259 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers 1 Received: 18th July 2022; revised: 8th November 2022; accepted: 22nd November 2022 Public Sector Entrepreneurship: Scientific Mapping and Research Agenda Michael OLUMEKOR Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia, molumekor@urfu.ru Background and Purpose: The concept of entrepreneurship within the public sector is one of the most fiercely debated areas of entrepreneurial research. It has been studied across several academic disciplines such as in management, public administration and political economy, among others. However, while academic output has increased, we found no prior studies providing a clear mapping of the field. Therefore, this research sought to com- prehensively examine all peer reviewed articles on public sector entrepreneurship. Methods: Using the Scopus scientific database, our analysis included 133 articles from 1982 to 2022. Following a thorough manual review process, we used VOSviewer to provide a mapping of the field, before identifying research gaps and suggesting directions for future research. Our scientific mapping revealed the leading and emerging the- matic clusters in the field. Results: Our results revealed that the leading themes in public sector entrepreneurship include innovation, entre- preneurship, public sector, governance, reinventing government, and public organisations, while emerging trends include public health entrepreneurship, public health innovation, public choice, sustainability, and entrepreneurial orientation, among others. Conclusion: Our research provides useful insights to all researchers interested in examining entrepreneurship with- in the public sector or in non-profit organisations. Keywords: Public entrepreneurship, Public innovation, Bibliometrics, Public sector, Scientific mapping, Performance, entrepreneur DOI: 10.2478/orga-2022-0017 1 Introduction The term “entrepreneurship” is frequently associated with the private sector, and with small and medium sized enterprises, and start-ups (Kearney et al., 2009). However, the public sector also frequently participates in entrepre- neurial action, sometimes providing some of the most im- portant services for the economy. Research into public entrepreneurship has become piv- otal to the contemporary analysis of public administration, and is also frequently examined in the fields of political science, management, economics, sociology, and social psychology, among others (Hayter et al., 2018; Shockley et al., 2006). At a minimum, public entrepreneurship in- volves the production, distribution or innovation of goods/ services for the public. This makes it crucial to the lives of billions of people around the world. For example, en- trepreneurial initiatives by public entities include the pro- vision of health care services, water services, emergency services, transportation, and recycling/climate initiatives, among others (Carnes et al., 2019; Rastoka et al., 2022). Therefore, this research seeks to examine all published peer reviewed research on public entrepreneurship by analysing the content, thematic clusters, emerging trends, citations, authors, institutions and the links between all of 260 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers them. To achieve this, we conducted a search on the Scop- us database and uncovered articles going back to 1988. These studies spanned numerous academic fields includ- ing energy, sports, agriculture, economics, political sci- ence, arts/humanities, engineering, computer science, and medicine, among others. Following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2021), we sift- ed through each article and provided exhaustive detail into every stage of our analysis, making it easily reproducible. Then, we used a bibliometric system of analysis to provide results. Our research is different from prior studies for sever- al reasons. First, it provides a timely contribution to the academic debate on the topic by providing a solid back- ground for discussion. Second, to our knowledge, this is the first study providing a bibliometric evaluation of aca- demic research on public sector entrepreneurship. As such, our scientific mapping, including our analysis of thematic clusters and emerging trends, provide enormous benefit to scholars on the topic. Third, this study exceeds the usual bibliometric analysis by including a research agenda offer- ing practical recommendations for future research. Fourth, we deploy a systematised method to screen and analyse our data, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. Final- ly, our research is structured in the following way. The next section includes our theoretical background and research questions. Afterwards, we provide our meth- odology, results, discussion/conclusion, and directions for future research. 2 Literature review Academic inquisition into public sector entrepre- neurship can be traced back to the work of Schumpeter (1942), but it was Ostrom (1965) who pioneered empirical investigation on the topic by examining water producers in the West Coastal Basin of southern California. Another very important study for the development of public sector entrepreneurship was provided by Wagner (1966). He in- troduced the idea of individuals in government providing public services to achieve political gain. Since then, aca- demic scholarship on the topic has grown exponentially. Public sector entrepreneurship has become one of the most frequently studied areas of entrepreneurship as globalisa- tion and the need for sustainable economic growth have grown. Public sector entrepreneurship is also simply referred to as public entrepreneurship (Moon et al., 2020), however there is no universally consistent definition of the nature, roles or motivations of the public entrepreneur. For exam- ple, Ostrom (1965) defined the public entrepreneur as an agent that creates public benefits by innovating through public organisations, while others have broadly argued that a public entrepreneur is more concerned with public policy and decision making (Hughes, 1991). Additionally, a pub- lic entrepreneur uses public resources to improve produc- tivity and create social value (Osborne et al., 1992; Zam- petakis & Moustakis, 2010), they create or improve public organisations (Carnes et al., 2019; Ramamurti, 1986), are involved in generating innovative ideas for public gain (Becker et al., 2019; Roberts, 1992) and are motivated by political gain (Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005). According to Hayter et al. (2018), public sector entrepreneurship is often characterised by three factors, “actions that are innovative, that transform a status quo social and economic environ- ment, and that are characterized by uncertainty”, while Shockley et al. (2006) offered that public entrepreneurship occurs when a “political actor is alert to and acts on poten- tial profit opportunities, thus moving the system in which the actor is embedded toward equilibrium”. Meanwhile, studies utilising scientific mapping tech- niques have risen in popularity in recent decades due to a number of factors including an increase in academic output and a rise in the number of sophisticated analytical tools. A component of bibliometric analysis, scientific mapping provides a rigorous and objective analysis of existing lit- erature (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015; Zupic & Čater, 2015), and can be useful for examining research content, trends, performance and for providing a direction for future stud- ies, among others (Donthu et al., 2021; Linnenluecke et al., 2020). In entrepreneurial research, scientific mapping has been used to analyse the ethical aspect of entrepre- neurship (Vallaster et al., 2019), the development of social entrepreneurship (Rey-Martí et al., 2016), the evolution of entrepreneurship education (Fellnhofer, 2019), the im- pact of research on religion and entrepreneurship (Block et al., 2020), an overview of international entrepreneurship (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2018), and the rise of entrepreneur- ial universities (Forliano et al., 2021), etcetera. Scientific mapping has also been used in most other academic fields including political science, economics/finance, and health/ medicine, among others (Castillo-Vergara et al., 2018). Therefore, inspired by Zupic and Čater (2015) and Ho et al. (2021) we utilised a bibliometric system to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What are the current and emerging trends in aca- demic research on public sector entrepreneurship? RQ2: What are the bibliometric variables, citation level and co-citation structure of public sector entrepre- neurship? RQ3: What are the gaps in current research on public sector entrepreneurship? This study is guided by the bibliometric guideline pro- posed by Donthu et al. (2021). They provide a structure to make the research system transparent, relevant, reproduc- ible and generalisable. Furthermore, we also loosely fol- lowed the reporting principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIS- 261 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers MA) (Page et al., 2021) – we could not follow 100% of the recommendations as our research is not a systematic re- view or meta-analysis. The materials for our research were retrieved from the Scopus database on the 16th of June 2022. We decided on Scopus because it offers an exten- sive and reliable scientific content, and is one of the most widely used sources for conducting bibliometric analyses, meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Moher et al., 2015). Other sources include the Web of Sciences, EBSCO and Google Scholar, among oth- ers. However, while the Web of Sciences and Scopus are the most reputable indexing agencies in academia, Scopus is often the most recommended for research of this nature and is more inclusive (Baas et al., 2020). Moreover, 99% of all articles indexed in the Web of Sciences database are present in Scopus, while only 34% of articles in Scopus are present in the Web of Sciences (Singh et al., 2021). Accordingly, we conducted multiple stages of screenings using the automatic screening tools on the Scopus data- base, and by carrying out a comprehensive manual investi- gation of the abstract, title and keywords of all the articles involved in this study. We provide exhaustive information into every step of our analysis. 3 Methods Figure 1 shows the workflow we used for our screen- ing process. We used the following keywords to search the Scopus database on the 16th of June 2022: public entrepreneurship and public sector entrepreneurship. However, in order to be as expansive as possible, and to include research streams in emerging countries, an up- dated search was conducted on the 30th of August 2022 to include the following additional keywords: municipal entrepreneurship, local government entrepreneurship and state entrepreneurship. Our search was filtered to include titles, abstracts and keywords. We conducted at least two dozen trial searches using a combination of words before settling on the aforementioned keywords. The first stage of our search produced 2877 documents. Our data analysis was split into 2 main parts, each involving several stages of screening. The first part involved using the automated tools on Scopus to exclude irrelevant articles. The second part involved a painstaking manual evaluation of all in- cluded articles. For the first part, we decided to excluded all non-jour- nal articles due to variations in the peer review process of conference proceedings, books series and other types of publications. As a result, our first screening was to exclude all books, conference papers, book chapters, editorials, re- views, notes and erratum. This excluded 903 documents (n = 903) and included 1974 relevant documents (Figure 1). Our next screening limited the source of all the articles to only those from journals, leading to the elimination of sources like trade journals, book series. This further elim- inated 28 articles (n = 28), leaving 1946 articles. Further- more, since it is difficult to conduct a thorough manual analysis of articles written in foreign languages, we fur- ther selected only articles published in English language (n = 1865) and excluded languages including Spanish, Ger- man, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Lithuanian, among others (n = 81). Then we removed 3 duplicate articles (n = 3), and included 1862 articles. All 1862 articles were included in the second part of our anal- ysis. For the second part, we thoroughly examined the ti- tles, abstracts and keywords of all included articles, and Figure 1: Data selection process. Source: Author’s elaboration 262 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers in doubtful cases, the full papers were examined. To be included in our analysis, articles must be specifically fo- cussed on assessing entrepreneurship within the public sector and it must be clearly mentioned in the methodolo- gy and research objectives of the article. As a result, stud- ies involving public funding agencies such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) that were primarily focussed on the performance of private firms were exclud- ed. And studies completely focussed on New Public Man- agement (NPM) without assessing entrepreneurship were also excluded. Also, articles on social entrepreneurship, technology transfer, and academic entrepreneurship which were not specific to the public sector were also exclud- ed. Finally, articles on public innovation, which did not specifically examine entrepreneurship were also excluded. Following a meticulous scrutinization of all 1862 articles, we uncovered 11 articles with limited or incomplete infor- mation (n = 11) and 1716 articles which were either not on public entrepreneurship at all, or did not meet our in- clusion criteria (n = 1716). Therefore, 135 articles were selected for the analytical part of our research (Figure 1), which was conducted using the VOSviewer software (v.1.6.18) (van Eck & Waltman, 2010) and Microsoft Ex- cel (v. 2019). 4 Results 4.1 Citation analysis The goal of citation analysis is to analyse the most in- fluential studies in a research area (Donthu et al., 2021). To achieve this, we limited our analysis to only studies with at least 50 citations (n ≥ 50). This produced 14 articles (n =14). Our results (Figure 2) show that the most influential study on public sector entrepreneurship is the study by Klein et al. (2010) attempting to theorise the field. Next is Bartlett and Dibben’s research examining public sector entrepreneurship within 12 local governments (Bartlett & Dibben, 2002). This was closely followed by another study of Klein et al. (2013) examining strategic entrepreneurship Figure 2: Most influential studies. Source: Author’s work 263 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers in public sector organisations, and one by Zerbinati and Souitaris (2005) providing a framework for analysing pub- lic entrepreneurship in European local governments. 4.2 Co-citation Co-citation analysis is one of the most notable methods for mapping a scientific field. It analyses the references of published articles to find thematic clusters and similarities based on the number of times they are cited together (Cas- tillo-Vergara et al., 2018; Donthu et al., 2021; Sweileh et al., 2017). To achieve optimal results, we limited our scope to articles with a minimum number of 4 citations to a cited reference (n ≥ 4). 49 articles met this limit. Figure 3 shows the most frequent co-cited references in public entrepreneurship. The co-citations are grouped into various clusters, visible by their colour in figure 3. The first (red cluster) is led by the works of Sadler (2000) and Ramamurti (1986) which both examined the similarities and differences between private sector entrepreneurs and public sector ones. The second cluster show strong co-ci- Figure 3: Co-citation. Source: Author’s work using VOSviewer tation links between the study by Bernier and Hafsi (2007), titled: The changing nature of public entrepreneurship, and other studies by Shane Klein (2008), Zerbinati and Soui- taris (2005), Hayter et al. (2018). 4.3 Bibliographic coupling Bibliographic coupling is also an analysis of citation (Zupic & Čater, 2015). However, unlike co-citation, bib- liographic coupling presupposes that publications are similar in content if they share similar references/citations (Kessler, 1963; Martyn, 1964; Zupic & Čater, 2015). For this analysis, we limited our scope to articles with a mini- mum number of 10 citations (n ≥ 10). 60 articles met this threshold. Figure 4 shows the bibliographic coupling of referenc- es in public entrepreneurship. The articles with the closest similarity are those by Klein et al. (2010), Leyden (2016), and Ford and Anderson (2019), all in the red cluster. Also, in the red cluster, there are very similar links between Klein et al. (2013), and Cunningham et al. (2016). In the blue cluster, there are close similarities on articles examin- ing public entrepreneurship at the macro/state level. They include studies by Etzkowitz and Gulbrandsen (1999), 264 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Figure 4: Bibliographic coupling. Source: Author’s work using VOSviewer Pereira (2007), and Sun (2015). Furthermore, in the green cluster, a number of conceptual studies on public entrepre- neurship share close similarity links. They include articles by Edwards et al. (2002) on the rhetoric and context of public entrepreneurship, and another by Hjorth (2013) on creating social change with public entrepreneurship. 4.4 Co-word analysis Co-occurrence analysis analyses the keywords of pub- lished articles to find similarities between them. It is ex- cellent for visualising the development of a research field, and for analysing emerging trends and methods (Goyal & Howlett, 2018; Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Nederhof & Wijk, 2006). Therefore, to analyse the most co-occurring words, we limited our analysis to keywords co-occurring at least 2 times (n ≥ 2). Of the 499 total keywords, only 94 met this threshold (n = 94), then we excluded the keywords article and humans. Figure 5 shows the co-occurrence analysis of academ- ic publications on public sector entrepreneurship. It shows that the most frequent co-occurring keywords include in- novation, entrepreneurship, public sector, public entrepre- neurship, governance, institutions, public organisations, reinventing government, technology, health services, local government, and public administration, among others (fig- ure 5). Overlay analysis is used to provide a visual analysis of the trend for a research area (van Eck & Waltman, 2010). In this case, it shows the trend over time of co-occurring key- words. In Figure 6, the overlay analysis is used to provide a visual analysis of the emerging trends in public sector entrepreneurship. Some emerging keyword trends include public health entrepreneurship, public health innovation, public choice, organisational performance, sustainability, state-owned enterprises, and entrepreneurial orientation, among others (figure 6). 4.5 Co-authorship Co-authorship is used to analyse the level of collabo- ration between authors, countries, or institutions in a re- search area (Donthu et al., 2021). We chose to analyse the intellectual collaboration between countries. Only coun- tries with at least 2 published articles were included (n ≥ 2). This yielded 24 documents (n = 24). No citation limits were included in the analysis. Figure 7 shows that the most dominant countries are the United States and the United Kingdom. Germany, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Canada and Italy are also prominent. It (Figure 7) shows that the strongest collabo- ration link is between China, Hong Kong, Singapore and 265 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Figure 5: Co-word analysis. Source: Author’s work using VOSviewer Figure 6: Overlay analysis of co-word. Source: Author’s work using VOSviewer 266 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Figure 7: Country co-authorship. Source: Author’s work using VOSviewer Canada (red cluster). Strong collaboration links also ex- ists between the United States, Norway, South Korea and Greece (blue cluster), and between Germany and Switzer- land (light blue cluster). 5 Discussion and research agenda This research presents a comprehensive analysis of peer reviewed academic publications on public sector en- trepreneurship from 1982-2022 using a scientific mapping approach. First we examined the most impactful studies in public entrepreneurship research, revealing that studies by Klein et al. (2010), Bartlett and Dibben (2002) and Klein et al. (2013) are the most impactful when measured by their citations (Figure 2). We also examined the co-citation structure (Figure 3) and bibliographic coupling (Figure 4). The bibliometric coupling revealed similarities between the following studies: Klein et al. (2010), Leyden (2016), and Ford and Anderson (2019) (Figure 4). Furthermore, results following our co-word analysis show that the domi- nant themes in public entrepreneurship include innovation, reinventing government, entrepreneurship, public sector, public entrepreneurship, public organisations, health ser- vices, local government, and public administration, among others (Figure 5), while emerging trends include public health entrepreneurship, public health innovation, sustain- ability, state-owned enterprises, and entrepreneurial orien- tation, among others (Figure 6). While academic attention on public sector entrepre- neurship has increased, we uncovered a number of impor- tant gaps and limitations during our research. The most striking one is that there are few empirical studies on pub- lic sector entrepreneurs. A majority of the studies we ex- amined were either conceptual or theoretical, and in some cases involve specific case-studies. This confirms the find - ings of previous studies (Mohammed et al., 2021). There- fore, we provide detailed research suggestions below. Methodological gaps and suggestions A striking challenge in the field of public sector en- trepreneurship is the lack of publicly available databases on the subject. This is unlike in private entrepreneurship where databases like the Global Entrepreneurship Moni- tor (GEM) and the Comparative Entrepreneurship Data for 267 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers International Analysis (COMPENDIA) based on OECD statistics provide a vital resource for scholars. Instead, a majority of the examined studies either provided concep- tual/theoretical analysis of public sector entrepreneurship or analysed the phenomenon within a public sector unit such as in public university, a local government/coun- cil, or in a public institution, mostly based on the small cross-sectional investigations of the researchers. This has posed a number of challenges for the field. First, there are very limited longitudinal studies on public sector entrepre- neurship. Scholars have long argued that entrepreneurship is a process which is better captured by examining it over a long period of time (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009; Lang- ley, 2009). Moreover, studies, albeit on private entrepre- neurship, have shown the existence of a five year time lag between starting entrepreneurial action and reaping the re- wards of entrepreneurship (Fritsch & Mueller, 2004). All of these indicate the necessity for longitudinal studies to accurately analyse entrepreneurship in the public sector. Therefore, this article recommends that future studies not only examine the topic in the short term, but in the long term as well. In a similar vein, the lack of any database, much less a synchronised/harmonised one, has meant a lack of cohe- sion in measuring the performance of public sector entre- preneurs. As a result, the field suffers from a lack of suf- ficient comparative studies. For example, while there are studies on public-private collaborations engagements and differences (Buitelaar et al., 2022; Carbonara & Pellegri- no, 2020; Hayter, 2015), there are almost no studies on cross-border comparisons of public sector entrepreneurs, and there are very limited comparative studies between public sector institutions. As such, this paper recommends that future studies consider this direction. The author also recommends that policy makers and/or private institutions establish local and international databases to capture the performance of public sector entrepreneurs. Research focus gaps and suggestions The literature on public sector entrepreneurship shows a very diverse focus. Scholars in the field have examined the topic in macro/federal level (Etzkowitz & Gulbrand- sen, 1999; Sun, 2015), at the meso/regional or local level (Rodrigues & Franco, 2021), and in public institutions and agencies (Meynhardt & Diefenbach, 2012; Rivera & Lan- dahl, 2019). We also found studies on the public health sector (Jacobson et al., 2015), public water systems (Ma- rie, 2016), and public schools (Yemini et al., 2015), among others. There is also a wide range of concepts such as ethics (Eimicke et al., 2000), innovative behaviour (Zam- petakis & Moustakis, 2007), and economic performance (Rossiter & Smith, 2017), among others, most of which are shown in Figures 5 and 6. However, there are some major limitations. First, there are very few studies exploring the impact of public sector entrepreneurship on environmental sustainability and climate change, even though there is a major focus on the topic in most other fields/sub-fields of entrepreneurship. While sustainability is an emerging top- ic (figure 6), only few studies have attempted to connect the activities of public entrepreneurs with sustainable de- velopment. Furthermore, studies on the impact of gender and diversity are also limited, despite the intense efforts to diversify the public services in countries such as the Unit- ed States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand (Bran- nan, 2021; Lomas, 2021; Parker et al., 2022). Therefore, this paper advocates a focus on these issues in the future, as well on the social impact of public sector entrepreneur- ial action. Conversely, unlike in private entrepreneurship, there are limited studies on the influence of social, cultural and environmental factors on the public sector entrepreneur. In fact, there are very limited studies on the entrepreneurial journeys of public sector institutional or individual en- trepreneurs. While there are studies on the behaviour of public entrepreneurs (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007) and their entrepreneurial orientation (Urban, 2021), their journey towards entrepreneurial action has not been suffi- ciently explored. Wiklund et al. (2011) argued that under- standing the journeys that shape entrepreneurial action is crucial for understanding entrepreneurship. Similarly, the influence of political party ideology on the entrepreneurial orientation of public employees has not been sufficiently studied. For example, are public institutions more likely to engage in entrepreneurship during a Labour or Conserva- tive government in the United Kingdom, or under a Dem- ocratic or Republican administration in the United States? And in other parts of the world. Moreover, the efficiencies and benefits of public entrepreneurship under different po- litical parties have also been under-explored. The author suggests a focus on these issues in future studies. Research scope gaps and suggestions In addition, the overwhelming majority of studies on public sector entrepreneurship have been focussed on de- veloped countries. This is partly expected due to the con- centration of authors on in developed countries (figure 7), and due to other factors such as the absence of data in developing countries, and the better performance of academic institutions in developed countries (Merigó & Yang, 2017). Nevertheless, there is an enormous gap in academic research on public sector entrepreneurship in de- veloping countries. While there are few studies on China and Singapore, studies covering other countries in Asia, the African continent and Latin America are significantly 268 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers underrepresented. Authorship collaborations with scholars in these countries are also very limited (figure 7). The large population of these countries, as well as the growing im- portance of their economies to the global system mean that studies on them would provide significant benefits to the academic debate on public sector entrepreneurship. 6 Conclusion and limitation We sought to scientifically map the field of public sec- tor entrepreneurship. We investigated the thematic clusters in the field and identified the current and emerging trends. Crucially, we also uncovered research gaps and provided directions for future research. Our study is limited by the following factors: First, we only used data from the Scopus scientific database. Second, our scope was limited to only peer reviewed journal articles. Therefore, other contribu- tions such as books, book chapters, conference proceed- ings and editorials were excluded. Acknowledgement The author acknowledges financial support from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Ural Federal University project within the Pri- ority-2030 program). Data availability Research materials are accessible at the Open Sci- ence Framework: https://osf.io/3tjvp/?view_only=de- 4033024dac46b29b4dffe1992c404c Literature Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative sci- ence studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377– 386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019 Baier-Fuentes, H., Hormiga, E., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2018). The influence of human and relational capi- tal on the rapid internationalization of firms: A compar- ative study between Spain and Chile. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 31(4), 679–700. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-12-2016-0333 Bartlett, D., & Dibben, P. (2002). Public sector innovation and entrepreneurship: Case studies from local gov- ernment. Local Government Studies, 28(4), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/714004159 Becker, E. R., Chahine, T., & Shegog, R. (2019). Pub- lic health entrepreneurship: A novel path for train- ing future public health professionals. Frontiers in Public Health, 7(APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpu- bh.2019.00089 Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Re- view, 67(3), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6210.2007.00731.x Block, J., Fisch, C., & Rehan, F. (2020). Religion and en- trepreneurship: A map of the field and a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 70(4), 591– 627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00177-2 Brannan, T. (2021). Mentoring Partnership Aims to Boost Diversity at State Department. American Diplomacy, NA-NA. Buitelaar, E., van den Hurk, M., Nozeman, E., & Oude Veldhuis, C. (2022). Public Entrepreneurship in Pri- vate Land Markets: Contracting Dilemmas around Selling Amsterdam’s Major Prison. Planning Theory and Practice.. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022 .2034923 Carbonara, N., & Pellegrino, R. (2020). The role of public private partnerships in fostering innovation. Construc- tion Management and Economics, 38(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1610184 Carnes, C. M., Gilstrap, F. E., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Matz, J. W., & Woodman, R. W. (2019). Transform- ing a traditional research organization through public entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 62(4), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.02.002 Castillo-Vergara, M., Alvarez-Marin, A., & Placencio-Hi- dalgo, D. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics. Journal of Busi- ness Research, 85, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- res.2017.12.011 Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., Dolan, B., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V . (2016). Publicly funded principal investigators allocation of time for public sector entre- preneurship activities. Economia e Politica Industri- ale, 43(4), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812- 016-0054-5 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Re- search, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- res.2021.04.070 Edwards, C., Jones, G., Lawton, A., & Llewellyn, N. (2002). Public entrepreneurship: Rhetoric, reality, and context. International Journal of Public Adminis- tration, 25(12), 1539–1554. https://doi.org/10.1081/ PAD-120014260 Eimicke, W. B., Cohen, S., & Salazar, M. P. (2000). Eth- ical Public Entrepreneurship: Common Dilemmas from North and South America. Public Integrity, 2(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15580989.2000.117 70835 269 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the im- pact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z Etzkowitz, H., & Gulbrandsen, M. (1999). Public entrepre- neur: The trajectory of United States science, technology and industrial policy. Science and Public Policy, 26(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782590 Fellnhofer, K. (2019). Toward a taxonomy of entre- preneurship education research literature: A biblio- metric mapping and visualization. Educational Re- search Review, 27, 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2018.10.002 Ford, M. R., & Andersson, F. O. (2019). Determinants of Organizational Failure in the Milwaukee School V oucher Program. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 1042–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12164 Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., & Yahiaoui, D. (2021). Entre- preneurial universities: A bibliometric analysis within the business and management domains. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165, 120522. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120522 Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2004). Effects of New Busi- ness Formation on Regional Development over Time. Regional Studies, 38(8), 961–975. https://doi. org/10.1080/0034340042000280965 Goyal, N., & Howlett, M. (2018). Lessons Learned and Not Learned: Bibliometric Analysis of Policy Learn- ing. In C. A. Dunlop, C. M. Radaelli, & P. Trein (Eds.), Learning in Public Policy (pp. 27–49). Springer In- ternational Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-76210-4_2 Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-015-9426-7 Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2018). Pub- lic-sector entrepreneurship. Oxford Review of Eco- nomic Policy, 34(4), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxrep/gry014 Hjorth, D. (2013). Public entrepreneurship: Desiring so- cial change, creating sociality. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(1–2), 34–51. https://doi.or g/10.1080/08985626.2012.746883 Ho, M.-T., Le, N.-T. B., Ho, M.-T., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2021). A bibliometric review on development economics research in Vietnam from 2008 to 2020. Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01258-9 Hughes, J. (1991). Public Sector Entrepreneurship. In P. L. R. Higonnet, D. S. Landes, H. Rosovsky, & C. P. of H. and P. of E. E. D. S. Landes (Eds.), Favorites of Fortune: Technology, Growth, and Economic Develop- ment Since the Industrial Revolution. Harvard Univer- sity Press. Jacobson, P. D., Wasserman, J., Wu, H. W., & Lauer, J. R. (2015). Assessing entrepreneurship in govern- mental public health. American Journal of Public Health, 105, S318–S322. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2014.302388 Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103 Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The Past and the Future of International Entrepreneurship: A Re- view and Suggestions for Developing the Field. Journal of Management, 35(3), 600–633. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206308330558 Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepre- neurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190. https://doi. org/10.1002/sej.50 Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1057/emr.2010.1 Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2013). Capabilities and Strategic Entrepreneurship in Public Organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1147 Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around or- ganizations. In P. D. Buchanan & P. A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Meth- ods. SAGE Publications Ltd. Leyden, D. P. (2016). Public-sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a sustainable innovative economy. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 553–564. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9706-0 Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliomet- ric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678 Lomas, D. W. B. (2021). #ForgetJamesBond: Diversity, inclusion and the UK’s intelligence agencies. Intelli- gence and National Security, 36(7), 995–1017. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2021.1938370 Marie, T. T. (2016). Public values as essential criteria for public entrepreneurship: Water management in France. Utilities Policy, 40, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jup.2016.02.005 Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic Coupling. Journal of Doc- umentation, 20(4), 236–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/ eb026352 Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J.-B. (2017). A bibliometric anal- ysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ome- ga.2016.12.004 Meynhardt, T., & Diefenbach, F. E. (2012). What drives entrepreneurial orientation in the public sector? Evi- dence from Germany’s Federal Labor Agency. Journal 270 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 761–792. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus013 Mohammed, A., Zubairu, U. M., & Oni, E. O. (2021). Public entrepreneurship literature from 2010 to 2019: A systematic review. International Entrepreneur- ship Review, 7(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.15678/ IER.2021.0701.04 Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRIS- MA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRIS- MA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 Moon, M. J., Khaltar, O., Lee, J., Hwang, C., & Yim, G. (2020). Public entrepreneurship and organizational performance in Asia: Do entreprneurial leadership, ethical climate and Confucian values matter in Korea and China. Australian Journal of Public Administra- tion, 79(3), 330–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8500.12426 Nederhof, A., & Wijk, E. V . (2006). Mapping the social and behavioral sciences world-wide: Use of maps in portfolio analysis of national research efforts. Scien- tometrics, 40(2), 237–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/ bf02457439 Osborne, D., Osborne, D. E., Silverberg, R., & Gaebler, T. A. (1992). Reinventing Government: How The Entre- preneurial Spirit Is Transforming The Public Sector. Basic Books. Ostrom, E. (1965). Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Ground Water Basin Management. Dissertation, In- diana University. https://hdl.handle.net/10535/3581 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tet- zlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glan- ville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Parker, J., Sayers, J., Young-Hauser, A., Barnett, S., Loga, P., & Paea, S. (2022). Gender and ethnic equity in Ao- tearoa New Zealand’s public service before and since Covid-19: Toward intersectional inclusion? Gender, Work & Organization, 29(1), 110–130. https://doi. org/10.1111/gwao.12759 Pereira, A. A. (2007). Transnational state entrepreneurship? Assessing Singapore’s Suzhou Industrial Park project (1994–2004). Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2007.00348.x Ramamurti, R. (1986). Public Entrepreneurs: Who They are and How They Operate. California Man- agement Review, 28(3), 142–158. https://doi. org/10.2307/41165207 Rastoka, J., Petković, S., & Radicic, D. (2022). Impact of Entrepreneurship on the Quality of Public Health Sector Institutions and Policies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031569 Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepre- neurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651– 1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033 Rivera, J. D., & Landahl, M. R. (2019). An environment conducive to bureaucratic innovation?: Exploring the potential for public entrepreneurship within FEMA. Journal of Urban Management, 8(2), 272–281. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2019.03.001 Roberts, N. C. (1992). Roberts: Public Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Review of Policy Research, 11(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992. tb00332.x Rodrigues, M., & Franco, M. (2021). Digital entrepreneur- ship in local government: Case study in Municipality of Fundão, Portugal. Sustainable Cities and Society, 73, 103115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103115 Rossiter, W., & Smith, D. J. (2017). Institutions, place leadership and public entrepreneurship: Reinter- preting the economic development of Notting- ham. Local Economy, 32(4), 374–392. https://doi. org/10.1177/0269094217707280 Sadler, R. J. (2000). Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector: The Dance of the Chameleon. Austral- ian Journal of Public Administration, 59(2), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00149 Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Social- ism and Democracy. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203857090 Shockley, G. E., Stough, R. R., Haynes, K. E., & Frank, P. M. (2006). Toward a theory of public sector entrepre- neurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6(3), 205. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJEIM.2006.009875 Singh, V . K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scop- us and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Sciento- metrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-021-03948-5 Sun, Z. (2015). Technology innovation and entrepreneurial state: The development of China’s high-speed rail in- dustry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(6), 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.201 5.1034267 Sweileh, W. M., Al-Jabi, S. W., AbuTaha, A. S., Zyoud, S. H., Anayah, F. M. A., & Sawalha, A. F. (2017). Bib- liometric analysis of worldwide scientific literature in mobile - health: 2006–2016. BMC Medical Infor- matics and Decision Making, 17(1), 72. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12911-017-0476-7 Urban, B. (2021). Public sector entrepreneurial orientation 271 Organizacija, V olume 55 Issue 4, November 2022 Research Papers in South Africa: A focus on organisational boundaries, strategy and resources. International Journal of Entre- preneurship and Innovation Management, 25(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2021.113800 Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Merigó Lindahl, J. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and entrepreneurship: A bibliomet- ric study and literature review. Journal of Business Research, 99, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- res.2019.02.050 van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 Wagner, R. E. (1966). Pressure groups and political entre- preneurs: A review article. Papers on Non-Market De- cision Making, 1(1), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01718992 Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The Future of Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00420.x Yemini, M., Addi-Raccah, A., & Katarivas, K. (2015). I have a dream: School principals as entrepre- neurs. Educational Management Administra- tion & Leadership, 43(4), 526–540. https://doi. org/10.1177/1741143214523018 Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V . (2007). Entrepreneurial behaviour in the Greek public sector. International Jour- nal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 13(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550710725165 Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V . S. (2010). An explor- atory research on the factors stimulating corporate en- trepreneurship in the Greek public sector. Internation- al Journal of Manpower, 31(8), 871–887. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437721011088557 Zerbinati, S., & Souitaris, V . (2005). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: A framework of analysis in Eu- ropean local governments. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(1), 43–64. https://doi. org/10.1080/0898562042000310723 Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organization- al Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094428114562629 Michael Olumekor works at the research laboratory for “Regional Development Strategies: Sustainability and Security of Economic Systems” within the Graduate School of Economics and Management at Ural Federal University. His research interests are in entrepreneurial economics, elderly economic behaviour and electronic commerce (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-2240). Podjetništvo javnega sektorja: znanstveno kartiranje in raziskovalna agenda Ozadje in namen: Koncept podjetništva v javnem sektorju je eno izmed področij podjetniškega raziskovanja, o kate - rem se največ razpravlja. Študirali so ga v več akademskih disciplinah, kot so med drugim management, javna upra - va in politična ekonomija. Čeprav se je akademski rezultat povečal, nismo našli predhodnih študij, ki bi zagotavljale jasen zemljevid področja. Zato je ta raziskava poskušala celovito preučiti ključne raziskovalne članke o podjetništvu v javnem sektorju. Metode: Uporabili smo podatkovno bazo Scopus in sistematično izbrali 133 člankov o javnem podjetništvo, objavlje - nih med leti 1982 in 2022. Po temeljitem »ročnem« pregledu smo uporabili VOSviewer, da smo zagotovili preslikavo področja, z namenom ugotoviti vrzeli v raziskavah in predlagati smeri za prihodnje raziskave. Naše znanstveno kartiranje je razkrilo vodilne in nastajajoče tematske sklope na tem področju. Rezultati: Naši rezultati so razkrili, da vodilne teme v podjetništvu v javnem sektorju vključujejo inovacije, podje- tništvo, javni sektor, upravljanje, preoblikovanje vlade in javne organizacije, medtem ko nastajajoči trendi v prvi vrsti vključujejo podjetništvo v javnem zdravju, inovacije v javnem zdravju, javno izbiro, trajnost in podjetniško usmerje- nost. Zaključek: Naša raziskava ponuja koristne vpoglede vsem raziskovalcem, ki jih zanima preučevanje podjetništva v javnem sektorju ali v neprofitnih organizacijah. Ključne besede: Javno podjetništvo, Javne inovacije, Bibliometrija, Javni sektor, Znanstveno kartiranje, Izvedba, Podjetnik