This chapter thoroughly explores Bulgaria’s State Administration’s innovative capacity findings, outlining policy recommendations along key governance areas. The analysis covers strategic steering of public sector innovation; leadership, management, and support for public sector innovation; funding, evaluation, and communication of public sector innovation; skills and competencies to innovate at all levels; workforce strategy and incentives to widespread public sector innovation. Each section provides international best practices to improve the support of innovative capacity.
Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Public Sector of Bulgaria
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Abstract
This chapter explores Bulgaria’s State Administration’s innovative capacity findings in detail, outlining policy recommendations along key governance areas. The analysis covers innovation strategic steering, institutional supports for innovation, funding and portfolio management, skills and competencies, and innovation talent management. Each section provides international best practices to improve the support of innovative capacity.
Connect public sector innovation with government priority agendas:
Develop a vision of how public sector innovation can contribute to the government’s national priorities and to the 2030 National Development Programme.
Articulate an action plan and convene a working group that puts forward a coordinated approach for implementation, defining clear objectives, measurable outcomes, indicators, and timelines for implementation.
Reinforce the strategic steering of public sector innovation from the centre of government:
Reinforce the Council of Ministers’ Administration’s role in aligning investments in public sector innovation capacities with government priorities, steering, coordinating, and monitoring cross-government innovation efforts.
Provide high-level guidance for strategic public sector innovation planning across the administration by providing template, tools and capacity-building to steer and monitor progress.
3.1.1. Connect public sector innovation with government priority agendas.
Innovation in Bulgaria is not connected to the government's priority agendas and lacks a unified strategic framework. Public sector innovation strategic frameworks are essential to mandate and guide sustained innovation demand, ensuring that organisational and individual activities align with priorities and opportunities (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). PSI strategies can be particularly important for legalistic and hierarchical environments (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). However, such strategies require additional support mechanisms to be effective, such as central teams that drive strategic aims and foster leadership support and programmes that explicitly support innovation (e.g., incubators and training programmes).
Different cross-government strategies in Bulgaria contribute to PSI but lack prioritisation. Some agendas in the country –such as digitalisation and research and development– support the need for new and improved methods, processes, and technologies to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and adaptability in serving the public (see Chapter 1). However, this demand is driven by many factors and no clear prioritisation (see Figure 3.1) and often results in unimplemented initiatives (OECD, 2024[2]). Without an overarching vision, these efforts risk being sporadic and fragmented (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]), potentially undermining their effectiveness and impact, along with impeding the systematic development of innovative practices within the State Administration.
Bulgaria’s 2030 National Development Programme (NDP) for improving its institutional framework is among the most important central strategic documents, and it does not explicitly include public sector innovation (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[3]). Led by the Administration of the Council of Ministers, the priority 10 Institutional Framework, part of the programme, aims to reduce regulatory burdens, improve the quality, predictability and sustainability of executive policies and the regulatory environment, and reduce the risk of corruption to improve the business environment and the economy’s international competitiveness (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[3]).
The 2030 NDP also includes initiatives to strengthen the capacity for user-centred digital services, citizen participation, improving public services and performance management and accountability (Table 3.1) (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[3]). These initiatives create indirect demand for innovation, but they focus more on improving current systems rather than fostering more sustained and impactful changes. Additionally, interviews revealed that many of the programme’s initiatives remain uncoordinated and fragmented since the administration has limited mechanisms to support the implementation and monitoring of yearly action plans (OECD, 2024[2]).
The table below shows the sub-priorities, descriptions, and initiatives of Bulgaria’s 2030 National Development Plan – Priority 10 Institutional Framework.
Source: OECD based on (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[4]).
A wide range of drivers currently influences innovation within Bulgaria’s public sector without clear prioritisation and direction from the government. Public sector innovation goals are different for every country and can be driven by drivers such as increasing efficiency and productivity, responding to citizen needs, reducing red tape, improving services, achieving societal goals, and embracing experimentation and new technologies (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). OECD innovative capacity studies have shown that in countries without deliberate strategies, public sector innovation is frequently narrowed only to Public Sector Reform (PSR) efforts (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). While this approach can support systematic improvements, it may not lead to systemic, anticipatory, or transformational change in public administration (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
On average (“Bulgaria” in the figure), public servants in Bulgaria perceive drivers such as media pressures (24%), audits (37%), staff interest (41%), and political priorities (42%) as having the least importance on carrying out innovations. Conversely, drivers such as citizens’ needs (69%), building trust (66%), international standards (66%), and government strategies (62%) were identified as the most influential (Figure 3.1).
The drivers of innovation for those who have innovated (“Innovators” in the figure) and those who have not innovated (“Not-Innovators”) differ greatly (Figure 3.1). Innovators place comparatively more emphasis on factors such as technological change (27 percentage points (p.p.) difference compared to non-innovators), developing resilience (23 p.p.), staff interest (21 p.p.), and improving efficiency (21 p.p.).
Share of public servants who perceive the driver is influencing innovation in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N=2,917 to 3,749. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who perceive the driver of innovations to be “Important” or “Very important”, “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: In my perception, innovation in my organisation is driven by: Please rank statements from 1 "Not important” to 5 "Very important” or 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
An OECD analysis exploring the causal determinants of innovation in Bulgaria found that only technological change and auditor pressures significantly drive innovation (see Box 2.3.). Public servants who perceive their organisation as technologically driven have 40% higher odds of participating in innovation, reflecting Bulgaria's emphasis on digital transformation (see Chapter 1). While harnessing technological change will continue to be important for driving innovation in public organisations, this should be aligned with other relevant drivers, such as government strategies, public sector reform, and political priorities.
Conversely, pressures from auditors and external evaluators reduce the likelihood of innovation by 27%, suggesting a punitive rather than supportive audit environment that exacerbates a risk-averse culture (Lamoreaux, Myers and Mason, 2024[5]; Raudla, Taro and Agu, 2016[6]). No other significant drivers were identified, shedding light on the lack of relevant government-led approach and involvement in fostering public sector innovation.
These findings highlight the necessity for a strategic framework for PSI that clearly defines and stimulates demand for innovation connected to the current National Development Programme and the Government’s priorities. The latter should integrate other important driving factors –citizens’ needs, trust in government and international standards– into its guiding approach.
Strategic frameworks and dedicated strategies in other countries support more systematic and cohesive public sector innovation efforts across government. Some strategies adopted or in development by OECD members include PSI-specific dimensions, such as in Latvia (forthcoming), Romania, and Ireland. Ireland’s Department of Public Expenditure and Reform created a strategy for embedding innovation in the Irish Public Service (Government of Ireland, n.d.[7]). The strategy contains four priority areas: citizen-centric innovation, culture of innovation, scale-up innovation, and transformative innovation. This targeted strategic framework for PSI is framed under a broader transformation strategy for public service, the Better Public Services strategy, aimed at delivering to the public and building trust (Box 3.1). PSI strategies can foster both top-down and bottom-up approaches, as shown in Denmark (Box 3.2), ensuring innovation responds not just to political priorities but also to a widespread culture of innovation.
Bulgaria needs to connect public sector innovation with government priority agendas through a vision and action plan. Without a clear alignment on the priorities driving innovation, resources risk being spread too thin, diminishing the impact of efforts, and leading to conflicting or redundant initiatives (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]), especially in Bulgaria’s legalistic government culture (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022[8]).
An innovation vision and action plan are essential to address the current lack of PSI strategic framework. The innovation vision should be connected to Bulgaria's national priorities and the 2030 National Development Programme by identifying and focusing on areas that hold the highest potential for impact. This could ensure that innovation efforts are targeted, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of resource dilution.
The action plan should define clear objectives, measurable outcomes, indicators, and timelines for implementation. This plan should serve as a guide for ministries and other public organisations, enabling them to contribute to innovation within a unified approach (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). Through this plan, Bulgaria should also foster stronger collaboration between public organisations, and with non-governmental actors. CoMA could convene a cross-government working group to support monitoring of the action plan implementation and encouraging diverse perspectives, reduce initiatives' redundancy, and facilitate resource pooling for public sector innovation. Additionally, the framework should consider a strong focus on shifting the administrative culture towards one that values experimentation, risk-taking, and flexibility, promoting a mindset where innovation is seen as integral to the public sector's mission (OECD, 2017[9]). Moreover, as part of this plan, existing audit and compliance frameworks should be revised, ensuring they create an environment that balances accountability and flexibility for innovation.
Framed under the broader transformation strategy for public service Better Public Services, Ireland’s Department of Public Expenditure and Reform created a strategy for embedding innovation in the Irish Public Service to deliver better to the public and building trust. The strategy was launched with leadership endorsement from the Minister of Public Expenditure and Reform, along with the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, under the vision of “harness[ing] the power of innovation to deliver world-class public services in Ireland” (Government of Ireland, n.d.[7]).
The strategic document contains four priority areas: citizen-centric innovation, culture of innovation, scale-up innovation, and transformative innovation (Government of Ireland, n.d.[7]). Each of these priorities is associated with specific goals that include actions, rationale, and criteria for success. Table 3.2 summarises the strategy’s priorities, goals, and actions.
This table below provides a summary of the priorities, goals, and actions of Ireland’s Public Sector Innovation Strategy.
Source: OECD based on cited sources.
Evidence from the OECD Public Sector Innovation Scan of Denmark shows how top-down and bottom-up approaches can be complementary for driving innovation in government (OECD, 2021[10]). In Denmark, innovation initiatives are primarily driven by bottom-up approaches such as staff interest. Nevertheless, supply factors such as technological advancements and top-down influences from major societal challenges also play crucial complementary roles.
Denmark’s analysis of public sector innovation drivers was categorised into demand, supply, top-down, and bottom-up factors:
Demand driven: Denmark’s high citizen expectations of the welfare state and frontline interactions between public servants and citizens are driving demand for innovation through continuous improvements.
Supply driven: The supply side more widely impacts innovation, with technology emerging as a more significant driver compared to demand factors. An example of this includes Denmark’s early adoption of AI initiatives in sectors such as climate and energy, exploring how new tools and technology can be leveraged in innovative ways.
Top-down: Top-down influences also shape Danish government innovation, often in response to ambitious political targets or tackling pressing societal issues such as climate change and COVID-19. The analysis reveals that ambitious objectives drive innovation initiatives. While the desired outcomes from innovation may be known, the public sector still searches for the most effective interventions and explores how they will be received in practice.
Bottom-up: The Danish scan emphasises that innovation is largely influenced by the public service and driven by frontline workers and employees across all levels who identify and leverage opportunities and have the capacity and culture to execute innovation.
Source: (OECD, 2021[10]).
3.1.2. Reinforce the strategic steering of public sector innovation from the centre of government
Innovation should be integrated rather than fragmented across different government agendas to bring about significant changes. Integration promotes consistent and impactful innovative efforts, along with a more innovation-driven culture within the public sector (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). However, innovation requires deliberate stewardship to ensure innovation mandates, direction and approaches are sustained and distributed across the public sector (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). OECD country studies show that distributed systems, such as those in Canada or Finland, benefit from centralised mechanisms for co-ordination, alignment, and monitoring to ensure cohesive and effective innovative efforts (OECD, 2022[11]; OECD, 2018[12]).
In Bulgaria, some sector-specific government strategies encourage innovation, but they lack clear innovation priorities and guidance, and they fail to coordinate efforts across the administration. Most strategies in the Bulgarian administration are driven by digitalisation and reduction of administrative burden (see Chapter 1) but most of them do not include developing innovative capacity as a strategic function or priority (e.g., the Digital Transformation of Bulgaria for the period 2020-2030 or the National Strategy for Preventing and Combatting Corruption 2021-2027). While this reflects Bulgaria’s aim to promote innovation, evidence indicates that these policies have rarely led to concrete improvements in governance and institutional frameworks in the country (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022[8]). Research participants noted a lack of collaboration in the development of strategies, insufficient resources for strategy implementation, and an absence of enforcement mechanisms to ensure strategies are implemented effectively, such as through monitoring and evaluation (OECD, 2024[2]).
Most public organisations in Bulgaria lack a strategic approach to public sector innovation. Several pieces of evidence have pointed out Bulgaria’s deficiencies in strategic planning in the State Administration, with informal mechanisms playing a vital role in intra-government co-ordination (OECD, 2022[13]; Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022[8]). As pointed out by research participants, most public organisations in Bulgaria do not have a strategic approach to planning public sector innovation (OECD, 2024[2]). However, most organisations admit they would follow a national or sector-specific strategy if such a document existed (OECD, 2024[2]). Nevertheless, some organisations have effectively incorporated innovation efforts into their strategic aims. For example, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), through its National Programme for Development of Capabilities of the Armed Forces 2032, has included innovation initiatives related to recruitment, procurement, experimentation, and digitalisation (see Box 3.3).
Executives from various public organisations identified the need for further vision and guidance from the centre of government to ensure that innovation efforts are cohesive and aligned with national goals (OECD, 2024[2]). This centralisation could help harmonise approaches to innovation across all sectors, leading to more effective and coherent PSI strategic planning.
In 2018, the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria approved a national plan to gradually increase defence spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP by 2024. Two main strategic documents were produced through a process which used strategic foresight methods: the Programme for Development of Capabilities of the Armed Forces 2032 and the Plan for Development of the Armed Forces 2026.
Based on these documents, the Ministry of Defence defined the modernisation and rearmament process for the Bulgarian defence sector in line with NATO and the European Defence Agency’s programme of innovation, with all investment projects prioritised and linked to expected financial resources until 2032 (Republic of Bulgaria, 2021[14]).
The State Administration is focusing the modernisation of the defence sector within key areas, such as recruitment, procurement, experimentation, digital transformation, resilience, and integrity. Specific initiatives involve an investment fund, a new career and recruitment model for public servants, the digitalisation of their administrative processes, collaboration with the scientific community, and updating their regulatory frameworks for combating corruption (Republic of Bulgaria, 2023[15]).
Source: OECD based on cited sources.
Bulgaria’s centre of government has a limited financial and human resources to steer impactful public sector innovation efforts. Within the Council of Ministers’ Administration (CoMA), the Modernisation of the Administration Directorate supports the general management of the state administration and proposes initiatives for the optimisation, creation, and transformation of administrative structures (OECD, 2021[10]) (see Chapter 1). The Directorate also acts as a secretariat for the Council for Administrative Reform. Its mandate includes proposing initiatives and measures for the development of innovation processes, transparency and public access to information, quality management systems, recruitment procedures, and impact assessments (Republic of Bulgaria, 2009[16]). The Directorate, along with the support of the Institute of Public Administration, has been playing an orchestrating role in assessing and aligning current public sector innovation efforts. However, its limited financial and human resources prevent CoMA from effectively aligning, steering, and monitoring current and prospective PSI efforts and its implementation (OECD, 2024[2]).
Best practices in OECD countries for aligning and stewarding public sector innovation efforts are exemplified by countries such as Colombia, France, and Latvia, where innovation units, placed or guided by the central government, help harmonise innovation approaches across the public sector. As shown in Box 3.4, Colombia’s National Planning Department advise the President in public sector innovation efforts, identifying cross-government barriers and measuring innovative capacity (Government of Colombia, n.d.[17]). In another example, the Interministerial Direction for Public Transformation in France, located in the Prime Minister’s Office, ensures the implementation of the public transformation programme defined by the Government. Additionally, The Latvian Innovation Laboratory, hosted in the State Chancellery, brings together public employees who co-create solutions to address long-standing horizontal issues (OECD, 2024[18]).
Reinforce CoMA’s key position as the main actor steering aligned public sector innovation needs related to government priorities. Led by the Council of Ministers’ Administration, the potential PSI vision and action plan should clearly outline the State Administration’s innovation priorities across specific ministries and organisations. However, to ensure its effectiveness, the CoMA should ensure financial and human resources are available to provide guidance and support and ensure alignment and coherence across organisations’ specific PSI-plans (OECD, 2024[18]).
Guidance and support should require that CoMA lead the development of templates and tools to help organisations create their own action plans that align with the overarching strategic framework. They should offer training and workshops to build capacity within these organisations, ensuring they understand and can effectively implement their innovation strategies, and provide continuous advice to address challenges and refine action plans as needed.
CoMA’s role in the alignment and coherence of PSI could include (1) developing specific mechanisms such as monitoring the implementation of action plans across different organisations, (2) facilitating periodic meetings and digital tools where organisations can report progress, share best practices, and discuss challenges, and (3) adjusting the strategic framework according to its governance model based on the organisations’ feedback and changing priorities.
Colombia’s National Planning Department
The Department advise the President of Colombia on public sector innovation issues, identifying cross-government barriers and measuring innovative capacity (Government of Colombia, n.d.[17]). Within the framework of the 2022-2026 National Development Plan, the Department steers public sector innovation by promoting experimental approaches to address the needs and challenges of citizens, incentivising the use of data for decision-making and management, and managing the National Public Sector Innovation Committee (Government of Colombia, n.d.[17]).
France’s Inter-Ministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP)
Under the authority of the Prime Minister, the Directorate leads the Public Transformation Programme as defined by the Interministerial Committee for Public Transformation (CITP) (Government of France, n.d.[19]). The Directorate ensures the implementation of the government's priority policies, coordinates administrative actions to simplify procedures, and improves service quality for users. In collaboration with inter-ministerial partners, The Directorate also supports innovation, skills development, organisational transformation, managerial practices, and public management. Additionally, the DITP accelerates high-impact government projects with the assistance of its in-house consultants, experts, and the Fund for the Transformation of Public Action (FTAP) (Government of France, 2023[20]).
Latvia’s Innovation Laboratory
Held in State Chancellery, the Latvian Innovation Laboratory brings together public employees at the centre of the administration for the development of a new approach to policymaking, the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, and the modernisation of human resources systems in the public administration (OECD, 2024[18]). Steered by the centre of government, the Laboratory works in sprints or fixed-term agile project sessions designing policy solutions for horizontal challenges, coordinating participants from various institutions of public administration as well as experts and potential policy users in the policy design process (OECD, 2023[21]).
Source: OECD.
Ensure a widespread and integrated approach to public sector innovation:
Foster a bottom-up approach to innovation by developing a public administration culture that values and supports innovation.
Provide civil servants with the resources, time, training, and internal communications to encourage innovative approaches at all levels of the State Administration, especially less senior staff.
Tackle the lack of collaboration and limited resources for public sector innovation:
CoMA should consider implementing initiatives such as improving awareness of the public servants' mobility programme, simplifying innovative procurement procedures, and providing financial incentives to enhance internal collaboration and resource allocation in the State Administration.
Target these initiatives with the focus of increasing digital and data skills as part of adopting innovative working methods within the Administration. Improve practices for setting organisations’ innovative priorities and for engaging citizens in innovative projects.
Build government-wide support to promote and encourage public sector innovation:
Establish deliberate support for public sector innovation, including a programme to incubate and scale solutions.
Upgrade the current innovation network and competition with formal mandates and financial resources to increase their scope and promote innovation more widely. Use these mechanisms to provide dedicated guidance and training for innovation-complementary approaches such as behavioural science and strategic foresight.
3.2.1. Ensure a widespread and integrated approach to public sector innovation
Innovation is driven by senior staff and fragmented across the administration. On average (BGR, Bulgaria), 52% of public servants indicated having participated in the design and/or implementation of an innovation in their workplace during the last two years (Figure 3.2). However, when analysed across civil service roles (ADM to EXE), participating in innovation is more likely to happen at the top level among executives (EXE) (74%) and mid-level managers (MID) (65%) rather than mainstreamed across all roles of the Administration. This confirms the predominantly top-down approach to innovation outlined in the previous chapters. This approach can limit the scope and effectiveness of innovation, as ideas and contributions from a broader range of public servants are not fully considered (OECD, 2020[22]).
Innovation is more prevalent in sectors that most closely affect the lives of citizens actively drive change, whereas sectors lacking this driver experience less innovation. Figure 3.2 shows analysis across governance levels (MIN to LOC) and policy sectors (REC to ORD). At the governance level, public servants from local governments participate more in innovation (68%) than public servants from ministries (53%), agencies (55%), or regional administrations (55%).
Moreover, policy sectors, such as public order and safety (ORD) (76%), social protection (SOC) (63%) and education (EDU) (62%), are also more likely to have public servants involved in innovation. These sectors typically deal with dynamic citizen needs that necessitate continuous adaptation and improvement, driving a higher need for innovative approaches. In contrast, sectors such as recreation, culture, and religion (REC) are less involved in innovation. This suggests that while there is significant momentum in specific areas, there is also a critical need for systemic changes to ensure that innovation is not confined to specific roles, levels, or sectors so that it can become a widespread practice across all areas of the public sector (OECD, 2021[10]). Notably, only slight differences were observed across gender, age, and tenure (Annex 3.A).
Share of public servants involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in their workplace during the last two years, 2024.
Note: N=1,924 to 2,801. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who have participated in innovation during the last two-year period. The respondents are asked to answer the question: The OECD defines innovation as something new or novel to context, implemented, and aimed at achieving impact. The focus of innovations could include services, products, processes, working methods and operating procedures, policy development, communication. Based on this definition, have you been involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in your workplace during the last two-year period? [Single choice]. See analysis by individuals’ variables in Annex 3.A.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Innovation ideas in the public sector predominantly originate from senior managers or internal government sources. As presented in Figure 3.3, when asked about the origins of innovation ideas they have been involved with, public servants reported that sources such as media outlets (0%), research institutions (1%), academia (2%), non-profits (2%), and businesses (4%) were less frequently used for innovative projects. To a similar degree, ideas do not often originate from elected politicians (4%), individuals (5%), or audit evaluations (5%). Conversely, most innovation ideas were sourced from senior managers (57%), individuals themselves (18%), staff below them (16%), international experiences (12%), and other governments (11%). While confirming the top-down approach, this distribution reveals an absence of cross-sectorial innovation, limiting the integration of the private sector, civil society, and academia, which could lead to more disruptive innovations (Demircioglu, 2024[23]). This suggests a need for a more inclusive approach to innovation that promotes involvement from all societal sectors.
Share of public servants by the source of the idea for their most significant innovation project, 2024.
Note: N=1,456. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of public servants by the source of the idea of their most significant innovation project. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Where did the idea for this most important innovation come from? [Multiple choice].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
There is a lack of awareness among public servants about innovation efforts outside their organisations, which reinforces a fragmented approach. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, on average (BGR, Bulgaria), public servants believe that innovation is concentrated within their organisations (53%) and specific teams (53%) rather than the broader public sector (38%). This perception is dominant among innovators compared to not-innovators who tend to see their organisation and teams’ efforts but are unaware of more general developments within the public sector. This is also the case with more senior staff since those in less senior positions often view their own groups as less innovative. This is not surprising as less senior staff have less access or experience with innovative projects, as previously shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.4 also shows that state agencies and local governments, along with sectors such as social protection, health, and defence, are perceived to be the most innovative groups. This points to a significant experience gap regarding innovation, varying markedly between different government levels. Moreover, the higher perceived innovative capacity across certain policy areas can lead to the uneven distribution of resources and support, which could further exacerbate fragmentation (OECD, 2017[9]).
Share of public servants who perceive the public sector, their organisation and immediate teams as innovative, 2024.
Note: N= 2,572 to 3,749. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: To what extent do you agree with the following statements: the public sector is innovative, the organisation I work in is innovative, my immediate colleagues are innovative. Please rank each statement from 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
To create a culture of innovation within the public sector, there needs to be deliberate support for fostering an environment that encourages change (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). A relevant example of this is the Government of Canada, which implemented several strategies to create a culture of measurement, evaluation, and innovation through its Impact and Innovation Unit at the Privy Council Office (OECD, 2017[24]). Among their main initiatives, Impact Canada Challenges supports public organisations in shifting from paying for expenditures or activities to rewarding the achievement of innovative public sector outcomes (Government of Canada, n.d.[25]). Similarly, Canada’s applied behavioural science and advanced policy research team informs policy development, programme interventions and strategic communications in climate action, health, housing, trust and misinformation (Government of Canada, n.d.[25]). Moreover, ministers and senior bureaucrats have been mandated to experiment with these supports and methods for creating a widespread innovation culture (OECD, 2018[26])
To maximise the benefits of innovation, Bulgaria can create deliberate mechanisms to encourage and facilitate innovative practices across all levels of the public sector (OECD, 2021[10]). The State Administration could strengthen widespread innovation efforts by fostering a culture that values and supports innovation. This implies providing resources, training and official communication that encourage innovation at all governance levels and roles, especially among less senior staff. Moreover, the Administration should consider developing specific cross-government institutional supports (more detailed in the section below) that make innovation efforts more participatory and collaborative within the public sector and beyond, including the private sector, academia, and civil society.
3.2.2. Tackle limited collaboration and resources for public sector innovation
Public servants in Bulgaria face a broad spectrum of challenges that impede sustained innovation efforts, in particular the difficulty of collaboration and resource constraints. As illustrated in Figure 3.5, the most common obstacles for public servants innovating in Bulgaria include the difficulty of collaboration (internal collaboration 75%, public sector collaboration 69%) and availability of all types of resources (technology availability 71%, required skills availability 69%, time availability 69%, data availability 68%, and human resources availability 68%). Moreover, organisational dynamics, including attitudes to failure and learning (65%) and organisational culture (62%), have also been highlighted as relevant challenges for innovating in the State Administration.
This gap is supported by previous evidence, such as the OECD’s Public Administration Reform Assessment of Bulgaria (OECD, 2022[27]) and the Institute of Public Administration’s Assessment on Learning Organisations (Republic of Bulgaria, 2021[28]). Both reports identified collaboration and resources as the key challenges preventing innovative practices from flourishing in the public sector. The Bulgarian administration lacks adequate procedures for experimenting with new ideas, and resources to implement changes are limited (Republic of Bulgaria, 2021[28]). Many public institutions have become insular, focusing primarily on routine tasks without considering the broader context (Republic of Bulgaria, 2021[28]). Interviewees cited a lack of both in-person and digital collaborative practices, as well as limited trust among teams and within organisational dynamics, as reasons for the restricted collaboration (OECD, 2024[2]).
Share of public servants involved in an innovation who experienced specific challenges in their organisations, 2024.
Note: 1,063 to 1,456. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: In your opinion what were the main challenges for this most significant innovation in the public sector? Please rank statement from 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
While technology and data are becoming more available in the State Administration, Bulgaria still faces challenges related to digital expertise support, data access, and uneven digital skills in the civil service. Through its 2019-2025 Strategy for the Development of Electronic Governance, Bulgaria has made progress in digitalising its public administration and public services aligned to EU Principles of E-government (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[29]). The Administration has invested in e-government platforms to streamline processes and interoperability, making technology more available to foster innovations such as the e-Government Portal – the single-entry point for providing e-government services (European Commission, 2024[30]). However, innovators declared difficulties in having access to digital expertise support and data for developing innovations as these resources are not widely available and often require complex administrative procedures (e.g., innovation procurement mechanism) (OECD, 2024[2]). Public servants also mentioned that digital skills and competencies are heavily uneven across teams in the Administration, which further limits the possibility of collaboration across public organisations (OECD, 2024[2]) (see more about digital skills in section 3.4.).
Collaboration and technology are crucial determinants for innovation in Bulgarian public organisations. As presented in Figure 3.6 below, public servants participating in innovative projects cited cross-government collaboration (79%), internal collaboration (74%), the use of technology to promote innovation (73%) and the understanding of the strategic role of innovation (72%) as the most influential organisational support for accomplishing their innovation efforts. Providing stable staffing and management (70%) and collaborating with external stakeholders (70%) are also relevant organisational factors.
The key differences between those involved in such projects (“Innovators”) and those who are not (“Not Innovators”) lie in perceptions of organisational support for resources to develop new ideas (34 p.p. difference), uses of technology to promote innovation (32 p.p.), and uses of data to innovate (32 p.p.). Innovators are more influenced by organisational support related to available resources and the use of technology and data.
Share of public servants by perceived support for innovation in their organisation, 2024.
Note: 2,917 to 3,749. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Enablers and Barriers to Innovation. To what extent do you agree with the following statements. Please rank statement from 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD’s Bulgaria Innovative Capacity Survey.
An OECD econometric analysis of organisational support in Bulgaria confirmed this previous finding. The analysis found that the availability of resources, uses of technology and data to innovate, and practices for internal collaboration and citizen participation are driving innovation in Bulgaria (see Box 2.3.). Organisations that commit resources (e.g., budget, staff, time, expert support) to new ideas see a 90% higher likelihood of innovation involvement, highlighting the importance of strategic resource allocation. Public servants who use technology and data-driven approaches have 60% and 58% higher odds of innovating, respectively, supporting Bulgaria's focus on tech investment and data governance. Internal collaboration practices increase the odds of innovating by 57%, while citizen participation practices raise them by 40%, highlighting the importance of cross-department teamwork and inclusive, participatory innovation.
Nevertheless, this econometric analysis also found that stable political priorities and cross-government collaboration are hindering innovation (see Box 2.3.) (OECD, 2024[2]). Public servants who perceive their organisations as having stable political priorities have 37% lower odds of engaging in innovation, likely due to a risk-averse and conservative leadership style that focuses on maintaining existing processes and priorities (Berry, 2023[31]; OECD, 2023[32]). Similarly, those involved in cross-government collaboration experience a 33% decrease in the odds of innovating, possibly due to bureaucratic silos, the complexity of partnerships, and concerns over losing control over projects (Torfing, 2016[33]; OECD, 2022[34]).
The feasibility of collaboration and citizen participation practices varies across the State Administration (OECD, 2024[2]). Innovators in the Bulgarian State Administration declared that collaboration is easier when there is broader government alignment, as seen with digitalisation, cybersecurity, and AI. However, it becomes more challenging in areas without clear mandates, such as public sector innovation, where it depends on individual leaders’ discretion (OECD, 2024[2]). While citizen participation is also recognised as vital, participatory design and testing are still in their early stages and are only sporadically adopted within the Administration (OECD, 2024[2]).
In Bulgaria, citizens and stakeholders can participate in innovative public decision-making processes through public consultations or through permanent consultative bodies (OECD, 2024[35]). There are also several consultative bodies to the executive branch (e.g. with the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs), organisations of employees, organisation of employers, the National Association of Municipalities of the Republic of Bulgaria, academia, think-tanks, etc.) (OECD, 2024[35]). There are few instances of more innovative forms of citizen participation, such as citizens’ assemblies, but good practices exist at the local level (OECD, 2024[35]).
Collaboration through public-private partnerships (PPPs) and innovation procurement exist, but complex character of such a procedures and limited risk financing hinder their full potential. Interviews with non-government actors highlighted that the public sector innovation space suffers from limited engagement of the public sector with the private sector, academia, and civil society, whose advancements in innovative practices could benefit the public sector (OECD, 2024[2]). In Bulgaria, formal mechanisms such as public-private partnerships and procurement of innovation are formalised through the Concession Law and the Public Procurement Act (World Bank, 2023[36]). However, interviewees pointed out that the Administration does not fully take advantage of these mechanisms due to complex character of innovative procurement —which requires specific knowledge and skills—, lack of funds for exploring and testing new ideas, and the fear of accountability for potential failures (OECD, 2024[2]).
Some of the best practices for intra-government collaboration include public servants’ mobility programmes in Canada, collaboration guidelines in New Zealand and tools repositories for collaboration in innovative projects in Chile. Moreover, international examples of cross-sectorial collaboration include open innovation guidelines in the US and a GovTech programme in Poland. Best practices funding and resources include innovation funds in Estonia, France and Ireland, EU’s guidance on procurement of innovation, and Germany’s toolkit for innovation procurement.
Sofia Municipality
The “Vision for Sofia” is an initiative of Sofia Municipality to create a shared and long-term strategy for the development of the capital and suburban areas until 2050. The project had the ambition to analyse the current state of Sofia and propose specific steps, measures, and goals for future sustainable development of the city. After numerous analyses and discussions with stakeholders, the Vision team has formulated 24 long-term goals, nearly 250 steps and 385 specific measures, which have the ambition to draw up a plan for making Sofia a better city to live in.
Municipality of Dobrich
In the Municipality of Dobrich, a virtual reception desk was created as part of the official Facebook page of the municipality, which is actively used by citizens. By launching a specially created publication, a kind of "virtual reception room" is available in the comments under which the citizens of Dobrich have the opportunity to ask questions, share their opinions and suggestions. The received questions are answered within 7 days in the same publication. Signals that require more in-depth analysis and verification are registered in the document circulation system and responses are prepared for them within a month. With the use of digital platforms, the distance between the local government and the citizens is shortened and a timely and quick dialogue takes place.
Municipality of Bansko
The Municipality of Bansko introduced a mobile application "Myself, the Mayor". The platform is attractive, modern, and pleasant to use, and at the same time motivates people to be more active in reporting and alerting the municipal officials about various problems. The objective of this app was to build a continuous dialogue with citizens.
Municipality of Kardzhali
The Municipality of Kardzhali is experimenting with digital platforms to conduct consultations through their website, which increases transparency of participants and the outcomes of their participation. Through the Municipality’s platform, citizens can participate in debates, suggest ideas, vote on proposals, and give inputs to draft legislations. The platform uses CONSUL an open-source software which is considered as a good practice in terms of digital participation.
Source: (OECD, 2024[35]).
Initiatives such as improving the mobility programme, assistance to contracting authorities for innovation procurement, and an innovation fund can be implemented to enhance internal collaboration and resource allocation in Bulgaria's State Administration. CoMA could improve awareness of the current public servants’ mobility programmes to facilitate the exchange of expertise and best practices among organisations and departments, encouraging cross-sector innovation and support overcoming silos within the Administration (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). This should be complemented with initiatives for enhancing internal collaboration that promote teamwork and trust among public servants. Mechanisms such as regular cross-functional projects and team-building exercises can support improving interpersonal relationships among public servants (Kettley and Hirsh, 2000[37]). CoMa, along with the Ministry of e-Governance, could support the implementation and adoption of digital collaboration tools required to facilitate communication and project management in the State Administration. This could consider upskilling programmes that takes into account regional disparities in digital adoption.
Second, the Public Procurement Agency, should conduct a thorough review of current mechanism for innovation procurement with the aim of incentivising the use of outcome-driven innovative solutions. A review by the Ministry of Finances, along with CoMA, of current resources for innovative activities is also necessary to ensure that innovation is part of annual budget (more details in section 3.3). Moreover, other initiatives can be considered such as dedicated funds for innovation projects to stimulate technology use, data-driven practices and internal collaboration. These funds should be easily accessible and designed to provide not only financial but technical support to a wide range of initiatives, from small experimental or pilot projects to large-scale implementations.
3.2.3. Develop cross-government institutional support for public sector innovation
Institutional support plays a crucial role in accelerating innovative practices and initiatives, and promoting cross-government collaboration (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). While individual innovation can be spontaneous, organisations often struggle to foster, identify, and capture this innovation (OECD, 2017[9]). Traditional public sector structures hinder cross-organisational collaboration, making institutional support crucial for accelerating cross-government innovation (OECD, 2017[9]).
Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in public sector teams, units, labs, and institutions supporting innovation across OECD countries (OECD, 2017[9]; Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). Some examples of these supports include teams facilitating the development of incubators to support the progress of early-stage ideas (e.g., US 10x venture studio), labs or accelerators to support the rapid scaling of practices and initiatives (e.g., Austria’s GovLab), sandboxes to experiment with new products or services under the control of a regulatory agency (e.g., Germany’s sandbox strategy), and testbeds to evaluate and test public sector innovations in a real-world setting (e.g., Sweden testbeds for health, transport, and others). See Box 3.6 for more details on explicit support mechanisms.
Explicit institutional support mechanisms and programmes provide structured environments, tools, resources, and recognition that enable public servants, organisations, and other stakeholders to experiment, collaborate, and implement new ideas aimed at solving public challenges (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). These support mechanisms come and mix various forms, including innovation labs, accelerators, incubators, and more. They are designed to offer targeted assistance to different stages of innovation, from ideation to development, scaling, and implementation (OECD, 2017[9]). Table 3.3 outlines diverse explicit support mechanisms for public sector innovation, along with examples from different countries that showcase their application in practice.
The table shows diverse types of programmes for developing explicit support for public sector innovation.
Source: OECD based on cited sources.
Bulgaria needs structured programmes and teams to facilitate innovation and create explicit support for public sector innovation. Interviewees and surveys pointed out the lack of dedicated mechanisms and teams to support the incubation of cross-government initiatives, advise on specific innovation issues such as procurement, and guide innovation development for specific policy sectors (OECD, 2024[2]). That being said, the State Administration has two cross-government initiatives on public sector innovation, which include an innovation network and an innovation competition.
Innovation networks serve as platforms for exchanging knowledge, expertise, and tools, aiming to promote innovation within a safe space for public servants to discuss challenges, failures, and opportunities (OECD, 2024[38]). At the same time, innovation competitions can support recognising, stimulating, enhancing, and diffusing innovations (OECD, 2024[39]). In Bulgaria, these initiatives led by the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) and CoMA include a 70-member innovation network (see Box 3.7) and an annual innovation competition process (see Box 3.8). These efforts aim to raise public sector innovative capacity by introducing new methods, creating practical solutions, and diffusing innovations. However, these supports suffer from low awareness, limited participation, and a narrow range of activities. What’s more, the absence of a formal mandate and a dedicated budget restricts their broader impact on the Administration's capacity to innovate.
Innovation networks within government are collaborative social structures involving a spectrum of stakeholders, including primary governmental bodies and, in some cases, the private sector, academic institutions, and civil society organisations (OECD, 2024[62]). Innovation networks can support governments in developing capabilities to implement novel solutions that enhance governance effectiveness (Sørensen and Torfing, 2017[63]; Cinar et al., 2024[64]).
Founded in 2022, the Bulgarian Innovation Expert Network is led by the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) (Republic of Bulgaria, n.d.[65]). The network seeks to strengthen the knowledge of and skills in public sector innovation through the adoption of new approaches and the creation of actionable solutions (Table 3.4). The network grew out of a call for essays in public sector innovation in which several innovative public servants participated (OECD, 2024[2]). However, the initiative suffers from low awareness, limited engagement with leadership and a narrow range of activities.
The initiative could be developed more systematically by opening its membership to all public servants, convening a targeted and diverse executive-level group, diversifying the network’s activities, and strengthening communication practices (OECD, 2024[62]). A formal mandate and further investments are necessary to have a wider impact on the innovative capacity of the government (OECD, 2024[62]).
The table below shows Bulgaria’s Innovation Network details, including purpose and origin, membership, activities, mandate and governing body, and resources and funding.
Source: OECD based on cited sources.
Innovation competitions and awards are used by governments to recognise, stimulate, enhance or diffuse innovations in the public sector (OECD, 2017[9]; Rosenblatt, 2011[66]). The Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Bulgaria has had an innovation competition since 2023.
The competition’s primary goal is to stimulate and develop new ideas that optimise work processes (Table 3.5). This initiative is not widely known among public servants (previous calls only received 18 ideas in 2023 and 10 in 2024). Nevertheless, the competition is driving concrete innovative projects. Since the contest began, one idea has been fully implemented, one is in the process of implementation, and a third is being discussed due to resource constraints. In 2024, two shortlisted ideas will be supported (OECD, 2024[2]).
IPA and CoMa could enhance the competition by expanding the support available for winners and promoting it more extensively throughout the Administration (OECD, n.d.[67]). Additional mechanisms such as innovation awards and a case study library could also be considered as adjacent initiatives for strengthening the competition (OECD, n.d.[67]).
The table below shows Bulgaria’s Innovation Competition details, including objectives, eligibility, evaluation criteria, and benefits for participants.
Source: OECD.
Best practices on PSI explicit support programmes among OECD member countries include Austria, Portugal, and the US, which have innovation labs, venture programmes for incubating and developing solutions related to government priorities or cross-governmental issues. Similarly, countries such as Chile, and the UK have significant support programmes to foster innovation through competitions and government-led networks. See Box 3.6 for more details on explicit support programmes and Box 3.9 for international comparability of innovation networks.
Complementary approaches to innovation, such as behavioural sciences and strategic foresight, lack comprehensive support across the government. Approaches such as behavioural sciences and strategic foresight can help governments tackle complex challenges and enhance policy effectiveness (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). By incorporating behavioural insights, governments can create policies and interventions that are more likely to be accepted and adopted by citizens, thereby increasing their impact (Varazzani, C., et al., 2023[40]). Strategic foresight enables governments to anticipate and prepare for future trends, risks, and opportunities (Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson, 2020[41]).
Interviews with Bulgarian public servants highlighted the absence of support to adopt new methods for policymaking and service delivery (OECD, 2024[2]). There are no explicit support programmes or teams within the public sector that support the use of behavioural science to enhance the quality of public services or to reduce administrative burdens. Similarly, the administration does not have a team that supports the uptake of strategic foresight methods to guide the development or enhancement of anticipatory approaches to public policies and services (OECD, 2024[2]). Finally, there are no guidelines or toolkits available for public servants on how to work with innovative or experimental approaches (OECD, 2024[2]).
Examples such as France's Behavioural Science team have shown how behavioural approaches can enhance policy development through solutions addressing behavioural barriers. Moreover, Spain‘s National Office of Foresight and Strategy unit have embedded strategic foresight functions through the continuous analysis of empirical evidence and the study of megatrends.
The State Administration could increase cross-government innovation by establishing an innovation lab, enhancing its current network and competition, and supporting the uptake of innovative approaches. First, CoMa should consider implementing a structured programme to support the development of innovative projects, such as cross-government innovation units or labs. This programme should have a dedicated team and funding to support the incubation of early-stage ideas, experimentation with innovative solutions, and accelerating the scaling of innovative practices (OECD, 2017[9]). The programme should promote the use of technology for innovation and mechanisms for greater citizen participation in the innovation process, ensuring innovative solutions are effective and inclusive (OECD, 2024[2]).
Second, the State Administration should strengthen the existing innovation networks and competitions by increasing awareness, participation, and the range of activities offered (OECD, 2024[62]; OECD, 2024[39]). Formalisation of these initiatives with a clear mandate and dedicated budget is crucial to maximise their impact on public sector innovative capacity. Finally, to better integrate innovative approaches such as behavioural sciences and strategic foresight, the administration should provide dedicated guidance and training through the current innovation network and training mechanisms (Varazzani, C., et al., 2023[40]; Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson, 2020[41]).
Understanding the institutional dimensions of innovation networks, such as purpose, membership, activities, mandate, and resources, is essential for enhancing their effectiveness in driving innovative capacity (OECD, 2024[62]). A comparison of five government-led innovation networks (Table 3.6) from Belgium, Chile, Ireland, Portugal, and Romania highlights the following trends:
Purpose: The primary aim of networks is to promote a culture of innovation or strengthen innovative capacity through sharing best practices within a safe community. Networks may focus on innovation methodologies, service design, or facilitation, with both top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Membership: Membership structures vary across countries. While most networks have open membership, some are invitation-only. Target groups can range from cross-sectorial participants to specific roles within the public sector, resulting in membership sizes from dozens to thousands.
Activities: Activities range from practical project simulations to traditional conferences and masterclasses. Common activities include workshops, training sessions, and peer exchanges, with some networks also offering mentoring and awards. Community platforms and newsletters are typical.
Mandate and governing body: Networks typically have formal mandates established as government programs, usually managed by agencies or departments responsible for innovation. Some involve advisory bodies for guidance and collaborate with partners within and outside the government.
Resources and funding: Resource allocation varies, reflected in team sizes and budgets. Some networks have large, dedicated teams and significant budgets, while others rely on part-time roles and support from members. Most networks provide online community spaces, from dedicated websites to government intranets.
The table below shows five government-led innovation networks, including Belgium, Chile, Ireland, Portugal, and Romania across innovation network’s institutional dimensions.
Note: (OECD, 2024[62])
Direct innovation through funding and portfolio management:
Create a cross-government innovation project portfolio, using spending reviews to identify areas to target operational efficiencies. Consider stimulating direct budget allocation for public sector innovation and setting up a central fund for innovation to support more long-term transformative projects that improves public outcomes.
Introduce systematic monitoring and evaluation of innovation:
Enhance monitoring and evaluation practices by establishing a monitoring and evaluation function within the State Administration, developing a framework for monitoring public sector innovation efforts, and enhancing capacity for data collection, analysis, and evaluation through training and guidance across the Administration.
Increase innovation awareness through enhanced visibility and communication:
Increase the awareness about innovation results in the public sector by developing a communication plan, setting up a central innovation repository of successful cases, and promoting communication of efforts through a yearly innovation event.
3.3.1. Direct public sector innovation through funding and portfolio management
Bulgaria is not using budgeting mechanisms such as financial incentives to promote innovation systematically (OECD, 2024[2]). The budget process is central to creating opportunities and incentives for strengthening the capacity to innovate (OECD, 2017[9]). OECD research has identified that budgeting can impact innovation by restricting, stimulating, accommodating or being unresponsive to innovative practices (OECD, 2017[9]). This effect depends on specific mechanisms such as financial incentives, fiscal frameworks and targets, programme budgeting, and performance budgeting (see Box 3.10). As highlighted by research participants, the use of these mechanisms for public sector innovation have been limited and mainly concentrated in spending review to identify both inefficient processes and performance deficits (OECD, 2024[2]).
Previous OECD research has looked at the role of central budget agencies in promoting, sustaining, and expanding public sector innovation through its lifecycle (OECD, 2017[9]). In particular, the report examines key central budget practices, rules and institutions and their potential role in promoting innovation in government:
Financial incentives: Central budget office and organisations can offer financial incentives such as grants, funds, and loans, which can support identifying and fostering new innovations for both public and private actors (OECD, 2017[9]). These incentives can also support the scaling and dissemination of successful innovations (OECD, 2017[9]). For instance, Ireland’s Department of Public Expenditure has a public service fund for innovative projects with a focus on cross-organisational digital transformation initiatives (Government of Ireland, n.d.[68])
Fiscal frameworks and targets: In a fiscally constrained environment, fiscal frameworks and targets help control overall expenditures (OECD, 2017[9]). The central budget office and line ministries can use these frameworks, such as spending reviews and fiscal rules, to ensure that innovative projects receive the necessary funding within tight fiscal constraints (OECD, 2017[9]). For example, spending reviews in Denmark have led to the establishment of shared services initiatives that enhanced efficiency in back-office management functions (OECD, 2017[9]). The OECD has a report on how spending reviews are applied in OECD countries and presents best practices for using spending reviews (Tryggvadottir, 2022[69]).
Programme budgeting: Line ministries and agencies seek greater flexibility to innovate within fiscal constraints (OECD, 2017[9]). Strengthening programme budgeting can support the establishment of a clear framework for linking expenditures with objectives to enhance accountability and transparency. Once these are clearly defined, performance-driven approaches, such as performance contracts, can grant agencies more freedom in managing resources to achieve their objectives, thereby promoting flexibility and innovation (OECD, 2017[9]). For instance, about 70% of OECD countries use lump sum appropriations for operating costs, and nearly all allow ministries to reallocate funds within their jurisdiction, subject to some restrictions (OECD, 2017[9]). When combined with a stronger emphasis on performance information, this flexibility can effectively support innovation while ensuring accountability and effectiveness (OECD, 2017[9]).
Performance budgeting: The central budget agency and budget process help set objectives and articulate performance agendas, encouraging cross-cutting innovation to meet these goals (OECD, 2017[9]). Performance information and budget linkages provide a platform for testing and scaling innovations, leveraging “what works” approaches (OECD, 2017[9]). For example, UK’s What Works Network Strategy, create, share, and use high-quality evidence in policymaking and service delivery through 13 research centres. This has supported a more efficient public spending and resource allocation in priority policies such as education (UK Government, 2023[70]).
Source: OECD based on mentioned sources.
In Bulgaria, most public organisations have no dedicated funding for public sector innovation. On average (Bulgaria in the figure below), only 7% of organisations in Bulgaria have a dedicated innovation budget, and 33% have no funding for innovation efforts (Figure 3.7). However, institutions that have reported significant organisational innovative projects generally finance their initiatives through external sources (25%) or central funding (40%). Conversely, organisations without these innovative projects have much less funding from external sources (18 p.p. difference), such as those from the European Commission or central funding (13 p.p.).
The lack of dedicated funding for PSI in Bulgaria leads to strategic misalignment, limited scope, and inconsistent innovation capacities across government agencies. Funding shortfalls in Bulgaria has result in sporadic innovation efforts that rely heavily on variable external funding or project-specific funding, potentially compromising the quality and impact of innovations (OECD, 2024[2]). As reported by interviewees, there is a general belief that no direct funding is needed to introduce an innovative project (OECD, 2024[2]). Moreover, the absence of stable internal or external funding sources in Bulgaria, along with a lack of an overarching strategy, challenges alignment efforts across various policy sectors to meet the administration’s goals (OECD, 2024[2]). Consequently, innovative initiatives risk being deprioritised due to budgetary constraints, resulting in significant variability in how much each organisation is willing to allocate to innovation, which leads to disparities in innovation capacities across organisations (OECD, 2024[2]).
Share of organisations by type of funding sources for innovation, 2024.
Note: N=93 to 116. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2). The respondents are asked to answer the question: Which of the following statements describes how public sector innovation is funded in your organisation? [Single option].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Bulgarian public organisations do not have a portfolio management approach to innovation (OECD, 2024[2]). Portfolio management in public sector innovation is a dynamic decision-making process that ensures the balanced distribution and development of resources among various strategic innovation initiatives (OECD, 2022[34]). These options are explored through public sector innovation facets, classified along dimensions of directionality and certainty. The facets include:
Enhancement-oriented innovation: initiatives focused on improving and upgrading existing practices to achieve efficiencies and better results without challenging the current system.
Adaptive innovation: initiatives involving testing new approaches to respond to changing environments and citizen needs without a predetermined direction.
Mission-oriented innovation: initiatives setting clear outcomes and objectives to address specific, time-bound challenges.
Anticipatory innovation: initiatives engaging with emergent issues that could shape future priorities, often dealing with high uncertainty.
Most of Bulgaria’s innovation initiatives focus on enhancement. Despite not having a deliberate portfolio, as shown in Figure 3.8 – on average, public servants reported that 65% of most significant innovative projects are related to enhancement-oriented innovation, 13% to adaptive innovation, 12% to mission-oriented innovation, and 5% to anticipatory innovation. This trend is similar across policy sectors, with exceptions such as environment or recreation and culture, which lack some innovation facets. The average trend shows that while there is a strong drive to refine current systems and processes (enhancement-oriented innovation), there is less emphasis on transformative innovations that could potentially lead to more significant changes in public service delivery and policymaking.
Share of most significant innovation projects by type of innovation facets, 2024.
Note: N=1,210 to 1,509. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents respondents who answered they were involved in innovation in the past two-year period. The respondents are asked to answer the question: What category best describes that innovation? [Single option].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Given the chance, public servants would be motivated to innovate in both incremental and transformative projects. As shown in Figure 3.9 – on average, 65% of public servants declared their organisation is motivated to innovate in enhancement-oriented initiatives. There is also significant interest in more transformative approaches. As such, 63% of public servants reported organisational motivation for projects related to anticipatory innovation and 60% to mission-oriented innovation. Lastly, 48% of public servants highlighted enthusiasm for adaptive innovation. This pattern is especially evident among those who have experience with innovative projects and who show a marked organisational preference for enhancement-oriented and anticipatory innovations. Despite this, as highlighted by interviewees, there is a lack of encouragement from leadership and appropriate support (financial resources, tools, skills) for more radical, transformative innovations, which are crucial for dynamic and forward-thinking governance (OECD, 2024[71]).
Share of public servants by organisational motivation for types of innovation, 2024.
Note: N=2,917 to 3,749. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: In my perception, my organisation is motivated to innovate: Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
While beneficial for continuous improvement, the inclination for improving current systems and processes restricts the scope of innovation, limiting opportunities for disruptive changes that can largely enhance government outcomes (OECD, 2022[34]). The focus on enhancing and adapting existing systems and processes rather than pursuing more transformative innovations could slow the evolution of public services in response to rapidly changing societal and technological changes, especially with fast-moving drivers such as A (OECD, 2022[34]). Deliberate financial mechanisms and a balanced project portfolio that not only improves current systems but also boldly explores transformative innovations would help to address this (OECD, 2017[9]; OECD, 2022[34]). Allocating resources and incentives for more experimental projects could foster more substantial transformation, ultimately leading to significant improvements in how government functions and serves its citizens.
The State Administration can improve the quantity and diversity of innovative projects by establishing a cross-government innovation project portfolio through spending reviews, a public sector innovation fund, and performance-driven budget approaches. A public sector innovation portfolio would provide a centralised approach for tracking, managing, and supporting innovative projects across various ministries and agencies, fostering cross-government collaboration, and preventing duplication of efforts.
To support this portfolio, conducting a spending review is essential to analyse the existing expenditure to ensure that current funding is aligned with public sector innovation goals and priorities, assess potential saving options, and ensure that innovative efforts are effective. This review should analyse how organisational funding is allocated across different types of innovation, such as enhancement-oriented, adaptive, mission-oriented, and anticipatory initiatives. By understanding the distribution and effectiveness of current investments, the Administration can identify gaps and areas for improvement.
Second, based on the insights gained from the spending review and aligned with Bulgaria’s potential vision for public sector innovation, the Administration should consider stimulating direct budget allocation for public sector innovation and setting up a central fund for innovation to support more long-term transformative projects that improves public outcomes. This fund could support the identification, development, and scaling of high-priority innovations that align with strategic objectives. A well-structured fund, guided by continuous technical support and evaluation, would ensure that resources are effectively utilised to drive impactful innovation.
Third, in the long term, the Administration should evaluate adopting performance-driven approaches, such as programme and performance budgeting, and leverage “what works” methodologies to ensure innovations with proven outcomes have the necessary funding. By focusing on evidence-based solutions and practices that have demonstrated success, the Administration can ensure that innovative initiatives deliver measurable results. This approach would not only enhance the effectiveness of individual projects but also foster a culture of continuous improvement and learning within the public sector.
3.3.2. Introduce monitoring and evaluation for public sector innovation
Bulgaria lacks efforts to consistently monitor and evaluate policies, programmes, strategies, and services, including innovation. Government-wide performance management and evidence-based frameworks are crucial for planning and investing in innovative capacity, along with assessing the effectiveness of innovative practices and initiatives (OECD, 2017[9]). This approach also helps ministries and agencies to design, diffuse, and scale best practices, enhancing capacity and successful innovations. As highlighted by interviewees in Bulgaria, both monitoring and evaluation are uncommon practices for public sector innovation and beyond (OECD, 2024[2]). This is not surprising as previous OECD evidence points out challenges in the management and exchange of digital information, and limited capabilities and instruments to monitor whole-of-government policies (OECD, 2022[13]).
The Bulgarian Administration lacks a dedicated function for monitoring innovative efforts across the government. This absence of oversight and tracking means there is no systematic way to assess the progress, effectiveness, or impact of innovation efforts within the public sector (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). This leads to inefficiencies and misses opportunities for improvement, as there is no clear mechanism to identify or to learn from successful practices. Implementing a structured monitoring function could provide valuable insights into the Administration’s innovative capacity and its outputs, facilitating better resource allocation, strategic adjustments, and the replication of successful initiatives within the public sector. Additionally, such a function could enhance accountability and transparency, ensuring that innovative practices and projects align with broader governmental goals and deliver tangible benefits. Relevant practices in monitoring innovation efforts include the multi-country Innovation Barometer and Chile’s Public Innovation Index.
Evaluations of innovations are generally inexistent in the Administration, yet when they exist, they are primarily process evaluations. According to the OECD Innovative Capacity Survey in Bulgaria, only 24% of most significant innovations reported by public servants were evaluated. On average, only 7% of evaluated projects received quasi-experimental evaluations or experimental evaluations (Figure 3.10). Similarly, 15% of evaluated projects had cost-benefit analysis evaluations and 22% theory-based evaluations. Predominantly, 60% of projects received process evaluations. This trend is consistent across governance levels. This gap hinders the ability to make informed decisions about scaling up successful innovations or adjusting underperforming ones. By integrating more systematic and diverse evaluation methods, the administration could gain deeper insights into how innovations perform under different conditions, leading to better outcomes and more efficient use of resources (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). Robust evaluation practices would enable the public sector to demonstrate accountability and reinforce projects’ learning cycles. OECD best practices in this area include the UK’s Open Innovation evaluation function and Impact Canada’s Guide to measuring impact by design.
Share of public servants who innovated by type of evaluation of their most significant innovation, 2024.
Note: N=472 to 661. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents respondents who answered impact of innovation was evaluated. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Which of the following did the evaluation of this most important innovation feature? [Multiple choice].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Learning mechanisms and cycles are notably absent in the Bulgarian Administration. Structured learning and feedback mechanisms can support public organisations to evolve and respond effectively to changing circumstances and emerging signals (Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson, 2020[41]). Crucial for continuous improvement and adaptation, mechanisms such as after-project reviews, lessons-learned repositories, knowledge-sharing sessions, and public servants’ rotation programmes are generally absent (OECD, 2024[2]). This gap prevents the systematic acquisition and application of knowledge gained from past initiatives and current practices, hindering the ability to refine policies and processes based on evidence and experiences. The absence of formal learning mechanisms leads to repeated mistakes, inefficiencies, and the stagnation of innovative progress (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
Formal learning mechanisms support the capacity to develop innovations based on evidence, adapt to new information, and continuously improve through lessons learned. This would not only improve the efficacy of innovations but also enhance the government's trust and credibility in the eyes of the public. In the future, Bulgaria will be able to share its progress on public sector innovation also through OECD tools and networks (see Box 3.11).
The State Administration could enhance its monitoring and evaluation practices by establishing a monitoring and evaluation function, developing a framework for monitoring PSI efforts, and enhancing capacity through training and development. The State Administration could establish a dedicated team to oversee PSI monitoring and evaluation, which would be connected to the potential PSI strategic framework. This function should assess the framework’s progress, measure the Administration’s innovative capacity, and guide the evaluation of specific innovative initiatives. This function should integrate innovation-specific performance indicators into existing performance management systems, enabling continuous monitoring of innovation outcomes and facilitating evidence-based decision-making and strategic planning.
Additionally, through the Institute of Public Administration, the Administration can enhance capacity by offering training programmes focused on innovation management and evaluation methodologies. This can be complemented by the Innovation Network’s activities for sharing learnings and best practices of relevant projects. These mechanisms can help build the skills needed to effectively monitor and evaluate innovative initiatives, contributing to the overall enhancement of the Administration's measurement capacity.
3.3.3. Increase public sector innovation visibility
In Bulgaria, internal and external communication about public sector innovation is generally lacking. Effective communication about public innovation can foster a culture of change, increase visibility, and attract more resources, partnerships, and public trust (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). Research participants indicated a generalised absence of both internal and external communication about innovation in the public sector (OECD, 2024[2]).
On average, only 23% of organisations communicate externally about public sector innovation (Figure 3.11). However, organisations that have reported significant innovative projects generally communicate 3 times more about innovation than the ones that have not. Adopting more robust communication strategies could enhance the public sector innovation landscape by increasing visibility, encouraging stakeholder involvement, and potentially driving more innovative projects within the public sector (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). This, in turn, could lead to greater institutional effectiveness and stronger alignment with citizens’ needs and expectations.
OECD countries with relevant practices in communicating public sector innovation through events for stakeholder engagement and publications for disseminating results. For example, Ireland’s Department of Public Expenditure hosts a yearly Public Service Transformation Week, featuring over 30 events such as webinars, workshops, and in-person sessions focused on innovation, creative problem solving, service design, data and AI advancements, and citizen-inclusive research for public service staff and broader audiences (Government of Ireland, 2024[72]). Similarly, Chile’s Government Laboratory organises an annual hybrid Public Sector Innovators Summit, which connects, inspires, and recognises innovative practices across public administration through panels, workshops, masterclasses, and a trade fair (Government of Chile, n.d.[73]). In addition, Impact Canada publishes annual reports detailing their yearly and cumulative results, including programme assessments and future plans (Government of Canada, n.d.[25]).
Share of organisations which communicate externally about public sector innovation, 2024.
Note: N=93 to 116. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2). Figure presents the share of respondents who communicated externally about innovation often or very often. The respondents are asked to answer the question: How often does your organisation communicate externally about innovation? Please rank statements from 1 "Never” to 5 "Very Often”. [Rating].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
The State Administration could leverage its communication about innovation by developing a communication plan, creating innovation cases, a yearly innovation event for convening stakeholders, and publications about innovation initiatives. A communication plan could support increase visibility of public sector innovation efforts, foster a culture of change, and attract resources and partnerships. The Administration could highlight successful innovative projects and their impact through case studies and testimonials in official websites, social media, and newsletters. This can support inspiring other public organisations to pursue innovation and demonstrate the tangible benefits of innovative practices to citizens and businesses. As part of the plan, organising a yearly innovation event could create visibility for innovation efforts and participation across the administration and other sectors. The Administration could consider publishing regular reports on the state of innovation within the public sector, including progress, challenges, and future plans, reinforcing the Administration’s commitment to innovation.
The OECD Observatory of Public sector Innovation and participating OECD member countries, with the support of the European Commission, are scoping a dashboard to increase the visibility and comparability of the results of the innovative capacity work across countries.
This pilot will devise an online platform that will enable users to: ‘zoom in’ on countries to find data about their policies and support measures for public sector innovation (including additional detailed analysis and information collected through innovative capacity assessments); ‘zoom out’ to look at comparative information on public sector information across countries to identify similarities, differences, and trends. The goal of the dashboard pilot is twofold:
Explore in which way to make detailed analysis (beyond the assessment reports) accessible to countries in a comparable way (e.g., PSI insights across health sectors from countries who have carried out assessments).
Propose a format to collect and present in a user-friendly way existing data and knowledge related to PSI under the innovative capacity work. In the future this may also include data on any OECD PSI measurement efforts (including but not limited to specialised topics such as anticipatory governance, missions, BI etc.).
The pilot results including data from Bulgaria are envisioned to be launched in mid-2025.
Source: OECD.
Build up innovation skills:
Expand current State Administration training offer in innovation to encompass all levels and functions across the civil service.
Establish learning by doing cross-government capacity-building programmes that combine skills for applied innovation, digital and data, and citizen participation, spanning different durations and scopes, and implement regular assessments to ensure their relevance and efficacy.
3.4.1. Build up innovation skills
In Bulgaria, there is limited and sporadic training on public sector innovation (OECD, 2024[2]). Capacity-building programmes and training in public sector innovation have proved to equip public sector leaders and public servants with the skills and knowledge necessary to engage in innovative practices (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). In Bulgaria, public sector innovation training has focused on senior management staff, concentrating on skills related to advising political leaders (e.g., research and framing policy issues, developing policy solutions) and engaging citizens and stakeholders (OECD, 2024[2]). By focusing innovation training solely on senior staff, the Administration misses the opportunity to leverage the full potential of public servants at all levels.
Public servants recognise a need for established capacity-building programmes focusing on managing and applying innovation (OECD, 2024[2]). Research participants pointed out a need for a greater emphasis on innovative capacity-building programmes and toolkits, including a focus on capabilities related to innovation management (e.g., procuring innovation, partnerships) and applied innovation (e.g., prototyping, iteration, evaluation, etc.) (OECD, 2024[2]). Additionally, interviewees highlighted a significant need to develop skills in innovative leadership and technology for innovation, specifically focusing on the use of data and its potential for generative artificial intelligence (OECD, 2024[2]).
Public servants equipped with skills in innovation, data, and digital technologies are more likely to engage in innovative projects compared to their less skilled counterparts. On average, only 25% of public servants reported having foresight skills, and 27% reported having applied innovation skills ( Figure 3.12). Skills such as stakeholder engagement and advising political leaders are somewhat more common, with 31% and 35% of public servants, respectively, declaring proficiency in these areas. Notably, advanced digital technology skills (46%) and data usage skills (47%) rank highest among the adopted skill sets, although these levels of adoption remain relatively low.
Public servants involved in innovative projects and those in executive roles tend to have higher skill adoption rates across the government, likely due to their greater participation in training programmes and innovation projects (see section 3.2). No major differences in skill levels were observed across different types of organisations or policy sectors. However, sectors known for their innovative activities (see section 3.2), such as public order and security, education, and social protection, show a higher prevalence of applied innovation and advanced digital technology skills (see Annex 3.A).
Share of public servants by perceived adoption of innovation-related skills and competencies, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who asses their skills to be “High” or “Very high”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Overall, how would you assess your own skills in the follow areas? Please rank statements from 1 "Very low” to 5 "Very high”. [Rating]. See analysis by policy sector and individuals’ variables in Annex 3.A.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Applied innovation skills have been identified as key determinants of engaging in innovative projects, more so than any other set of skills (see Box 2.3.). Public servants equipped with applied innovation skills, such as iteration and prototyping, are more likely to engage in innovative projects than their less skilled counterparts. As shown in Figure 3.13, on average, only about 20% of Bulgarian public servants reported having skills or competencies in prototyping, iterating, innovative procurement, open innovation, and technology design. Approximately 28% reported skills and competencies in piloting, social research, and developing networks. Notably, around 33% declared skills and competencies in systems analysis, identifying policy issues, user-centred design, and facilitating. These competencies are predominant among public servants involved in innovation projects, and executive roles and policy sectors most engaged with innovation report higher levels of these competencies.
An OECD econometric analysis of innovation skills in Bulgaria found that public servants with a higher perception of their own skills in applied innovation (prototyping, service design, etc.) have 32% higher odds of being involved in an innovation (see Box 2.3.). This shows the need for continuously developing skills and capabilities to innovate among public servants with comprehensive and stable programmes. It is important to remark that no other innovation-related skill sets (e.g., foresight, stakeholder engagement) were found to significantly influence innovation.
Share of public servants by perceived applied innovation skills and competencies, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who asses their skills to be “High” or “Very high”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Overall, how would you assess your own skills in the follow areas? Skills related to applying innovation: Please rank statements from 1 "Very low” to 5 "Very high”. [Rating].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Several OECD countries have implemented various initiatives to build innovation skills and capabilities in the public sector. In Austria, the GovLab training programme, in collaboration with the Federal Academy of Public Administration, offers workshops, seminars, and events to disseminate knowledge, promote innovative projects, processes, and methods, and foster cultural change across the public sector. Sweden has developed targeted support for adopting public sector innovation management, enhancing specific capacity-building efforts. In Ireland, programmes focus on AI upskilling and project identification for public service. Additionally, guidelines and toolkits, such as the US's open innovation guide and Sweden's mission-oriented innovation framework, provide guidance to support specific capacity-building among public servants.
CoMA and IPA could build up on innovation skills by expanding training offers and including all role levels, establishing structured and cross-government capacity-building programmes, and implementing regular assessments. The Administration could expand its training offer to include programmes of varying durations, ensuring comprehensive coverage across hierarchical levels. This broader training approach will help in the widespread adoption of innovation skills, fully leveraging the potential of the civil service.
IPA could establish structured cross-government capacity-building programmes encompassing various innovation skills. Focus areas should include innovation management (such as procuring innovation, building partnerships, and managing projects), applied innovation (including practical skills in prototyping, iteration, evaluation, and user-centred design), and technology for innovation (training on data usage, advanced digital technologies, and generative artificial intelligence). The programmes could be connected to current institutional supports such as the Innovation Network and Innovation Competition to ensure participants remain engaged in public sector innovation. These programmes should implement regular assessments and feedback mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of innovation training sessions and programmes and ensure they remain relevant and effective.
Give permission to innovate:
Update the State Administration’s current competency frameworks and performance management guidelines to explicitly include innovation-related behaviours and competencies.
Support and monitor implementation across all talent management areas and provide complementary training to ensure the effective adoption of the framework.
Foster structured incentives to innovate beyond personal motivation:
Develop a strategic workforce plan where innovation is central for recruitment and professional development and support improving the Administration’s attractiveness as employer.
Consider formal incentives and rewards mechanisms, leadership training and mentorship to improve supportive risk-tasking, and safe spaces to practice innovation competencies in the civil service.
3.5.1. Give permission to innovate
Public servants in Bulgaria reported low levels of permission to innovate, particularly among administrative and professional staff (OECD, 2024[2]). Permission to innovate in the public sector context can be understood as the formal or informal responsibilities, organisational recognition, individuals’ autonomy, organisation responsiveness, and leadership encouragement to explore, develop, and implement new ideas, processes, or solutions that enhance public outcomes (OECD, 2017[9]; Bason, 2010[74]; Mazzucato, 2015[75]). According to previous research from Bulgaria’s Institute of Public Administration, public servants' perceptions of psychological safety have reached their lowest point in five years. While public servants could express their opinions, they hesitated to voice disagreement due to the limited openness to new ideas in the Administration (Republic of Bulgaria, 2021[28]). Research participants noted that they perceive limited permission to innovate, as innovation activities are not explicitly included in their job responsibilities or roles’ competencies (OECD, 2024[2]). This discourages both teams and individuals from innovating, as a legalistic and conservative approach characterises Bulgaria's public administration (European Commission, 2018[76]).
In Bulgaria, permission to innovate is hindered by a lack of recognition, limited autonomy, and constrained organisational responsiveness to innovate. As presented in Figure 3.14, on average, only 32% of public servants perceive that people in their organisation are recognised for developing new and innovative working methods. Similarly, only 36% declared they have enough autonomy at their job to look for ways to do things differently, while only 46% of public servants reported feeling their organisation is quick to respond when changes need to be made. 53% of public servants declare their immediate supervisor encourages them to come up with new or better ways of doing things and that continually looking for new ways to improve how they work is part of their responsibilities.
As illustrated in Figure 3.14, innovators generally show higher levels of permission among all these factors than public servants who have not engaged in innovative projects. Across hierarchal roles, middle and executive managers also report comparatively higher levels attributed to the feeling of responsibility and encouragement from higher leadership. Remarkably, no major differences in perceptions associated with permission to innovate were observed across gender, age, or tenure groups (see Annex 3.A).
Job autonomy has been found to be a key determinant of innovation in Bulgaria. An OECD econometric analysis of permission to innovate in Bulgaria found that public servants who see themselves as having the autonomy to innovate (e.g., self-driven motivation) in their organisations have 19% higher odds of being involved in an innovation (see Box 2.3.). This reflects that Bulgaria should invest in developing a public sector organisational culture that encourages permission to innovate as a key part of a broader workforce strategy, providing public servants with the freedom to explore and implement innovative solutions (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
Share of public servants by perceived permission to innovate in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Licence to innovate: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking]. See analysis by hierarchical roles and individuals’ variables in Annex 3.A.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Innovative behaviours are absent from the existing cross-government competency framework and performance assessments. Established in 2002, the current competency frameworks for the State Administration do not encompass innovative behaviours or practices. Research participants noted that these frameworks are not systematically applied across the Administration due to their narrow definitions across civil service roles (OECD, 2024[2]). Interviewees mentioned they are mainly used for recruitment processes compared to other areas of talent management, such as career development, promotions, and performance evaluations (OECD, 2024[2]). Although the Council of Ministers’ Administration provides instructions for implementing these frameworks, their adoption and guidance remain lacking (OECD, 2024[2]).
Furthermore, performance management evaluations are inconsistent with these competency frameworks and do not include an innovation component (OECD, 2024[2]). This omission hinders the systematic development and recognition of innovation competencies within the public sector. Without a structured approach to fostering innovative behaviours in the civil service, the State Administration restricts the integration of innovation into crucial talent management processes such as recruitment, onboarding, performance evaluation, and career development.
The absence of a harmonised competency framework approach hinders the ability to develop and recognise skills necessary for innovation. As presented in Figure 3.15., on average, 23% of heads of organisations have reported using a decentralised competency framework in their institutions, whereas 52% operate with the centralised competency framework. Significantly, 25% of organisations indicated the absence of any competency framework. Notably, organisations with significant innovative projects are more likely to have some form of competency framework compared to those not involved in such projects. This demonstrates that a structured approach to skill development can lead to more effective innovative efforts (Darsø, 2012[77]).
Although a few organisations with decentralised competency frameworks include innovative behaviours (OECD, 2024[2]), the widespread absence of an innovation dimension can impede the civil service’s ability to adapt to new challenges (OECD, 2022[34]). This deficiency also hinders its capacity to evolve with labour market and technological changes, such as the need for AI-related knowledge and skills (e.g., data modelling, programming, etc.) (OECD, 2021[78]).
Share of organisations by approaches to competency framework, 2024.
Note: N= 93 to 116. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2). The respondents are asked to answer the question: Is there a competency framework defining the skills, knowledge, certifications/education, and/or behaviours in your organisation? [Single option].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
OECD countries with relevant competency frameworks with innovation dimensions include Australia and the UK. Australia’s innovation dimension for secretaries and senior-level executives comprises fostering innovation and adaptability, understanding the systems they work within, taking calculated risks, maintaining a positive attitude, and actively participating in problem-solving (Australian Government, 2021[79]). Similarly, the UK’s Civil Service Success Profiles encourage civil servants from all levels to seek out opportunities to create effective change and suggest innovative ideas for improvement. This includes complementary behaviours such as leadership, effective partnership, managing a quality service, and delivering at pace (UK Government, 2018[80]).
To foster day-to-day innovation, it is crucial to encourage innovation behaviours and practices within competency frameworks and performance management (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]). The State Administration should update its current competency frameworks and performance management guidelines to explicitly include innovation-related behaviours and competencies, focusing on encouraging innovative practices, including new ways of working with technology and data. This should encompass all levels of the administration, from administrative to executive levels.
These updated frameworks should be systematically implemented across all talent management areas, including recruitment, onboarding, career development, and performance evaluations. To ensure effective adoption, monitoring and complementary training should be provided. This training should particularly target senior staff, encouraging them to champion innovation strategically and to offer the necessary support and autonomy to civil servants within their teams.
3.5.2. Foster structured incentives to innovate beyond personal motivation
Bulgaria lacks a government workforce strategy and deficiencies in both recruitment and career development limit innovation. Previous OECD assessments have pointed out that public administration job vacancies attract a small number of applicants, indicating that the attractiveness of the Administration as an employer is limited (OECD, 2022[13]). There is a notable deficiency in skills and capabilities development, including senior management skills. Moreover, comprehensive human resources planning is absent across the State Administration (OECD, 2022[13]).
As highlighted by interviewees, these difficulties reduce the likelihood of attracting diverse and qualified innovative backgrounds, and current public servants lack opportunities to develop new competencies to drive and implement innovative solutions (OECD, 2024[2]). A lack of incentives and rewards for innovation further complicates this situation (OECD, 2024[2]). Without proper incentives, public servants risk being less motivated to engage in innovative activities (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
In Bulgaria, public servants rely on intrinsic motivation to innovate. Motivation to innovate, whether a person wants to innovate, is shaped by values, incentives, leadership, and behaviours (OECD, 2017[9]). Motivation can come from intrinsic factors, such as personal satisfaction or a sense of accomplishment, and extrinsic factors, such as rewards or recognition (Kotera, 2022[81]).
As shown in Figure 3.16, on average, 21% public servants reported perceptions associated with lacking both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to innovate (amotivation). Conversely, 46% of public servants pointed out perceptions indicating being driven by extrinsic motivation to innovate, while 78% of public servants declared perceptions associated with intrinsic motivation. This trend is consistent among innovators and non-innovators, along with various roles within the Administration. Notably, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is perceived by a higher number of public servants innovating than the ones that have not been involved in innovative projects (11 and 13 percentage points difference). Slight differences were found across policy sectors, and gender, age, or tenure groups (see Annex 3.A).
There is strong personal commitment to innovation, but no concrete incentives. Strong intrinsic motivation suggests an innovation relies on the strong personal commitment of public servants. However, a comparatively high difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can be risky as public servants can disregard innovative opportunities if organisational support and external recognition are lacking (Demircioglu, 2024[23]). This lack of effective incentives could limit the quantity and quality of innovation, particularly among less senior staff. Concrete incentives such as leadership recognition, rewards, and career advancement opportunities are needed to address the comparatively low share of public servants perceiving extrinsic motivation (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
Share of public servants by perceived motivation to innovate in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Motivation: Please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you are presently involved in your work. Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking]. See analysis by policy sectors and individuals’ variables in Annex 3.A.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Bulgarian public servants experience low psychological safety, limiting risk-taking and innovative behaviours. Psychological safety refers to the extent to which people feel comfortable in taking risks within a group context (Edmonson and Lei, 2014[82]). It is seen as vital for encouraging people to bring out new ideas and questions that challenge existing norms and has been identified as one of the most relevant factors for successful teams (Gerson, 2020[83]). Psychological safety requires organisational conditions such as team leader behaviours, informal group dynamics, trust and respect, use of practice field, and supportive organisational context (Edmonson and Lei, 2014[82]). Without psychological safety, diversity cannot lead to innovation and improved outcomes (Gerson, 2020[83]).
As illustrated in Figure 3.17, on average, only 33% of public servants reported feeling psychological safety associated with their team leader's behaviour (e.g. being able to make a mistake without fear of repercussions) or related to using the practice field (e.g., feeling safe taking risks within their work). Similarly, only 45% of public servants declared experiencing psychological safety in a supportive organisational context (e.g., feeling comfortable asking for help, having their skills valued and used, and not being undermined). Figure 3.17 also shows that 58% of public servants reported feeling psychological safety associated with respect and trust (e.g., their teams accept others for being different). Similarly, 63% of public servants declared experiencing psychological safety in informal group dynamics (e.g. feeling that members of their teams bring up problems and tough issues).
The above trend is consistent among innovators and non-innovators, along with various roles within the Administration. Notably, a higher number of public servants involved in innovative projects perceive all measures of psychological safety compared to those who have not been involved, with differences ranging from 8 and 17 p.p. Moreover, many senior roles perceive psychological safety compared to people in less senior positions. These figures highlight the need for improved organisational practices to foster an environment where public servants feel safe to innovate and collaborate effectively.
Share of public servants by perceived psychological safety in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N=2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” to the statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Psychological safety: To what extent do you agree with the following statements: Please rank statement from 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking]. See analysis by individuals’ variables in Annex 3.A.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
In Bulgaria, innovation in the State Administration largely depends on personal motivation as the primary reward, highlighting the need for deliberate incentives. The State Administration lacks formal rewards or incentives to encourage innovation among public servants (OECD, 2024[2]). Executive-level research participants noted that salary increases within the public sector salary scale are sometimes used as incentives for taking on new responsibilities, which could include innovative projects (OECD, 2024[2]). However, despite this incentive, interviewees involved in innovative projects reported that personal satisfaction and the desire to improve outcomes for citizens were their main rewards (OECD, 2024[2]). The absence of a formalised incentive system suggests a missed opportunity to systematically promote and sustain innovation within the public sector. Establishing a structured rewards and incentives framework could align personal motivations with organisational goals, thereby enhancing innovation output (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]).
According to Figure 3.18, on average, 69% of public servants reported that recognition from leadership could incentive them to engage in innovation, 75% mentioned performance management assessments, 79% promotion and career advancement, and 80% awards. Similarly, 84% of public servants declared that salary increases could act as an incentive for innovation, while 85% declared the desire to improve outcomes for citizens and personal satisfaction as a reward. These incentives are believed to be effective across various roles within the public sector, affecting both innovators and non-innovators alike, with no significant differences observed between different types of organisations or policy sectors. This shows that by providing incentives despite salary increases, such as recognition from leadership and awards, and using performance management assessments, the Administration could incentivise a larger uptake of innovative behaviours across all levels of public servants.
Share of public servants who believe the reward or incentive could support a more innovative behaviour, 2024.
Note: N=2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. Respondents are asked to answer the question: To what extent do you agree that you could be incentivised to innovate by [Options]. Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
A strategic workforce plan, formal incentives and rewards mechanisms, leadership training and safe spaces to practice innovation competencies can support an innovation-driven public administration. Human resources tools are crucial for establishing the necessary conditions for innovation to thrive, such as developing a skilled workforce and fostering an organisational culture that supports innovators at all levels (OECD, 2017[9]). The State Administration could consider developing and implementing a strategic workforce plan that fosters innovation as a central characteristic to cultivate a more supportive environment that encourages risk-taking and improve its attractiveness as employer (OECD, 2023[84]). The plan should outline the Administration’s recruitment and professional development strategy for increasing the uptake of innovative approaches across the civil services (OECD, 2017[85]). This should be aligned to a potential update of the competency framework and should consider formal incentives and rewards for achieving innovative behaviours.
The implementation of formal incentives and reward mechanisms such as performance assessments with an innovation dimension, cross-government innovation awards, and certificates of achievement should also be considered as part of a potential workforce plan (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[1]; OECD, 2023[84]). Formalising these incentives could ensure consistency and fairness in how innovative efforts are recognised and rewarded, potentially increasing job satisfaction and retention among innovators.
The Administration could consider providing training for team leaders on fostering psychological safety, emphasising the importance of supporting risk-taking (Edmondson, 2004[86]). This could be complemented with a mentorship programme where managers with innovative behaviours within the Administration can guide and support less experienced team leaders. Establishing practice fields such as the potential innovation lab and innovative capacity-building programmes, should support public servants to experiment with new ideas without fear of repercussions. The Administration should further develop these safe spaces, such as through the Innovation Network, to allow public servants to share challenges and successes when innovating.
References
[79] Australian Government (2021), Leadership Capabilities - Australian Public Service Commission, https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/learning-and-development/leadership-capabilities.
[74] Bason, C. (2010), Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgnsd.
[31] Berry, F. (2023), Finding Common Ground: Innovation and Diffusion across Political Science and Public Management Research, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000112.
[8] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022), Bulgaria Report - Sustainable Development Indicators, https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2022/country/SGI2022_Bulgaria.pdf.
[64] Cinar, E. et al. (2024), Public sector innovation in context: A comparative study of innovation types, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2080860.
[51] Cote, C. (2023), Startup Incubator vs. Accelerator: Which is right for you?, https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/startup-incubator-vs-accelerator.
[77] Darsø, L. (2012), Innovation Competency — An Essential Organizational Asset, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014764_6.
[23] Demircioglu, M. (2024), Public sector innovation: Sources, benefits, and leadership, https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2276481.
[86] Edmondson, A. (2004), Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Lens., https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Psychological-Safety%2C-Trust%2C-and-Learning-in-A-Edmondson/398d9ea38973db9afb5c32ae1cf5209d550c8e04.
[82] Edmonson, A. and Z. Lei (2014), Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.
[30] European Commission (2024), Bulgaria Digital Public Administration Factsheet, https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/NIFO_2024%20DPAF_Bulgaria_vFinal_1.pdf.
[76] European Commission (2018), Public administration and characteristics and performance in EU28: Bulgaria, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwixqrSiuaKHAxVCdqQEHYJIAUkQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fsocial%2FBlobServlet%3FdocId%3D19942%26langId%3Den&usg=AOvVaw2vg3xIqmDllHOuQL73sB6Z&opi=89978449.
[83] Gerson, D. (2020), Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed8235c8-en.
[46] Government of Austria (2018), GovLabAustria - Federal Ministry Civil Service and Sport, https://www.govlabaustria.gv.at/wp-content/uploads/GovLabAustria_Information_EN_2018-07.pdf.
[50] Government of Canada (2024), Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS), https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/programs/defence-ideas/how-ideas-works.html.
[25] Government of Canada (n.d.), Impact and Innovation Unit of the Privy Council Office - Annual Report 2023, https://impact.canada.ca/en/about.
[60] Government of Chile (n.d.), Public Innovators Network, https://innovadorespublicos.cl/accounts/whats/.
[73] Government of Chile (n.d.), Public Innovators Summit - Government Laboratory, https://www.lab.gob.cl/encuentro2023.
[17] Government of Colombia (n.d.), Public Sector Innovation - National Planning Department, https://www.dnp.gov.co/LaEntidad_/subdireccion-general-prospectiva-desarrollo-nacional/direccion-gobierno-ddhh-paz/Paginas/sobre-innovacion-publica.aspx.
[59] Government of Estonia (n.d.), Innosprint, https://www.riigikantselei.ee/innosprint-ja-serpakoolitus.
[20] Government of France (2023), Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation -Who are we?, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/qui-sommes-nous.
[52] Government of France (n.d.), Digital Services Incubator, https://beta.gouv.fr/en/about/.
[19] Government of France (n.d.), Le Comité interministériel de la Transformation publique (CITP), https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/transformer-laction-publique/le-comite-interministeriel-de-la-transformation-publique-citp.
[55] Government of Germany (n.d.), Regulatory Sandboxes – Testing Environments for Innovation and Regulation, https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/regulatory-sandboxes.html.
[43] Government of Germany (n.d.), The Idea contest - from the idea to the concept, https://www.civic-innovation.de/en/market-place-and-contest/idea-contest-1.
[72] Government of Ireland (2024), Public Service Transformation Week 2023 - Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b032e-past-events/#public-service-transformation-week-2023.
[7] Government of Ireland (n.d.), A strategy for embedding innovation in the Irish Public Service, https://assets.gov.ie/200516/fad206d1-b1b6-4a1c-af35-b15fbf08a138.pdf.
[68] Government of Ireland (n.d.), Public Service Innovation Fund, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiAhca28aOHAxXhVKQEHSsVBsQQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.gov.ie%2F278774%2F90e64255-695a-443b-abdc-10d2d0090c5d.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Pg8w-N88ehZAUC1i0LiAQ&opi=89978449.
[45] Government of Latvia (n.d.), Latvian State Chancellery Innovation Lab, https://inovacija.mk.gov.lv/lv/laboratorija/.
[47] Government of Portugal (n.d.), Center for Public Sector Innovation, https://labx.gov.pt/o-labx/?lang=en.
[57] Government of Sweden (n.d.), Test beds in Sweden - Vinnova, https://www.vinnova.se/en/m/testbed-sweden/testbeds-in-sweden/.
[1] Kaur, M. and H. Buisman (2022), Innovative capacity of governments: A systemic framework“, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 51, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/52389006-en.
[37] Kettley, P. and W. Hirsh (2000), Learning from Cross-functional teams, https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/356.pdf.
[81] Kotera, Y. (2022), A Shorter Form of the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Construction and Factorial Validation, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9658934/.
[5] Lamoreaux, P., N. Myers and S. Mason (2024), Costs of Public Auditor Oversight: Real Earnings Management and Innovation Loss., https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-2022-089.
[75] Mazzucato, M. (2015), The Entrepreneurial State. Debunking public vs. private sector myths, https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state/.
[48] NESTA (n.d.), Innovation Accelerators, https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/innovation-methods/accelerator-programmes/.
[56] NESTA (n.d.), Why use a real-world testbed?, https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/why-use-real-world-testbed/.
[39] OECD (2024), Background on Innovation Competition Globally - Internal document.
[38] OECD (2024), Background on Innovation Networks Globally - Internal document.
[62] OECD (2024), Bulgaria’s Innovation Network - Internal document.
[2] OECD (2024), Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Assessment - Workshops, Interviews and Survey Findings.
[71] OECD (2024), Centre of Government’s role in steering impactful public sector innovation - Internal document.
[35] OECD (2024), Public Governance Committee - Accession Review of Bulgaria.
[18] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity : Compendium of Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
[32] OECD (2023), Global Trends in Government Innovation 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/0655b570-en.
[21] OECD (2023), OPSI Case Study Library - Public Sector Innovation Laboratory, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/public-sector-innovation-laboratory/.
[84] OECD (2023), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Government of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b8a3950d-en.
[11] OECD (2022), Anticipatory Innovation Governance Model in Finland: Towards a New Way of Governing, https://doi.org/10.1787/a31e7a9a-en.
[13] OECD (2022), Centre of government scan of Bulgaria: Strengthening strategic decision-making at the centre of government, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 19, OECD Publishing, Paris., https://doi.org/10.1787/464a42b5-en.
[27] OECD (2022), Supporting Bulgaria’s Public Administration, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit15j4v-qGAxVsVaQEHUCoBFUQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.strategy.bg%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FfileId%3D30250&usg=AOvVaw1YVObBZsaV8yBJi8v-LIuX&opi=89978449.
[34] OECD (2022), Tackling Policy Challenges Through Public Sector Innovation: A Strategic Portfolio Approach, https://doi.org/10.1787/052b06b7-en.
[10] OECD (2021), Public Sector Innovation Scan of Denmark, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Public-Sector-Innovation-Scan-of-Denmark.pdf.
[78] OECD (2021), The OECD Framework for digital talent and skills in the public sector”, https://doi.org/10.1787/4e7c3f58-en.
[22] OECD (2020), The public sector innovation lifecycle: A device to assist teams and organisations in developing a more sophisticated approach to public sector innovation, https://doi.org/10.1787/0d1bf7e7-en.
[54] OECD (2020), The role of sandoboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age, https://goingdigital.oecd.org/toolkitnotes/the-role-of-sandboxes-in-promoting-flexibility-and-innovation-in-the-digital-age.pdf.
[12] OECD (2018), The Innovation System of the Public Service of Canada, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307735-en.
[26] OECD (2018), The Innovation System of the Public Service of Canada, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307735-en.
[9] OECD (2017), Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270879-en.
[24] OECD (2017), OPSI Case Study Library - Impact Canada, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/impact-canada/.
[85] OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264280724-en.
[49] OECD (2016), Global Innovation Policy Accelerator, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/global-innovation-policy-accelerator/.
[67] OECD (n.d.), Bulgaria’s Innovation Competition - Internal document.
[6] Raudla, R., K. Taro and C. Agu (2016), The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations: The Case of Estonia, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0308-0.
[15] Republic of Bulgaria (2023), Government Operational Programme - June 2023 - December 2024, https://www.gov.bg/en/Press-center/News/Five-major-priorities-in-the-government%E2%80%99s-Operational-Program.
[28] Republic of Bulgaria (2021), Is yours a learning administration? Self-evaluation results of Bulgarian administrations on learning organisation indicators.
[14] Republic of Bulgaria (2021), Programme for the Development of the Defence Capabilities of the Bulgarian Armed Forces 2032, http://google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaiJuLlq6HAxVuBfsDHa1mAtYQFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kotra.or.kr%2Fkodits%2Fdownload%2FBASIC_ATTACH%3FstorageNo%3D1798&usg=AOvVaw2A8jWJapRdPxP9sU78klNe&opi=89978449.
[16] Republic of Bulgaria (2009), Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers and its Administration.
[3] Republic of Bulgaria (n.d.), Bulgaria 2030 - P10 Institutional Framework, https://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=5365.
[65] Republic of Bulgaria (n.d.), Institute of Public Administration - Innovation in the public sector, https://www.ipa.government.bg/en/networks/innovation-public-sector/innovation-public-sector.
[4] Republic of Bulgaria (n.d.), National Development Programme Bulgaria 2030 - Ministry of Finance, Government of Bulgaria, https://www.minfin.bg/en/1394.
[29] Republic of Bulgaria (n.d.), Strategy and Policy - State e-Government Agency, https://e-gov.bg/wps/portal/agency-en/strategy-policy.
[66] Rosenblatt, M. (2011), “The use of innovation awards in the public sector: Individual and organizational perspectives”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 13, pp. 207-219, https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2011.13.2.207.
[63] Sørensen, E. and J. Torfing (2017), Metagoverning Collaborative Innovation in Governance Networks, https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643181.
[42] Tech Prize (2024), Idea Competition, https://tech-prize.org/idea-competition/.
[41] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.
[33] Torfing, J. (2016), Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1h64pfm.
[69] Tryggvadottir, Á. (2022), OECD Best Practices for Spending Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1787/90f9002c-en.
[61] UK Government (2024), Civil Service Awards, https://www.civilserviceawards.com/categories/.
[70] UK Government (2023), Policy paper: The What Works Network Strategy, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-what-works-network-strategy.
[80] UK Government (2018), Success Profiles - Civil Service Behaviours, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b27cf2240f0b634b469fb1a/CS_Behaviours_2018.pdf.
[44] UK Government (n.d.), Civil Service Data Challenge, https://datachallenge.uk/about/.
[53] US Government (2023), 10x FY23 Impact Report, https://10x.gsa.gov/impact/fy23-report/.
[40] Varazzani, C., et al. (2023), Seven routes to experimentation in policymaking: A guide to applied behavioural science methods, https://doi.org/10.1787/918b6a04-en.
[58] Vetan, J. (2021), What is a design sprint?.
[36] World Bank (2023), Regulatory and Institutional Framework for PPPs, World Bank.
Share of public servants involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in their workplace during the last two years, 2024.
Note: N=1,924 to 2,801. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who have participated in innovation during the last two-year period. The respondents are asked to answer the question: The OECD defines innovation as something new or novel to context, implemented, and aimed at achieving impact. The focus of innovations could include services, products, processes, working methods and operating procedures, policy development, communication. Based on this definition, have you been involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in your workplace during the last two-year period? [Single choice].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived adoption of skills and competencies, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who asses their skills to be “High” or “Very high”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Overall, how would you assess your own skills in the follow areas? Please rank statements from 1 "Very low” to 5 "Very high”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived adoption of skills and competencies, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who asses their skills to be “High” or “Very high”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Overall, how would you assess your own skills in the follow areas? Please rank statements from 1 "Very low” to 5 "Very high”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived permission to innovate dimension in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Licence to innovate: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived permission to innovate dimension in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Licence to innovate: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived motivation to innovate in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Motivation: Please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you are presently involved in your work. Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived motivation to innovate in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= 2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Motivation: Please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you are presently involved in your work. Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived psychological safety in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N=2,479 to 3,633. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” to the statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Psychological safety: To what extent do you agree with the following statements: Please rank statement from 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.