toward a (Public) Germany. Technological Forecasting
Service-Dominant Approach. and Social Change, 106, 11–21.
American Review of Public https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.20
Administration, 43(2), 135–158. 16.01.029
https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740124 Reichardt, K., & Rogge, K. (2016). How the
66935 policy mix impacts innovation:
Ossenbrink, J., Finnsson, S., Bening, C. R., & Findings from company case studies
Hoffmann, V. H. (2018). Delineating on offshore wind in Germany.
policy mixes: Contrasting top-down Environmental Innovation and
and bottom-up approaches to the case Societal Transitions, 18, 62–81.

88
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.08 Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017).

.001 Metagoverning Collaborative
Rogge, K. S., & Dütschke, E. (2018). What Innovation in Governance Networks.
makes them believe in the low-carbon American Review of Public
energy transition? Exploring corporate Administration, 47(7), 826–839.
perceptions of the credibility of climate https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740166
policy mixes. Environmental Science 43181
and Policy, Vol. 87, pp. 74–84. Elsevier. Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018 A New Narrative for Networked
.05.009 Governance? The American Review of
Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2017). Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
Conceptual and empirical advances in https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740052
analysing policy mixes for energy 82583
transitions. Energy Research and Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Noè,
Social Science, Vol. 33, pp. 1–10. C. (2017). Literature review on the
Elsevier. ‘smart factory’ concept using
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.0 bibliometric tools. International
9.025 Journal of Production Research, 55(22),
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy 1–20.
mixes for sustainability transitions: An https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.20
extended concept and framework for 17.1326643
analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620– Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing
1635. Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016 Approaches. Academy of
.04.004 Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Rogge, K. S., & Schleich, J. (2018). Do Policy https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9
Mix Characteristics Matter for Low- 508080331
Carbon Innovation? A Survey-Based Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership
Exploration of Renewable Power for organizational adaptability: A
Generation Technologies in Germany. theoretical synthesis and integrative
Research Policy, 47(9), 1639–1654. framework. Leadership Quarterly,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018 29(1), 89–104.
.05.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017
Rosenow, J., Kern, F., & Rogge, K. (2017). The .12.009
need for comprehensive and well Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A
targeted instrument mixes to stimulate new method for visualizing
energy transitions: The case of energy similarities between objects. In
efficiency policy. Energy Research and Advances in data analysis:
Social Science, Vol. 33, pp. 95–104. Proceedings of the 30th annual
Elsevier. conference of the German
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.0 Classification Society (pp. 299–306).
9.013 Heidelberg: Springer.
Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010).
& Herrmann, P. (2020). What is Software survey: VOSviewer, a
strategic leadership? Developing a computer program for bibliometric
framework for future research. mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–
Leadership Quarterly, (November), 538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
101353. 009-0146-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019 Vitola, A. (2015). Innovation policy mix in a
.101353 multi-level context: The case of the

89
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Baltic Sea Region countries. Science

and Public Policy, 42(3), 401–414.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu05
9
Wallner, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Public
Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness,
Efficiency, and Performance. Policy
Studies Journal, 36(3), 421–443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-
0072.2008.00275.x
Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From New
Public Management to New Public
Governance? Hybridization and
Implications for Public Sector
Consumerism. Financial
Accountability and Management,
30(2), 175–205.
https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12033
Wölfle, T. (2018). Local Citation Network.
Retrieved February 21, 2020, from
https://timwoelfle.github.io/Local-
Citation-Network/

90
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Appendix 1. List of Journals based on Tier

Tier of Number of
Journals
Journal Articles

Q1 51 Research policy (17); Energy Research and Social Science

(11); Technological Forecasting and Social Change (3);
Journals (85%)
Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space (2);
Economics of Innovation and New Technology (2); Journal
of Technology Transfer (2); Environmental Policy and
Governance (2); Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy (1); Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions (1); Building Research and Information (1);
Energy Policy (1); Journal of Common Market Studies (1);
Journal of Cleaner Production (1); Ecological Economics (1);
Environmental Science and Policy (1); Land Use Policy (1);
Policy and Society (1); Politics and Governance (1); Local
Economy (1).

Q2 4 Science and Public Policy (2); Review of Policy Research (1);

Sustainability (1).
Journals (6.67%)

Unidentified 5 Journal of Innovation Economics Management (1); Journal

journals in of Environmental Economics and Policy (1); International
(8.33%)
ScimagoJR Review of Public Policy (1); Journal for Research and
Technology Policy Evaluation (1); Management and
Economics Review (1).

Appendix 2. Top Ten Articles Based on Centrality in Local Citation Network

91
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

LCS
Rank Article GCS Cluster(s)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 Rogge & 314 - - - 10 3 18 31 1 and 2
Reichardt (2016)
2 Kivimaa & Kern 350 - - 2 8 2 12 24 1 and 3
(2016)
3 Magro & Wilson 175 1 2 5 4 2 5 19 1
(2013)
4 Reichardt et al. 100 - - 1 4 3 5 13 1
(2016)
5 Reichardt & 62 - - 1 4 2 5 12 1 and 2
Rogge (2016)
6 Kern et al. 123 - - - 3 2 5 10 1
(2017)
7 Rogge et al. 97 - - - - 2 6 8 1 and 2
(2017)
8 Guerzoni & 157 - - 3 2 1 1 7 -
Raiteri (2015)
9 Howlett & del 88 - - - 1 2 4 7 1
Rio (2015)
10 Costantini, 78 - - - 3 2 2 7 1 and 3
Crespi, & Palma
(2017)

Appendix 3. Top Ten Articles Based on GCS and Each Position in LCN

92
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
1. 350 Kivimaa and Research Extending the function of innovation
Kern (2016) Policy (Q1) system from “motors of innovation” to
“motors of creative destruction” based on
LCS=24 the Schumpeterian perspective for a
(Rank 2) sustainable transition.

2. 314 Rogge and Research Extending the policy mix concept and
Reichardt Policy (Q1) proposing an analytical framework for
(2016) empirical studies by considering
interactions between policies
LCS=31 (consistency), interactions in the process
(Rank 1) (coherence), sustainability (credibility),
and comprehensiveness of decision
making in evaluating the policy mix.

93
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
3. 175 Magro and Research Explaining the complexity of multi-level
Wilson (2013) policy (Q1) governance and extending the policy mix
concept; not only on the mix of rational,
LCS=19 domains and instruments but also the mix
(Rank 3) of administrative levels in the policy
system.

4. 157 Guerzoni and Research Providing empirical evidence (quasi-

Raiteri (2015) Policy (Q1) experiments in Norway and Switzerland)
LCS=7 that technological policy has a greater
(Rank 8) impact on innovation activities when
interacting with various existing policies.

94
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
5. 123 Kern et al. Energy Exploring the formulation of an
(2017) Research & innovation policy mix driving innovation
LCS=10 Social Science for energy efficiency in Finland and the
(Rank 6) (Q1) United Kingdom (qualitative; interviews
and secondary data). Policy systems in
different countries also determine policy
changes in different ways (packaging or
patching).

6. 100 Reichardt et al. Technologica Finding dynamic dependencies with

(2016) l Forecasting recurring patterns on solving systemic
and Social problems and adjusting the policy mix
LCS=13 Change (Q1) driven by the support and commitment of
(Rank=4) political actors as manifestations of the
credibility (qualitative; event-history
analysis and interviews).

95
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
7. 97 Rogge et al. Energy Providing summaries of the special issue
(2017) Research & in Volume 33 (November 2017) about the
Social Science policy mix concept for energy transitions.
LCS=8 (Q1)
(Rank 7)

8. 88 Howlett and Environment Explaining types of policy mix based on

Del Rio (2015) and Planning characteristics of multi-level, multi-policy,
C: and multi-purpose to highlight the
LCS=7 Government differences of complexity vertically and
(Rank 9) and Policy horizontally in policy formulation.
(Q1)

96
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
9. 78 Costantini et al. Research Providing empirical evidence
(2017) policy (Q1) (quantitative; patent analysis; proxy;
policies and R&D expenditures as
LCS=7 independent and dependent variables)
(Rank 10) that innovation’s policy mix can increase
innovation activities in energy-efficient
technologies.

10. 75 Lanahan and Research Explaining the relationships between

Feldman (2015) Policy (Q1) policy levels in multi-level governance
between national and sub-national and
LCS=5 providing empirical evidence
(Rank 16) (quantitative; event-history analysis with
time series data) of dependencies in
innovation policy for SMEs in the United
States.

97
 Rommel, et al. Journal of Leadership in Organizations Vol.3, No. 2 (2021)72-98

Article and
No. GCS Journals Contribution
LCS
11 62 Reichardt and Environment Analyzing the impact of policy mix on
Rogge (2016) al Innovation innovation (qualitative; interviews and
and Societal policies as secondary data) from company
LCS=12 Transitions case studies on offshore wind in Germany.
(Rank 5) (Q1) The results indicate characteristics of the
policy mix have been a determinant of
innovation adoption by companies.

Notes: Reichardt and Rogge (2016) is added as an exception to the top ten LCS which is not in
the top ten GSC.

98