Upload
others
View
1
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IIASStudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicServices
SyracuseUniversity–GreenbergHouse
Washington,DC
6-7June2017
2
CONTENTSINTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3
SUBMITTEDPAPERS...............................................................................................................9CitizenCo-ProductionandtheAlteringLegitimacyofProfessionalism(SannaTuurnas)........10
LeadingCo-Production:ThreeLeadershipStylesandHowTheyAffecttheQualityandPublicValueofCo-ProductionProcesses(AnneTortzen)..................................................................30
UsingLeadershipTheorytoDefineVariablesfortheAnalysisofCo-ProductionMechanisms(Schlappa,Mason,andImani)..................................................................................................56
TowardsPassiveCo-Production?TheRoleofModernTechnologiesinCo-Production(Lember,Surva,andTönurist)..................................................................................................75
ClientCoproductionfromOnlinetoOffline:EvidencefromChinesePublicBikeService........99
ExploringHowtheStrategicActionFieldFrameworkIlluminatesCoproduction:SeeingtheUtilityofMaterialArtifacts(SandfortandPhinney)................................................................124
ASystematicReviewofRedTapeasaBarrierforCo-ProducingPublicServices(VanDijckandSteen).....................................................................................................................................150
socialLaboratories–AnInnovativeApproachtoCo-Production(Brand)..............................173
Co-ProducingCommunity-BasedTourism:TheImpactofCommunityCapacity-Building(MchunuandTheron)............................................................................................................188
KeynoteLecture:JeffreyL.Brudney...--“Coproduction:TheStrangeTaleofHow“Sometimesthe‘WrongTrain’CanTakeUstotheRightPlace”................................................................210
WhoEngagesintheCoproductionofPublicServicesandWhy?(UzochukwuandThomas)211
WhyCoproduce:TheCaseofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolsinSouthKorea(Kang).....................258
WhatDoesVoluntarySectorStudiesOfferResearchonCoproduction?(BenjaminandBrudney).................................................................................................................................299
ValueDilemmasandCopingStrategiesintheCo-ProductionofSocialCare:AQualitativeStudy(JaspersandSteen)......................................................................................................321
ServiceProviderPerspectivesonCoproductionanditsOutputs(Jo,Lee,andNabatchi)....348
TheImpactofCoproductiononPublicSpendingandEmployment:ALongitudinalStudyofMunicipalGovernmentsintheStateofGeorgia(IvonchykandKang)...................................382
ROUNDTABLEDISCUSSION........................................................................................................412
3
INTRODUCTION
TheInternationalInstituteforAdministrationStudies(IIAS)StudyGroupon‘CoproductionofPublicServices’aimstocreateandnurtureanintellectualplatformforthetheoreticaldiscussionandempiricalanalysisofcoproductionanditsimplicationsfortheorganizationandmanagementofpublicservices.Specifically,theStudyGroupprovidesaforumforthediscussionofchallengingresearchandpracticeissuesrelatedtocoproductionandenablesintercontinentalcollaborationamongscholarsandpractitioners,includingtheestablishmentofjointandcooperativeresearchprograms.TheStudyGrouphascollaboratedintensivelysinceitsfirstmeetingin2013.Itsmembershaveworkedtopublishspecialissuesininternationalpublicadministrationjournalsandiscurrentlyworkingonajointbookproject.
TheStudyGrouporganizeditsfifthopenmeetinginJune2017inWashington,DCwithfinancial,logistical,andorganizationalsupportprovidedbytheProgramfortheAdvancementofResearchonConflictandCollaboration(PARCC),amultidisciplinaryresearchinstituteattheSyracuseUniversityMaxwellSchoolofCitizenshipandPublicAffairs.Recognizingthatthepracticeofcoproductionisgaininggroundaroundtheworldandthatcountriesdifferintheextenttocoproductionisusedinprovisionofpublicservices,theorganizingcommitteesoughtparticipationfromscholarsandpractitionerswhowereworkingtoadvancetheconceptual,theoretical,andempiricalunderstandingofcoproduction.Moreover,thecommitteewasparticularlyinterestedinpapersthattacklethecomplexityofcoproductionintermsofframeworksforanalysis,applicationsofrelevanttheory,andempiricalstudy.TheCallforPapersspecificallyrequestedpapersfocusedonthefollowingresearchquestions:
• Whatframeworksareusefulforadvancingourunderstandingofcoproduction?Frameworksspecifygeneralsetsofvariables(andtherelationshipsamongthevariables)thatareofinteresttoresearchers.Asconstructs,frameworksareparticularlyusefulforidentifyingthemajorvariablesrelevantforunderstandingandanalysis.Thedevelopmentofframeworksforcoproductionandtheirusageinempiricalresearchwillbecriticaltodevelopingcontinuityinfuturestudies.
• Whattheoriesarerelevantforunderstandingcoproduction?Theoriesprovideinterpretivestructuresforframeworksbyofferingexplanations,predictions,ordiagnosesabouthowthevariableswithinaframeworkinteract,fittogether,orperformovertime.Theoriesmightfocusononeareaofaframeworkoraddresstheframeworkasawhole.Manytheoriesarelikelytobeapplicableandadvanceresearchoncoproduction,particularlywhencombinedwithmodelsforempiricalanalysis.
• Whatdoweknowfromtheempiricalstudyofcoproductionofpublicservices?Empiricalresearchusinginnovativeandrigorousqualitativeorquantitativemethodologicalapproachesisnecessaryforimprovingourunderstandingofcoproduction.Empiricallyinvestigationscouldcenteronnumerousresearchareasandquestions,includingbutnotlimitedto:
o Howdoescoproductionworkinpractice?
4
o Howdoescoproductionvaryacrossnationalandpolicycontexts?
o Howisco-productionlinkedtothetransformationofpublicservices,forexamplethroughgovernanceorICT?
o Whatarethechallengesofcoproductionforpublicsectorprofessionalsandcitizenserviceusers?
o Whataretheoutcomesandimpactsofcoproduction?
o Howdoesthedesignofcoproductionaffectoutcomes?
Beyondtheseandotherquestions,theorganizingcommitteeencouragedallparticipantstothinkcriticallyabouthowtheirresearchadvancesourconceptual,theoretical,andempiricalunderstandingofcoproduction.Theorganizingcommitteewasopentoallmethodologicalapproachesanddisciplines.
Theseproceedingscontainseveralofthepaperssubmittedtothe2017conference.
TheIIASStudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicServicesisco-chairedbyTruiSteen(KULeuven,Belgium),TinaNabatchi(SyracuseUniversity,UnitedStates)andDirkBrand(UniversityofStellenbosch,SouthAfrica).The2018meetingofthestudygroupisbeingorganizedbyDirkBrandandwillbeheldattheStellenboschUniversitySchoolofPublicLeadership.
TUESDAY,JUNE6
5
CONFERENCEPROGRAM8.45–9.15 Opening&Welcome
9.15–10.45
LeadershipandProfessionalisminCoproduction(Room1)
SessionChair:DirkBrand
1. CitizenCo-ProductionandtheAlteringLegitimacyofProfessionalism(SannaTuurnas)
2. LeadingCo-Production:ThreeLeadershipStylesandHowTheyAffecttheQualityandPublicValueofCo-ProductionProcesses(AnneTortzen)
3. DefiningtheVariablesfortheAnalysisofLeadingCo-ProductionSituations(HansSchlappa&YasminImani)
Transparency,Technology,andDatainCoproduction–Part1(Room2)
SessionChair:TruiSteen
1. CanTransparencyStimulateCo-Production?EvidencefromaSurveyExperiment(NicolaBellè,MariaCuccinello,GretaNasi,&GregoryPorumbescu)
2. Transparency,OpenGovernment,andCo-Production:TheEffectsofVisualizationsonCitizens’AttitudesandBehaviors(GregoryPorumbescu,J.RamonGil-Garcia,&MariaCucciniello)
3. CitizenCo-productionthroughOpenData:CasesofCitizenTrainingandEngagement(MilaGascó-Hernández,ErikaG.Martin,&LuigiReggi)
10.45–11.00 Break
11.00–12.30
DriversofCoproduction(Room1)
SessionChair:WouterVanDooren
1. AFrameworkforStakeholderManagementinLocalGovernanceArenas:ComparingCo-Planning,Co-DecisionMaking,Co-Design,Co-Delivery,andCo-Assessment(AlessandroSancino&AlessandroBraga)
2. DeterminantsofCo-ProductionofPublicServicesinUrbanEnvironments(MilaGasco)
3. Co-ProductionandtheNon-ProfitWorkforce:AComparativeStudyofWorkerExperiencesintheUSandScotland(LehnBenjamin&IanCunningham)
Transparency,Technology,andDatainCoproduction–Part2(Room2)
SessionChair:SannaTuurnas
1. CrowdsourcingasPublicPolicyTools(HelenK.Liu)2. TowardsPassiveCo-Production?TheRoleofModernTechnologies
inCo-production(VeikoLember,PiretTõnurist,&LaidiSurva)3. ClientCoproductionfromOnlinetoOffline:EvidencefromPublic
BikeServiceinChina(YunxiangZhang)
TUESDAY,JUNE6
6
12.30–1.30 Lunch
1.30–3.30
UnderstandingtheChallengesofImplementation(Room1)
SessionChair:AlessandroSancino
1. ExploringHowStrategicActionFieldFrameworkIlluminatesCoproduction:SeeingtheUtilityofMaterialArtifacts(JodiSandfort&SoonJinOng)
2. ASystematicReviewofRedTapeasaBarrierforCo-ProducingPublicServices(CharlotteVanDijck&TruiSteen)
3. AComprehensiveFrameworkforUnderstandingCoproductionofWaterandSanitationServices(Luisa,Moretto,Jean-PierreIlitoBoozi,FedericaNataliaRosati,&JacqueTeller)
4. PublicServiceDominantLogicandtheCoproductionofPublicServices(ChrisSilvia)
CoproductionattheCommunityLevel(Room2)
SessionChair:MilaGasco
1. CitizenInvolvementinCo-ProductiveCommunityDevelopment:TheProfessional’sImpactonInclusion,EmpowermentandEquity(DaphneVanleene&BramVerschuere)
2. SocialLaboratories–AnInnovativeApproachtoCo-Production(DirkBrand)
3. HousingCooperativesintheCoproductionofHousingandServicesforSmallTowns:TheCaseofAmdework,Ethiopia(BisratK.Woldeyessus)
4. Co-ProducingCommunity-BasedTourism:TheImpactofCommunityCapacity-Building(NtuthukoMchunu&FrancoisTheron)
3.30–3.45 Break
3.45–5.15
KeynoteLecture:JeffreyL.Brudney(Room1)
“Coproduction:TheStrangeTaleofHow“Sometimesthe‘WrongTrain’CanTakeUstotheRightPlace”
ResearchoncoproductionbeganintheUnitedStatesintheearly1980s.Areviewofpublicationsfromthatperiodsuggeststhattheliteratureoncoproductionemergedandgrewoverthedecade,butlargelysubsidedinthe1990s(withsomenotableexceptions)–onlytoberevivedandreinvigoratedbyscholarshipfromacrosstheglobeinthe2000s.Thispresentationspeculatesonthereasonsfortheapparentlapseinscholarlyinterest,someunintendedconsequences,andtheimplicationsoftherenewedinterestforfutureresearchoncoproduction.
6.00–8.00
Reception
LebaneseTaverna
2641ConnecticutAveNW,Washington,DC20008,USA
WEDNESDAY,JUNE7
7
9:00–9.15 Arrival&Coffee
9.15–10.45
CitizenMotivationsforCoproduction–Part1(Room1)
SessionChair:JodiSandfort
1. CoproducingCommunityServices:WhyDoPeopleParticipateandHow?(XuanTu)
2. WhoEngagesintheCo-productionofPublicServicesandWhy?TheCaseofAtlanta,Georgia(JohnClaytonThomas&KelechiUzochukwu)
3. WhyCoproduce?TheCaseofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolsinSouthKorea(SeongC.Kang)
CoproductioninEducation(Room2)
SessionChair:JariStenvall
1. TypesofCoproductionandDifferentialEffectsonOrganizationalPerformance:EvidencefromtheNewYorkCitySchoolSystem(JulioC.Zambrano-Gutiérrez,AmadaRutherford,&SeanNicholson-Crotty)
2. Co-ProductioninPrimaryEducation:LinkingPastResearch(MarliesHoningh,TacoBrandsen,&ElenaBondarouk)
3. Co-CreationandCo-ProductionintheSchoolMealsService:FramingtheRoleofLaypeople(GiuseppeAquino,MaddalenaSorrentino,&JeffBrudney)
10.45–11.00 Break
11.00–12.30
CitizenMotivationsforCoproduction–Part2(Room1)
SessionChair:JohnThomas
1. WhatAffectsCo-Production:ATestofaProposedNon-LinearRelationshipbetweenDissatisfactionwithGovernmentPerformance,SocialCapital,andCollectiveEfficacy(JueYoungMok)
2. WhatDoesVoluntarySectorStudiesOfferResearchonCoproduction?(LehnBenjamin&JeffreyL.Brudney)
3. ThePoliticalGeographyofProtest:TheImpactofNeighborhoodMobilizationonOppositionagainstaLargeInfrastructureProjectinAntwerpen,Belgium(TomCoppens,WouterVanDooren,&PeteThijssen)
CoproducingHealthandSocialCare(Room2)
SessionChair:VictorPestoff
1. ValueDilemmasandCopingStrategiesintheCo-ProductionofSocialCare:AQualitativeStudy(SylkeJaspers&TruiSteen)
2. ServiceProviderPerspectivesonCoproductionanditsOutcomesinHealthCare(SuyeonJo,SamantaLee,&TinaNabatchi)
3. DeterminantsandImpactsofCo-Production:TheCaseofSubstanceUseDisorderTreatmentCentersintheUnitedStates(EthanPark)
WEDNESDAY,JUNE7
8
12.30–1:30 Lunch
1:30–3:00
ExaminingtheOutcomesofCoproduction(Room1)
SessionChair:BethGazley
1. EmbeddingCo-ProductioninStrategy:ContinuousTransformationinServicesforYoungPeople,SurreyCC,UK(TonyBovaird,ElkeLoeffler,GarathSymonds,&ChrisTisdall)
2. Coproduction:ImprovingandSustainingAccesstoCleanWaterforHouseholdUse(MaryS.Mangai&MichielS.deVries)
3. CoproductionandCostEfficiency:ALongitudinalStudyoftheEffectsofVolunteersontheLevelofPublicSpendingandEmployment(MikhailIvonchyk&SeongC.Kang)
ConceptualDiscussionsofCoproduction(Room2)
SessionChair:TruiSteen
1. Co-ProductionandAdaptiveProblemSolving(JariStenvall,Pasi-HeikkiRannisto,&IlpoLaitinen)
2. EmpoweringCitizens,EnhancingCo-ProductionorMuddyingtheWaters?TheDevilisintheDetails(VictorPestoff)
3:00–3:15 Break
3:15–5:00
RoundtableDiscussion
(Room1)
5:00 Adjourn
9
SUBMITTEDPAPERS
10
CitizenCo-ProductionandtheAlteringLegitimacyofProfessionalism(SannaTuurnas)
IIASStudyGrouponCo-Production,Washington,D.C.,6.-7.6.2017
SannaTuurnas,Universitylecturer,PhD
UniversityofTampere,Finland
Introduction
Co-production is described as both an arrangement and a process to invite communities,
individualcitizensandclientstoparticipateintheplanning,productionandevaluationofpublic
services1(Bovaird&Löffler,2012;Osborne&Strokosch,2013;Verschuere,Brandsen&Pestoff,
2013).Throughtheaimtoconnectcivilsocietyandthewelfarestate,co-productionthusaffects
the idea of professionalised public services. The key components of professionalism (expert
knowledge,qualityandequality)requiredtohandlesocialproblemsarequestionedinmodels
basedoncitizenpartnerships(seeDuyvendak,Knijn&Kremer,2006).Theroleofcitizensand
serviceusersasco-producersinparticularseemstoquestionthelegitimacy2ofprofessionalwork
andtheconceptofprofessionalism(Loopmans,2006).
Inthispaper,professionalismisdefinedasanoutcomeofknowledgeandethicalculturethatis
obtained through professional education and work experience. The paper starts with the
assertionthatexpertiseandknowledgeareseenassourcesofthelegitimacyofprofessionalism
insocietyandthat,basedonthisexpertise,professionalismhasanestablishedpositioninthe
organisationofthewelfarestate(Molander,Grimen&Eriksen,2012;Svensson,2006).AsEvetts
1 The term ‘co-production’ is used here as an umbrella concept to refer to both client-centred service processes (also referred to as ‘co-creation’; cf. Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers, 2014) and service arrangements where an individual or group of citizens produce a public service in collaboration with public professionals. Citizen co-production may be used as a concept to refer to the wider roles of citizens beyond the role of client or consumer (cf. Tuurnas, 2016).2 In defining legitimacy, I refer to Svensson’s (2006, p. 580) formulation: ‘legitimacy is defined as the process through which a social system is justified by its members, i.e. the rulers are given the power to rule by the ruled […] The concept is mainly connected with political power and governing, and in relation to citizens. This is a distinct from the rational choice of individual customers in a market […].’
11
(2013, p. 785) notes, ‘professionalism can be defended as a uniquely desirable method of
regulating,monitoringandprovidingcomplexservicestothepublic’.
Thequestionof legitimacyhasbeenoneof thekeythemes inresearchonprofessionalism in
recentdecades(cf.Freidson,2001).Variousinstitutionallogics,suchasmarketlogic,professional
logic,democraticlogicandmanageriallogic,offercontradictorydirectionsforprofessionalsand
professionalism(Blomberg&Vaks,2015;Noordegraaf,2015).Increaseddemandsforopenness,
efficiencyandaccountabilityhavealsoaffectedprofessionaldiscretionandautonomy(Blomgren
&Waks,2013;Sehested,2002;Taylor&Kelly,2006).Moreover,thenewenvironmentintroduces
newconditionsforthelegitimacyofprofessionalism(Svensson,2006).
There is a widespread debate in academia as to whether de-professionalisation or re-
professionalisationisunderway(Duyvendaketal.,2006;Noordegraaf,2015).However,onething
seemsundebatable.AsNoordegraafunderlines,theimagesofprofessionalismareshifting(2015;
2016). Therefore, there is a need for new understandings of professionalism in changing
organisational and societal contexts. This paper also recognises the various roles of (active)
citizensasclients,volunteersandresidents(cf.Bäcklund,Kallio&Häkli,2014;Tuurnas,2015),
bringinga less-studiedperspective toexamine the legitimacyofprofessionalism.Against this
setting, this paper aims tobuild apreliminary framework for studyingprofessionalism in the
contextofco-productionandunderlying,widersocietalchangesconcerningtherolesof(active)
citizens,civilsocietyandwelfarestateprofessionals.
Mainhypothesisandresearchquestion
Inco-productionliterature,thefutureroleofprofessionalshasbeendescribedascoordinators
ratherthansoleexpertsofpublicservices(e.g.Alford&O’Flynn,2012;Bovaird,2007;Tuurnas,
2016).Thismaymeanthede-professionalisationofwelfareservices,but itcanalsomeanre-
professionalisationandnewsourcesoflegitimacy.Inanycase,thehypothesisisthusthatthe
legitimacyofprofessionalism–basedonexpertise,knowledgeandworkexperience–isshifting.
Inordertobuildatheoreticalunderstandingoftheresearchtopic,differentstreamsofliterature
on professionalism, public sector reform and co-production are connected. Specifically, this
12
paperaddressesthefollowingquestion:‘Howisthelegitimacyofwelfarestateprofessionalism
shapedbycitizenco-production?’
Focusonprofessionals
FerlieandGeraghty(2005)defineprofessionalsbasedontheirpositioninpublicorganisations:
Professionals are those who arrange middle management–level practices and interact with
clientsonthefrontlineofpublicserviceprovisions (Ferlie&Geraghty,2005).Anotherwayto
defineprofessionalsistoemphasisetheirautonomy-basedidentityanddiscretionasacentral
element. Indeed, professionalsmust dealwith ambiguities and complex interactions in their
work, and professionalism – as a framework to make decisions – helps them tackle these
situations.AbmaandNoordegraaf(2003,p.295),forinstance,usehealthcareandtheprotocols
usedtohandlecertainillnessesasexamplesofprofessionalism:
Professionals, in the classical sense of theword, are individualswho have followed a
professionaleducationandtraining,whoaremembersofprofessionalassociations,who
read professional journals, and who are subject to professional codes and legal
procedures.[…]Theprivateandconfidentialcharacterofknowledgeaboutclientsgives
professionalsadiscretionaryspacetoactwithouttheinterferenceofthirdparties(2003,
p.293).
Professionalscanalsobedefinedinrelationtothesurroundingsociety.HupeandHill(2007,p.
282),forexample,distinguishbetweenthecharacteristicsofacertainkindofoccupationandthe
wayapersonexercisingacertainoccupationappearstothesurroundingsocietybasedonthe
definitionofprofessional.
FerlieandGeraghty(2005,p.423)discussatleastthreewaystoanalyseandclassifypublicservice
professions.Thefirstistoanalyseprofessionsbasedonlocation(forinstance,localversuscentral
government)orthroughtheirroleas‘eliteprofessionsandpara-professions’.Anotheranalytical
interest could be ‘tracking the evolution of professionalisation projects’. Finally, the authors
suggestananalyticallenstoobservethefocuson‘changingrelationsbetweenthepublicservice
professionsandmoredemandingclients’.Outofthesetypologicalandanalyticalsuggestions,
13
thelastoneisthemostappropriatetothispaper,asitincludestheideaofco-productionasa
partoftheworkofpublicserviceprofessionals.
Furthermore,theterm‘professionalculture’hasbeenusedheretoillustratethesharednorms
andvaluesofpublic serviceprofessionals.Professionalculturecanalsobeseenasadefining
elementofprofessionalism.However,asEvans(2008)pointsout,professionalismgoes‘beyond’
professionalculture:Whilstprofessionalculturemaybeinterpretedassharedideologies,values
andgeneralmethodsandattitudestowardsworking,professionalismseemstobegenerallyseen
astheidentificationandexpressionofwhatisrequiredandexpectedofmembersofaprofession
(2008,p.6).Evansthussuggeststhatprofessionalcultureismoreattitudinalthanbehavioural
whereasthefocusofprofessionalismisfunctionalratherthanattitudinal.
Professionalismandthepublicmanagementreform
Brandsen and Honingh (2013) point out that public management reforms have directly
influencedprofessionalism.Thecreationofwelfarestatemodels–especiallyintheContinental
andScandinaviancontexts–wenthand inhandwiththe ‘professionalisation’ofcorewelfare
stateactivities.Althoughthelargebureaucratisationofpublicsectororganisationwasseenas
theendofprofessionalism,theoppositewastrue.Educatedprofessionalsbecamethedriving
forceof thosebureaucracies (see Evetts, 2011; Ferlie&Geraghty, 2005; Sehested, 2002). As
Sehestednotes, ‘Thepublic bureaucracies becamedependent on theprofessionals and their
expertknowledgetoperformthespecialisedwork’(2002,p.1515).
Inrecentdecades,thelegitimacyofprofessionalismhasespeciallybeenshapedthroughtheNew
Public Management reform (cf. Evetts, 2013; Freidson, 2001). Here, increased demands for
openness, efficiency and accountability have affected professional discretion and autonomy
(Blomgren&Waks,2013;Sehested,2002;Taylor&Kelly,2006).
NewPublicManagement(NPM)policieshavesinceaffectedtheworkofprofessionalsinvarious
ways.First,privatisationandcontractingoutinthe1980sand1990simpacteddifferentpublic
sector professionals, from the manual workforce to middle management. However, the
privatisationofhumanserviceprofessionals–locatedintheheartofwelfarestateservices–has
14
beenmorechallenging (Ferlie&Geraghty,2005). Thenagain, theseprofessionalshave faced
significant changes, especially concerning their professional autonomy. For example, their
discretionhasbeenchallenged,particularlybytheriseofperformancemanagementsystemsand
managerial control over their work (Broadbent & Laughlin, 2001; Ferlie & Geraghty, 2005;
Freidson,2001;Jespersen,Nielsen&Sognstrup,2002;Sehested,2002).
Sehested(2002)hasstudied,inthecontextofDenmark,howNPMreformshaveinfluencedthe
rolesofpublicserviceprofessionals.TheauthorpointsoutthatatrendinNPMreformshasbeen
the change of the governing principle from professionalism tomanagerialism. Sehested also
explicatesthatNPMreformcanbeunderstoodindifferentwaysdependingontheadministrative
context. In the Nordic model (such as in Denmark), finances, regulations and controls have
remainedtheresponsibilityofpublicsectororganisations.Thenagain,NPMreformhasincreased
out-sourcingandcontractingoutaswaystoincreasecompetition(Sehested,2002,p.1519;see
alsoFarneti,Padovani&Young,2010).
Asfortheprofessionals,Sehested(2006,p.1519)specificallymentionschangesintheinternal
organisationofprofessionals’work–especiallythroughthelossoftheirtraditionalautonomy.
Theauthorrecogniseschanges inthemonopolyofprofessionals’workingarenasthroughthe
emergenceofnewadministrativeunitsaswellaschangesintheirideologicalcontrolsthrough
userinfluence.
TaylorandKelly(2006)examinetheimpactsofpublicsectorreform(especiallyNPMprocesses)
based on Lipsky’s theory of professional discretion in rule, task and value dimensions. The
authorsevaluateschoolteachersandsocialworkersinthecontextoftheUK.AccordingtoTaylor
and Kelly, rule discretion as the policy-making element has decreased due to an increased
quantity of rules and increased accountability. Furthermore, the authors point out that an
emphasisonserviceusersasco-producers,thepressurestofulfilthegoalssetandmanagerial
pressuresserveto increasetask-baseddiscretion.AsTaylorandKellyargue,professionalsare
obligedtothinkabouttheimplicationsoftheirtasksfromthetop-downandfromthebottom-
up.
15
Moreover,theworkofSehested(2002)emphasisesthe‘double’pressureonprofessionals,which
comes from the top through administrative and political leadership and the bottom through
service users and citizens. The position of expert knowledge, possessed by professionals, is
greatlyinfluencedandchangedinthereforms.Thegovernancereformcallsforresponsiveness
andequaldialoguewithserviceusers,and itexpectsprofessionals tobuildservicesbasedon
shared knowledge. As Sehested (2002, p. 1526) notes, this is a vital theme for research on
reforms.
Furthermore,inlightofthecurrentgovernancereform,thechangingroleofprofessionalscannot
solelybeexaminedthroughmarketisation.Thekey ishybridgovernance; thepartnershipsgo
beyondformalcontract-basedagreementstopartnershipsbetweenprofessionalsandcitizens
across their different roles (Bovaird, 2007; Pestoff, 2014, Torfing & Triantafillou, 2014). The
frameworkofBrandsenandHoningh(2013)captureshowthepublicmanagementreform–from
classicpublicadministrationtoNPMandNPG–affectstheworkofpublicserviceprofessionals.
All in all, ‘shifts in governance’, as the authors call them, have widened the operating
environment of all professionals. The communities for interaction include a set of different
actors. IntheNPGtypeofgovernance, legitimacystillstemsfromprofessionalstandards,but
also increasingly from inter-organisational networks. In the same way, the autonomy of
professionalsiscontestedinthosenetworks.
16
Table 1. Professionals and three subsequent types of governance (drawn from Brandsen &
Honigh,2013,p.882).
ClassicPublic
Administration
NewPublic
Management
NewPublic
Governance
Expertise Mysticalknowledge Rationalisedknowledge Dispersedknowledge
Community Dominantprofessionalcommunity
Dominantorganisationalcommunity
Dominantinter-organisationalcommunity
Basisof
legitimacy
Professionalstandards,clients
Organisationaloutputandprofessionalstandards;
Customers
Organisationaloutput;professionalstandards;inter-organisationalnetworking,citizens
Autonomy Structuredbyaprofessionalcommunity
Contestedwithinprofessionalbureaucracyandmanagerialism
Contestedwithinacollaborativenetworkandcitizen/clientco-producers
TheframeworkofBrandsenandHoningh(2013)isalsousedasapointofdeparturetofurther
examine the legitimacy of professionals in (collaborative) governance settings focusing
specifically on citizen co-production. The next sections present preliminary ideas on how
expanding relations between professionals and civil society affects the legitimacy of
professionalisminthewelfarestate.
Co-productionandtheshiftingideaofprofessionalexpertise
Professionaltrainingandeducationhavetraditionallygivenprofessionalstheauthoritytouse
discretion. Expertise has been seen as a way to separate professionals from other kinds of
workersandlaymen(Brandsen&Honingh,2013).AsseeninTableofBrandsen&Honingh(2013;
here,p.6),professionalshavebeenabletooperateinprofessionalandorganisationalsettings.
17
Thechangingroleofthecitizenasapatient(inhealthcare),asacitizenandasaconsumerhas
affected the three logics of service delivery: professionalism, bureaucracy and17arketization
(Duyinvednaketal.,2006,p.122).Theauthorsemphasisethechangingroleofprofessionals,
especially in relation to the citizen-consumer and the professional. As the authors note,
professionalshavebeenseenasopponentsinthisevolvingrelationshipandhavebeenleftalone
tocopewiththenew(attimesconflicting)demandsoftheconsumercitizen.
Thelatestshiftofcollaborativegovernancehasturnedclient-citizensintoco-producersandco-
deliverersofservices.Here,thetaskoftheprofessionalshiftsgraduallyfromservicedeliveryto
thecoordinationofcitizen involvement inpolicyprogrammes (Loopmans,2006). In thesame
way,professionalexpertiseiscontestednotonlybyprofessionalcommunitiesormanagers(as
inthemanagerialmodels),butalsobycitizensandotherstakeholders.Theunderlyingideaof
professionalexpertisebasedontechnicalskills isquestioned(seeBrandsen&Honingh,2013;
Kreber,2016;Sullivan,2000).Co-productionalsobuildsonpublicprofessionalslookingbeyond
pure technocratic thinkingandappreciating citizen-users’ practical knowledgebasedon their
experiences(cf.Bovaird,2007;Osborne&Strokosch,2013).
Moreover,thebottom-uppressurecomesnotonlyfromthe individualserviceusers,butalso
fromawidercommunity(Botero.Paterson&Saad-Sulonen,2012;Jones&Ormston,2013,Taylor
&Kelly,2006).Forinstance,TaylorandKelly(2006)emphasisethatlocalismandotherformsof
communitygovernanceaffectprofessionaldiscretion,forcingthemtopositionthemselvesinto
newstructuresandprocesses.Astheauthorsindicate:
[T]his will put more pressure on professionals to familiarise themselves with the
structures of governance and their impact on service delivery at street-level and the
relationship between their own established statutory agencies and parish or
neighbourhoodgovernance(p.639).
Thisideaalsoappliestoarrangementswherevolunteeringcitizenscontributetotheproduction
ofpublicservicesalongsideprofessionals.Citizen-volunteersalsopossessvaluableexperiential
18
expertiseandcanthusproducenewinnovativeinsightsforservicedelivery(Tuurnasetal.,2016).
Thisraisesthequestionastohowexpertknowledgeasafundamentalprincipleofpublicservice
provisionispositionedinthesearrangements.
If the role of professionals moves towards the coordination of services, it will require new
professionalcompetences(foranoverviewofprofessionals’competencesinco-production,see
Steen&Tuurnas,xxxx).Thecoordinatingrolealsoquestionsthewholebasisofprofessionalism,
professional training and education (cf. Bovaird, 2007; Noordegraaf, 2015; Tuurnas, 2016).
Accordingly,Duyinvendaketal.(2006,p.8)poseaconcernedquestion:‘Knowledge,authority,
morality, expertise and skills to deal with social problems: What exactly is lost when the
professionallogicisundermined?’
According to Noordegraaf (2015), professionals also remain experts in the collaborative
environmentprofessionalismjustbecomesmoreconnected.AsNoordegraaf(p.201)presents,
professionalscanconnecttheirexpertisetointer-organisationalnetworksandmanagers,clients
andcitizensandotherexternalactorswhoaredirectlyorindirectlylinkedtoserviceprocesses
(suchas journalists,supervisorybodiesandpolicymakers).This isapositiveviewpoint forthe
futureofprofessionalism.
Vamstad’s (2012) study brings an interesting perspective to examine professionalism in the
contextoftheSwedishwelfarestate,whichreliesorhasreliedstronglyontrainedprofessionals
todeliverpublicservices.Thecaseofchildcareshowsthataparentcooperativecouldorganise
the servicewithhigher satisfaction rates from serviceusers and staff compared to the same
serviceprovidedby trainedprofessionals.AsVamstadnotes, ‘The resultsare,however, clear
enoughtosuggestthattherearenoharmfuleffectsofco-productiononservicequality.Thisisa
boldenoughconclusionandanewperspectiveforasystemofwelfaredeliverysoentirelyreliant
ontheexpertiseoftrainedprofessionalsforachievingservicequality’(2012,p.15).
ThestudybyTuurnasetal.(2015),focusingonmediationserviceco-producedbyvolunteering
mediatorsandprofessionals,indicatessimilarresultsfromadifferentangle.Inacasestudyof
19
mediationservicesinthecontextofFinland,thevolunteersconsideredbeingmoreapproachable
forclients(thepartiesofmediationinthiscase).Theinterviewedprofessionalsocialworkersalso
highlightedthecreativityofvolunteersinofferingsolutionstoreconcilevictimsandoffenders.
AsHenriksson,WredeandBurau(2006)emphasise,thestatehasbeenacentral institutionin
such ‘professionalisationprojects’. Ina liberal state, theprofessional (firstand foremost) can
freelyrepresenttheclient.Thecontextofthewelfarestate,however,complicatesthisconcept.
AsBertilssonpointsout,‘suchaloyaltybecomesmoredifficultinthewelfarestatewherethe
medicaldoctorhastomediatebetweentheconcernforthepatientandtheabstractcitizenbody.
Whatisgoodforallisnotnecessarilybestfortheindividual’(1990,p.131).Thisnotiondraws
attentiontotheroleofprofessionalisminmaintainingandproducingpublicvalue.
Civic/democraticprofessionalismasthe‘fourthlogic’
Civicprofessionalism (also referred to as ‘democraticprofessionalism’) is viewedas away to
(re)build trustbetween societyandprofessionalism (Sullivan,2001). The conceptemphasises
civic-mindedness,expecting thatprofessionalswilluse theirprofessionalexpertise toaddress
publicproblemsinordertobenefitthewidercommunity(cf.Sullivan,2005).Principally,their
roleasprotectorsofpublicvalueisviewedasameanstolegitimiseprofessionalism(Duyvendak
etal.,2006).However,co-productionblurs thispreviouslydistinctboundary,asprofessionals
mustseektobalancetheprivatevalueof individualclientsandthecreationofpublicvalue–
factorsthatcan,attimes,beatodds(Alford&O´Flynn,2012).Moreover,asKremerandTonkens
pointout,‘definingpublicgoodisnolongerataskforprofessionals,butitissharedwithclients’
(2006,p.132).Thisempowermentofclients(orinawidersense,ofcitizens)thusquestionsthe
legitimacyofprofessionalstoactasshepherdsofpublicvalue.
Kreber(2016)notes,highlightingmarketvaluessuchasfreedomofchoiceinthepublicsphere,
that other explanations underlying the decrease in public trust have been searched in the
ideologyof liberalism. Indeed, ideological liberalvalues(suchasmarketisation)alsochallenge
civicprofessionalism.Here,thecaseofthecommercialisationofschoolsisanillustrativeexample
(Wilkinson,2007).Ascivicprofessionals,teachersplayakeyroleinascertainingandprotecting
20
the ideals of civic education. Similarly, other professionals are significant actors in balancing
socialorpublicvalueandshareholdervalue(e.g.Hill,Lorenz,Dent&Lützkendorf,2013).The
increaseinaccountabilityhasalsobeenconsideredtoinfluenceadecreaseinpublictrust(Kreber,
2016).
Toconclude,thequestionofvalueisessentialforunderstandingthechanginglegitimacyofthe
professional.Bertilsson(1990)hasstatedthatintheNordicWelfarestatemodel,professionals
havebeenlegitimisedtolookafterandensurecitizens’socialrights.Amidstthetransformation
ofthewelfarestateandthequestforactivecitizenshipwithin,thediscretionofprofessionalsto
definevalueseemstochange.
Professionalismaspublicauthoritiesinhybridgovernance
Public accountability can also be viewed as a way to legitimise professionalism. However,
accountabilityalsobecomesmoredifficulttodefineinhybridservicesystemsinwhichtheroles
ofprofessionalsandcitizensintermingle(Duyvendak,Knijk&Kremer,2006;Hupe&Hill,2007;
Tuurnasetal.,2016).
Forexample,collaborativegovernancearrangementsinpublicservicedeliverychangethework
of public service professionals. New partnerships and networks functionwith quite different
dynamicswhen compared to theold, producer-centred ideals.Ongoing structural changes in
societiesandthemixingoftherolesofdifferentserviceproducers,professionals,volunteersand
userscreateanew,morecomplexenvironmentinwhichtoproduceanddeliverpublicservices.
In this kind of environment, the coordination of shared responsibilities and issues of
accountabilitybecomesevermoreimportant(seeBovaird,2007;Fotaki,2011;Hupe&Hill,2007;
Osborne,2010;Rhodes,1997;Romzek&LeRoux,2012).HupeandHill(2007)arguethatinmulti-
dimensionalgovernance,publicpowerandpublicaccountabilityareexercisedbyvariousactors
invariousscalesandonthestreetlevel.
Lindberg(2013)hasthoroughlyanalysedthisconcepttoclarifythecoreideaofaccountability.
According tohim, some formsof accountability canbe seenas sub-typesof accountability –
meaningthattheystemfromtherootconceptbutarenotaccountability inaclassicalsense.
21
These sub-types include professional accountability, audit accountability and client-patron
accountability.Thedifferenttypesvaryinthestrengthofcontrol,thesource(internal-external)
ofcontrolandthespatialdirectionofaccountabilityrelationships(Lindberg,2013).However,this
doesnotnecessarilymeanthatthesetypesofaccountabilityarelessmeaningful.Especiallyin
hybridgovernancearrangements,moreinformalformsofaccountabilitybecomesignificantfor
inter-organisationalandinterpersonalcooperation(Romzek&LeRoux,2012). Indeed, inmore
organised co-productionmodels within civil society, different coordinationmechanisms (e.g.
markets,hierarchiesandnetworks)areestablishedtocoordinatetheworkofprofessionals.This
isespeciallythecaseinthefieldofcareandwelfare(Noordegraaf,2015;Pestoff,2014).
Basedontheliteratureonaccountability,therearedifferentformsofaccountabilitythatinvolve
professionals.First,public-administrativeaccountability isbasedonverticalrelationsbetween
professionalsandmanagersaswellaspoliticians (Hupe&Hill,2007).However, theprincipal-
agentmodelisinadequateinhybridgovernancearrangements.Ingovernance,thepositionsof
‘accountors’ and ‘accountees’may be contingent (Bovens, Schillemans&Hart, 2008; Klijn&
Koppenjaan,2004;Laegreid&Mattei,2013;Willems&VanDooren,2011).
Second, professionals are accountable to their peer workers at both the intra- and inter-
organisational levels of service systems. These professional accountability relations are
horizontal,andthecoreofaccountabilityisbasedonprofessionals’expertise(Considine,2002;
Hupe & Hill, 2007). Horizontal accountability can be ‘fuzzy’, complex and conflict-driven,
however,as theprinciple-agentsetting ismissing (Considine,2002;Schillemans,2011).Third,
participatoryaccountabilityrelationstakeplacebetweenprofessionalsandcitizens(Hupe&Hill,
2007).Especiallyingovernance,citizens’andserviceusers’rolesasco-producersseemtochange
thelegitimacyofprofessionalpractices(Brandsen&Honing,2013).
Fourth,Considine(2002)bringsouttheconceptofprocess-centredaccountability.Thesetypes
ofaccountabilityrelationscanberecognisedespeciallyinnetworks,clustersandco-production.
Accountabilityisnotrelatedtoquestionsofcompliance(legalstrategy)orperformance.Rather,
the accountability relations become ‘a matter of organisational converge (cultural strategy)’
(2002). Thus, the process is instrumental for organisational learning and feedback.However,
22
these kinds of cultural processes are difficult to define and measure. Despite limitations
concerningmeasurability,process-centredaccountabilitycanbeconsideredanimportantwayto
mitigate the accountability gaps in co-production processes (Considine, 2002). For the
professional, process-centred accountability may mean opening up closed professional
communitiesintermsofregulationsandnorms(cf.Brandsen&Honingh,2013).
Here,theroleoftheprofessional–actingasanodebetweenmanagementandcitizens–iscrucial
(cf.Tuurnas,2016).Inco-production,thesimpleprinciple-agentmodelsareinsufficienttoexplain
the complexity of accountability relations. Process-centred accountability brings out the
importanceofsharedprocesses,highlightinglearningandfeedbackinnetworkrelationsinstead
offocusingmerelyonlegalaccountabilityties.Asithasbeendiscussed,professionalsmustshare
their power with citizens beyond having to account for their performance. The unidirected
relationshipbetweenprofessionalpublicserviceproducersandrecipients,whichbuildsonusers’
trustthroughprofessionals’andcitizen-users’consent,thustransformsintoapartnership-like
relationship.
Conclusions
Therelationsbetweenthestateandthecitizensarealteringinthemodernsocieties(Pestoff,
2012). The managerial models of the 2010s, such as public value management, digital era
governanceandcollaborativegovernance,emphasisedifferentaspectsofpublic-sectorreform,
but they all converge inhighlighting active citizenship, citizen responsiveness andbottom-up
legitimacy (Greve, 2015, p. 60; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). Co-production thus exemplifies a
broadersocietalchangeandleadstore-evaluatingthewaystherelationsbetweenthestateand
societyarechanging(seeBailey,2011;Bovaird,2007;Brandsen&Pestoff,2006;Eriksson&Vogt,
2013;Fotaki,2011;Osborne,2017;Perry,2007;Pestoff,2012;Ryan,2012).Here,welfarestate
professionalsareseenasrepresentorsofthestate.
Ithereforeasked,‘Howisthelegitimacyofwelfarestateprofessionalismshapedbycitizenco-
production?’Tosketchanswerstothisquestion,someinferenceshavebeendrawn.Basedon
theabove literature review, it canbe said that the idealof active citizenship included in the
23
collaborativegovernancereform(andco-productionasakeymodelwithin)changestheposition
ofprofessionalisminsocietyinthefollowingtwoways.
First,thepositionofprofessionalexpertiseandknowledgeischanginginco-productionmodels,
asco-productionmodelsbuildonpublicprofessionalslookingbeyondpuretechnocraticthinking
andappreciatingcitizen-users’experientialandpracticalknowledge.Thisideaalsoappliestothe
service models where volunteering citizens contribute to the production of public services
alongsideprofessionals.Therefore,theprofessional’sroleasashepherdofpublicvalueisaltering
inco-productionmodels,astheprofessionalmustseektobalancetheprivatevalueofindividual
clientsandthecreationofpublicvalue,whichattimescanbeatoddswitheachother.Thisisa
highlyimportantquestionconcerningthefutureofprofessionalism.Freidson(2001,p.222)has
expressedhis concern about thepossibilities of professionals to use their knowledge for the
publicgood:
Professionalshaveaclaimof licensetobalancethepublicgoodagainsttheneedsand
demands of the immediate clients or employers. Transcendent values add moral
substancetothetechnicalcontentofdisciplines…Whiletheyshouldhavenorighttobe
theproprietorsoftheknowledgeandtechniquesoftheirdisciplines,theyareobligedto
betheirmoralcustodians.
Although Freidson’s notion expresses concerns for de-professionalisation, Duyinvendak et al.
(2006, p. 8) note that some of the elements of NPMmay even foster professionalism. For
instance, the authors remark that accountabilitymay help to better clarify (to professionals
themselvesandtosociety)whattheyaredoing,whyandwhattheresultsoftheiractivitiesare.
Noordegraaf (2016, p. 801–802) captures the consequences of the (e)valuation of
professionalisminaconnectedandhybridserviceenvironment:
Whereas traditional professional values were clearly ‘professional,’ that is, set and
regulatedbyprofessionalfieldsthemselves,suchasquality,reasonableness,andequity,
current valuesaremuchmoreambiguousand lesspredefined.Professionalbehaviors
mightalsorelatetovalueslikeefficiency,impact,andevidence,whichweretraditionally
24
seenasalien.Whereaswetendedtojudgeprofessionalactsonthebasisofprocedural
effectiveness (‘operation successful, patient died’), currently we tend to judge
professionalbehavioronthebasisofoutcomeeffectiveness(diditwork?),accountability
(canyoushowit?),andlegitimacy(dowetrustit?).
Second,accountabilityrelationsbecomemessierinco-productionmodels,aswideningformsof
accountability question the traditional top-down, unidirectional relationship between
professional public service producers and recipients. This creates countervailing powers and
complexaccountabilityrelationsbetweencitizensandprofessionalsandchallengestheroleof
professionalstousediscretionandmakedecisionsaboutthepublicgood(Considine,2002;Hupe
&Hill,2007;Romzek,2000;Romzek&Leroux,2013).
Furthermore,thetwolinesofinquiry(accountabilityandexpertise)canbefurthersetinEvetts’
framework (2013, p. 788), which categorises two different forms of professionalism in
knowledge-based work. First, questions related to accountability invite further study of
organisationalprofessionalism,wherethediscourseislinkedto‘rational-legalformsofauthority
andhierarchicalstructuresofresponsibilityanddecision-making’(p.787).Thewideningformsof
accountabilityandhybridservicemodelsbasedonco-productionbetweenprofessionalsandcivil
societycreateanewangletoexamineorganisationalprofessionalism.Thenagain,thediscourse
onoccupationalprofessionalismislinkedtothedebatesconcerningprofessionals’expertiseand
their roleas shepherdsofpublicvalue.Here, thechangeofprofessionalismcanbeobserved
‘fromwithin’ratherthan‘fromtheoutside’(e.g. fromorganisationalormanagerialunits;see
Evetts,2013,p.2).
Many additional questions arise from the literature. How does one balance user-centred
experientialknowledgeandexpertknowledgetoproducepublicgood?Howdoprofessionals
themselvesseethischange?Andhowdoesthischangeshapethepublicservicesystem(inthe
contextofthewelfarestate)?Accordingly,thenextphaseofthisresearchistoseekanswersto
thesequestionsfromanempiricalperspective.
25
Aspointedout,professionalsarenotonlypassiveobjectsofchange;theythemselvesplayarole
indefiningprofessionalism(Duyvendaketal.,2006,p.7).Thenextstepsoftheresearchthus
includeempirical data collectionbygatheringandanalysingempirical data fromprofessional
unions,associationsandeducationalinstitutions.Thisfocusisbasedonthehypothesisthatthese
institutionsholdvitalinformationaboutthecurrentstateofprofessionalisminsociety,asthey
safeguard the position and rights of professionals. Unions, associations and educational
institutionsalsoactasnodesbetweenprofessionalsandpolicy-makers.Thedatacollectionwill
belimitedtosocialandhealthcareprofessionalsworkingoncorewelfarestatetasks(cf.Ferlie
&Geraghty,2005).
The idea is to also contextualise the data collection in different societal and administrative
systems. This strategywill help ensure that the research findings are not limited to a single
country. The different societal contexts will also be used to understand similarities and
differencesintrendsconcerningthe‘state’ofprofessionalism.
References
Abma,T.A.&Noordegraaf,M.(2003).Publicmanagersamidstambiguity:Towardsatypologyofevaluativepracticesinpublicmanagement.Evaluation,9(3),285–305.
Alford,J.&O’Flynn,J.(2009).Makingsenseofpublicvalue:Concepts,critiquesandemergentmeanings.InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,32(3–4),171–191.
Bailey,S.(2011).TheevolvinggovernanceofpublicservicesinEngland:Extendingcompetition,choice, co-design and co-production. In A-.V. Anttiroiko, S.J. Bailey and P. Valkama (Eds.),Innovationsinpublicgovernance(pp.69–80).IOSPress.
Bertilsson,M.(1990).‘TheWelfareState,theProfessionsandCitizens’,inR.TorstendahlandM.Burrage(eds)TheFormationofProfessions:Knowledge,StateandStrategy,pp.114–33.Sage:London.
Blomberg,M.&Waks, C. (2015). Copingwith Contradictions:Hybrid ProfessionalsManagingInstitutionalComplexity.JournalsofProfessionsandOrganization,0,1-25.
Botero,A.,Paterson,A.G.&Saad-Sulonen,J.(Eds.).(2012).Towardspeerproductioninpublicservices:CasesfromFinland.Helsinki:AltoUniversity.
Brandsen,T.&Honingh,M.(2013).Professionalsandshiftsingovernance.InternationalJournal
26
ofPublicAdministration,36(12),876–883.
Brandsen, T. & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of publicservices.PublicManagementReview,8(4),493–501.
BovensM,SchillemansTandHartP (2008)DoesPublicAccountabilityWork?AnAssessmentTool.PublicAdministration86(1):225-242.
Bovaird,T.(2007).Beyondengagementandparticipation:Userandcommunityco-productionofpublicservices.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5),846–860.
Bovaird,T.&Löffler,E.(2012).Fromengagementtoco-production:Howusersandcommunitiescontributetopublicservices.Voluntas,(23),1119–1138.
Broadbent,J.&Laughlin,R.(2001).Publicserviceprofessionalsandthenewpublicmanagement:Controloftheprofessionsinthepublicservices.InK.McLaughlin,S.Osborne&E.Ferlie(Eds.),Newpublicmanagement:Currenttrendsandfutureprospects(pp.95–108).London:Routledge.
Bäcklund,P.,Kallio,K.P.&Häkli,J.(2014).Residents,customersorcitizens?TracingtheideaofyouthfulparticipationinthecontextofadministrativereformsinFinnishpublicadministration.PlanningTheoryandPractice15(3),311–327.
Considine M (2002) The End of Line? Accountable Governance in the Age of Networks,Partnerships and Joined-up Services. Governance: An international Journal of Policy,Administration,andInstitutions15(1):21-40.
Denhardt, J.V.&Denhardt,R.B. (2002).Thenewpublicservice.Serving,notsteering.PublicAdministrationReview,60(6),549–559.
Duyvendak,J.W.,Knijn,T.&Kremer,M.(2006).Policy,People,andtheNewProfessional.De-professionalisationandRe-professionalisationinCareandWelfare.AmsterdamUniversityPress:Amsterdam.
Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of educationprofessionals.Retrievedfromhttp://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/4077/
Evetts,J.(2013).Professionalism:Valueandideology.CurrentSociologyReview61(5-6)778–796
Farneti, F., Padovani, E. & Young, D.W. (2010). Governance of outsourcing and contractualrelationships.InS.P.Osborne(Ed.),Thenewpublicgovernance?Emergingperspectivesonthetheoryandpracticeofpublicgovernance(pp.255–269).LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Ferlie,E.&Geraghty,K.J.(2005).Professionals inpublicserviceorganizations:Implicationforpublicsector“reforming”.InE.Ferlie,L.E.Lynn&C.Pollitt(Eds.).TheOxfordHandbookofPublicManagement(pp.422–445).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Fotaki,M.(2011).Towarddevelopingnewpartnershipsinpublicservices:Usersasconsumers,
27
citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden. PublicAdministration,89(3),933–955.
Freidson,E.(2001).Professionalism:TheThirdLogic.ThePolicyPress:Cambridge.
Greve,C.(2015).Ideasinpublicmanagementreformforthe2010s:Digitalization,valuecreationandinvolvement,PublicOrganizationReview,15(1):49–65.
Henriksson, L.,Wrede, S.&Burau,V. (2006).Understanding Professional Projects inWelfareServiceWork:RevivalofOldProfessionalism?Gender,Work&Organization,13(2),174-192.
Hill,S.,Lorenz,D.,Dent,P.&Lützkendorf,T.(2013).Professionalismandethicsinachangingeconomy.BuildingResearch&Information,41(1),8-27,doi10.1080/09613218.2013.736201
Hupe, P. & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. PublicAdministration,85(2),279–299
Jespersen,P.K.,Nielsen,L.M.&Sognstrup,H.(2002).Professions, institutionaldynamicsandtheNewPublicManagementfield.InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,25(12),1555–1574.
Jones,T.&Ormston,C.(2013).Localismandaccountabilityinapost-collaborativeera:Wheredoesitleavethecommunityrighttochallenge?LocalGovernmentStudies,40(1),141–161.doi:10.1080/03003930.2013.801834
KlijnEandKoppenjaanJ(2004)ManagingUncertaintiesinNetworks.London:Routledge.
Kreber,C.(2016).The‘Civic-minded’Professional?AnexplorationthroughHannahArendt’s‘vitaactiva’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48 (2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/00131857.2014.963492
Kremer,M.&Tonkens,E.(2006).Authority,Trust,KnowledgeandthePublicGoodinDisarray.In J.W.Duyvendak,T.Knijn&M.Kremer(Eds.)Policy,People,andtheNewProfessional.De-professionalisationandRe-professionalisationinCareandWelfare.AmsterdamUniversityPress:Amsterdam,pp.122-136.
Loopmans,M.(2006).TheMakingofActiveCitizensinAntwerp,Belgium.InJ.W.Duyvendak,T.Knijn&M.Kremer(Eds.)Policy,People,andtheNewProfessional.De-professionalisationandRe-professionalisation inCareandWelfare.AmsterdamUniversityPress:Amsterdam,pp.109-121.
LaegreidandMattei(2013)Introduction:ReformingtheWelfareStateandtheImplicationsforAccountabilityinaComparativePerspective.InternationalReviewofAdministrative
Lindberg,S.I.(2013).MappingAccountability:CoreConceptandSubtypes.InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences79(2):202-226.
28
Molander,A.,Grimen,H.&Eriksen,E.O.(2012).ProfessionalDiscretionandAccountabilityintheWelfareState.JournalofAppliedPhilosophy,29,(3),doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00564.x
Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid Professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of PublicProfessionalism in changing Organizational and Societal Contexts. Journal of Professions andorganization,2,187-206.
Noordegraaf,M.(2016).ReconfiguringProfessionalWork:ChangingFormsofProfessionalisminPublicServices.Administration&Society,48(7),783-819).
Osborne,S.(2010).The(new)publicgovernance:Asuitablecasefortreatment?IntroductiontoS.Osborne(Ed.),Thenewpublicgovernance?Emergingperspectivesonthetheoryandpracticeofpublicgovernance,(pp.1-16),Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.
Osborne,S.&Strokosch,K.(2013).Ittakestwototango?Understandingtheco-productionofpublicservicesbyintegratingtheservicesmanagementandpublicadministrationperspectives.BritishJournalofManagement,24,31–47.
Osborne, S.P. (2017). Public management research over the decades: what are we writingabout?,PublicManagementReview,19:2,109-113,DOI:10.1080/14719037.2016.1252142
Pestoff,V.(2012).Co-productionandThirdSectorSocialServicesinEurope:SomeConceptsandEvidence.Voluntas,DOI10.1007/s11266-012-9308-7.
Pestoff, V. (2014). Hybridity, Coproduction, and the Third Sector Social Services in Europe,AmericalBehavioralSciences,0002764214534670.
Pollitt,C.&Bouckaert,G.(2011).Publicmanagementreform:Acomparativeanalysis:Newpublicmanagement,governanceandtheNeo-WeberianState.ThirdEdition.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
RhodesRAW(1997)UnderstandingGovernance:PolicyNetworks,Governance,ReflexivityandAccountability.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.
RomzekB (2000)Dynamicsof Public SectorAccountability in anEraofReform. InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences66(21):21-44.
Romzek and LeRoux (2012) A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among NetworkOrganizationalActors.PublicAdministrationReview72(3):442-453.
Ryan,B.(2012).Co-production:Optionorobligation?AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,71(3),314–324.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00780.x
SchillemansT(2011)DoesHorizontalAccountabilityWork?EvaluatingPotentialRemediesfortheAccountabilityDeficitofAgencies.Administration&Society43(4):387–
Sehested,K.(2002).Hownewpublicmanagementreformschallengetherolesofprofessionals.
29
InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,25(12):1513–1537.
Sullivan,M.V.(2000).Medicineunderthreat:professionalismandprofessionalidentity.CJMI,162(5),673-675.
Sullivan,W.M.(2005).WorkandIntegrity.TheCrisisandPromiseofProfessionalisminAmerica,secondedition.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Steen,T.&Tuurnas,S.(xxxx).TheProfessionalsintheCoproductionProcess.ForthcomingintheRoutledge Book on Coproduction and Cocreation (eds. Taco Brandsen, Trui Steen & BramVerschuere)
Svensson,L.G.(2006).NewProfessionalism,TrustandCompetence.SomeConceptualRemarksandEmpiricalData.CurrentSociology,54(4),579-593.
Taylor,I.&Kelly,J.(2006).Professionals,discretionandpublicsectorreformintheUK:Re-visitingLipsky.InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,19(7):629–642.
Torfing, J.&Triantafillou,P. (2013).What’s inaName?Graspingnewpublicgovernanceasapolitical-administrativesystem.InternationalReviewofPublicAdministration,18(2),9–25.doi:10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250
Tuurnas, Sanna (2016). The Professional Side of Co-Production. Academic dissertation. ActaUniversitatisTamperensis2163.Tampere:TampereUniversityPress.
Tuurnas, S. (2016b). Looking beyond the simplistic ideals of participatory projects: Fosteringeffectiveco-production.InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,39(3),1077-1087.
Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J. & Rannisto, P-H. (2016). The impact of co-production on frontlineaccountability: The case of the conciliation service. Special issue on Co-production of PublicServices.InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,28(1),131-149.
Verschuere,B.,Brandsen,T.andPestoff,V.(2012).Co-production:Thestateofartinresearchandthefutureagenda.InternationalSocietyforThirdSectorResearch.
Voorberg,W.H.,Bekkers,V.J.J.M.&Tummers,L.G.(2014).Asystematicreviewofco-creationandco-production:Embarkingonthesocialinnovationjourney.PublicManagementReview.
30
Leadingco-production:Threeleadershipstyles
andhowtheyaffectthequalityandpublic
valueofco-productionprocesses(Anne
Tortzen)
Thispaperpresentsworkinprogress.Feedbackandsuggestionsarevery
welcome.
Pleasedonotquotewithoutpermissionfromtheauthor.
ByAnneTortzenPostdocDepartmentofSocialSciencesandBusinessUniversityofRoskilde,Denmark
31
Introduction
Currently,co-productionisonthepublicgovernanceagendainarangeofEuropeancountries.Establishingcollaborationandpartnershipswithcitizensbyengaginglocalcommunitiesandcivilsocietyindeveloping,designingandproducingwelfareservicesisseenbypublicsectoractorsasawaytogeneratebetteroutcomesandpublicvalue(Bovaird&Löffler,2012),thusaimingatinnovating–andpotentiallytransforming-westernwelfaresystems.
Thepapercontributesempiricallytotheliteratureonco-productionbyanalyzingthreeco-productioncasessetinaDanishcontext,i.e.auniversalisticwelfarestatecharacterizedbyanextensivedegreeofdecentralization,arelativelybig,well-functioningpublicsectorandastrongwell-organizedcivilsociety(Sørensen&Torfing,2009;Voorberg,Tummers,etal.,2015).Itherebyaddstotheempiricalliteratureonco-production,themajorityofwhichdrawsonanAnglo-SaxonandNorthEuropean(Dutch,BelgianandGerman)context.ThestudyanalyzesthreeDanishco-productioncasesatthemunicipallevelselectedonthebasisofapositiveextremelogicastheyarelaunchedaspartofanambitiousstrategyinmunicipalitiesthatmaybeconsidered‘frontrunners’withinthisfield.
Thepaperoffersananalysisofco-productionfromagovernanceperspective,therebyconceptualizingco-productionasaformofpluricentricgovernance(Hughes,2010;Rhodes,1996).Centraltothisunderstandingisthenotionthatthestatenolongermonopolizessocietalgovernanceinthewayitusedtodo,butmustrelyupon,andcooperatewith,otheractors,organizationsandpowersinorderto‘getthingsdone’(J.Torfing,2006).
Thisdevelopmentchallengesmanagersinpublicorganizationsandunderlinestheneedforleadershipstylesthatfacilitatecollaborationandcooperativeproblemsolving(Ansell&Gash,2012;VanWart,2013).Currentresearchunderlinesthecentralroleofleadershipinsupportinginteractioningovernanceprocessesinvolvingawiderangeofdifferentactors(Ansell&Gash,2007;deJongh,2013;Keast&Mandell,2014;Klijn,Steijn,&Edelenbos,2010;Koppenjan&Klijn,2004).Thus,theleadershipdimensionispivotalinco-productionprocesses.Thispaperarguesthatleadershipisessentialforthequalityandpublicvalueofco-productionprocessesandsetsouttoidentifydifferentleadershipstylesandexaminehowtheyinfluenceco-productionprocesses.
Researchinthefieldofco-productionischaracterizedbyarangeofdifferentapproachesandresearchtraditions(Brandsen&Honig,2016)focusingprimarilyonthemotivesforco-production,theorganizationalperequisitesforeffectiveco-production,andtheimpactofco-production(Verschuere,Brandsen,&Pestoff,2012).However,withafewexeptions(Pestoff,2016;Schlappa&Imani,2013,2016;Tortzen,2016)researchwithinthisfieldhasnotgivenmuchattentiontoleadershipofco-production,leavingagaptobeexploredbythisstudy.
Leadershipinco-productionprocessesisexploredthroughalensofhistoricalinstitutionalismperceivingco-productioninitiativesasanattempttointroduceatemporarycollaborativearenainacontextofhierarchicalgovernance,i.e.introducingelementsofnetworkgovernance‘intheshadowofhierarchy’(Scharpf,1997;J.Torfing&Triantafillou,2011).Theargumenthereis,thatco-productioninitiatives–likeotherformsofcollaborativegovernance-operateina‘hybriddemocracy’(Edelenbos,VanBuuren,&Klijn,2013;Koppenjan&Klijn,2004;vanMeerkerk&
32
Edelenbos,2013)andarethussubjecttogovernanceandinstitutionaltensions.Thisplacespublicactorsinaninstitutionalcrosspressure(Barnes,Newman,&Sullivan,2007)whichtheycopewiththroughdifferentleadershipstyles.Leadershipstylesthatinturnaffectthequalityandpublicvalueoftheco-productionprocess.Thepaperidentifiesthreedifferentleadershipstyles,i.e.adivided,alinkingandaselectiveleadershipstyleandraisesthefollowingquestions:Whatcharacterizesthedifferentleadershipstylesexecutedbypublicactorsinco-production
processes?Andhowdotheyaffectthequalityandpublicvalueofco-productionprocesses?
Thepaperisdividedintofivemainsections.Thefirstsectionoutlinesthetheoreticalconceptsfortheanalysisdefiningco-productionandleadershipandconceptualizingqualityandpublicvalueofco-productionprocesses.ThepaperthenbrieflypresentsthestrategyforcaseselectionandpresentsthethreeDanishmunicipalco-productioncases.Thethirdsectiondescribesandcharacterizesthreedifferentleadershipstylesidentifiedintheco-productionprocesses.Whilethefollowingsectiondiscusseshowtheseleadershipstylesinfluencethequalityandpublicvalueoftheco-productionprocesses.Finally,inthelastparagraph,thepaperdrawsconclusionsandsuggestionsforfurtherresearch.
Theorizingco-productionquality,publicvalueandleadership
Thissectionoutlinestheconceptualframeworkfortheanalysis,definingtheconceptsofco-productionandleadershipandconceptualizingthequalityandpublicvalueofco-productionprocesses.
Definingco-production
InthispaperIapplythetermco-productiontodesignatecollaborationbetweenavarietyofpublicandcivilsocietyactorsonboththeinputandoutputsideofthepolicycircle(Andersen&Espersen,2017;Bovaird&Löffler,2012;Pestoff,2012).InlinewiththeNewPublicGovernanceapproach(whichIwillunfoldinthenextparagraph)Iperceiveco-productionasapotentialtransformationoftherolesofbothcivilsocietyandpublicsectoractorsandthedistributionofpowerandinfluenceamongthem.This‘transformation’discourseonco-productionispresentamongresearchersandpractitionersframingco-productionasa‘shiftofparadigms’inpublicgovernance(Boyle,Coote,Sherwood,&Slay,2010;Durose,Mangan,Needham,Rees,&Hilton,2013;Needham&Carr,2009;J.Torfing,Sørensen,&Røiseland,2016).
Idefineco-productioninthefollowingwaybasedonadefinitionbyBovaird&Löffler(2014,p.2):publicactorsandcitizenscollaboratetomakebetteruseofeachother’sassets,resources
andcontributionstoachieveempowerment,betteroutcomesorimprovedefficiency.Inlinewithcentraldefinitionsofco-production(Brudney&England,1983;Ostrom,1996)thisapproachstressesthedemocraticandrelationalelementsofco-productionandincludesthefollowingthreeconstitutiveelementsofco-productionaspractice:1.Activeparticipationbyrelevantandaffectedactors,2.Adegreeofcollaborationand3.Adegreeofsynergy.Thesedimensionswillbefurtherelaboratedlaterinthissectionandappliedintheanalysisofthequalityofco-productionprocesses.
33
Thepaperassumesthatleadershipofco-productionprocesseswillbecharacterizedbyconflictingnotionsofco-productionstemmingfromdifferentgovernancelogics.Itwillexaminehowpublicactorscopewiththesegovernancetensionsbydevelopingdifferentleadershipstyles.InthefollowingIwillunfoldtwoconflictingnotionsofco-productionstemmingfromtwoconflictingapproachestogovernance.
Twodifferentnotionsofco-production
Throughtimescholarshaveascribedtheconceptofco-productiondifferentandsometimesconflictingmeanings.Thiscanbeunderstoodinthelightofthedifferentgovernanceparadigms,whichhaveinfluencedthetermsinceitwasfirstdevelopedbyOrstrometal.(2012;1981).Theclaimhereisthatpublicmanagersleadingco-productionprocessesareactinginacrosspressurebetweendifferentapproachestogovernanceandthustoco-production.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,Iwillfocussolelyontwoofthethreedominantgovernanceparadigmsidentifiedinpublicadministrationresearch(Pollitt&Bouckaert,2011),i.e.theNewPublicManagement(NPM)andtheNewPublicGovernance(NPG)paradigms,asco-productiontakesuponlyamarginalroleinthethirdparadigm,TraditionalPublicAdministration(Pestoff,2016).
Thesetwogovernanceparadigmsbuildondifferentprinciplesforcoordinationandorganizationofpublicgovernanceandarebasedondifferentviewsconcerningtherelationbetweenthestate,themarketandthecivilsociety.Theyalsospringfromprofoundlydifferentassumptionsabouttherolesofpublicadministrators,politiciansandcitizensandwhattherelationshouldbebetweenthepublicsphereandthecivilsociety(Moynihan&Thomas,2013).WhileNPMisbasedonthenotionofhierarchyandseparation(unicentricgovernance),NPGstressescollaborationandequality(pluricentricgovernance).Empirically,thedifferentgovernanceparadigmsexistas‘sedimentedlayers’inpublicgovernance(Greve&Ejersbo,2013;Pollitt&Bouckaert,2011).Thetwogovernanceapproachesmaybeunderstoodasmentalmodelsor‘institutionallogics’withinherentnormsonsense-making,leadershipanddecisionmakingthatinfluencetheroleperceptionandbehavioroftheactorsingovernanceprocesses(Pollitt&Bouckaert,2011;J.Torfing,2013;Waldorff,Kristensen,&Ebbesen,2014).
TheNPMapproachtoco-production
NPMconstitutesavarietyofreformsandgovernanceinitiativesintroducedsincethe1980’sasareactiontothestaticgovernanceidealofTPA(Hood,1991),thatseesthemarketasthecentralgovernanceprinciple.Animportantendeavoristomakegovernancemoreefficientanduser-friendlybyintroducingmethodsfromprivateenterprises.Inthisapproachco-productionisseenasawaytoenhancethequalityandeffectiveness/efficiencyofthepublicsectorthroughtargetingpublicservicesbetterandpossiblyachieveinnovation.Thus,co-productionisperceivedasapossibleanswertoausterityintheproductionofwelfareservices.TheNPMnotionofco-productiontakesplaceattheoutputsideofthepublicpolicycircle,i.e.betweenprofessionalsandserviceusers.Thetraditionaldivisionbetweenpolicyandadministrationis
34
thusmaintained.Thisnotionofco-productionischaracterizedbyeconomicrationalityandafunctionalperspectivethatperceivecitizensandusersasrational,benefitmaximizingactors(Jakobsen&Andersen,2013;vanEijk&Steen,2014).Thevalueofco-productionismeasuredintermsofspecific,measurableresults(output),relatedtoformulatedgoals(Voorberg,Bekkers,&Tummers,2014).
TheNPGapproachtoco-production
NPGdesignatesamovementawayfromahierarchicalformofgovernanceevolvingaroundthestate,towardsamorepluricentricformofgovernancewhereadiversityofothersocietalactorscontributetogovernance(Hughes,2010;Rhodes,1996).Inthisapproachnetworkisthecentralprincipleofgovernance,andthestateisconsideredanopensystemcollaboratingwithexternalactorsonsolvingconcretegovernancetasksthroughco-governance(Osborne,2006,2010;Wagenaar,2007).Co-productionunderstoodasaformofco-governancebetweenpublicactorsandcitizens/civilsocietyisatthecenterofthisgovernanceapproach.Co-productionmaytakeplacebothontheoutputandinput-sideofthepoliticalcircleandincludeawiderangeofpublicaswellasprivateactors,i.e.individualcitizens,localcommunitiesandcivilsocietyorganizations.Civilsocietyandcitizensareperceivedasactivepartnersinnetworkgovernanceanddevelopmentofthewelfaresociety(Osborne,2010;Pestoff,2008).Thisnotionfocussesonthesocialandpoliticaldimensionsofco-productionandstressesthedemocraticandempowermentpotentialsasaformof‘publicvalue’(Bovaird&Löffler,2012;Richardson&Durose,2013).‘Soft’outcomessuchasenhancingsocialcapital,networksandrelationsbetweenactorsareseenasvaluableinthisunderstanding,whichalsostressesthepossibilityofredefiningtherolesandpowerrelationsamongtheactors,therebyachievinginnovation(Boyle&Harris,2010;Cahn&Gray,2012).
Thetablebelowsummarizesthemainpointsinthetwoconflictingnotionsofco-production:
Differentnotionsofco-production
Governance
paradigme
NewPublicManagement NewPublicGovernance
Centralgovernanceprinciple
Themarket Network
Co-production Ameanstoobtainefficiencyandeffectiveness
Acentralgoverningmechanism
Purpose
Tangibleresults:
Efficiency,quality,usersatisfaction
Intagibleresults:
Publicvalueintermsofsocialcapital,trust,empowerment
35
Domain Output:Service Inputandoutput:Policy,prioritizing,service
Discourse Economic,administrative Social,political
Definingthequalityofco-production
Thenotionof‘co-productionquality’isderivedfromthedefinitionofco-productionappliedhere.Itcomprisesontheonehandthe‘democraticquality’oftheco-productionprocesses(Vanleene,Verschuere,&Voets,2016)intermsofinclusionofcivilsocietyactorsandtheirpossibilityofexertinginfluence.Researchershighlighta‘sensegiving’leadershipstylethathelpstheactorsdevelopacommonunderstandingofchallengesandpossiblesolutionsaspivotaltothequalityofcollaborativeprocesses(Ospina&Foldy,2010;Page,2010).
Andontheotherhandthequalityofthecollaborationdesignatedbythedegreeof‘collaborativeadvantage’intermsofsynergyachievedintheco-productionprocess(Huxham,1996).Thenotionofsynergyiscentraltoco-productioncomprisingtwodimensions:Aproductdimensionandarelationaldimension.Co-productionprocessesaresupposedtointegratetheresourcesandcontributionsofferedbydifferentactorsandthustoaccomplishresultsthatcouldnothavebeenreachedbyoneactoralone.Thisconstitutestheproductiondimensionofsynergy.Atthesametimeco-productionaimsatdevelopingqualitativelydifferentrelationsbetweenpublicbodiesandcivilsociety/citizens.Thus,therelationalsynergyinco-productionstemsfromthepotentialtransformationofrolesandchangesinthedistributionofpowerbetweenactorsintheco-productionprocess.Iwillthusmeasurethequalityoftheco-processesaccordingtothefollowingthreecriteria:1.Theroleandinfluencegiventosocietyactorsintheco-productionprocess?2.Thedegreeofproductsynergyintermsofintegrationofresourcesand3.Thedegreeofrelationalsynergy,i.e.transformationofrolesandredistributionofpoweramongactors.
Definingthepublicvalueofco-production
Co-productionresearcherspointtothefactthatthevalueofco-productionprocessesisdifficulttoevidenceandthat,consequently,theevidencebaseforco-productionisrelativelyweak(Durose,Needham,Mangan,&Rees,2015).Empiricalresearchinco-productionshowsthatthevalueofco-productionisprimarilytobefoundindifferentformsof‘publicvalue’(Bovaird,2007;Bovaird&Löffler,2012;Needham&Carr,2009;OECD,2011),whichaccordingtoBovaird&Löffler(2012)maycontainseveraldimensions,i.e.valuetotheuserandawidergroup(network,family)aswellassocial,environmentalandpoliticalvalue.
Toconductarobustassessmentofthe‘publicvalue’createdinthethreeempiricalco-productionprocessesIwillcombinethefollowingthreeevaluationparameters:1.Atraditionalevaluation:Towhichextenddidtheco-productionprocessfulfilltheobjectivesformulatedbythepublicactors?(Dahler-Larsen,2016),2.Aparticipatoryevaluation:Howdidthedifferentstakeholdersevaluatethebenefitsoftheinitiative?(Duroseetal.,2015;Glasby&Beresford,
36
2006)and3.A‘theoryofchange’typeevaluation:Towhichextenddidtheco-productioninitiativecontributetothetypeofsocietalchangeandvalueanticipatedinthe‘transformationdiscourse’?(Dahler-Larsen,2016;Duroseetal.,2015).Takentogether,thesethreeparameterswillmeasurethedegreeof‘publicvalue’ofeachofthethreeco-productioninitiatives.Beforejumpingtotheanalysis,however,Iwillpresentthepaper’sdefinitionofleadership.
Definingleadership
Thestudyexploresleadershipexecutedbypublicactorsinpubliclyinitiatedco-productionprocesses.DrawingonHartley&Bennington(2011,p.5),Idefineleadershipas“asetofprocessesconcernedwithmobilizingactionbymanypeopletowardscommongoals,andthe
framingofthosegoals”.Thisunderstandingofleadershipencompassesleadershipofinter-organizationalgroupsandnetworksthatmaybeenactednotonlybyformalleaders,i.e.publicmanagers,butpossiblybyarangeofdifferentactors(Hartley&Benington,2011;Nye,2008;VanWart,2013).
Inlinewithhistoricinstitutionalism(Lowndes&Roberts,2013)thepaperperceivespublicactorsas‘situatedagents’,i.e.actorswhoseidentityandrationalityisshapedbythesocialandpoliticalinstitutionsandcommunitiestheyarepartofandtakeforgranted.Institutionsconditionandlimittheactionsofleaders,butnotinadeterministicway(Barley&Tolbert,1997).Accordingtothisview,publicactors–includingmanagers-actaccordingtoa’logicofappropriateness’intermsofaperceptionofwhatis‘therightthingtodo’indifferentsituations(March&Olsen,1995)anddevelopstrategiestocopewiththeclashes,contradictionsandcomplexitiesofgovernance(Waldorffetal.,2014).Theclaimofthispaperisthatthesecopingstrategiesresultindifferentleadershipstylesexecutedbypublicactorsinco-productionprocesses.Beforejumpingtotheanalysis,however,Iwillpresentthecasesandmethodappliedintheempiricalanalysis.
ThreeDanishco-productioncases:Caseselectionandmethod
Thisstudydrawsonthreeempiricalco-productioninitiativesfromthreeDanishmunicipalities,i.e.Holbæk,RoskildeandIkast-Brande.Thecaseshavebeenselectedaccordingtostrategicconsiderationspermittinglogicaldeduction(Flyvbjerg,2010).Thestrategyforcaseselectionisdescribedinthefollowing.
Denmarkhasbeenselectedasanexpectedpositivelyextremecaseonco-productionbasedonthreecharacteristicsoftheDanishwelfaresociety:Firstly,theDanishwelfaresystemischaracterizedbyanextensivedegreeofdecentralization,asthemunicipalitiescountfor65%ofthewelfareexpenditure.Publicadministratorsandpoliticiansatthemunicipallevel,thus,havestronginfluenceonthedistributionofwelfareresourcesandtherebyapossibilityto‘deliver’andtorespondtotheneedsandcitizensandotheractors(Klausen,2014;Voorberg,Tummers,
37
etal.,2015).Secondly,governanceinDenmarkischaracterizedbyarelativelybig,well-functioningpublicsectoraswellasastrongwell-organizedcivilsocietyorganizationsandalongtraditionforcitizenanduserinvolvement.Thirdly,inaninternationalperspectivetheDanishsocietyischaracterizedbyarelativelyhighdegreeoftrust(Svendsen,2012)aswellasalowpowerdistanceandalowlevelofinequality.BasedontheseinstitutionalandculturalcharacteristicsIexpecttofindconditionsfavorabletoco-productionintheDanishwelfaregovernance.
Thethreemunicipalitieshavealsobeenselectedbasedonthelogicof‘positivelyextreme’cases.Currently,theco-productionagendaisstronglyexpressedatthelocalgovernmentlevel,asmanyDanishmunicipalitiesareactiveinrealizingtheambitionofco-productionthroughstrategiesandinitiatives.Thethreemunicipalitiesincludedherecanbedescribedas‘frontrunners’,astheyhavealllaunchedstrategicandambitiousinitiativesundertheheadingof‘co-production’.Thespecificco-productioninitiativesincludedhavebeenselectedaccordingtothelogicof‘maximumvariation’,astheyrepresentavariationintermsofwelfaresectorsandtheinstitutionalandleadershipset-upoftheco-productioninitiatives.Thiscaseselectionstrategystrengthensboththereliabilityandtransferabilityoftheresults(Merriam,2009;Neergaard,2010).
Thethreeco-productioncases
Thethreecaseshaveallbeeninitiated,framedandfacilitatedbythemunicipalityaspartofastrategicambition,categorizingthemascasesof‘top-down’co-production.
TheHolbækcaseunfoldsintheareaofchildrenandyouthandisframedbythemunicipalityasdevelopinganewdemocraticdialoguebetweenpublicactorsandcitizens/civilsocietyaboutpoliticalandeconomicpriorities.Theinitiativewaslaunchedaspartofthestrategy‘HolbækIFællesskab’(‘TogetherinHolbæk’)tostrengthenandinnovatelocaldemocracy.Allinall,foursocalled‘changegroups’includingavarietyofpublicandprivateactorswereestablishedwiththetaskofpointingtopossiblesavingsintheirspecificsector.InthispaperIfocusonthe‘changegroup’workingwithchildrenandyouthanddiscussingeconomicprioritieswithinthefieldofschoolsandkindergartens.Thiscasecanbeperceivedasacaseofco-governance(Pestoff,Brandsen,&Vershuere,2012)involvingcitizensandotherstakeholdersinthedecisionmakingandplanningofpublicservices,i.e.ontheinput-sideofthepoliticalcircle.
TheRoskildecaseisacommunityinitiativelabelled‘ZebraCity’basedinavulnerablepublichousingcommunityintheCityofRoskilde.Itisframedbythemunicipalityasawaytodevelopstrongernetworksandsocialcapitalamongthelocalinhabitants.Theinitiativespringsfromaninnovationstrategydevelopedbythecitycouncil.TheZebraCitycasemaybeconsideredarelatively‘mature’initiative,astworoundsofZebraCityprojectshavealreadybeencarriedoutinotherlocalareasinthemunicipalityofRoskilde.Itisorganizedasacross-sectorialprojectmanagedbyaprojectmanager.Theinitiativecanbedepictedasa‘co-management’initiativeaimingatdevelopingalocalcommunitythroughco-production(Pestoffetal.,2012).
ThecasefromIkast-Brandeunfoldsintheareaofelderlycareandisframedbythemunicipalityasanasinnovationinitiativethataimsatsaving20%ontheadministrationofelderlyservicesbygettingtheelderlycitizenstodomoreoftheworkthemselves.Thecasespringsfromthe
38
’MentalFrikommune’(‘Mentallyfreemunicipality’)strategyformulatedbythemunicipalitythataimedatpreparingthemunicipalityforwelfarechallengesofthefuturethrough‘radicalinnovation’.Theinitiativewasdesignedandfacilitatedbyateamofexternalconsultantsaccordingtoapredefinedconcept,i.e.theCreativeIdeaSolutionsconcept(CIS)involvingprofessionalsfromarangeofdifferentdepartmentswithintheeldersector.Thisinitiativeisacaseofco-productionframingindividualcitizensasco-producersoftheirownwelfareservice(Pestoffetal.,2012).
Thethreecaseinitiativesincludedinthisstudyhaveallbeenorganizedasprojectsandlimitedintime.WhiletheinitiativesinHolbækandIkast-Brandelasted4-6months,theRoskildecaseextendedovertwoyears.Thefirsttwocaseswerestudied–asfaraspossible-frombeginningtoend,whiletheRoskildecasewasstudiedforaperiodofapprox.oneyear.Duringthedatacollectionperiodobservationstudieswereconductedofselectedeventsandmeetings,interviewswerecarriedoutwithallgroupsofactorsinvolvedandpolicydocumentswerecollectedandanalyzed.Intotal62policydocuments,43interviewsand42hoursofobservationhavebeenanalyzed.Allcitationsfrominterviews,documentsandobservationsintheanalysisstemfrommyPhDthesis(Tortzen,2016).
Identifyingthreeleadershipstyles:
Divided,linkingandselectiveleadership
InthefollowingIwillunfoldananalysisofthethreedifferentleadershipstylesexecutedinthethreeco-productioncases.Theleadershipstylesshouldnotbeunderstoodasconsciousstrategiesappliedbythepublicmanagers.Rather,theydescribethe(moreorlessunconscious)strategiesappliedbythepublicmanagerstocopewiththegovernanceandinstitutionalcrosspressurewhichIhavedescribedasinherentinco-productionprocesses.Thethreeleadershipstylesarebasedontheanalysisofthreecentralleadershipinterventionsperformedbypublicactorsinthethreecases,i.e.framingoftheco-productioninitiative,settingtheobjectivesandincludingandmobilizingstakeholdersintheco-productionprocesses.Thelevelofmanagementinvolvedvariesamongthethreecases.Topmanagementplaysacentralroleintwoofthecases,whiletheprojectleaderiscentraltotheleadershipstyleinthethirdcase.
ThecaseofHolbæk:Adividedleadershipstyle
IntheHolbækcaseasocalled‘changegroup’wasestablishedwithanambitionofinvolvingtherelevantstakeholdersinco-producinginnovativesolutionstothechallengeofausterityinthechildren’ssector.IwillcharacterizetheleadershipstyleofthepublicactorsintheHolbækcaseasdivided,astheleadershipinterventionsexecutedinthiscaseweresimultaneouslydrawingonaNPMlogicandaNPGlogic.Leadershipoftheco-productionprocesswascharacterizedbyanambiguousframing,conflictingobjectivesandanapproachtoselectingandmobilizingstakeholdersdrawingbothonarepresentativeandconsultativeNPMlogicandasystemicandcollaborativeNPGlogic.
39
Ambiguousframingofthe‘changegroup’
TheHolbækcasewasfromtheoutsetcharacterizedbyanambiguousframingonthepartofthetopmanagement.Twodifferentstorylineswerepresented,i.e.a‘co-production’storylinedrawingontheNPGgovernancelogicandan‘austerity’storylinedrawingontheNPMgovernancelogic.
The‘co-production’storylineframedthechangegroupasanexampleofco-productionandasacollaborativeinnovationinitiative(Document,19.12.13)thatwouldenableorganizationallearning.ThisstorylinedepictedtheinitiativeaspartofanambitiousprojecttodeveloplocaldemocracyinHolbæk.This‘co-production’storylineunderlinedinnovationandnewformsofcollaborationbetweenpoliticians,citizensandotherstakeholders.Sothechangegroupwasframedasaninitiativethatdepictsawholenewwayofgoverning.ExpressedinthefollowingbythemayorofHolbækwelcomingthechangegroup:(thisinitiative)mustproducesomething
morethanjustabetterbottomline–itwillhelpchangethewayweworkasamunicipality...we
willjoinforcesonthemostimportantareasanddevelopasharedunderstandingofchallenges
andmaintasks..”(Tortzen,2016).
Whereasthe‘austerity’storylinewhichwasalsoappliedbythepublicactorsframedthe‘changegroup’inthelightoftheeconomicchallengeanddepictsthechallengesandpossiblesolutionsintraditional,administrativetermspointingtoexistingpolicies,forecastsanddataproducedbythemunicipality(Tortzen,2016).Inthisstorylinechallengesweredepictedas‘wellknown’and‘possiblesolutions’weredescribedintermsofarangeof‘politicalchoices’prescribedbytheadministration.Inlinewiththisframing,thepublicadministratorsappliedeconomiccalculationswhichhighlightedthesavingpotentialinstructuralchangesoftheschools:“..wehavebeendrawingandcalculating–andhavearrivedataplan,whichmakesit
possibletosave21,5miod.kr.withoutloweringthelevelofservice,throughstructuralchanges
alone”(Tortzen,2016).Inthisstoryline,thus,theagendawaspredefinedbythepublicadministrators,leavingonlylittleroomforthestakeholderstocontributetheirviewsofchallengesandsolutions.Theeconomicagendawaspredominant,focusingonthepossibleeconomicgainsfromtheco-productionprocessanddownplayingtheinnovationanddemocraticagenda.
Tornbetweencompetingobjectives
Thedividedleadershipstylewasmirroredalsointhepublicmanagersandpoliticiansformulatingtwocompetingobjectivesofthechangegroups,oneaimedatproducingatangibleresult(output)inlinewiththeNPMlogic,theotheraimedatdevelopinganewtypeofprocessandcollaboration(outcome)inlinewiththeNPGlogic.Theoutcomeobjectivewasformulatedasfollows:“..tocreateaframeworkforaconstructivecollaborationamongpoliticians,citizens,
companiesandotherexternalstakeholdersinestablishingeconomicpriorities…..andto
strengthenpoliticalleadership”(Tortzen,2016).
40
Theoutputobjectivewasformulatedinlinewiththeframingofthechangegroupaspartofa‘budgetchallenge’andplacingitwithinan‘austerity’discourse.Here,themaintaskofthegroupwasdescribedas:“Toproduceafinaloutputconsistingofoneormorepossible
scenarios/modelsfortheCityCounciltobeusedinthe2015-18Budget"(Tortzen,2016).Thisleadershipstylewascharacterizedbyafocuson‘delivery’ontheonehandandontheotherhandafocuson‘deliberation’(Skelcher,Mathur,&Smith,2005).Inthedesignoftheprocessandtheframingofchallenges,tasksandobjectivesofthechangegroupthepublicmanagersactedcontrollingandhierarchicalinlinewiththeNPMlogic.WhereastheirleadershipstyleinfacilitatingmeetingsanddialoguesbetweenparticipantswasaimedatdevelopingtrustandrelationsamongtheparticipantsinlinewithanNPGlogic.
Inclusionofstakeholders:Systemicandrepresentativelogic
Thechangegroupconsistedofapproximately25participantswhowerehandpickedbythemunicipalityandpersonallyinvitedtojointhegroup.Theselectionofparticipantswasdescribedbythemunicipalityasbasedon‘systemsthinking’inlinewiththeNPGapproach,thelogicbeing“toincludeallgroupsofactorswithaninterestinorknowledgeabouttheworkingthemeofthegroup”(Tortzen,2016).Atthesametimehowever,participantswereselectedonthebasisofa‘representative,consultative’logicinlinewithaNPMlogic.Parents,municipalemployeesandpupilswereselectedfromamongrepresentativesinexistingdemocraticorgansintheinvolvedinstitutions,e.g.parentcouncilsoftheschoolsandkindergartensandotherexistingconsultativeorganssuchasHolbækYouthCityCouncilandtheCounciloftheDisabled.Thecivilservantsdidnotsucceed,however,inmobilizingrepresentativesfromlocalenterprisesandleisureorganizationstostrengthenthediversityandcreativityofthegroup.
Conclusively,thisco-productionprocesswascharacterizedbythepublicactorsexecutingadividedleadershipstyledrawingsimultaneouslyonaNPMandaNPGlogicresultinginacertaindegreeofambiguityintheframingandgoalsettingaswellasinclusionofstakeholders.
ThecaseofRoskilde:Alinkingleadershipstyle
TheZebraCityinitiativetookplaceina‘vulnerable’publichousingcommunityinRoskildecharacterizedbysocialproblems.Itwasaimedatempoweringthelocalcitizensandstrengtheningthesocialnetworksbetweenlocalactorsintheareabybringingthemtogetherinarangeofactivities.The‘ZebraCity’initiativewascharacterizedbyalinkingleadershipstyle,whichhandledtheinherentgovernancetensionsintermsofconflictingframesandamultiplicityofgoalsbyseekingtolinkthedifferentactors,interestandresources.Theprojectmanager,whoplayedacentralleadershiproleinthisinitiative,wasawareofthedifferentinterestsandobjectivestobehandledintheprocess.Perceivingthecomplexityandmultiplicity
41
oflogicsasaconditionforco-production,thisactortookonaroleas‘catalyst’aimingatlinkingcitizensandpublicadministratorsfromdifferentsectorswithdifferentinterests,goalsandresourcesthroughoutreachandmappingandlinkingexistinginitiatives.
ConflictingframingsofZebraCity
Theframingofthe‘ZebraCity’bythetopmanagerswascharacterizedbytwopartlyconflictingstorylinesi.e.a‘network’storylinedrawingontheNPGlogicandan‘activecitizen’storylinedrawingontheNPMlogic.The‘network’storylineframedtheinitiativeaccordingtoaNewPublicGovernancelogicgivingthemunicipalityaroleoffacilitating‘network-andcommunity-building’andthe‘creationofsynergyamonglocalresources’.Accordingtothis‘network’storylinetheroleofthemunicipalitywastohelpbuildstronglocalcommunitiesandnetworks:“Thelocalcommunitiesmustbestrengthened,sothatchallengescanbesolvedlocallyandwith
theresourcesthatareathand”(Tortzen,2016).
However,acompeting‘activecitizen’framingwasintroduced.Ratherthanfocusingontheresourcesoflocalcitizensandcommunities,thisstorylinefocusedontheactiveparticipationofcitizens.Itaimedatgaininglegitimacyamonglocalcitizensforexistingandfuturemunicipalwelfareservicesandatdevelopingactivecitizenshipamongtheinhabitants.Thisstorylinewasinfluencedbythepoliticians,whowereinterestedinstrengtheningtherepresentativedemocraticinstitutions.Itwasexpressedinthefollowingwaybythewelfaredirector:“Theaim
ofZebraCityistosupportactivelocalcommunities..andatthesametimetocreateaforum
andaproximitybetweenthecitycouncilandthelocalcitizens..”(Tortzen,2016).Basedonthis‘activecitizen’storylinethepublicadministratorsformulatedarangeofspecificoutputobjectivesoftheinitiative,drawingonaNPMunderstandingofgovernance.
Linkingamultiplicityofgoals
InspiteoftheZebraCityinitiativebeingframedintermsofanNPGstorylinefocusingon‘localnetworks’thepublicmanagersdecidedonanumberofperformancetargetsmeasuringtheoutputoftheinitiativeintermsofspecificactivitiesandthenumberofcitizensmobilized.Projecttargetsweresetintermsofacertainnumberofactivitiesinitiatedlocally,acertainnumberofcitizensengagedintheseactivitiesandawishtoincreasethenumberofcitizensparticipatinginexistinglocalvoluntaryorganizations:“TheobjectiveoftheZebraCityprojectistosupportlocalcommunities,developthequalityoflifeandaccomplishatleastthreecitizen-
drivenactivities”(Tortzen,2016).
TheZebraCityprojectwascharacterizedbyacomplexityofgoalsexpressedbydifferentactors.Atleastthreepoliticalobjectiveswereexpressedforthe‘ZebraCity’project:Firstlytheinitiativeshouldserveasaplatformforthepoliticians’meetingsinpersonwithlocalcitizens.Secondly,itshouldhelptiethemanydifferentlocalcommunitiesofthemunicipalitytogether.Andthirdly,thepoliticianshopedthatthisparticularZebraprojectwouldreducethesocialvulnerabilityoftheneighborhoodandhelpgettingitoffthesocalled‘ghettolist’.Applyinga
42
linkingleadershipstyle,theprojectmanagersoughtconsciouslytolinkandprioritizethedifferentgoals:“Iwasleftwithamultiplicityofgoals,whichIhaveelaboratedoninanongoing
process..byprioritizingobjectivesthataremeaningfulinthiscontext”(Tortzen,2016).Thelinkingleadershipstyleconsistedinfacilitatingcollaborationamongstakeholdersonlocalactivitiesandaimedatsimultaneouslymeetingthemunicipalperformancetargetsandcontributingtothestrengtheningoflocalnetworks.
Mobilizationofstakeholders:Reach-outandlinkingexistinginitiatives
Mobilizationofstakeholdersinthisco-productionprocesswasexecutedthroughalinkingleadershipstylecharacterizedbymappingandlinkingexistinginitiatives,resourcesandactorsinthelocalareaandreachingouttokeyactorsandmarginalizedgroupsinthearea.Also,theZebraCityprojectwascharacterizedbymeetingsopentoeverybodyinthearea.
ThepublicadministratorsinZebraCitysoughttolinkactorsandressourcesintheareabyreachingouttopublicinstitutionssuchasthelocalschoolandkindergarten,thenursinghomeandhealthcenter.Thiswasconsideredawayoflinkingexistinginitiativesintheareasuchashealthinitiatives,aprojectofgarbagesortingandplansforanurbangarden.Otherreachoutactivities
includedcollaboratingwithemployeesofthelocalhousingcompanyandwithlocalcitizensengagedinotherinitiatives.Furthermore,arangeofreach-outactivitieswereexecutedaimingatincludingmarginalizedorvulnerablecitizenssuchasethnicgroupsandmentallyvulnerableinhabitantsfromalocalinstitution.Inspiteofthis,acertaindegreeof‘self-selection’tookplaceamongthelocalactors,resultinginarelativelybiasedparticipationintheproject.CitizensofotherethnicoriginthanDanishwereclearlyunderrepresentedintheZebraCityproject.
Conclusively,thelinkingleadershipstylepracticedbypublicservantsintheZebraCitycasewascharacterizedbyattemptingtolinktogetherdifferentactors,interestsandgoalsthroughoutreachactivitiesandcollaborationactivities.
ThecaseofIkast-Brande:Aselectiveleadershipstyle
InIkast-Brandetheco-productioninitiativewasaimedatbudgetsavingsintheadministrationofelderlycare.PublicmanagersinthemunicipalityofIkast-Brandeappliedaselectiveleadershipstyleincopingwiththeconflictinggovernancelogics.ThisstrategyfavoredaNPMlogicandwasselectiveinthatitignoredcompetinggovernancelogics.Itwasexecutedbythetopmanagersinspiteofwidespreaddisagreementandoppositionamongleadersintheorganizationarguingforothergovernancelogicsandnotionsofco-production.Theselectiveleadershipstylewasexpressedthroughthetopmanagements’framingoftheinitiativeandfurthermorebytheirhiringateamofexternalconsultantsworkingaccordingtoanunderstandingofinnovationfocusingoneconomicsavingsandtheintroductionofnewtechnologyinlinewiththeNPMlogic.Finally,itwasexecutedthroughselectiveinclusionof
43
stakeholdersandthroughtheexecutionofhands-onfacilitationthatbuiltondistrustintheparticipants’everydayexperiencesand‘disturbance’oftheirmentalassumptionsasawaytocreateinnovation.
NPMframingwitha‘twist’
Theco-productioninitiativeinIkast-Brandewaspartofastrategicprojectinitiatedbythemunicipalitytoredefineanddevelopthelocalwelfare,whichwasframedbytopmanagement.DrawingonanNPMlogicframingthemajorwelfarechallengeswereframedasausterityandscarcityoflabor.Thus,theaimoftheinitiativewasexpressedas“developingradicallydifferent,innovativesolutionsforthewelfareofthefuture”(Tortzen,2016).Inlinewiththisvision,thisspecificco-productioninitiativewasframedbythepublicactorsintermsofachievingradicallydifferentwelfaresolutionswithlesspublicspending.Acentralaimwastomakethecitizens‘takeover’someoftheworkpreviouslydonebythemunicipality.Thecitymanagerframedtheinitiativeasfollows:“..weareshiftingthewelfareproduction…tryingtomakethecitizens
producewelfarethemselvestoalargerdegree..Weareactuallyaimingatmakingthecitizens
doitthemselves–togetridofthemascustomers”(Tortzen,2016).
Theco-productioninitiativewasatthesametime,however,tintedbyacompeting,butsubordinateframingdescribingthecitizensas‘resourcefulandengaged’andcastingtheactivecitizensasdriversofthewelfaredevelopment.Thisframeunderlinedinitiativesthataimatdevelopingnetworksandsocialrelationsamongcitizensstressing‘activecitizenship’and‘socialresponsibility’:“youhavearrivedatthemunicipality,whereengagedcitizensdrivethe
developmentthroughinitiativesandfocusontheinterestsofthecommunity..”(Tortzen,2016).Thus,theframingoftheco-productioninitiativeappliedbypublicmanagerswasdominatedbyanNPMlogicspicedupwitha‘twist’ofNPGstorytelling.
Selectiveleadershipfocusingon‘radicalinnovation’
Theselectiveleadershipstylewasexecutedbythetopmanagersofthemunicipalityinasimpleway,i.e.byapplyingaspecificprojectconcept,i.e.theso-calledCreativeIdeaSolution(CIS-concept)executedbyateamofexternalconsultantsthatinpracticecametoexecuteleadershipinthisprocess.
Theobjectiveoftheco-productioninitiativewassetbythetopmanagersinadvance:Toachievesavingsof20%ontheadministrationofelderlycarethrough‘radicalinnovation’.Thespecific‘delivery’oftheco-productionprocesswouldbeacatalogueofinnovationprojects/ideas.Thepriorityofthetopmanagerswastolaunchaprocessthatwouldresultinarangeofinnovativeideaswithinarelativelyshorttimespan.Radicalinnovationwasthedrivingambitionoftheinitiative.Accordingtothecitymanager:“Weneedtocreatearadically
differentwelfare–maybeforlessmoney..weneedtodosomethingdifferent–something
dramaticallydifferent”(Tortzen,2016).
44
ThisselectiveleadershipstylegaveprioritytotheNPMapproachfocusingonstreamlining,innovationandtechnologicalopportunities.Atthesametimeframingprofessionalsandcitizensasbenefitmaximizingactorsthatneedtobe‘disturbed’tobeabletocomeupwithinnovativesolutions.ThetopmanagersofthemunicipalitythusignoredwidespreadskepticismamongmanagersandpublicservantsintheorganizationtowardsthisNPMlogic.TheychosetoproceedwiththeinitiativefollowingtheCISconceptattemptingtoachieveinnovationprimarilythroughtheintroductionofnewtechnologyandself-servicesolutions.
Excludinganddistrustingstakeholders
Mobilizationandinclusionofstakeholdersintheselectiveleadershipstylewascharacterizedbytheexclusionofcentralstakeholdergroups.Theelderlycitizensthatmaybeconsideredacentralstakeholdergroupwereassignedaweakandmarginalroleintheco-productioninitiative.Themanagersexpresseddoubtthattheelderlycitizenswouldbeabletocontributetotheobjectiveof‘radicalinnovation’andthetopmanagerssaw‘disturbance’ofthestakeholdersmentalpicturesasaprerequisiteforobtainingresults.
Theselectiveleadershipstylealsoresultedinanothergroupofstakeholders,i.e.theprofessionalsthatworkwiththeelderlyonadailybasis,beingpartlyexcludedfromtheco-productionprocess.Onceagaintheargumentwasthatthesestakeholdersweretoocloselyinvolvedincaringfortheelderlyandshouldthusbeexpectedtoopposeradicallynewsolutions.Theexternalconsultantfacilitatingtheprocessargued:“..weknowfromexperience
thatwhentechnologysubstituteshumanbeings,weareinforbeating.Fromtheindustrialfield
wehavelearned,thatthosewhoworktherecannotbetheonestointroducenewtechnologies–
ithastobesomeoneexternal”(Tortzen,2016).Thustheselectiveleadershipstyleresultedindefactoexclusionoftwocentralgroupsofstakeholders,i.e.theelderlyandthefrontlineprofessionals,whoweregivenamarginalroleintheco-productionprocess.
Conclusively,thisco-productionprocesswascharacterizedbyaselectiveleadershipstylegivingprioritytoaNPMunderstandingofgovernanceandco-production,whichframedtheinitiativeintermsofausterityandradicalinnovationandwhichexcludedcentralstakeholdergroupsfromtheprocess.
Discussion:Howdodifferentleadershipstylesaffectthequalityand
publicvalueofco-productionprocesses?
Theanalysisofthethreeco-productioncaseshasidentifiedthreedifferentleadershipstylesappliedbypublicadministratorsindifferentlevelsintheorganization,i.e.adividedleadershipstyleinHolbæk,alinkingstyleinRoskildeandaselectiveleadershipstyleinIkast-Brande.Acentralquestion,now,is:Howdotheseleadershipstylesappliedbypublicactorsinfluencethequalityandthepublicvalueofco-productionprocesses?InthefollowingIwilldiscussthe‘co-productionquality’ofthethreeco-productionprocessescharacterizedbydifferentleadership
45
styles.ForeachofthethreecasesIwillfocusonthe‘democraticquality’intermsofinclusionandinfluenceandonthe‘collaborativeadvantage’intermsofsynergy.Foreachcase,Iwillsubsequentlydiscusstheextentofpublicvaluecreated.
Holbæk:Consultativeco-productionwithlimitedpublicvalue
ThedividedleadershipstyleappliedbythepublicmanagersinHolbækmeantthatleadershipinthiscasewasexercisedinanambiguousway,drawingonbothNPMandNPGapproacheswithoutreconcilingthem.Thisaffectedthequalityoftheco-productionprocessinseveralways.Althoughsomegroups(theyoungandcommunityactors)wereonlymarginallyincludedintheprocess,thecivilsocietyactorswereofferedrelativelygoodopportunitiestoparticipateandtospeak,thankstothefacilitativeleadershipoftheprocessinspiredbyaNPGlogic.However,thepossibilityofthecivilsocietyactorstoinfluencethedefinitionofchallengesandpossiblesolutionsintheco-productionprocesswasrelativelylimited.
ThepublicmanagersreactedtotheinherentpressurefromtheNPMapproachto‘deliver’output(savings)withinarelativelyshorttimespanbyexercisingaformofdefiningleadershipwhichpreventedthecivilsectoractorsfromtakingaroleofco-designers(Voorberg,Bekkers,&Tummers,2015)ofinnovativesolutions.Thedividedleadershipstyleexercisedinthisinitiativealsopreventedtheresourcesofcivilsocietyactorsfrombeingtakenintoaccount,astheeconomicagendawaspredominant.Allinallthedividedleadershipstyleleadtoaco-productionprocesswhichIwillcharacterizeasscoringrelativelylowinbothin‘democraticquality’andinthedegree‘collaborativeadvantage’.Thisco-productioncasemaybelabelled‘consultative’(Needham&Carr,2009),asthecivilsocietyparticipantsweregivenapossibilitytovoicetheirneedsandpreferences,butnotransformationoccurredintherelationsordistributionofpoweramongtheactors.
Limitedpublicvalue
Theco-productionprocesscharacterizedbyadividedleadershipstylecreatedalimitedpublicvalue.Theoutputobjectiveformulatedbythemunicipality,i.e.innovativeideasforsaving22miod.kr.onschoolsandkindergartens,wasnotaccomplishedbythe‘changegroup’.Thegroupinsteadformulatedalistofprinciplestobeusedinthepoliticalprioritizationofthefield.Theoutcomeobjectiveintermsofdevelopingnewformsofcollaborationbetweenthemunicipalityandthestakeholderswasmetpartly–andmostsuccessfullywithinthemunicipalityitself,astheinitiativesucceededinbringingemployees,municipalleadersandpoliticianstogetherinadialogueonaspecificwelfarearea.
46
Thisvalueisalsoreflectedinthefactthattheinitiativescoresrelativelyhighintermsofparticipatoryvalue,astheopportunitytodiscusschallengesandprioritieswithotherstakeholdergroupsisvaluedbytheparticipants.Particularly,theemployeesvaluethepossibilityofmetingupwithparentsandpoliticianstodiscuss.Asoneheadofschoolsays:“Ibelieveinworkinginamoreopenanddemocraticform..whichgivesmorelegitimacythanlying
totheemployeesandtheparents”(headofschool)Generally,thestakeholdersvaluethesymbolicgestureofthemunicipalityinvitingthemtoparticipateinadialogue–eveniftheyarenotgivenmuchinfluenceondecision.Sotheco-productionprocessdoesproducesomevalueintermsoflegitimacy.
However,intermsofthethirdassessmentparameter,i.e.‘transformationalvalue’,thisco-productionprocessscoresrelativelylow.Thereisnosignthattherolesandpowerrelationsofstakeholderswillbechangingasaresultofthisinitiative.Rather,thepressureto‘deliver’resultedinthepublicactorsexercisingdefiningleadershipwhichinpracticeblockedthewayfortheframingandresourcesofotherstakeholderstounfoldintheco-productionprocess,therebylimitingthecollaborativeandinnovativepotentialoftheprocess.
Roskilde:Transformativeco-productionwithsomepublicvalue
Thelinkingleadershipstyleappliedinthisco-productioninitiativeresultedintheco-productionprocessbeingopentoallkindsofcivilsocietyactors.Inspiteofsomechallengeswithmobilizingcitizensofotherethnicorigin,thisco-productioninitiativemanagedtoincludeawidevarietyofcivilsocietyactors.Also,civilsocietyactorswereinvitedtoparticipateearlyintheprocessandthusgrantedaroleas‘co-initiators’(Voorberg,Bekkers,etal.,2015)ofspecificinitiatives,althoughwithintheframingsetbythemunicipalityintermsofcitizendrivenactivities.
Animportantlinkingleadershipinterventioninthisinitiativewastofocuson’thecommonthird’,i.e.specificandvisibleinitiativessuchassettingupalocalchoir,establishinganurbangardenanda‘fleemarketfornerds’.Throughfacilitatingcollaborativeactivitiesamongcitizenstheinitiativesucceededinsimultaneouslymeetingthemunicipalperformancetargetsandcontributingtothestrengtheningoflocalnetworksandofindividualcitizensbyservingasanopportunityforvulnerablecitizenstotaketheroleasco-initiatorsand-designersinco-productionsupportedandfacilitatedbythemunicipality.Allinallthelinkingleadershipstyleleadtoarelativelyhighscoreinboththe‘democraticquality’andthe‘collaborativeadvantage’oftheco-productionprocess,makingitan–atleasttosomedegree-transformative(Needham&Carr,2009)co-productionprocess.
Somepublicvalue
Intermsofpublicvaluethisinitiativecameoutwitharelativehighscoreonpublicvalue.Theobjectivessetbythemunicipalityintermsofnumberofparticipants,activitiesetc.werefulfilled,mainlythroughinitiatingspecificlocalcollaborativeactivitiesamongtheinhabitantsinthearea.
47
The‘ZebraCity’co-productioninitiativewasevaluatedmainlypositivelybytheparticipants,stressingthedevelopmentofstrongerrelationsamongtheinhabitantsacrossethnicgroupsaswellasamongthepublicservantsworkinginthelocalarea.Byfacilitatingcollaborativeactivitiesamonglocalcitizens,voluntaryorganizationsandpublicadministrators,thisinitiativesucceededinlinkingdifferentactors,goalsandinterests.Theurbangardenisanexampleofacitizen-initiatedand–drivenprojectwhichaccordingtooneoftheinitiators,awomanwithaseverestressdiagnosis,wouldnothavebeenrealizedwithoutthe‘ZebraCity’initiative:“Iwouldnothavebeenabletodothisonmyown.Manyofushavescratches,cracksanddents,
butwegivewhatwehave.”(Tortzen,2016).
Whenevaluatedintermsofthecontributiontosocietalchanges,thisproject,liketheothertwoinitiativesassessedhere,scoresrelativelylow.Thisisduetotherelativeisolationoftheinitiativeaswellasthescope,whichhascreatedvalueinarelativelylimitedareaforarelativelylimitedgroupofpeople.Also,theinitiativehassucceededonlytosomedegreetobuildbridgesbetweeninhabitantsofDanishoriginandinhabitantswithotherethnicbackgrounds.Theinitiativewasrelativelysuccessful,butatthesametimeunfoldedrelativelyisolatedfromthepracticeofthemunicipalityasawhole,i.e.ina‘safearea’(Aagaard,Sørensen,&Torfing,2014).Therefore,itisnotlikelytofundamentallyinfluenceorchangetherolesorrelationsofpublicservantsingeneral.
Ikast-Brande:Enforcedco-productionwithlittlepublicvalue
TheselectiveleadershipstyleexercisedintheIkast-Brandecaseresultedinaco-productionprocesscharacterizedbytheNPMgovernancelogic.Inthiscasetheco-productionframingwasusedbytopmanagementtosugarcoateaninitiativeaimedatachievingbudgetsavingsthroughradicalinnovationsuchasdigitalizationandtheintroductionofwelfaretechnology.Thetopmanagersappliedaselectiveleadershipstyle,notintendingtoco-producewithcitizensandotheractors,butrathertoco-opttheseactorsintoanagendadecidedbythemunicipaltopmanagement.
Theaffectedandrelevantcivilsocietyactorssuchastheelderlycitizensweregivenamarginalroleintheprocessandthuswerenotgrantedtheopportunitytoinfluencetheco-productionprocess.Also,thetopmanagerschosetoignorecompetinggovernancelogicsandnotionsofco-productionadvancedbyotheractorswhichresultedinalowdegreeofownershipandanchorageoftheinitiativeamongthepublicservants.Thus,the‘democraticquality’ofthisprocessscoresverylow.
Intermsof‘collaborativeadvantage’thisinitiativealsoscoreslow.Acatalogueofinnovationideaswasproduced,butitlackedanchorageamongtherelevantactorsinsideandoutsidetheorganizationthushavingverylittlechancesofbeingimplemented.Also,notheleadershipstyledidaimatachievingsynergybyempoweringcivilsocietyactorsorchangingrelationsorrolesamongtheparticipants.Instead,theselectiveleadershipstylewasrootedinanotionofco-productionthatcorrespondswithwhatPestoffcalls‘enforced’co-production(Pestoff,2016)andUlrich(2016)depictsasco-production‘makingthecitizensaccountable’.Thisapproachseesco-productionasapossiblewayofsubstitutingpublicwelfareservices.Allinall,the
48
selectiveleadershipstylebasedonaNPMgovernancelogicdidnotsupportthequalityoftheco-productionprocessintermsofdemocraticqualityandsynergy.
Lowscoreonpublicvalue
Intermsofpublicvalue,theIkast-Brandecasescoredlowonfulfillingtheobjectivessetbythemunicipality.Thegoaltosave20%oftheadministrativebudgetwasnotfulfilledthroughtheco-productioninitiative.Anideacataloguewitharangeofinnovationprojectswasproducedintheprocess,butowingtoalowdegreeofownershipandanchoringintheorganization,theseideaswerenotimplemented.Also,furtherinvestmentswereneededtorealizetheseradicallyinnovativeprojectsuggestions.
Theparticipantvalueoftheprocesscanbedescribedasrelativelylow,asseveraloftheparticipantsbothamongemployeesandleadersexpressdoubtsatthevalueoftheinnovationideasandparticularlyatthepossibilityofthembeingimplementedintheorganization.Expressedbyoneoftheparticipatingcivilservants:“Iwonder,howmuchbenefitwillcomefrom
this–andifwewilltakeitfurther.Weareabusydepartment,youknow,withmanyongoing
tasks…”.Someparticipants,however,pointtovaluecreatedby‘disturbing’thementalpicturesoftheemployeesanddevelopingtheirunderstandingoffeasibleinnovativechangesinthefieldofelderlycare.
Finally,thisinitiativescoresverylowonthetransformativedimensionofcontributiontochangingtherolesandpowerrelationsofactors,asco-optingcitizensratherthanempoweringthemwasthefocusofthisNPMinspiredleadershipstyle.
Conclusion
Thethreecasestudiesanalyzedhereofferanumberofinsightsintotherelationbetweenleadershipandco-production.Asthethreeco-productioncaseshavebeenselectedaccordingtoan‘extremepositivecase’anda‘maximumvariation’logic,theconclusionsdrawnmaybegeneralizedanalyticallytoothertop-downco-productioncases.
Thestudyaimsatcontributingtotheresearchfieldbyexploringthelinkbetweenleadershipandco-production.Basedonthecurrent‘transformative’discourseappliedbypublicmanagersandresearchersonco-production,thestudysetsouttoinvestigate,howtheleadershipstylesexercisedbypublicactorsinfluencethequalityandthusthe‘transformative’potentialofco-productionprocesses.Amainassumptionofthestudyis,thatco-productioncanbeunderstoodas‘hybrid’governanceprocessesattemptingatintroducingcollaborativeelementsintheshadowofhierarchy.
Examiningthreetop-downco-productioninitiativesfromDanishmunicipalities,thisstudyhasshownhowdifferentnotionsofgovernanceandco-productionareinherentinco-productioninitiativesplacingthepublicactorsexercisingleadershipinaninstitutionalcrosspressure.
49
Thestudyhasidentifiedthreedifferentleadershipstylesappliedbypublicactorsincopingwiththeinstitutionalcrosspressure,i.e.adivided,alinkingandaselectiveleadershipstyle.WhilethedividedleadershipstyleistornbetweenaNPMandaNPGgovernancelogic,thelinkingstyleattemptsatlinkingthetwologics,andtheselectiveleadershipstyleprefersonelogic,i.e.theNPMapproach,oppressingothergovernanceapproaches.
Theaimofthestudyhasbeentoexaminetheeffectofthethreedifferentleadershipstylesonthequalityandpublicvaluecreatedinthethreedifferentco-productioninitiatives.Tothisend,notionsofqualityandpublicvaluehasbeendevelopedandoperationalized.Thequalityofco-productionprocessesareassessedonthebasisof‘democraticquality’and‘collaborativeadvantage’intermsofproductandrelationalsynergy.Whilepublicvalueofco-productionprocesseshasassessedapplyingthefollowingthreeparameters:goalfulfillment,participantbenefitanddegreeoftransformation.
Basedontheanalysisofthethreeco-productioninitiatives,thestudyconcludedthattheleadershipstyleexercisedbypublicactorsintheco-productionprocessispivotaltothequalityandpublicvalueofco-productionprocesses.TheexerciseofleadershipinterventionsrootedinaNewPublicManagementregime,i.e.strictdeadlines,measurabledeliveriesandmistrustinemployeesandcivilsocietyactors,doesnotsupportcollaborationbetweenautonomousactors.Theseinterventions,tothecontrary,influencethecollaborationnegatively,causingalowqualityofco-productiontounfold.A‘pressuretodeliver’inherentintheNPMapproachinfluencestheleadershipstyleofcivilservantsintermsofexercise‘defining’leadershipbyestablishingandmaintainingthepublicagencies’framingofthechallenge,thelegitimateactorsandpossiblethemesandsolutionstobeincludedintheco-productionprocess.Thislackof’sense-giving’leadershipexercisedbythecivilservantstendstoreducethequalityandpublicvalueoftheco-productionprocess.
OntheotherhandleadershipinterventionsrootedinaNewPublicGovernanceregime,i.e.buildingtrustandrelationsbetweentheparticipantsandfocusingonresourcesandonsense-givingleadership,doseemtosupportco-productionprocesses.Thestudyconcludesthatthebestresultsintermsofqualityandpublicvalueareobtainedthroughalinkingstrategyappliedbythecivilservants,whichreflexivelycopeswiththepressurebylinkinginterests,actorsandgovernancelogicsinco-productionprocesses.Thisisinlinewithotherresearchinthefieldofnetworkgovernanceandcollaborativegovernancewhichpointsto‘linkingleadership’asconduciveforcollaborationbetweenautonomousactors(Bekkers,Tummers,&Voorberg,2014;Klijnetal.,2010;vanMeerkerk&Edelenbos,2013).
Thepaperhashighlightedtheimportanceoffocusingontheleadershipdimensionofco-production.Afurtherresearchagendashouldincludefurtherelaborationoftheconceptsofqualityandpublicvalueofco-productionaswellandtherelationbetweenthem.Alsoafurther
50
elaborationisneededofdifferentleadershipstylesexercisedindifferentkindsofco-productionprocesses(levels,sectors,differentactors),morein-depthanalysisofleadershipinterventionsbydifferentactorsinvolvedinsuchprocesses,e.g.politicians,topcivilservants,street-levelemployeesandcitizensandotherstakeholders,respectively.
Literature
Andersen,L.L.,&Espersen,H.H.(2017).Samskabelse,samproduktionogpartnerskaber-teoretiskeperspektiver.InPartnerskaberogsamarbejdermellemdetoffentligeog
civilsamfundet.Støttetilmenneskermedpsykiskevanskeligheder(pp.107–136).København:Socialstyrelsen.
Ansell,C.,&Gash,A.(2007).CollaborativeGovernanceinTheoryandPractice.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,18(4),543–571.http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Ansell,C.,&Gash,A.(2012).Stewards,Mediators,andCatalysts :TowardaModelofCollaborativeLeadership.TheInnovationJournal,17(1),1–21.
Barley,S.R.,&Tolbert,P.S.(1997).InstitionalizationandStructuration:StudyingtheLinksbetweenActionandInstitution.OrganizationStudies,18(1),93–117.
Barnes,M.,Newman,J.,&Sullivan,H.(2007).Power,participationandpoliticalrenewal.Bristol:ThePolicyPress,UniversityofBristol.
Bekkers,V.,Tummers,L.,&Voorberg,W.H.(2014).Frompublicinnovationtosocialinnovation
inthepublicsector :Aliteraturereviewofrelevantdriversandbarriers(PaperpresentedattheEGPA2013Conference,Edinburgh,September).Rotterdam:ErasmusUniversity.
Bovaird,T.(2007).BeyondEngagementandParticipation:UserandCommunityCoproductionofPublicServices.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5).
Bovaird,T.,&Löffler,E.(2012).FromEngagementtoCo-production:TheContributionofUsersandCommunitiestoOutcomesandPublicValue.Voluntas,23(4),1119–1138.http://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
Bovaird,T.,&Löffler,E.(2014).Bringingthepowerofthecitizenintolocalpublicservices–Anevidencereview.Birmingham.
Boyle,D.,Coote,A.,Sherwood,C.,&Slay,J.(2010).RightHereRightNow.TakingCo-productionintothemainstream.NESTA,London.
Boyle,D.,&Harris,M.(2010).TheChallengeofCo-production.DiscussionPaper.NESTA,London.
Brandsen,T.,&Honig,M.(2016).Co-productionandco-creation:atypology.Firstdraft.InT.Brandsen,T.Steen,&B.Verschuere(Eds.),Co-ProductionandCo-Creation:EngagingCitizensinPublicServices.Routledge.
51
Brudney,J.L.,&England,R.E.(1983).TowardsaDefinitionoftheCoproductionConcept.PublicAdministrationReview,43(1),59–65.
Cahn,E.S.,&Gray,C.(2012).Co-productionfromanormativeperspective.InV.Pestoff,T.Brandsen,&B.Verschuere(Eds.),Co-production.Thethirdsectorandthedeliveryofpublicservices(pp.129–144).NewYork:Routledge.
Dahler-Larsen,P.(2016).VejledningOmAtEvaluereInnovativeTiltag.COI,København.
deJongh,M.(2013).GroupdynamicsintheCitizen’sAssemblyonElectoralReform.UtrechtUniversity.
Durose,C.,Mangan,C.,Needham,C.,Rees,J.,&Hilton,M.(2013).Transforminglocalpublic
servicesthroughco-production.UniversityofBirmingham.
Durose,C.,Needham,C.,Mangan,C.,&Rees,J.(2015).Generating“goodenough”evidendeforco-production.EvidenceandPolicy,(onlineoctober5.),1–17.
Edelenbos,J.,VanBuuren,A.,&Klijn,E.-H.(2013).ConnectiveCapacitiesofNetworkManagers.PublicManagementReview,15(1),131–159.http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.691009
Flyvbjerg,B.(2010).Femmisforståelseromcasestudiet.InL.Brinkmann,S.ogTanggaard(Ed.),Kvalitativemetoder.København:HansReitzelsForlag.
Glasby,J.O.N.,&Beresford,P.(2006).Whoknowsbest ?Evidence-basedpracticeandtheserviceusercontribution.CriticalSocialPolicy,26(1),268–284.
Greve,C.,&Ejersbo,N.(2013).Udviklingenistyringenafdenoffentligesektor-Baggrundspapirtilproduktivitetskommissionen.Produktivitetskommissionen,København.
Hartley,J.,&Benington,J.(2011).Recenttrendsinleadership.Thinkingandactioninthepublicandvoluntaryservicesectors.TheKing’sFund,UK.
Hood,C.(1991).APublicManagementforAllSeasons?PublicAdministration,69(1),3–19.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Hughes,O.(2010).Doesgovernanceexist?InS.P.Osborne(Ed.),TheNewPublicGovernance?Emergingperspectivesonthetheoryandpracticeofpublicgovernance(pp.87–104).London&NewYork:Routledge.
Huxham,C.(1996).Collaborationandcollaborativeadvantage.InC.Huxham(Ed.),Creatingcollaborativeadvantage.London:SagePublications.
Jakobsen,M.,&Andersen,S.C.(2013).CoproductionandEquityinPublicServiceDelivery.PublicAdministrationReview,73(5),704–713.http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094.ver
Keast,R.,&Mandell,M.P.(2014).ACompositeTheoryofLeadserhipandManagementProcessCatalystandStrategicLeveraging-TheoryofDeliberateActioninCollaborativeNetworks.InM.P.Mandell,R.Keast,&R.Agranoff(Eds.),NetworkTheoryinthePublicSector(pp.34–50).NewYork:Routledge.
52
Klausen,K.K.(2014).StilltheCenturyofGovernment?NoSignsofGovernanceyet!InternationalPublicManagementReview,15(1),29–44.
Klijn,E.-H.,Steijn,B.,&Edelenbos,J.(2010).theImpactofNetworkManagementonOutcomesinGovernanceNetworks.PublicAdministration,88(4),1063–1082.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
Koppenjan,J.,&Klijn,E.-H.(2004).Managinguncertaintiesinnetworks.NewYork:Routledge.
Lowndes,V.,&Roberts,M.(2013).Whyinstitutionsmatter.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Löfgren,K.,&Agger,A.(2013).Politikogadministration-etfagikrydsild.InA.Agger&K.Löfgren(Eds.),Politikogadministration(pp.9–18).Copenhagen:HansReitzelsForlag.
March,J.,&Olsen,J.P.(1995).DemocraticGovernance.NewYork:TheFreePress.
Merriam,S.B.(2009).QualitativeResearch-AGuidetoDesignandImplementation(ThirdEdit).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Moynihan,D.P.,&Thomas,J.C.(2013).Citizen,Customer,Partner:RethinkingthePlaceofthePublicinPublicManagement.PublicAdministrationR,73(6),786–796.http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109.786
Needham,C.,&Carr,S.(2009).Co-production:Anemergingevidencebaseforadultsocialcare
transformation.SCIEReserchBriefing31,March2009.
Neergaard,H.(2010).Udvælgelseafcasesikvalitativeundersøgelser(2.udgave).FrederiksbergC:Samfundslitteratur.
Nye,J.S.(2008).ThePowerstoLead.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
OECD.(2011).OECDPublicGovernanceReviews :TogetherforBetterPublicServices:PartneringwithCitizensandCivilSociety-4211131e.pdf.
Osborne,S.P.(2006).TheNewPublicGovernance?PublicManagementReview,8(3),377–387.http://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
Osborne,S.P.(2010).TheNewPublicGovernance-emergingperspectivesonthetheoryand
practiceofpublicgovernance.London:Routledge.
Ospina,S.M.,&Foldy,E.(2010).Buildingbridgesfromthemargins:Theworkofleadershipinsocialchangeorganizations.TheLeadershipQuarterly,21(2),292–307.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008
Ostrom,E.(1996).CrossingtheGreatDivide :Coprodution,SynergyandDevelopment.World
Development,24(6),1073–1087.
Ostrom,E.(2012).Foreword.InV.Pestoff,T.Brandsen,&B.Verschuere(Eds.),NewPublicgovernance,thethirdsectorandco-production(pp.v–vii).NewYork,London:Taylor&Francis.
Page,S.(2010).Integrativeleadershipforcollaborativegovernance:CivicengagementinSeattle.TheLeadershipQuarterly,21(2),246–263.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.005
53
Parks,R.B.,Baker,P.C.,Kiser,L.,Oakerson,R.,Ostrom,E.,Ostrom,V.,…Wilson,R.(1981).Consumersascoproducersofpublicservices:Someeconomicandinstitutionalconsiderations.PolicyStudiesJournal,9(7),1001–1011.
Pestoff,V.(2008).ADemocraticArchitecturefortheWelfareState.OxonandNewYork:RoutledgeStudiesintheManagementofVoluntaryandNon-profitOrganizations.
Pestoff,V.(2012).Co-ProductionandThirdSectorSocialServicesinEurope-SomeCrucialConceptualissues.InV.Pestoff,T.Brandsen,&B.Verschuere(Eds.),NewPublicgovernance,thethirdsectorandco-production.(pp.13–34).NewYork,London:Routledge.
Pestoff,V.(2016).Co-ProductionattheCrossroadsofPublicAdministrationRegimes–
implicationsforgenericdefinitions ?(PaperpresentedattheISTRConference,June).Stockholm.
Pestoff,V.,Brandsen,T.,&Vershuere,B.(Eds.).(2012).NewPublicGovernance,theThirdSectorandCo-Production.NewYork,London:Routledge.
Pollitt,C.,&Bouckaert,G.(2011).PublicManagementReform.Acomparativeanalysis:New
PublicManagement,GovernanceandtheNeo-WeberianState(ThirdEdit).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rhodes,R.A.W.(1996).TheNewGovernance:GoverningwithoutGovernment.PoliticalStudies,44(4),652–667.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Richardson,L.,&Durose,C.(2013).Whoisaccountableinlocalism ?Findingsfromtheoryand
practice.Arts&HumanitiesResearchCouncil.
Scharpf,F.W.(1997).Gamesrealactorsplay.Actor-centeredinstitutionalisminpolicyresearch.Boulder,Colorado:WestwiewPress.
Schlappa,H.,&Imani,Y.(2013).LeadershipintheCo-productionofPublicServices :AninitialconceptualframeworkLeadership(Paper,FirstInternationalConferenceonPublicPolciy,26th-28thJune).Grenoble.
Schlappa,H.,&Imani,Y.(2016).Leadingserviceco-production :Preliminaryfindingsfroma
studyoftheHertfordshireFireandRescueService(PaperpresentedatIIASStudyGrouponCo-productionofPublicServices,Tampere,June).
Skelcher,C.,Mathur,N.,&Smith,M.(2005).ThePublicGovernanceofCollaborativeSpaces:Discourse,DesignandDemocracy.PublicAdministration,83(3),573–596.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00463.x
Svendsen,G.T.(2012).Tænkepauser:Tillid.Aarhus:AarhusUniversitetsforlag.
Sørensen,E.,&Torfing,J.(2009).MakingGovernanceNetworksEffectiveandDemocraticThroughMetagovernance.PublicAdministration,87(2),234–258.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x
Torfing,J.(2006).Introduction:DemocraticNetworkGovernance.InM.Marcussen&J.Torfing(Eds.),DemocraticNetworkGovernanceinEurope.PalgraveMacmillan.
54
Torfing,J.(2013).Offentligledelseietstyringsperspektiv:før,nuogifremtiden.InA.Agger&K.Löfgren(Eds.),Politikogadministration(pp.195–213).Copenhagen:HansReitzelsForlag.
Torfing,J.,Sørensen,E.,&Røiseland,A.(2016).TransformingthePublicSectorintoanArenaforCo-creation :Barriers,Drivers,BenefitsandWaysForward.Administration&Society
OnlineFirst.http://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
Torfing,J.,&Triantafillou,P.(2011).Introductiontointeractivepolicymaking,metagovernanceanddemocracy.InJ.&T.Torfing(Ed.),Interactivepolicymaking,metagovernanceand
democracy.ECPRPress.
Tortzen,A.(2016).Samskabelseikommunalerammer-hvordankanledelseunderstøtte
samskabelse?RoskildeUniversitet.
Ulrich,J.(2016).Samskabelse–entypologi(VIAUniversityCollege,CLOUskriftsserie).
vanEijk,C.,&Steen,T.P.S.(2014).WhyPeopleCo-Produce:Analysingcitizens’perceptionsonco-planningengagementinhealthcareservices.PublicManagementReview,16(3),358–382.http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841458
vanMeerkerk,I.,&Edelenbos,J.(2013).Theeffectsofboundaryspannersontrustandperformanceofurbangovernancenetworks:findingsfromsurveyresearchonurbandevelopmentprojectsintheNetherlands.PolicySciences,47(1),3–24.http://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9181-2
VanWart,M.(2013).AdministrativeLeadershipTheory:aReassessmentAfter10Years.PublicAdministration,91(3),521–543.http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12017
Vanleene,D.,Verschuere,B.,&Voets,J.(2016).TheDemocraticQualityofCo-Productionin
CommunityDevelopment(PaperpresentedattheIIASStudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicService,June).Tampere.
Voorberg,W.H.,Bekkers,V.,&Tummers,L.(2014).Co-creationinsocialinnovation :comparativecase-studyontheinfluentialfactorsandoutcomesofco-creation(PaperpresentedattheIRSPMConference,April).Ottawa.
Voorberg,W.H.,Bekkers,V.,&Tummers,L.(2015).ASystematicReviewofCo-CreationandCo-Production:Embarkingonthesocialinnovationjourney.PublicManagementReview,17(9),1333–1357.http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Voorberg,W.H.,Tummers,L.,Bekkers,V.,Torfing,J.,Tonurist,P.,&Kattel,R.(2015).Co-creationandcitizeninvolvementinsocialinnovation :Acomparativecasestudyacross7
EU-countries.LIPSE.
Wagenaar,H.(2007).Governance,Complexity,andDemocraticParticipation:HowCitizensandPublicOfficialsHarnesstheComplexitiesofNeighborhoodDecline.TheAmericanReview
ofPublicAdministration,37(1),17–50.http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006296208
55
Waldorff,S.B.,Kristensen,L.S.,&Ebbesen,B.V.(2014).Thecomplexityofgovernance.Challengesforpublicsectorinnovation.InC.Ansell&J.Torfing(Eds.),PublicInnovationthroughcollaborationanddesign(pp.70–88).NewYork:Routledge.
Aagaard,P.,Sørensen,E.,&Torfing,J.(Eds.).(2014).Samarbejdsdrevetinnovationipraksis.København:Jurist-ogØkonomforbundetsForlag.
56
Usingleadershiptheorytodefinevariablesfortheanalysisofco-productionmechanisms(Schlappa,Mason,andImani)
PaperpresentedtotheIIASStudyGroup
Co-productionofPublicServices
Washington6-7June2017
DrHansSchlappa
DrPhillipMason
DrYassamanImani
HertfordshireUniversity,UnitedKingdom
57
Usingleadershiptheorytodefinevariablesfortheanalysisofco-productionmechanisms
Introduction
Oneoftheproblemsinco-production(CP)researchisthattheories,analyticalframeworksand
modelsareappliedorrelatedtodifferentpartsofthepublicservicesystemwithoutmaking
cleardistinctionsastowhichpartsofaprocessororganisationtheyarespecificallyrelevantfor.
Forexample,analysisofco-productioninschoolsdrawsonCPtheoryinregardtothe
relationshipbetweenregularandcitizenco-producerandthenappliesthesameanalytical
frametoadiscussionofthebarriersandfacilitatorsofCPinrelationtoinstitutionalcontexts
(Porter2012).Pestoff’sstudiesonchildcare(Pestoff2006,2009)appliesCPtheorytoanalyse
interactionsbetweenprofessionalsandparentsaswellastotheinstitutionalandalsothe
policycontextinwhichCPactivityisembedded.InregardtoheathcareservicesLoeffleretal
(2012)applyCPtheorytoone-to-oneCPsituations,thehealthcareservicesystem,professional
developmentaswellasgovernmentpolicy.Alford(2009),similarly,appliesCPtheoryto
organisationalsystemsandstructuresaswellastheindividualswhoworkinthem.
WhilethemalleabilityofCPasatheoreticalframeworksupportsmanymethodological
approachesandisapplicabletoaverywiderangeofservices,organisationsandproblems,the
argumentsresultingfromacademicenquiryappeartolackspecificitywhichwouldmake
practitionersandpolicymakersdothingsdifferently.Forcoproductionresearchtohavea
substantiveimpactonpraxisrequiresaddressingnotonlythequestionof‘howdoesco-
productionwork?’but‘forwhomdoesitwork,inwhatcircumstancesandwhy?’togenerate
morecontingentandqualifiedfindings.Tothisendweneedtobemoreexplicitandspecificas
totheunitandlevelofanalysiswearedealingwithwhenexploringCP.Forexample,ifwewere
toapplytheframeworkputforwardfortheco-authoredbookonCPdevelopedbythisworking
group(Steen,Verschuere,andBrandsenforthcoming)weneedtoaskthefollowingquestions:
58
IstheanalysisofthedesignorplanningofCPfocusedontheinteractionsbetweenactorsthat
constitutetheplanningordesignprocess,oristheanalysisconcernedwiththecontextinwhich
designandplanninghappens?InbothcasesweareaimingtounderstandhowCPworks,but
havetwoverydifferentfoci,oneisconcernedwiththeactualinteractionsbetweenindividuals
andtheotherwiththeorganisationinwhichthishappens.Theanalysisofthecontextisof
courseimportanttounderstandco-productionbecausethesameCPactivitiesplayout
differentlyaccordingthecontextinwhichtheyhappen.Toputitadifferentway,implicitinthe
notionthatcontextmattersistheassumptionthatwhatworkswellinonesettingcanbea
disasterinanother.Thecorechallengethispaperseekstoaddressisthecapacityforco-
productiontheorytoshapethepracticeofco-productionindiverseandcomplexpublicservice
contexts.Thisrelatesnotonlytotheneedtoextendtherangeofmodels,theoriesand
frameworks,buttorecognisinghowthesignificanceorrelevanceofthebroaderbodyof
scholarlyworkonco-productionismediatedby,andwithin,diversesystemsofpractice.Thisis
nottosaythattheyaremediatedsimplybytheexistenceofdiverseservices.Rather,the
potentialforco-productiontheorytoimpactonpracticeismediatedbyhowtheefficacyof
differentapproachestoleadingandparticipatinginformsofco-productionisinterpreted
throughthesepractices.
Thereisawholehostoforganisationaltheorythatwouldhelpusexplainwhyonecontext
supportstheachievementofdesiredoutcomes,whileanotherdoesnot.Forinstance,Tidd
(2001)conceptualisestheinteractionsbetweenenvironmentalcontingencies,organisational
configurationanddifferentdegreesandtypesofinnovationtoaccountforthevariationsin
innovationmanagementof‘bestpractice’.Thisresonateswithestablishedtheoryonthe‘fit’of
practicesinunderstandingthecontext-structure-performancerelationship(DrazinandVande
Ven1985,VandeVen,Ganco,andHinnings2013).Whattheseareasoftheoryacknowledgeis
thattheorganisationalfitofparticularmodelsofpracticeisgovernedatleastinpartbythe
contingentnatureofthecontextinwhichpracticeoccurs.
59
Co-productionencourages,andperhapsrequires,amorerelationalperspective,onethatis
concernedwiththeprocessesthroughwhichindividualsinteracttoplan,designordelivera
service.Thesemechanismstendtobecomplexanddifficulttoobserve,butitisinterestin
thesemechanismswhichareakeydriverofresearch.Therapidproliferationofco-production
researchhasproducedinsightsintohowco-productionplaysoninrelationtopolicy,
partnerships,organisations,groups,teamsandindividualsbutthereisalackofintegrating
perspectivesorframeworksthatwouldhelpusexplainthemechanismthroughwhichservices
areco-createdandco-produced.Inaddressingthechallengeforbridgingco-productiontheory
andpracticethispaperseekstoexplorepotentialindicatorstoexplorethe‘hiddenmechanism’
throughwhichco-productionprinciplesaremediated.Toachievethiswedrawontheoriesthat
havespecificallysoughttoaddressboththepluralityofleadershipthatischaracteristicofCP
andthecontextspecificitythatunderpinstheconcernshighlightedintheintroduction.Then,
drawingonliteratureconcernedwiththedevelopmentofskillsthoughttofacilitateDL,we
proposeanumberofvariablesthatwouldallowustolocate,analyseandassesstheCP
mechanism.
RelationalAccountsofLeadershiptoExploretheCo-productionMechanism
Themaintheorieswhichprivilegerelationaloverindividualandinstitutionalaccountsof
leadershiparedistributedleadership(DL)andsharedleadership.Theseareoftenused
interchangeablybuteachoffersdistinctiveandusefulperspectivesontheprocess.We
thereforepresentthesalientpointsrelevantforourpurposesbrieflybelow.
DistributedLeadership
Thecollectivenatureofco-productionfitswellwithideasaboutsharingresponsibilityforand
determiningthewayofco-producingaservice.Theemphasisthattheconceptofco-
productionplacesoninterandintra-organisationalcollaborationssuggeststhatthepowerto
control,directandassesstheCPprocessshouldbeseenasrelationalandinterdependent,in
contrasttoassumingCPoccursbetweenindependentindividualsandactorswhereonehas
60
superiorknowledge,resourceorpowerovertheother.DLisausefulperspectiveforthe
analysisofthemechanismofserviceco-productionbecauseitbuildsonsocialconstructionism
whichperceivesrealityasthemultiplesubjectiveandintersubjectiveconstructionsthatemerge
throughtheinteractionsofindividuals,aswellasorganisationtheory,whichfocuseson
processes,rulesandpowerrelationswhichshapetheseinteractions.
DLprovidesalenstopenetratethe‘fixedgeometryofbureaucraticorganisations’(Lelievre-
Finch2010)andbroadenstheanalyticalgazebeyondtheagencyofpowerfulindividuals
tacklingchallengesarisingfromconflictinglogics,diffusepowerrelationships,andblurred
institutionalboundaries(REF).Butthestudyofco-productionrequiresanextensionofthe
distributedleadershipperspectivebecausethistheoryispremisedontheprinciplethatleading
issharedandshiftingamongregularproducersofanorganisation-thenotionthatcitizensare
amongthosewhoenactleadershipfunctionsisnotacknowledgedintheDLliterature.REFItis
importanttoacknowledgethislimitationbecausecitizenco-producersarenotprofessionals,
yetprofessionalswouldshareleadershipfunctionswithcitizensiftheyareexpectedto
contributemorethanbasicfunctions,takingtheirmedicinesforexampleorfillingintheirtax
return.Citizenco-producersareperceivedtohavesuperiorknowledgeoftheproblemsthey
encounterandaccesstoskillsandresourceswhichwhencombinedwiththecapabilitiesof
serviceorganisationsaresupposedtogeneratesuperiorservicesandoutcomes.However,
citizenco-producersarenotboundbyorganisationalcontrolsinthesamewayasregular
producersare,i.e.theycannoteasilybemadetoperformtheroleofco-produceriftheydon’t
wanttocontribute;neitheristheircontributionpredictable,easilyregulatedorlikelytofitinto
particularproceduresandperformancemeasurespublicserviceorganisationsmaintain.These
areimportantreasonswhytraditionalleadershiptheorystrugglestosupporttheexplorationof
thekeychallengesofco-production,giventhatsociallyconstructednormsgoverningdiverse
co-productionprocessesarenotcharacterisedbyrigidoreasilydeterminedboundaries,
structuresorrelations.
61
Research on DL has been advanced primarily by scholars in the health-care, education and
organisationmanagementsectorbutcomparedwithmainstreamleadershipresearchthisbody
of research in relation to public services is limited despite there being a verywide range of
theoreticalperspectivesonleadershipinthepublicadministrationliterature(seeVanWart2003,
VanWart2013).Co-productionisnotpurelyanintraoraninter-organizationalactivitytowhich
contemporaryleadershipmodelssuchasnetworksorcollaborativegovernancecouldbeapplied.
Inmostcases,co-productiontakesplaceorrequirestohappeninaspacethatinvaryingdegrees
is influencedby the serviceprovider’sorganizational contextandculturewhile it canalsobe
influencedbythespaceinhabitedbythecitizenco-producers,suchasinhomes,communityor
day-carecentres.Thuseachspaceislikelytodisplayuniquecharacteristicsthatoughttobetaken
intoaccountwhenco-productionisexplored.Tothisextentthephysicalcontextsinvolvedinco-
production represent one key variable in understanding the unique conditions affecting the
applicationandimplementationofparticularapproaches.However,whilstDLtheoryhastypically
not sought to address the specific physical contexts in which CPmay take place, it offers a
potentialmechanismthroughwhichtounderstandhowconditionsimpactontherelationsand
interactions through which the leadership of CP emerges. Spillane (2006) highlights the
differencesbetweencollaborateddistribution (individualswork together in timeandplace to
execute leadership routines), collective distribution (individuals work separately but
interdependentlytoenactleadershiproutines)orcoordinateddistribution(individualsworkin
sequence in order to complete leadership routines). The development of theory in this area
demonstratesthepotentialvaluetothedeconstructionofthecontextsinwhichco-production
ismanifest.TothisextentestablishedCPtheorymaybebetterpositionedtoimpactonpractice
accordingtotheassumptionsunderpinningthenecessaryconditionsinvolvedinthemediation
ofparticularactivities,responsibilitiesandphysicalcontexts.
Extendingthis,DLtheoryoffersinsightintothevarietyofmechanismsthroughwhichpatternsof
leadershiparedeveloped.Forexample,MacBeathetal(2004)identifythatdistributedleadership
canhaveitsrootsinformaldistribution(i.e.throughitsdelegation),pragmaticdistribution(i.e.
through negotiation and division between actors), strategic distribution (i.e. shaped by the
62
inclusion of people with specific skills or knowledge), incremental (i.e. where leadership is
progressively enacted against experience), opportunistic (i.e. the ad hoc acceptance of
responsibility) or cultural (the natural and organic assumption and sharing of responsibility).
Similarly,Leithwoodetal (2006)considerhowleadership isdistributed insuchwaysthatcan
either lead to ‘alignment’ or ‘misalignment’ based upon the extent to which the resulting
formationsofresponsibilitieswithingroupsofactorsachievesharedgrouppurposes,anddoso
efficaciously.
Althoughserviceco-productiontendstofocusonacertainpartofaservicesystemorspecific
aspectofserviceprovision,explorationsrelatedtospecificspaceswhereco-productionhappens
canbequite focusedand lessdemanding thana systemic analysisof theoverall activitiesof
serviceproviderorganizations,assuggestedbyBovairdandLoeffler(2012).Butco-production
practice generates its own complexities even in focused interactions,as case studies of co-
productionsinadultsocialcareillustrate(Allen2012,WellsandGriffiths2012),becauseregular
andcitizenco-producersnotonlycomefromdiverseeducationalandexperientialbackgrounds,
but they also collaborate within pre-determined institutional settings, and although regular
producers might retain some autonomy, citizen co-producers remain outside service
organizations’directmanagerialcontrol. Inexploringthedifferencesbetweendistributedand
democratic formsof leadershipWoods (2004)highlightshowdemocratic rationalities require
creativespacesthatallowformovementbetweentighterandlooserstructuralframeworks.This
inherent dynamismentails remodelling the creative human capacities that enable traditional
tensions between instrumentally-rational and affective capacities. Such forms of democratic
pluralism thereby openup traditional boundaries to participation by challenging institutional
assumptions regarding the social structures through which leadership is enacted. Second,
contemporary studies of co-production overlook theories andmodels of leadership in public
administration literature that promise important insights directly relevant to improving our
understandingof co-production.Specifically concepts fromrelational leadership studies (REF)
whichdrawondistributedleadershiptheory(Thorpe,Gold,andLawler2011,Gronn2002a,2009)
arehighlyrelevantforourpurposesbecausestudiesofco-productionassumethatcontroland
63
powerresideswithindependentindividualsorgroups,thereforeleadershipisassumedtooccur
when independent agents encounter each other. Furthermore, these studies imply that
professionalsseemtoassumethatco-productioncould,moreorless,mirrorthewaytheydeliver
theregularservice.
Thediscussionsofarisintendedtoshowthatleadershiptheorypromisesafruitfulperspective
toguidetheexplorationofCPmechanisms.Inaddition,thecasehasbeenmadeherethat
leadingco-productionrequiresadifferentapproachtoleadingprofessionalteams,
organisationsandnetworksiftheexpertiseknowledgeandresourcesofcitizenco-producers
aretobeharnessed.Theproblemisthatwedonotknowwhatregularandcitizenco-producers
shoulddomoreof,oravoiddoing,tobringaboutacollaborativeprocessofserviceco-
production.Thereareanumberofconceptualaswellaspracticalchallenges.First,actorswho
intendtoco-produceservicescannotbeconsideredindependentfromeachotherbecause
theirinterdependenceshapesthecontextsaswellastheprocessthroughwhichservice
outputsandoutcomesareproduced.Henceanyexplorationoftheco-productionprocess
needstoacknowledgethattwoverydifferenttypeactorswhohavedifferentandperhaps
conflictingmotivationsandexpectationsneedtomakesenseofthepurpose,meansand
outcomesoftheircollaboration.Second,citizenco-producersarenotboundbyorganisational
controlsinthesamewaythatregularproducersare,i.e.theycannoteasilybemadetoperform
theroleofco-produceriftheydonotfeelableorreluctanttodoso;neitheristheir
contributioneasilyregulatedorlikelytofitintoparticularproceduresandperformance
measurespublicserviceorganisationsmaintaintomanageandsupporttheirprofessionalstaff.
Henceleadingco-productionrequiresadifferentapproachtoleadingprofessionalteams,
organisationsandnetworksiftheexpertiseknowledgeandresourcesofcitizenco-producers
aretobeharnessed.Third,questionsaboutleadershiparenotconfinedtomanagerialand
organisationalissues.Whereco-productionisthedeclaredaim,theexplorationofhowregular
andcitizenco-producersleadtheprocessgoestotheheartofquestionsaimedat
understandinghowco-productionmechanismswork.
64
SharedLeadership
Thediscussionabovepositionsthemechanismthatmediateseffectivepublicserviceco-
productionintherelationbetweentheprofessional(s)andthecivilactor(s).Thediscussionhas
highlightedhowvariationintheconditionsofthoserelationsisofsignificancetounderstanding
howresponsibilitiesandactivitiescanbedistributedindifferingconfigurations.Ifsuch
configurationsofleadershiparecentraltotheco-productionrelationthentheapproachesto
understandingleadershipmustequallybelocatedinthevariouspossibleformationsinwhich
leadershipcanbe‘shared’(Gronn2002b).
Sharingleadershipimpliesthatnosingleindividualsharesordistributesalltheirresponsibilities
withothers,butthateveryoneinthegroup/relationshiphasanopportunitytoundertake
leadershipfunctionsandthatoverallresponsibilityforleadingtheprocessissharedand
supportedbyallinvolved.Thismeansthatwhileindividualshavespecificrolesand
responsibilitiesassociatedwiththeirmainfunction,leadershiprolesandactionsemerge.
Importantly,equalityofopportunityemergesasaconsequenceofantecedentnetwork
structures(alsocharacteristicofDLtheory),whichrepresentsakeydistinctionfromthe
maintenanceoftraditionalpublicmanagementstructuresthroughwhichCPisofteninitiated
(Carson,Tesluk,andMarrone2007,Osborne,Radnor,andNasi2013).Unlikehierarchical
approacheswherebyanappointedleaderassignsandco-ordinatestasks,sharingleadership
functionsinvolvessomedegreeofautonomyyetmutuallyinterdependenttaskperformance.
Mutualinterdependencereferstoreciprocaldependencebetweentwoormoreactorswhich
allowsandfacilitatescomplementaryandoverlappingresponsibilities.Thepracticeofsharing
leadershipisacollectiveeffortwhichextendstoallinvolvedwhoexerciseinitiativetostimulate
action,influenceothersandgivedirection.Thisallowsparticipantstomakeuseofdifferent
skills,resourcesandstrengths(Gronn,2002,p.433),butitisalsolargelyspontaneous,
respondingtodynamicsandopportunitiesgeneratedbyparticipantsintheinitiative.
Innovation-drivenorganisationshavebeenfoundtospontaneouslypursuecollaborative,lateral
andinter-organisationalinitiativesinwayswhichmakeitdifficultforanysingledecisionmaker
oforganisationtomonopolizepowerandauthority(PearceandManz2005).Anexampleof
65
suchspontaneouscollaborativemodesofserviceCPis‘SocialPrescribing’setoutlateronin
thispaper.
Leadership,RelatingandInteraction
Inrelationtothecurrentpaper’sconcerns,underpinningboththeliteraturesonDLandshared
leadershiparecommonrootsinthelocatingofleadershipbetweentheactorsinvolvedin
relevantinstancesofco-production.Tothatextenttheidentificationofthemechanisms
throughwhich‘optimal’modelsofCPmightbeimplementedisinpartdependentontheroleof
interactingandrelatingthroughwhich‘distribution’and‘sharing’arepossible.Makingsenseof
theworldinvolvesassumingthatrealitiesare‘multiplelocal-historicalconstructions’made
throughlanguage,non-verbalgesturesandartefacts(VanderHaarandHosking2004,p.1020).
Theseperpetuallyconstructedrealitiessuggestthatindividualsmakesenseoftheirexperiences
andcreatemeaning,notonlyininteractionswithothersbutalsoinsilentconversationsintheir
ownminds,hencehumanbeingsarebothsocialandindividualatthesametime(Simpson
2009,Mead1934,Stacey2001).Furthermore,socialinteractionsaremediatedthroughnot
onlyverballanguagebutthroughwhatMead(1934)termed‘socialsymbols’thepracticesand
symbolsthathavesocialmeaningswhichareunderstandabletosomeindividualsbutnotto
others.Throughtheexperienceofworkingtogether,regularandcitizenco-producersare
boundtocreatesomesharedsocialsymbols-‘howthingsaredone’-andothercommon
understandingsthattheyidentifywith.Overtime,bothregularandcitizenco-producerscould
developsomecommonsignificantsymbolswhichwouldthenprovideameansfordeveloping
sharedpractices.However,thismayleadregularproducerstoassumethatcitizenco-producers
alsounderstandandacceptsymbolstheyarefamiliarwithandcherish,whichisnotoftenthe
caseascontemporaryresearchshows.Thecitizenco-producers,ontheotherhand,alsocome
withawiderangeofimportantsymbolswhichtheysharewithgroupstheybelongto,and
whichmaynotbecompatiblewiththoseusedbyprofessionals.Tothisextentforcohesiveand
socially-maintainableformsofco-productiontoemergedependsinpartuponthe
66
establishmentofrelevantformsoftrustrequiredtomediatethediversemethodsthrough
whichpatternsofleadershipmightdevelop(Kong,Dirks,andFerrin2014).
Reflectingthediscussionintheprevioussection,empiricalstudiesshowthatsharingleadership
practiceshasimportantimplicationsforsharinganddiscussinginformationinorganisationsand
groups,forexamplewheregroupswithadirective/hierarchicalleadershiparrangementshared
lessinformationthanthosewithsharedleadership(Mehraetal.2006).Co-ordinationof
knowledgesharingrequiresthedevelopmentofacommonlanguage,mutualunderstanding
andamindsetwhichseestheopen-ended,flexibledivisionoflabourasasharedresponsibility.
Mindsetsaresharedbyindividualsandgroupsandbasedonassumptionsaboutwhathuman
beingsarelike,howsocietyworksandwhatanidealworldwouldlooklike.Thesesetsof
values,attitudesandbeliefsaredifficulttochangeandattheheartofmostcontestationsinthe
workplace(Boldenetal.2015).However,resistancetoaccepting?Acknowledging?arelational
approachtoleadingpublicservicesisnotonlyrootedinthecomfortandcertaintytraditional
modelsleadershippromisetopeopleintheworkplace,lackofformalauthorityinco-
ordinatingworkactivitiesislikelytogiveriseforincreasedpowerstrugglesandconflicts
betweenindividualsorgroups.Intheabsenceoftraditionalleaders,deadlinesmightnotbe
keptanddecisionmakingprocessesmayslowdownduetoalackofclearlydefinedrolesand
responsibilities.Furthermore,misunderstandingsduetolackofsharedunderstandingand
mindsetsmightcauselackofcohesionwithinandacrossteamsandindividuals,whichwould
meanthatconsensusismoredifficulttoestablishthusmakingtheserviceprovidersless
effectiveandproductive.However,literatureonleadershipdevelopmentinpublicservice
organisationspointstoanumberofpracticesthatfacilitateorhinderthepracticeofshared
leadership.Conceptionsoftherelationalnatureofleadershipilluminatetheimportanceof
practicesunderpinnedbyreflectivepracticeaboutleadingtheself,growthinconnectionwith
othersandsoftrelationalskillsassociatedwithcoachingandmentoringothers.Thesepractices
suggestthatashiftinmindsetsisrequiredwhereweareprivileginginterdependenceover
dependence(Tuurnas2016).
67
Drawingtogetherthediscussiononleadershipabovewhathasbeenpresentedisan
understandingoftheroleofcontext,bothintermsoftheformsofserviceco-producedandthe
socialconditionsinwhichpracticemightachievesharedserviceaims.Butbuildingonthe
principlesofsharingleadershipwecandevelopasetofvariablestolocate,measureand
highlightexamplesofCPmechanisms.Indevelopinganaccountbaseduponthediversityof
boththepracticalandsocialfunctionsentailedbyco-productionthefollowingsectionseeksto
drawouthowthismightequipacademicsandpractitionerswithanunderstandingofthe
mechanismlikelytomediateeffectiveco-production.
TowardsaConceptionofVariablesthatMediateCo-Production
Startingfromthepremisethatleadershipgenerallyischaracterisedbyactorsinfluencingthe
directionofadeliberateprocess,andindoingsothereisamutualdependencybetween
leadersandfollowers,wecanbegintoidentifyvariablesthatwouldindicatetheextentto
whichthecollaborationbetweenregularandcitizenco-producersreflectsarelationalas
comparedtoahierarchicalapproach.Thetablebelowattemptstoidentifybehavioursthatare
likelytofosterorleadtoresistanceinadoptingsharedleadershippractices.Theideahereis
thatnotallco-productionsituationscanbeledbyadoptingarelationalapproach,attimesit
mightbenecessaryforeitherpartytotellandexplaininnouncertaintermswhatneedsto
happen,inthecaseoffacingamedicalemergencyforexample.Hencethecolumnsheredonot
presentbinarychoices,butshouldbeseenasaheuristictobearinmindtherangeofactions
andresponsespossibleandasaframeworkforassessingtheextenttowhichobserved
behaviourssupportorhinderco-productionefforts.
68
Leadingoneanotherbasedonarelational
perspectivewouldentail
Leadingtheotherbasedonahierarchical
perspectivewouldentail
Asking Telling
Conversations Explanations
Trusting Transacting
Reflectivepractice Evidencebasedpractice
Beliefincollectivity Beliefinhierarchy
Sharedresponsibility Selfinterest
Sharedsenseofpurpose Personalvision
Adaptiveprocess Rigidprocess
Emergentoutcomes Pre-definedoutcomes
ThesevariableswouldrequirefurtherdefinitionandcouldbepresentedintheformofLickert
scalestoanalyseandassesstheCPmechanism.However,thiscouldnotbeachievedwithinthe
timescaleforthisconference.Asasubstituteweoffera‘roughandready’hypothetical
applicationofthesevariablestotheexampleofasocialprescribingservicecurrentlypilotedin
oneofEngland’scounties.Thecasepresentedbelowisbasedonamastersleveldissertation
undertakenatHertfordshireBusinessSchool.
TheExampleofSocialPrescribing
Theinvolvementofcivilsocietyorganisationsisawidelyestablishedpracticeintheprovisionof
statefundedhealthservices,forexampleintheformofself-helpgroups,carefortheelderly
anddisabled,andsupportingchildandfamilyhealth(Cramptonetal2001).Rees,Mullins&
Bovaird(2011)arguethattheseservicesareusuallydesignedtoeitheraddressgapsin,or
complement,existingstateprovidedservices.Theinvolvementofthewidercommunityisalso
69
reflectiveofthewidersocialdeterminantsofhealthandrecognitionofthemany‘wicked’
problemsthatrequirethecoordinationofmultipleorganizations(Kara2014).
Arecentdevelopmentinthisareaisthepracticeofsocialprescribing.Akeydriverforsocial
prescribingistherecognitionthatthesocial,economicandenvironmentaldeterminantsof
healthoutcomesrequireaholisticresponsefrommultipleorganizations(KingsFund2017).
Trendstowardsgreaterpatientinvolvementindecisionmaking,andpromotionofself-
managementapproaches,reflectagrowingrecognitionbothofthevalueofpatientself-
knowledgeinimprovinghealthoutcomesandthefinancial/demographicdemandsonhealth
services.Bodenheimeretal(2002)arguedthatchronicillnessmanagementrequiredpatient
knowledgeinordertoidentifywhichaspectsoftheirconditionhadthegreatestimpactontheir
qualityoflifeandshouldthereforebefocusedon.Widerpatientinvolvement,suchasshared
decisionmakingprocesses,alsoinvokethevalueofpatientknowledge,especiallyin
determiningtreatmentforcomplexconditions(DyandPurnell2012).
Socialprescribinginvolvesprimarycareclinicianreferringpatientstonon-medicalcommunity
orvoluntarysectorservicestocomplementmedicaltreatmentsandaddressnon-medical
determinantsoftheirhealthcondition(KingsFund2017).Insomecases,suchastheNHS
Sefton‘ArtsofPrescription’project,patientsarereferredbycliniciansintoaspecific
communityservice.Others,suchastheRotherhamSocialPrescribingService,involvetheNHS
fundingaliaisonservicethatsupportedcliniciansinprimarycaretoreferpatientsintowide
rangeofcommunity-providedservices(Daysonetal.2016).Thesecasesareallexamplesof
communitylevelco-productioninwhichtheresourcesandcapabilitiesoftheNHS,and
communityorganizations,arebeingcombined,withtheaimofimprovingoutcomesfor
patients.InHertfordshiretheNHSandlocalauthorityhavecreatedasharedco-ordinating
mechanism,calledtheCommunityNavigator,whichisintendedtomonitorprogressofservice
usersinconnectingwithother,non-clinicalandoftennon-statutoryproviders.Theirroleisto
supportpatientsinself-diagnosingneeds,possibleresponsestothemaswellasarticulatingand
70
actingonchangesintheircondition.Thisinvolveshomevisits,conversationsandsign-posting,
aswellasarrangingaccesstoadditionalservicesdeemedrelevanttodealwiththeproblems
thathavebeenidentifiedandactionsjointlyagreedupon.Theco-ordinatormightarrangefora
visittoafitnessclassorganisedbyalocalresidentsassociation,aluncheonclubrunbythelocal
church,avisitfromthefireservicetocheckonpotentialhazardsinthehomeorabefriending
servicerunbythelocalcouncilforvoluntaryservices.
Relatingthevariablespresentedabovetotheexampleofsocialprescribingitiseasytoseethat
regularproducers,suchastheco-ordinators,clinicians,expertstatutoryandnon-statutory
providerswouldneedtoadoptpracticesfromtheleftcolumn,acceptingthattheprocessof
socialprescribingisbyitsverynatureemergent,adaptiveandspontaneouswithasharedsense
ofpurpose,collaborativeandcollegiate,flexibleandsharedwithanemphasisonasking,
reflectingandconversing.Whereaspracticesrootedintherightcolumnareunlikelytosupport
collaborativesocialprescribing,attimesthesemoredirectiveapproachesmaybenecessary
however.Thevariablespresentedinthetableabovearethereforenotbinarychoices,rather
theysensitiseactorstotherangeofactionsthatmaybeencounteredasco-producersattempt
toplan,designordeliveraservice.
Conclusion
Exploringhowco-productionworksrequiresattentiontointerdependenciesbetween
individuals,organisations,servicesystemsandnetworks.Whilethegrowingbodyofliterature
onco-productionisadvancingourunderstandingoftheseinterdependencies,leadershipisone
factorthatisoftenoverlookedyetoffersavaluableperspectiveontheactualmechanisms
throughCPisenacted.Astrongerfocusonengagement,buildingrelationshipsand
emancipationfromtraditionalrolemodelsofprofessionalvsserviceuserisneeded,together
withprivilegingengagementovertheefficientachievementoftargets.
AsocialconstructionistperspectiveallowsustoexploreCPfromsuchaperspectiveasit
encouragesustoperceiveleadershipassharedandcollective,ratherthaninherentin
71
individuals,shapingandbeingshapedbycontextandhavingsharedsenseofpurposeand
respectfordesiredoutcomes.Suchalensfitswellwithcontemporarynotionsof‘public
leadership’wherebyauthorityandresponsibilityassociatedwithleadingcommunities,public
policyandorganisationsisdistributedhorizontallyacrossandverticallywithinorganisations
(BrookesandGrint2010).Henceleadershiptheorynotonlyallowsustoexploreandexplain
whathappenswithinpublicorganisations,butalsohowthewidersocio-economicandpolitical
contexttheyareembeddedinmightimpactonCP.However,moreworkisrequiredtofirmup
andtestthevariablesputforwardhere.
72
References
Alford,John.2009.EngagingPublicSectorClients:Fromservicedeliverytoco-production.Houndmills:PalgraveMacmillan.
Allen,Helen.2012."Enterprisingpeopleco-producinglocalsolutions."InMakinghealthandsocialcare
personalandlocal,editedbyElkeLoeffler,DavidTaylor-Gooby,TonyBovaird,FrankieHine-HughesandLauraWilkes.Birmingham:GovernanceInternational.
Bodenheimer,T.,H.WagnerE,andK.Grumbach.2002."Improvingprimarycareforpatientswithchronicillness"JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation288(14):1775-1779.
Bolden,Richard,SandraJones,HeatherDavis,andPaulGentle.2015.DevelopingandSustainingSharedLeadershipinHigherEducation.London:LeadershipFoundationforHigherEducation.
Bovaird,Tony,andElkeLoeffler.2012."FromEngagementtoCo-Production:Howusersandcommunitiescontributetopublicservices."InNewPublicGovernance,theThirdSectorandCo-production,editedbyVictorPestoff,TachoBrandsenandBramVerschuere.London:Routledge.
Brookes,Stephen,andKeithGrint.2010."Anewpublicleadershipchallenge?"InThenewpublicleadershipchallenge,editedbyStephenBrookesandKeithGrint.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Carson,J.B.,P.E.Tesluk,andJ.A.Marrone.2007."Sharedleadershipinteams:Aninvestigationofantecedentconditionsandperformance."AcademyofManagementJournal50(5):1217-1234.
Dayson,C.,N.Bashir,E.Bennett,andE.Sanderson.2016.TheRotherhamSocialPrescribingServiceforPeoplewithLong-TermHealthConditions:AnnualReport.CentreforRegionalEconomicandSocialResearch.
Drazin,R.,andA.H.VandeVen.1985."Aternativeformsoffitincontingencytheory."Adminstrative
ScienceQuarterly:514-539.
Dy,S.,andT.Purnell.2012."Keyconceptsrelevanttoqualityofcomplexandshareddecision-makinginhealthcare:aliteraturereview."SocialScienceandMedicine74(4):582-587.
Gronn,Peter.2002a."Distributedleadershipasaunitofanalysis."TheLeadershipQuarterly13(4):423-451.
Gronn,Peter.2002b."Distributedleadershipasaunitofanalysis."LeadershipQuarterly13:423-451.
Gronn,Peter.2009."LeadershipConfigurations."Leadership5(3):381-394.
Kara,H..2014.Thirdsectorpartnershipsandcapabilitybuilding:Whattheevidencetellsus.Birmingham:ThirdSectorResearchCentre.
KingsFund.2017.Whatissocialprescribing?London:KingsFund.
Kong,D.T.,K.T.Dirks,andD.L.Ferrin.2014."Interpersonaltrustwithinnegotiations:Meta-analyticevidence,criticalcontingencies,anddirectionsforfutureresearch."AcademyofManagement
Journal57(5):1235-1255.
Leithwood,K.,C.Day,P.Sammons,A.Harris,andD.Hopkins.2006.SuccessfulSchoolLeadership:What
itisandhowitinfluencespupillearning.Nottingham:DfESPublications.
73
Lelievre-Finch,Dominique.2010."Thechallengeforpublicleadershiparisingfrommixedmodesofgovernance."InTheNewPublicLeadershipChallenge,editedbyStephenBrookesandKeithGrint,283-299.Basingstoke:PagraveMacmillan.
Loeffler,Elke,DavidTaylor-Gooby,TonyBovaird,FrankieHine-Hughes,andLauraWilkes.2012.Making
HealthandSocialCarePersonalandLocal:Movingfrommassproductiontoco-production.Birmingham:GovernanceInternational.
MacBeath,J.,G.K.T.Oduro,andJ.Waterhouse.2004.DistributedLeadershipinAction:Astudyofcurrentpracticeinschools.Nottingham:NationalCollegeforSchoolLeadership.
Mead,GeorgeHerbert.1934.Mind,selfandsociety.Vol.111:ChicagoUniversityofChicagoPress.
Mehra,A.,B.R.Smith,A.L.Dixon,andB.Robertson.2006."Distributedleadershipinteams:Thenetworkofleadershipperceptionsandteamperformance."LeadershipQuarterly17(232-245).
Osborne,Stephen,ZoeRadnor,andGretaNasi.2013."Anewtheoryforpublicservicemanagement?Towarda(public)service-dominantapproach."AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration43(2):135-158.
Pearce,C.L.,andC.C.Manz.2005."Thenewsilverbulletsofleadership:Theimportanceofself-andsharedleadershipinknowledgework."OrganizationalDynamics34(2):130-140.
Pestoff,Victor,A.2006."CitizensandCo-productionofWelfareServices:ChildcareinEightEuropeanCountries."PublicManagementReview8(4):503-519.
Pestoff,Victor,A.2009."TowardsaNewParadigmofDemocraticParticipation:CitizensParticipationandCo-productionofPersonalSocialServicesinSweden"AnnalsofPublicandCooperativeEconomics80(2):197-224.
Porter,D.2012."Co-ProductionandNetworkStructuresinPublicEducation."InNewPublicGovernance,theThirdSectorandCo-Production,editedbyV.A.Pestoff,T.BrandsenandB.Verschuere.London:Routledge.
Rees,J.,D.Mullins,andTonyBovaird.2011.Thirdsectorpartnershipsforservicedelivery:Anevidencereviewandresearchproject
TSRCWorkingPaper60.Birmingham:ThirdSectorResearchCentre.
Simpson,Barbara.2009."Pragmatism,Meadandthepracticeturn."OrganizationStudies30(12):1329-1347.
Spillane,J.P.2006.DistributedLeadership.SanFranciscoJossey-Bass.
Stacey,Ralph,D.2001.Complexresponsiveprocessesinorganizations:Learningandknowledge
creation:Routledge.
Steen,Trui,BramVerschuere,andTachoBrandsen,eds.forthcoming.Co-productionandco-creation:engagingcitizensinpublicservicedelivery.London:Routledge.
Thorpe,Richard,JeffGold,andJohnLawler.2011."LocatingDistributedLeadership."InternationalJournalofManagementReviews13(3):239-250.
Tidd,J.2001."Innovationmanagementincontext:Environment,organizationandperformance."InternationalJournalofManagementReviews3(3):169-183.
Tuurnas,Sanna.2016."TheProfessionalSideofCo-production."DoctorofPhilosophy,SchoolofManagement,UniversityofTampere(2163).
74
VandeVen,A.H.,M.Ganco,andC.R.Hinnings.2013."Returningtothefrontierofcontingencytheoryoforganizationalandinstitutionaldesigns."AcademyofManagementAnnals71(1):393-440.
VanderHaar,D.,andDianMarieHosking.2004."Evaluatingappreciativeinquiry:Arelationalconstructionistperspective."HumanRelations57(8):1017-1036.
VanWart,Montgomery.2013."AdministrativeLeadershipTheory:Areassessmentafter10years."PublicAdministration91(3):521-543.
VanWart,Montgomery.2003."Public-Sectorleadershiptheory:Anassessment."PublicAdministration
Review63(2):214-228.
Wells,Jude,andSueGriffiths.2012."Co-designinganewwebsiteforadultsocialcare."InMakinghealth
andsocialcarepersonalandlocal,editedbyElkeLoeffler,DavidTaylor-Gooby,TonyBovaird,FrankieHine-HughesandLauraWilkes.Birmingham:GovernanceInternational.
Woods,Philip,A.2004."DemocraticLeadership:Drawingdistinctionswithdistributedleadership."InternationalJournalofLeadershipinEducation7(1):3-26.
75
5thAnnualMeetingoftheIIASStudyGroupofCoproductionofPublicServices
6-7June2017,WashingtonDC
Towardspassiveco-production?Theroleofmoderntechnologiesinco-
production(Lember,Surva,andTönurist)
(Thisisaveryfirstdraft,subjecttoconsiderablechanges;pleasedonotcitethecurrentversion
withoutcontactingtheauthors,commentswelcome)
VeikoLember,KULeuven/TallinnUniversityofTechnology;[email protected]
LaidiSurva,TallinnUniversityofTechnology,[email protected]
PiretTõnurist,TallinnUniversityofTechnology/OECD,[email protected]
Abstract
Thearticleexamineshowmoderntechnologiesinfluencethecore(butoftenunobserved)characteristicofco-production–citizenempowerment.Forthis,thearticledefinesacontinuumofco-productionpractisesonanactive/passivescaleandtiesittodifferentmechanismofempowerment.Utilizingasetofco-productioncasesworldwide(OECD2017),thearticleanalysesvariousformsthattechnology-enabledco-productioncantakeandshowstherolethatcitizenshaveinthosevariousforms.Analysingcitizeninvolvementintechnology-basedco-productionisneededbecauseitisimportanttoacknowledgetherisksandopportunitiestheever-growingtechnologicaldevelopmentbringstoserviceco-production,citizeninvolvementandcitizen-staterelations.
Introduction
Digitalplatforms,sensornetworks,blockchain,urbancontrolroomsandothermoderndigitaltechnologiesareincreasinglyinfluencingthewayco-productionaddsvaluetosocietyandhowco-productionisimplemented.Theseandothersimilartechnologiesareexpectedtoleadtohigherlevelofcitizens’participationandengagementandthusincreasethelegitimacyofgovernmentandcontributetomoreinclusivepolicy-making(Meijer2012;Noveck2016).Digitaltechnologiesaresaidtocreatenewco-productionpractices(Townsend2015)andmakeitmorecollective(BovairdandLöffler2010).Theyprovideanadditionalchannelforpublicservicesupport,accesstocitizens’experiencesandcollectiveintelligence;theycanhaveasocialandemotionalfunction,enhancetheeffectivenessofservicedeliveryandincreasecitizens’satisfaction(Meijer2012;Linders2012).Mostfundamentally,theuseofdigitalsolutionsinco-productionisexpectedtoconsiderablyempowercitizensastheyenablesharedsovereigntyand
76
responsibility(Noveck2016;Linders2012).Thesepossibilitiesareoftenpostulated,butrarelytestedempirically.
Thus,theimportantquestionariseswhetherthedigitallyenabledinitiativesactuallyenforce‘activeparticipation’orrelyon‘passive’citizenparticipation,i.e.insomecasesco-productionbecomesaninherentfeatureoftheprocessandnotamatterofchoice(BrandsenandHoningh2015).Insteadofactive,voluntaryparticipationinserviceprovision,citizensarebeing‘captured’intoco-productionbecauseofthenatureofoverallservice-provision(Bovairdetal.2015ab).Rapidlydiffusingalgorithmicgovernanceandplatform-basedsolutionsseemtoinfluencethetrendtowardsthelatter.Thepreliminaryevidencesuggeststhatmuchofthecitizenengagementintechnology-drivenmodesofco-productionhappensonthesideofco-deliveringandnotco-creation(co-planning,co-designetc.,seeBovairdandLöffler2010).Instudyingthecontemporarydevelopmentsundertheso-calledsmartcitymovement,Kitchin(2016)hasarguedthattechnologiesthatinfluencedirectlythecitizen-governmentinteractionsare“top-down,centrally-controlledandmanagerialistinorientation,oftenintroducedbybureaucrats(citymanagers)ratherthanelectedofficialsorbeingdevelopedinconjunctionwithlocalcommunities.”MostICT-enabledcommunication(throughsocialmediaorgovernmentwebsites/platforms)arestilluni-directional–thereisverylittletwo-wayinteraction,feedbackandcommunicationwithcitizens(Mergel2013).Ratherthancreatingnewsocialpracticesandempoweringcitizens,thenewtechnologiesmayreinforcetheexistingsocialstructuresandorganizationalroutinesorevenredistributepowertoothersocietalstakeholderssuchasprivatesector(sourceoftechnologies)orpublicbureaucracies(sourceofcontrol)(seee.g.Kornberger2017;CardulloandKitchin2017).
Astechnologicalchangeisgenerallypath-dependentandcumulativebyitsnaturewhereinnovationstendtoemergeinclustersandwhere(apparently)successfulinnovationsreinforcefurtherdevelopmentsinthesamedirection(Fagerberg2005),thecurrenttrendsmay,contrarytowidelyheldexpectations,significantlyincreasetheroleof‘passive’and‘minimal’co-production(Pestoff2006;BovairdandLöffler2015).Therefore,thenewtechnologiesbringthequestionof‘active’vs.‘passive’co-productiontothefore.Thisleadsustoourresearchquestion:docitizensgetempoweredthroughtheprocessoftechnology-enabledco-productionandifso,thenhow?
Basedontheoriginalin-depthanalysisofalargesetofco-productioncasesworldwide(OECD2017),thecurrentpaperexploresifandtowhatextentthereexistsatrendtowardspassiveco-production,hownewtechnologiesinfluencetheevolutionof‘passive’vs.‘active’co-productionandwhattheemergingconsequencesare.Beforetheempiricalinvestigation,thepaperfirstoutlineswhat‘empowerment’inthecontextofco-productionmeans,anddiscusseshowtechnologypotentiallyaffectscitizensanddirectstheirengagementtowards‘active’or‘passive’participation.
Theessenceofco-production:citizenparticipation
Publicserviceshavetraditionallybeenprovidedbypublicsectororganizationstocitizens,havingthelattertaketheroleofcustomers.Insuchasetting,thereisariskthatcitizensare
77
givenortheytakeapassive,asopposedtoparticipatory,roleinserviceprovision(Paarlberg2007;Gofen2015).Withthemoveawayfromconsideringserviceusersas‘add-on’totheserviceprovisionprocesstowardsseeingserviceusersasan‘inalienablecomponentofpublicservicesdelivery’(Williamsetal.2015,5),co-productionhasbecomethe‘heterogeneousumbrellaconcept’(JoandNabatchi2016)thatseemstocapturethebenefitsofcitizenparticipationbothtothestateandthecitizen.
Throughincreasedcitizenparticipation,co-productioncanbringcostsavings,mobilizeresources,activatecommunities,expandchoices,increaseefficiencyandeffectiveness,raiseservicequantityandquality,andenhancelegitimacyofgovernment(Clarke2005;Pestoff2006;Bovaird2007;Needham2008;Pestoff2012;OsborneandStrokosch2013;Williamsetal.2015).Furthermore,overtime,co-productionhastakenapivotalroleinpublicservicedelivery,expectedtoleadtoeffectiveperformanceandserviceinnovation(OsborneandStrokosch2013).Assuch,co-productionofservicesoftentakesplaceoutofnecessitytofacesocialchallengesneitherthecitizensnorgovernmentcansolveontheirown(Pestoff2012:16).Actorengagementinmanycasesisamicro-foundationforvaluecreationinserviceprovision(Storbackaetal.2016;Survaetal.2016).Indeed,serviceprovisioningeneralissomethingthatcannotexistwithoutcitizeninvolvement(Bovaird2005);citizenparticipationhasaneffectonserviceoutcomesandviceversa,itcanturncitizensintoactiveself-sustainingindividuals(Ostrom1996;Clarke2005;BrandsenandPestoff2006;Fledderusetal.2013;Gofen2015).Assuch,co-productionisincreasinglyseenasatopicof‘civics’–asagatewayto‘activecitizenship’,whichstatescanencourage,ifnotimpose,uponitssubjects(Newman2010;Bovairdetal.2015ab).
Withoutgoingdeepintodefinitionalissueswelloutlinedinpreviousstudies(Nabatchietal2017;Voorbergetal.2015),co-productioncanbeunderstoodasacontinuumofactivitiesfromco-design,co-planning,co-managing,co-commissioning,co-implementationtootherjoinedupactivitiesbetweenthestateandthecitizens(e.g.,BovairdandLöffler2012;Frowetal.2015;BrandsenandHoningh2015).Ideally,citizensshouldbeinvolvedinserviceplanning,design,commissioning,managing,delivering,monitoringaswellasevaluation(Bovaird2007).Arguably,citizeninfluenceisthebiggestintheearlystagesofco-productionastheycan,throughtheirpreferences,impactservicedesignanddevelopment(Williamsetal.2015).Theparadoxisthatcitizensaremorelikelytoengageinco-productionwhenparticipationhasbeenmaderelativelyeasy,theserviceisseenassomethingsalientandthereisnoneedformuchinteractionwiththirdparties,eventhoughbetterpayoffforthecitizensaswellaspublicsectorinstitutionsmaycomefromcollectiveactivities(Pestoff2012;Bovairdet.al2015b).Themorecollaborativeprocessesbecome,themorethetimedemandsskyrocket–dilemmawhicharguablycannotbesolvedbytechnologicaltoolsalone.
Mostacademicswouldassumethatco-productionhastoincludearelationshipbetweencitizensandthepublicsectorandcitizens’inputhastobe‘active’(e.g.,Bovaird2015b;BrandsenandHoningh2015).However,opinionsdifferwithregardtotheneedforparticipationtobevoluntaryorimplicit(TõnuristandSurva2017;Nabatchietal.2017).Someauthors(e.g.,Osborneetal.2016)donotseethisasaprerequisitetotheco-productionprocess.Whileothers(Bovaird2007,855)arguethatcitizensneedtobeempoweredtoengage,becausewithoutclearlydefinedandaccessiblerights,involvementinco-productionwillbe
78
difficult(seealsoWhitaker1980).Assuch,co-productioncantakemanyforms,e.g.itcanrangefrompositivetonegative,co-operativetocompliant,activetopassiveaswellasindividualtocollective(Pestoff2006).Itcanalsorangefromsystemic(full)tominimalist(BovairdandLöffler2015).Inmanycases,however,thesedifferentcontinuumsdonotreceiveadequateattentioninacademicdebate.Forone,thereisageneralbeliefthatcitizenengagementwillleadtoempowerment,whichwillleadtopositiveeffects–e.g.,betterserviceimpact,riseincivicefficacyanddemocracy–especiallyinthe‘pubicvalue’streamoftheco-productionliterature(Nabatchietal.2017,2).Inrarecasestheeffectsareactuallymeasuredorempowermentdefined.
Empowerment–thecriticalunobservableofco-production
Empowermentisacomplexnotionthatoftenisleftundefinedinco-productionliterature.Theconcepthasrootsincivilrightsandwomen’smovements,the‘socialaction’ideologyofthe1960s,the‘self-helpperspectives’ofthe1970sandcommunitypsychologyofthe1980s,acknowledgingthepersonasacitizenwithinthepoliticalaswellassocialenvironmentandleadingtoamovementinthe1990sofgreatercontrolbycitizensinmanyareasoflife(Rissel1994,40).Itisanotioncloselylinkedtocitizenparticipation,fosteringstrongerinterpersonalrelationships,feelingsofpersonalandpoliticalefficacy,individualconfidenceandcompetence(FlorinandWandersman1990).Consequently,beingempoweredrelatestopoliticalawareness,socialaction,therighttosayandtohaveasay,recognizingoneselfandbeingrecognizedas
competent,andtheuseofpoweritself(Breton1994).3Itisimportanttonotethatexercisingpowercannottakeplaceinasituationoftotalstructuraldeterminism(Lukes2005,57-8).
Inthecontextofco-production,empowermentisneededtoenhancethelevelofengagement,customizationandpersonalization,butalsotoincreasetrusttowardsorganizationsanddecreasevariousrisksrelatedtoserviceprovision(TeichertandRost2003;Rajahetal.2008).Consequently,empowermentissaidtopromotedemocraticgovernance,increaseparticipationindecision-making,offerachannelforcitizenstohavegreaterinfluenceonandcontrolovertheirlives,motivatepeopletocareabouttheirlocalcommunity,andencouragecitizenstodevelopsocialcapital(Rissel1994;PetersandPierre2000;Fledderusetal.2013).Itisalsoseenaskeytotransformingindividualsintocitizenswhoareabletohaveaholisticperspectiveonsocietalgovernanceandthroughself-development,givingpeoplemoreopportunitiestoshapetheservicestheyreceive(Sørensen1997;Bandura2001),makingthemcapabletohaveagreatersayinthewaytheyinteractwiththesocietyandstate.Activeinvolvementintheservicedeliveryprocessplaysacrucialroleinevaluatingtheserviceasawhole(Fledderusetal.2013),becausebeingpartoftheprocessimprovestheunderstandingofserviceprovisionandgivestheopportunitytoholdpublicorganizationsaccountable.Involvementalsoinfluencestheperceivedqualityoftheservice(beingawareofthenuancesanddifficultiesofserviceprovision),whichcanleadtohigherlevelsoftrustforpublicserviceproviders(BouckaertandvandeWalle2003).Assuch,interactionsbetweencitizensandservice-providersbecomeanessentialvalueofdemocraticgovernanceintermsofdirectrepresentation,public
3Bythenarrowdefinitionofpower,theconceptrelatestotheway–byactionorinaction–thepowerfulsecurecomplianceoverthosetheydominate(Lukas2005).
79
accountabilityandlegitimacy(Clarke2005;Paarlberg2007;Needham2008;Bartels2013;Gofen2015).
Sørensen(1997)explainsthattherearetwooptionsofempowermentavailableforcitizens:exit(wheneveralternativesareavailable)orvoice(tochangethesituationratherthanescape).Theexitoptiondoesnotprovidesubstantialinfluenceonprocesses,whereasthevoiceoptiongivesmoreinformationaboutthedistributionofpreferencesandislikelytopromoteafeelingofloyaltyamongmembers,whichwillpostponeexit.Similarly,Jung(2010)referstouser‘choice’and‘voice’,wherethelattercanbeseenasapositiveandempoweringidea(withthecaveatthatthroughtheatomisationoftheconsumptionexperience,inequalitiescanbeincreasedleadinguserstoassociatechoicewithriskanduncertaintyinstead(e.g.,TõnuristandDeTavernier2017)).4Comparingthesetaxonomiestothebroaderdefinitionofempowerment,itbecomesclearthatsomedimensionsarenotaccountedfor:‘choice/exit’or‘voice’donotspeaktotheincreasedpoliticalawarenessofcitizensnorrecognitionoftheircompetencefromthestate;thetaxonomyseemstoimplytheuseofpowerthrougheitherinaction,actiontowardsalternativesorhavingone’ssay.Assuch,empowermentinco-productionshouldbeseeninamorenuancedwaywithgivingthecitizensnotonlythevoice(abilityandrighttohaveasay)and(actionable)choice(presenceofalternatives),butalsotherighttobeheard(recognitionofcompetence),influencedecisionmaking(authority)andtakeaction(agency).Thisrequiresmeanstobedirectlyinvolvednotonlyinimplementingpublicservices,butalsoinplanninganddesigningtheservices.Forpositiveeffectsoutlinedabove,itisnecessarytobuilduptheself-efficacyofcitizenssotheywouldbewillingandabletocontributetoco-production.
Ingeneral,co-productionassumesthatcitizenshavethewillingnessandabilitytobeactivelyinvolvedinthedecision-makingprocessofwhatandhowisdeliveredinconjunctionwiththepublicsector–havingthus,agency,responsibilityandpowerwithintheprocess.However,thisisnotasimple,aprioriexistingcondition.Forone,therecanbeexplicitknowledgebarrierstoco-production(Thomsen2015)orsimplypreferencesandattitudesofcitizensthemselvesthatdeterminetheirparticipationinco-production.Furthermore,basedonastudymadeinfivedifferentEuropeancountries,Bovairdetal.(2015b)concludedthatpeoplehavetofirstbelieveinthepotentialofcitizenstomakeadifference–efficacy–toengageinco-production(seealsoonthispointParradoetal.2013;Thomsen2015).ThispresentsaCatch22situation:co-productionissupposedtoempowercitizens,whilecitizensneedtofeelempoweredtoco-produceinthefirstplace.Inmanycases,citizenscannotalwaystakeamoreactiverolebecauseofstereotyping,imbalanceofpowerandresistancefromserviceproviderstogiveauthoritytocitizens(Williamsetal.2015).
Mechanismsofempowerment
Theconceptofempowermentimpliesthatindividualshavethenecessarycompetenciesandthattheseneedfosteringbyincreasingcitizenparticipation,changingsocialstructureand4Forexample,austeritymayforceuserstoundertakeresponsibilitiesfortheirownconsumption,makingitpossibletodeliverservicesonareducedscaleandwithautomatedtechnologybyconsumersdoingmore(Gilliattetal.2000).
80
addingresources(Hardina2003).However,itisoftendifficulttodeterminewhatactuallyfacilitatesempowermentinindividuals,groups,organizations,andcommunities.Empowermentbeginswithsomenotion,modelorrepresentationoftheserviceuserwithintheco-productionprocess,evenifthisisonlyimplicit(RichterandCornford2007,211).CardulloandKitchin(2017),buildingontheoriginaltaxonomybyArnstein(1969),haveidentifiedsixteenrolesthatcitizenscantakeinparticipationrangingfrompassiveandlackingcontroltoactiveandresponsible,withnatureoftheirengagementvaryingfromformsofcoercionthroughtovisioningandsteeringinitiatives.Theystatethatinitiativesbasedonmoreactivecitizeninvolvementareoftenmoreexperimentalinnatureandhence,mightfailtocreatealong-term,sustainableoutcome.AccordingtoPetersandPierre(2000),supportersofempowermentadvocateforpeoplebeing‘pushed’intomakingmoredecisionsabouttheirownlives,beitthroughindividualorgroupactivities–beingempoweredthroughtheexerciseofpower.Inaddition,trainingcitizensbecomesarequisite,sotheyarecapableoftakinguptherolebestoweduponthemandabletoparticipateintheprocess(Gilliattetal.2000).Ineffect,thereisnormativelogicaccordingtowhichempowermentisgoodinitself,regardlessofhowitisachieved.Manydisagree,claimingthatthecollaborativerelationshipcannotbepaternalistic(BovairdandLöffler2012,1122).
Thereisalsoariskthatthroughempowermentandamoreactiveroleassumedtobetakenbycitizens,alotoftheresponsibilitiesandaccountabilityrelatedtoserviceprovisionareshiftedtowardstheservice-user,ignoringthepossibilitythatnoteveryoneiswillingorabletobeartheburdensofresponsibility(Bandura2001).Increasedresponsibilityinsomecasesmayalsomeanthedecreaseofpower,asthereallypowerfulareabletoescaperesponsibilityandavoidaccountability.Furthermore,itisdisputedwhetherbenefitsofempowerment,suchashighercivicengagementorgreaterlegitimacy,outweighstructuralproblemssuchaslackofrepresentativenessortimeandresourceintensiveness,becauseauthenticparticipationissometimesmadedifficultbythepowerinequalitiesinherenttopolitical,economic,andorganizationalsystems(Bartels2013).Thewaysinwhichinteractionsbetweencitizensandpublicorganisationsarestructuredandmanagedshapewhogetstosaywhat,when,andhow(ibid.).Consequently,oneneedstoobserve,whoandhowgetsempoweredinco-production.Forexample,inthecontextofthisarticle,usingnewtechnologiesmayexcludethepotentialforsomeformsofuserinteractionandthus,becomeinimicaltomanyoftheobjectivesofcitizenship(RichterandCornford2007).
Definingco-productionthroughthelensofempowerment
Asoutlinedabove,co-productioninitsessenceisaboutcitizenparticipation.Citizenscontributingtheirresources(beittime,financeorinsights)isinstrumentaltoexpectedoutcomesofco-productionfrombetterservicequality,innovation,efficiencytoincreaseindemocraticrepresentationandlegitimacyofgovernment.Whatmakesadifferenceishowcitizeninvolvementisachievedandthroughwhichmechanismstheygetempowered.This,asarguedafore,isimportantbecauseempowermentandself-efficacyofcitizensmaybethecornerstonesoflong-termengagementinco-production.Throughvariousdefinitions,co-productioncanbeobservedonthecontinuumof‘active’or‘passive’citizenengagementand
81
thischaracteristicofco-productioncouldbeanalysedthroughthemechanismsofcitizenempowerment.Table1drawstogethertheargumentinlinewiththecharacteristicsofempowermentitself.
Table1.Mechanismsof(dis)empowerment Activeco-production Passiveco-production
Voice • Citizenshaveasaywithinthecollaborativeprocessinallco-productionphases:decision-making,designing,planning,implementingandevaluatingservices
• Citizenshaveasayintheimplementationandevaluationphaseoftheservice
Choice • Active,voluntaryparticipationinitiatedbyeithercitizensorgovernment
• Choiceofalternativesintheprocessofdesigningservices
• Experimentingallowed
• Participationinitiatedbygovernment
• Pre-definedchoices
• Possibilityofinactivity(optingout)ordisempowermentbycoercion(involuntaryorimplicit/unknownnatureoftheservice)
Recognition
of
competence
• Multi-directionalcommunication
• Sharedtrustbetweencitizensandthestate
• Trainingforcitizensavailableifneeded
• Unidirectionalcommunicationandconsultation
• Professionalexpertizeasthekeyinclusionmechanism
Authority • Clearlydefinedrightsofcitizenstopartakeinco-productionofservices,oftendesignedwithcitizeninvolvement
• Sharedauthority
• Narrowoptionsforcitizenstopartakeinco-production,definedbythestate
• Paternalisticviewonauthority(authoritynotsharedorsharedselectively)
Agency • Possibilitytochangetheservice
• Increaseofresponsibilityofcitizensandpossibilitytoholdgovernmentaccountable
• Increaseinresponsibilitieswithoutthepossibilitytochangeservicedesign
Source:Authors.
Lookingatthemechanismsofempowermenthelpstoanalysetowhichdirection–activeorpassive–newdigitaltechnologiesarepushingtheco-productionprocess.
Impactofdigitaltechnologiesonco-productionandempowerment
Assaid,co-productionseekstogobeyondcitizensaspassiverecipientsandaimstoempoweruserstotakegreatercontrolover,andresponsibilityfor,theirlives(Martin2005).However,differentformsandmechanismsofco-productionaffectcitizenempowermentdifferently.Whenco-productiongoestothedigitalrealm,anotherlayeroffactorsemerge.Alreadyin1981Parksetal.notedthattechnologydetermineswhetherthereareproductionfunctionsavailablethatinvolvebothemployeesandcustomersasparticipantsintheserviceprovisionprocess(thesameaseconomicconsiderationsdeterminewhetheritisefficienttoco-producetheservice;
82
andinstitutionalconsiderationsdeterminewhetherco-productionisappropriateevenifittechnicallyfeasibleandeconomicallyefficient)(Parksetal.1981,1002).WithnewdigitaltechnologiesitisexpectedthattechnologywillhelptoempowercitizensbyenablingreciprocaluseofresourcesandjointactionasICTprovidesampleofnewandefficientwaystoactivelyengagewithcitizens:throughlistening,responding,andconsequentlychangingservices(seeNoveck2016;Androutsopoulou2016).However,doesthepracticedeliveronthepromise?
ICTinvariablyprovidesanadditionalchannelforpublicservicesupport.Ever-wideninguseofsensorsandothersimilartechnologiespotentiallyenableradicalshiftinhowcitizensco-producepublicservices(e.g.,telecare,robotassistants,real-timeremotemonitoringandotherassistedlivingtechnologiesmakecaringincreasinglypossibleathomesagain,seee.g.Whertonetal.2015).AsarguedbyTownsend(2013),citizensbydesigningnewsocialtechnologies(appsmostnotably)arenotonlybestpositionedtousetheexistingknowledgeonarticulatingspecificneedsandnovelideas,butalsoprovidingquicklyeffectivesolutionsthrougheitherindividualinitiativesorcollectiveones(e.g.,hackathons,technologyworkshops,livinglabs,appcontests,crowd-orcitizensourcing).Thus,governmentscanbyadoptingco-creativeandcollaborativeproblem-solvingstrategies,“crowd-sourcetheirwayoutofproblems”(Nam2012,14).Byusinggamificationandcreatingactiveon-linecommunitiesitcanbepossibletoincreasetheself-efficacyofcitizenstoco-produce(Szkutaetal.2014;Noveck2016).Muchofthisisorganizedarounddigitalplatformsthatbring“togetherdifferentservices,applicationsandtechnologies,aswellasalltypesofpeople,andconnectthemtoeachother”andthat“interconnectpeople,allowingthemtoactivelyobserve,report,collect,analyse,provideanddisseminateinformation”(JanssenandEstevez2013).Asdigitaltechnologiesallowformorepersonalizedservices,itmayalsobepossibletoincreasenotonlytheuptakeofpublicservices,butalsosatisfactionandeffectiveness(e.g.MOOCscanbeadjustedtoyourindividualneedsandschedule).Consequently,digitaltechnologiescancreatenewsocialpracticesandinteractions(Townsend2013).Asaresult,thenewtechnologiescanforcegovernmentstochangetheircoretasks:insteadofprovidingorpurchasingservicesitbecomesaframer,sponsor,mobilizer,monitorer,andproviderofthelastresort(Linders2012;seealsoTownsend2013).
Yet,itiswellknownfromtheorganizationalsociologyandotherfieldsofstudiesthattechnologyneverautomaticallydeliversonitspromises:itshapesandaffectsthechoiceshumansandorganizationsmake,makingtheuseandimpactoftechnologyanopenendedandevolvingprocess(LeonardiandBarley2010).Thus,theuseandeffectsoftechnologyshouldnotbeseeninauniformmanner.Empirically,thereislittleevidenceavailableontheactualimpactofthenewtechnologiesonco-productioningeneralandempowermentinspecific(Noveck2016;Clarketal.2013;Meijer2012).Nexttomanysuccess-cases,thereissomepreliminaryevidencethatcitizenempowermenttendstobedifficulttoachievepurelyondigitalterms.Forexample,MOOCswerelaunchedtodisruptthehighereducationsystem,yetithasappearedthatwithnopeerpressureanddirectengagementbylecturersthegraduationrateshaveremainedconsiderablylowerthanexpected(YuanandPowell2013;MaringeandSing2014;SofferandCohen2015).Trueempowermentofcitizensassumesdeepunderstandingofcitizenneedsforwhichbigdata,crowdsourcingetc.technologiesmaynot(yet?)becapableof(Fountain2014)andwheredirectinteractionsbetweenprofessionalsandserviceusersaswellastheuseof“goodold”methodologiessuchasobservatoryparticipationsarestillavitalpart
83
ofco-production.Consequently,thisiswheretheeffectivenessofco-productioncomesintoconflictwiththeefficienciesthedigitaltechnologiespromise.
Recently,anewwaveofcriticalthinkingontheroleoftechnologyoncitizens’engagementhasemerged(e.g.CardulloandKitchin2017;Kornbergeretal.2017).Forexample,proliferationofplatformsanddigitalsolutionsallowuserstogeneratelargevolumesofcontent(Lukyanenkoetal.2016)–throughtags,posts,tweets,product/servicereviews,forumpostsetc.–whichcanbeincorporatedintotheco-productionprocesstoalsounderstandbehaviour,andimproveanddesignnewservices.Asdigitalco-productionapplicationscanhavemillionsofusers,itisclearthatallofthemcannotbeinvolvedinthedesignofthesystems.Atthesametime,pooruserinvolvementduringsystemdevelopmentcanhaveanegativeimpactonuserengagement(seeoverviewofchallengesofusergeneratedcontentinLukyanenkoetal.2016).Whatismore,thereisnoguaranteethatthepublicsectorwillintegratecitizenswhoarethemostaffectedintothedecisionmakingprocess;onthecontrary,governmentstendtoabsorbtheknowledgefromthepublicwithoutguaranteeinginclusiveness(SchmidthuberandHilgers2017).Previousstudieshavearguedthatdisadvantagedpopulationsparticipatelessinco-production(seee.g.JakobsenandAndersen2013)andespeciallywhenthisistechnology-mediated(Townsend2015;cf.Clarketal.2013).Moreover,digitaltechnologiesmayinsomecasesdirectlyharmcitizensashasbeendemonstratedincaseswherevideo-chatshavebeenintroducedinprisonstosavecosts,butasthishasproventoweakensocialties,ithasinmanyoccasionsresultedwithdisempoweringprisoners.5
Consequently,digitalsolutionsdonotautomaticallyleadtotheirusageandoftentimes,customers’reluctancetoadoptnewtechnologieshasbecomeachallenginghurdle(Geldermanetal.2011).Onemightaskhowmuchthisempowersratherthanjustengagescitizensbyconsultation(WebsterandLeleux2017).Consultations(contrarytoco-production)aregovernmentinitiatives,wherepublicsectorsetstheagenda,controlstheprocessandalsofinallydecidesabouttheresults(Martin2005),adistinctionnotoftenmadeinstudiesexploringthenexusbetweentechnologyandcitizenparticipation.Sometimesconsultationscanhaveaco-creativenaturewherecitizensaretrulyandnotrhetoricallyempowered(BovairdandLöffler2016),butoftenthisisnotthecase(CardulloandKitchin2017).Forexample,whileamyriadofcrowdsourcingtechnologiesforcollectingcitizens’ideas,opinions,funding,solutionsanddata(seeNam2012;GovLab2013;Noveck2016)haverecentlyemerged,notalloftheserepresentanattempttoestablishreciprocalinteractions.Consequently,abulkofdigitalparticipation,sofar,hasbeenlargelypassiveandonlyveryrecentlyinteractiveasWeb2.0technologieshavecomeforthinthepublicsector(Battyetal.2012,498).
Technologicalapplicationsinco-productionmaynotonlyempowercitizens,butmayalsore-allocatecontrolandpowertowardsspecificgroupsinsociety,governmentsandprivatecompanies.Accessibilitytonewtechnologiesisunevenlydistributedinsocietywheretheso-called‘newleisureclass’(Tõnuristetal.2016)or‘morebourgeoisareas’(Hastingsetal.2014),ofyoungandeducatedprofessionalshavemoreskillsandtimetoengagewithtechnology-inducedco-productionthanmanyothersocialgroups(Townsend2013;Mergel2016).Consequently,therearedifferenttypesofdigitalcitizeninvolvementprojectsthatareeither5Seee.g.https://mic.com/articles/142779/the-end-of-prison-visitation#.zMG5pudmr
84
“integrativecitizensourcing”–largenumberofparticipantswithoutspecialskills,simplicityoftasks–or“selectivecitizensourcing”wheretheaimistosolvecomplexproblemsrequiringspecialexpertise(Thapaetal.2015).Themorecomplextheinteraction,themorethecitizengeneratedcontentcansufferintermsofquality(e.g.,Lukyanenkoetal.2016).Consequently,useoftechnologycanleadtomoreparticipation,butusuallywhentheengagementismadeeasyandstate-of-the-arttechniquesforprocessingandclassifyinginsightsandknowledge(duetoinformationoverload)areused(Androutsopoulou2016).
Substantiveoractiveco-productionaswellastechnologicalchangemeanslossofautonomyandcontrolforgovernmentofficials,whichiswhygovernmentsareoftenreluctanttochangetheirinternalroutines(onco-production,seeBovaird2007;onsocialmediaimpact,seeMergel2016).Relatedly,technologyissometimesappliedbygovernmentsinco-productionthroughisomorphicprocesses,justto‘lookcool’(Nam2012;Townsend2013)ratherthanwiththeaimofempoweringcitizensoractuallytargetingproductivity.Ifthereisastrongresistancetoco-productionorlimitedcapacitytoengagewithcitizens,technologyislikelytoleadtoselectivebehaviourandre-producetheexistingroutinesratherthanfacilitatesubstantiveparticipationandco-production(Kornberger2017).Also,technologiestendtoprovidepublicofficialswithampleopportunitiestoincreasecontrolovercitizensandcommunitiesratherthanempoweringthem.AsobservedbyKitchin(2016),“technologiesaretop-down,centrally-controlledandmanagerialistinorientation,oftenintroducedbybureaucrats(citymanagers)ratherthanelectedofficialsorbeingdevelopedinconjunctionwithlocalcommunities”.Thistendencyistodaymostclearlyvisibleintheso-calledglobalsmartcitymovement,whererecentadvancementsclusterpredominantlyaroundtop-downtechnologiessuchasdashboards,smartmeters,sensornetworks,centralizedcontrolroomsandvariousapplicationsthatforemostcatertheneedsofgovernmentsandprovideopportunitiesformarketsratherthanenablingtrulyco-creativepracticesthroughempoweringcitizens(CardulloandKitchin2017).Moreover,thecodeunderliningeverydigitalsolutionforco-productionalwaysentailsnormativeassumptionsandvaluesthatintheendstructurehowcitizenscanprovideinputforco-production,yetthesenormativeassumptionsareseldomdebatedopenly,especiallywhenproprietarytechnologiesandcommercialsecrecyareapplied(O’Neil2015).
Criticalobservationspointtowardstheclusteringoftechnologicalinnovationsaroundsolutionsthataredesignedtop-downandmostlyenablepassiveandminimalistratherthanactiveco-productiondrivenbyempoweredcitizens.Itseemsthatenhanceddigitizationincreasinglystructureshowcitizensprovideinputthroughco-production(choice)withoutcitizensbeingalwaysabletoinfluencehowthisisstructured(voice,agencyandrecognitionofcompetence)andtoholdthetechnologyprovideraccountable(authority).
Tosummarize,wecanarguethattheexpectedimpactofnewdigitaltechnologiesonempoweringcitizenscanbeseenasfollows:
• Increasingdigitizationprovidesamyriadofalternativestoovercometheproblemoflackofself-efficacythatiskeytoactiveco-productionandempowerment;
• Digitaltechnologiesprovideanefficientwaytosolvecollectiveco-productionproblemswhereparticipationislow,yetthisshiftcomeswiththepriceoflessempowerment;
85
• Assuch,digitalinnovationsareclusteringaroundtop-downtechnologiesthatenablepassive/minimalistratherthanactive/fullco-production,maximizewidereachandare
easytoscaleup.Passiveandminimalistco-productionleavesthegovernmentwithmorecontroloverchoicestobemade(authority)andleadstomorelimitedempowermentofcitizens.Thistrendisreinforcedby:
o Theefficiencyandcontrolconcernsbythepublicsector,inherentlimitationsindigitizingco-productionandlimitedefficacyonbehalfofcitizens(e.g.,voice,recognitionofcompetenceacrosscrowds);
o Algorithmsareincreasinglystructuringco-production,butareseldomitselfdevelopedco-creatively,thus,limitingopendebateanddeliberation–voiceandagency–thatarekeytoempowerment;
o Theeasiertheservice,theeasiertoengagecitizens.However,theeasiertheservice,theeasieritistooptformoretop-downandautomatedengagement(i.e.passiveco-production),thusmakingcitizen-professionalinteractionsmoreinstrumentalandtechnocraticratherthanopen-ended;
o Digitaltechnologieshavethetendencytomakecitizeninvolvementalmostautomatic/implicit,makingtrueco-production–consciouschoiceandagency–questionable.Assuch,itisincreasinglymoredifficulttooptoutfrompassiveco-productionasallocationofcontroloverdigitaltracesisstillverymuchopen.
Inthenextsectionwesetouttotestthepresentedassumptionsthroughacomparativecasestudyapproachwiththeaimtoseeifthepotentialtrendsdescribedabovearesupportedbyemergingpractise.
Methodologyandcaseselection
Toanalysetheresearchpuzzle,thearticleutilizesthelargestpublicsectorinnovationdatabaseintheworldattheOECD,ObservatoryforPublicSectorInnovation.Launchedin2013,theobservatorycollectsinnovationsfrom(predominantly)publicsectoremployeeswhohavetherighttoself-nominatecasestotheplatformfrombothOECDcountriesandoutside.In2016,theObservatorycarriedoutaspecialworld-widecallforcasesfortheGlobalInnovationReview(2017)amongallknownpublicsectorinnovationnetworks,expandingitscaseportfoliotwofold.Theinformationcollectedontheinnovationscoversamongothersthedescriptionoftheinnovativepractice(type,mainbeneficiaries,objectivesetc.),results,lessonslearned,methodsusedtodevelopandtesttheinnovationpriortoitsfullimplementation,mainchallengesinthedevelopmentprocessandtheextenttowhichtheintendedusersoftheservicewereinvolvedinthesephases.Thecasesarereviewedpriortotheiradditionontotheplatform.InMay2017,thedatabasehad387publicsectorinnovations.Forthecurrentresearch,caseswithadigitalandco-productioncomponentswereselected(49cases)basedontheanalysisofcasedescriptions.6Thecaseinformationwassupplementedbyadditional6Firstandforemost,theauthorslookedatsubmissionsmadeworldwidetotheGlobalInnovationReview,withaninitialdatasetof160cases,outofwhich115wereselectedafterpre-analysis.Fromthelatter,32caseshadaco-
86
desktopresearchdependingonneed.Whilethecollectionofcasesusedisnotrepresentative,itcannonethelessbeusedasaproxyindicatorofwhatgovernmentsaroundtheworlddeemasthemostimportantemergingdigitallyenabledco-productionpractices.
Analysingthesetofco-productioncasesworldwide,weaimtoshowthroughacomparativecasestudyapproachthevariousformsthattechnology-enabledco-productioncantakeandwhatrolecitizenshaveintheseinitiatives.Indoingso,weareinterestedintheeffecttechnologieshaveonempoweringcitizens.Buildingonouranalyticalframeworkandbasedonthecasesatourdisposalwesetouttoexplore:
(1)thetype(s)oftechnologiesinvolvedinco-productionintermsofa)crowdsourcing(ideas,opinions,funding,subtasks,data)(Noveck2016),b)platforms(Linders2012;JanssenandEstevez2012),c)do-it-yourself-/peer-to-peer/self-services(Linders2012;Pazaitisetal.2017),d)electronicsensors,dronesetc.hardware,e)others.Thiscategorizationshouldbetakenasillustrative:manyofthesolutionscanemploymixofdifferenttechnologies,andinsomecasesalsonon-technologicalapproaches/methods,whilesometechnologiescanhavemultiplemeanings.Wecategorizedthetechnologiesbasedontheircorelogicineveryspecificcase.
(2)thestage(s)ofco-productionconcernedintermsofco-planning,co-design,co-deliveryandco-evaluation(Bovaird2007);
(3)theformalambitionsandclaimedimpactsintermsofifactiveco-productionand/orempowermentwasexplicitlymentionedornot;
(4)thenatureofactivevspassiveinvolvement(empowerment)asidentifiedinTable1above.
Throughthesefourcategoriesweexpecttodescribetheemergingtrendsintechnology-enabledco-productionpracticesvis-à-viscitizenempowerment.Whatfollowsisapreliminaryoverviewoftheresultswiththeemphasisputonthelastcategory(i.e.activevspassiveempowerment).
Theeffectoftechnologyinpractise:thepreliminaryresults
Table2outlinesthebroadandpreliminaryresultsofthereviewof49cases.Althoughdigitaltechnologiesisexpectedtoenhancethewayscitizenscanpartakeinpublicservices,providewidergeographicalcoverageorenablemorepeopletoparticipate,weseethat,inlinewithmanyotherstudiesandhypothesesproposed,digitaltechnologiesassuchneverimplicitlyempowercitizens.
productionangle(26withlinkstotechnology,6without).Inaddition,weincludedaselectionfrom136casescollectedbyOECDObservatoryofPublicSectorInnovation,outofwhich28werelinkedtoco-production(24withlinkstotechnology,4without).Atotalof60co-productioncasestudiesoutofwhich49hadanelementofICTinthem.
87
Table2.Characteristicsofdigitaltechnologiesandco-production
Typesoftechnologiesused
Type Crowdsourcing Platforms DIY/P2P Sensorsetc.hardware
Other
Shareintotalselection(%) 55% 37% 2% 2% 4%
Stagesofco-productionconcerned
Stages Pre-productiononly(co-planning,co-design)
Production/post-productiononly(co-delivery,co-evaluation)
Bothpre-productionandproduction/post-production
Shareintotalselection(%) 27% 69% 4%
Formalambitionsandimpacts
Ambitionsandimpacts Activecitizens/empoweringmentioned
Activecitizens/empoweringnotmentioned
Shareintotalselection(%) 33% 67%
Natureofactivevspassiveinvolvement
Natureofco-production Active Passive
Shareintotalselection(%) 30% 70%
Source:Authors.
88
Inmostofthecaseswelookedat,co-productiongavecitizenstheatleastaminimalchoice(12cases,24%)orvoice(21cases,43%)inserviceprovision.Inaddition,in13cases(27%)wecouldseethattherecognitionofcitizens’competencewasbasedonmulti-directionalcommunicationsandsharedtrust.Onlyinonecasedidweseeauthoritygiventocitizensandtwocaseswherecitizenshadthepossibilitytochangetheserviceandtakeresponsibility,alsotoholdgovernmentaccountable(agencyandauthority).Inregardstootherwaysofempowerment,weobservedbothactiveandpassiveinvolvementinco-production,however,incaseofauthorityandagency,onlyactiveparticipationwasapparent.Takenintoaccounttheinherentfeaturesofauthorityandagency–clearlydefinedroles,sharedresponsibilities,increasedopportunitiesforcitizenstochangetheservicedesign–onecouldhaveexpectedthattheyareonlymanifestedinactivecitizeninvolvement.
Insupportofourclaimthatdigitizationprovidesalternativestoovercomethelackofself-efficacythatoftenhindersactiveco-productionandempowerment,weseethattherearemanywayspeoplecanbeinvolvedinco-productionthankstoadvancesintechnology,mostpopularofthosebeingcrowdsourcing(27cases,55%)orplatforms(18cases,37%).Thisdistinctionisinmanycasesarbitrary,dependingalsoonhowtheprojectsthemselvesreportedaboutthetechnologiesused.Inmostcases,morethanonechannelwasusedtoensurecitizenengagement(e.g.combiningsensordatawithsocialmedia,ormixingdigitalcrowdsourcingwithface-to-faceforums).Whatisadditionallytelling,co-productionwasusedinallphasesoftheprocessstartingfromco-designallthewaytoco-evaluation.However,ouranalysisshowsthatin69%ofthecases,co-productioneffortswerefocusedonthedeliveryandevaluationsideoftheprocessandoutofthose,onlyhalf(16cases)requiredsomesortofactiveparticipationfromserviceusers.Forinstance,itiscriticalinnatureconservationtoknowhowmanyanimalsarepresentinadefinedareaandusually,thisinvolvesdrivingacarorflyingamannedaircraftovertheareaandmanuallycountinganimalsonthego,resultinginveryapproximatednumbers.InNamibia,droneswereusedtocapturethousandsofaerialimagesandtheSanpeople,regardedasthebestwildlifetrackersintheworld,wereinvolvedinidentifyingandcountinganimalsindroneimageryusingtechniquesthatacomputercannotperform.Heretechnologyclearlyenabledactiveco-deliverybylocalpeople.
Mostofthecases,whereactivecitizeninvolvementwasobservedintheco-designorco-creationphase,wererelatedtoinvolvingcitizensinvariouspolicydevelopmentinitiatives.Thisagainissomethingthatistobeexpected,becausegeneratingideas,givingsuggestionsorchoosingbetweenalternativesoften–althoughnotalways–requiresactiveinputfromcitizens.InTaiwan,opensourcecommunityandthegovernmentcollaborativelydevelopedasetofmethodsthatintegratetechnology,media,andfacilitationintoaplatformcalledvTaiwan.Itincorporatescrowd-sourcedagendasetting,publicmeetings,in-personstakeholdermeetings(co-facilitatedbycivilsocietyandthegovernment,andbroadcasttoremoteparticipants)andlastly,governmentagreementtobinditsactiontopointsthatreachedconsensus(orexplanationswhythosearenotfeasible).Thisprocessrestsonactiveparticipationfromthecitizensthroughempoweringthem;facilitationisusedtoensurethateveryonecanbeheard.However,aswesee,realempowermentinthiscaseseemstostemfromtheeye-to-eyemeetingswherecitizeninputisopenlydiscussedwithanaimtoreachconsensus.SimilarlytovTaiwan,whichseeminglygivesnotonlyvoiceandchoicetocitizens,
89
butalsoauthorityandagencyandrecognizestheirexpertizeatlarge,themunicipalityofÖrnsköldsviksinSwedenlaunchedaco-creationaldevelopmentprojectfordigitalpublicservicestoachieveurbanandruralbalance.Theaimoftheprojectwastocreateanonlineplatformandarelatedapplicationthatwouldallowforpeopleinruralterritoriestobeapartofdifferentservicesandeventsviatheplatform.Inaddition,itaimedtochangetheattitudeamongtheparticipatingactorsandtargetgroups(national,localandforeigncompanies,municipalitycommittees,villageassociations,politiciansandleadingofficials)andopenuppossibilitiesforviralmarketing,informationdisseminationandthedistributionofnewskills.Asaresult,theprojectopenedupnewcommunicationchannelsbetweenindividualsandagencies,launchedane-serviceplatformbasedonopennessandtransparencyandrelatedappsforsmartphones/tabletscomprisingeventsandactivitiesinÖrnsköldsvikmunicipality,marketingservices,advertising,calendaretc.Inaddition,theprojectstartedaco-creativeprocessofinnovationwherenewperspectivesandconceptsareco-created,givingmoreattentiontoruraldevelopment.Asalimitation,duetoself-reportingtheactuallevelofempowermentachievedremainsintheseandothercasessomewhatopen.
Amongthoseco-productioncaseswhereactivecitizeninvolvementtookplaceinthedesignphase,weidentifiedfourcaseswhereempowermentwasrelatedtotherecognitionof
competence.Forinstance,theauthoritiesofLahtiCitydecidedtouseaphoneapplicationcalledPorukkatoreachouttoLahtiCityresidents.Thecitywantedtoinspireitsresidentstothinkaboutwhattypeofcitytheywanttolivein,andhaveapossibilitytogettheirideasincludedinthecitydevelopmentstrategy.Seeingthattheappwaslaunchedonlyin2016,itisstillearlytosaywhetherithasindeedempoweredcitizenstobemoreactivelyinvolvedincitydevelopmentprocesses.However,engagementhasbeenmadefairlyeasyforthemandifthetownauthoritiesreallyincorporatecitizeninputintostrategicaction,itwouldinspiremoreandmorecitizenstopartakeintheprocess.Similarly,inthecaseoftheCommonKnowledgeNetworkRCCinPortugal,awebsitewasusedtostartacollaborativeplatformtopromotethesharingofbestpracticesandinformationaboutmodernisation,innovation,andsimplificationofpublicadministration.Theplatformisbasedonopenmembershipbypublicagencies,centralandlocaladministrations,privateentitiesandcitizenspresentinganddescribingbestpracticesused,andtheirresults.Furthermore,theRCCprovidesdebateonpublicpoliciesandtheirimplementationatlocal,regionalandnationallevels,andparticipatorydecision-makingwithinterestgroupsandcommunitiesofpractice,thusstrengtheningcommunicationandcoordinatinginformationsharing.Likewise,SpeechbubbleisanonlineforumfortheAustralianDepartmentofHumanServicestoinformandengagewiththepublic,staffandstakeholdersindesigningitsinitiativesandservices.Theforumisopenforsetperiodsoftimetocollaborateonaspecificinitiativeandisbasedonmulti-waycommunicationwherebythegeneralpublicandstaffcanmakesuggestionsonthedepartment’sinitiatives.TheoverallaimofSpeechbubbleistoproducehighqualityservicesusingacollaborativeapproachandrecognisingthatcitizensoftenhavethemostknowledgeabouttheyneedandwant,itoffersagoodchannelforgettinginputfromthem.Lastly,theAustrianCouncilforResearchandTechnologyDevelopmentcommissionedthedesignanddevelopmentofaplatformtoenablecrowdsourcingforstrategicdocuments,thusincreasingtherangeofknowledgeandperspectivesusedinpolicy-making.Ontheplatform,citizenscanvoteandcommentonspecificparagraphsofastrategycurrentlybeing
90
discussed,makingiteasytoidentifycontroversialissuesinthedocument.Throughcommenting,thecommunityisgiventhepossibilitytosuggestnewoptionsandalternativestotheexistingparagraphs.Here,too,weseethatcitizens’knowledgeisbeingusedtoimprovepolicyandtheyaregiventhepossibilitytoshapewhatandhowtheirgovernmentdeliversaspolicy.However,westillseethatthisisatop-downprocess,wherethegovernmentframestheplaygroundandcitizensaremerelyusedasexpertstoparticipateandhaveasayincommunity/statedevelopment.
Outofthe49casesofco-productionanalysedthatinvolvedusingtechnology,onlythreewererelatedtoagency,i.e.increasingtheresponsibilityofcitizensandgivingthemmoreopportunity
toholdgovernmentaccountable.TheViennaCharterinAustriaisawrittenagreementbetweenpeoplewholiveinVienna.AlthoughtheprocessofreachingagreementwasfacilitatedbytheCityofVienna,thecitizensreacheditaloneandoutoftheirownconviction.Theagreementcoversgoodneighbourlyrelationsandcitizens’roleincontributingtotheircommunity,andnotwhatpoliticiansorthecityadministrationshoulddo.CitizenschosethetopicstobecoveredbytheCharterandactivelyparticipatedinitsdevelopment,bothonlineandoffline.Theprocesswassupportedby325partnerorganisationsbyholdingchartertalksand/orusingtheirinformationchannelstospreadawarenessabouttheproject.Itwasanopenprocessthat,inessence,wasownedbythecitizensandwheredigitaltechnologiesmadeitpossibleforthecitizenstocontributeonalargescale.Secondly,UPSceauxencouragesthepeoplelivinginSceaux,Francetocarryprojectsand/ortakeanactivepartinexistinginitiativesthatareallgatheredonaterritorialisedsocialnetworkcreatedintheframeworkofapartnershipbetweenanNGOandthelocalgovernment.ThestartingpointofUPSceauxisthatcivilsocietycanbethesourceofeffectivesolutionstosocialandenvironmentalissues.Itisatoolanimatedforandbythepopulationtoconductprojectsbymatchinguserswhosharecommoninterests.Forthelocalauthoritiesitisanefficienttooltomonitornewprojectsandregularlyeasetheachievementofthemostvaluableones,drawingcitizensandtheadministrationclosertogether.Althoughabitdifferentinobjectivesanddesign,bothcasesshowhowitispossibletoempowerpeopletotakeagencyovertheiraffairs.Itrequireseffortfromthestateintermsofgivingupsomeoftheauthority,increasingresponsibilityofcitizensandallowingthemtoholdthegovernmentaccountable.Similarly,itrequiresthatcitizensarewillingandabletotakeupthatresponsibilityandchallengethestatewheretheyseefitinordertoincreasethequalityofpublicservices.InMexicoCity,whichisnotonlyoneofthebiggestcitiesintheworld,butonewiththelargestpublictransportationsystemsintheworldwith14millionridesperday,themorethan4000citizenswereabletoco-producethecity’sfirsteverpublictransportationmapconsistingofthousandsofbusrouteswithinjusttwoweeks.Herethecitizenswerebothresponsiblefordesigningthesolutionaswellasprovidingthedataforthemap.Thecitygovernmentnowusesthisplatformtoprovideup-to-dateinformationonbusroutes.WhiletheViennaandSceauxweretheexamplesofusingdigitaltechnologiestofacilitatecitizeninitiative,thenintheMexicocasethedigitaltechnologiesmadeco-productionpossibletobeginwith,whilemakingitalsopossibletousenewtypesincentives(gamificationofparticipation).
Wealsodetectedalimitedoccasionsofco-productionthathadstrongelementsofdo-it-yourself(DIY)services.Amongthose,forinstance,wereapplicationsfordisastermanagementlikePetaBencana.id(Indonesia),producingmegacity-scalevisualizationsoffloodingandusing
91
bothcrowdsourcedreportingandgovernmentagencyvalidationsinreal-time.Byconnectingtosocialmedia,hydraulicsensors,andotherurbanapplications,CogniCitycreatesanopenplatformthatredirectsexistingsystemstosupportdisasterresponseandhumanitarianaction,whileenablingreliablecommunicationbetweenusersandgovernmentagencies,andpromotingcivicco-managementasaformofmegacityclimatechangeadaptation.
Outofthecasesthatwetermedaspassiveco-production,halfwererelatedtocrowdsourcing,mostlyforservicedeliveryorevaluation.InIndonesia,theFoodSecurityEarlyWarningSystemusessatelliteclimatedata(rainfallanomaly,andvegetationhealthindex),crowdsourcedfoodpricedataandhouseholdsurveydatatoprovideintegratedvisualisationsoftheextentofdroughtaffectedareas,impactsonmarketstructureandpricing,andcopingstrategiesandresilienceofaffectedpopulations.Similarly,theRioOperationsCenterconnectsdataandinformationfrom50governmentagenciesandrelevantprivatesectorstakeholders,includingtheInternetofThings,e.g.securitycameras,waterandraingauges,privatemaps,trafficsignaldata,theelectricitygrid,trafficcontrols,publictransitvehiclesandsocialmediafeedsinordertoprovidepreciseandtimelyinformationtocitizensthroughseveralchannels,includingsocialmedia.
Althoughcitizenscouldbeperceivedasmererecipientsofaflowofinformation,intheseandothersimilarcasestheyarealsousedassourcesofinformation,notleastthroughsocialmediafeed.However,theinputrequiredfromcitizensinalltheseandothersimilarcasesisminimalandautomated,whichiswhyitisquestionablehowmuchcitizenscanbereallyvaluedasco-producersinthiscontext.Ineffect,theonlycaseoutofthose10passiveco-productioncasesthatreportedcitizenempowermentasoneoftheobjectivesoftheinitiativewasBIMER(PrimeMinistryCommunicationCentre,Turkey),whichaimsatidentifyingproblemsandcollectingcomplaints,ideasorsuggestionsfromcitizensandresidents.Althoughanamiableinitiative,itdoesnotgofurtherintermsofempoweringthecitizens,butremainsasaformalmeansforpeopletovoicetheirconcerns,nothingelse.Thereisnofollow-upmechanisminplacetoseehowmanyoftheopinionsorcomplaintshavebeentakenintoaccountwhiledraftingpoliciesorlaunchingnewservices.
Probablyoneofthemostdaringco-productioninitiativesintermsofpossiblenegativeimpact(inthecaseoffailure)weobservedinourselectionwas‘HackthePentagon’,thefirstcyberbugbountyprogramintheUSfederalgovernment,aimedatidentifyingandresolvingsecurityvulnerabilitieswithintheUSDepartmentofDefencewebsites.Theinitiativewasdesignedaftersimilarsimulationscarriedoutinprivatecompaniestoimprovethesecurityanddeliveryofnetworks,productsanddigitalservices.Thehackercommunitywasinvitedtoputcybersecuritytothetestinaninnovative,butresponsibleway.Over1,400hackersparticipatedin‘HackthePentagon’,identifyingintotalover250vulnerabilitiesandover130flaws.Seeingthattheinitiativewasconsideredsuccessful,itisgoingtobeexpandedtootherpartsoftheDepartmentofDefence.Forthis,alltheDepartment’scomponentshavebeenorderedtoreviewwheresuchprogramscanbeused.TakingintoaccountthenatureoftheworkoftheDepartmentofDefence,aninitiativeofthisscopeandmagnitudecanbeconsideredhighlyrisky.Withpossiblethreatstocybersecurity,ortheUSsecurityinwiderterms,givingsuchauthoritytoexternalhackerscouldbeseenasquestionable.However,withthepossiblecyberthreatspublicinstitutionsallovertheworldface,takingadaringsteptowardsimprovingcyber
92
securitymightbetheonlysolution.Inaddition,asdescribedbyaseniordefenseofficialwhencommentingtheinitiative:“Wecan'thireeverygreat‘whitehat’hackertocomeinandhelpus,but[HackthePentagon]allowsustousetheirskillsets,theirexpertise,tohelpusbuildbettermoresecureproductsandmakethecountrymoresecure.”(Pellerin2016).Yet,asthisco-productionprocesswasforobviousreasonscarefullydesignedtop-down,itrepresentsagainaclassicalcaseofco-deliveryratherthanco-creation.
Conclusions
Thepreliminaryevidencepresentedinthecurrentstudyseemstoechomanyofthecriticalargumentspresentedinthetechnology-drivenco-productionliteraturesofar.Fromtheonehand,increasingdigitizationprovidesamyriadofalternativestoovercometheproblemoflackofself-efficacythatiskeytoactiveco-productionandempowermentanddigitaltechnologiesprovideanefficientwaytosolvecollectiveco-productionproblems.Yet,ontheotherhand,itseemsthatthistechnology-drivenshiftcomeswiththepriceoflessempowermentofcitizens.Thisisnottosuggestthatgovernmentswereactivelyaimingatdis-empoweringcitizens,butthatdigitaltechnologiesseemtopushtheco-productionpracticetowardsnewtrajectoriesthatassumepassiveratherthanactiveparticipationofcitizens.
Theanalysisoftheemergingpracticeshowsthattheeffectsoftechnologyarehighlyvaried.Inthemajorityofcasescitizenempowermenthasnotbeenthefocalpointoftheseco-productioninitiatives,whilethenatureoftheprocessitselfcanbeempoweringtocitizenstosomedegree.Moreoftenthannot,thecitizenparticipationinthecasesreviewedwasclearlypassiveandamoreminimal,typicallyrelyingonimplicitparticipationthroughcitizen-sourcing.Furthermore,theroleofcitizensinthedesignphasesoftheseinitiativesislow,albeitseeminglyapreconditiontoactiveco-productionandarguablywithgreatesteffectonco-productionoutcomes.Inthecasesthatwedeemed‘active’,differentfactors–choice,voice,recognitionofcompetence,authorityandagency–ofcitizenempowermentwereenhanced,butnotalltogether.Whilegivingcitizensvoiceandchoicewasthemostpopularmechanismofempowerment(andusuallytheseinitiativeswherequitesimple),broadeningcitizenagencyandsharingauthoritywithcitizenswasveryrare.Thus,activeco-productionthroughdigitaltechnologies(whenitmanifests)isempoweringtocitizens,butonlyuptoadegree.
Theeffectsontheindividuallevelforcitizensshouldbeexaminedmoreindetailinfuturestudies,notleastintermsofeffectonexistingsocialstructuresandorganizationalroutinesorredistributionofpower.However,theanalysissofarshowsaveryhybridpictureofimpactsoncitizenempowerment,wherefullempowermentofcitizensis(inmostcases)nothappening;andevenwhenactiveco-productionispracticed,governmentsretaintop-downdirectivecontrolovertheprocess.Thisispartlyexplainedbythenaturethedatawasgathered(self-reporting),whichprobablyunderreportsbottom-upinitiatives.Atthesametime,itdemonstrateswhatgovernmentsthemselvesdeemimportantindigitalco-productionandwhatisthelikelydirectionofco-productioninnovationsinthenearfuture.Itmayverywellbethecasethattheinherentfeaturesofthedigitaltechnologiesandtheopportunitiestheycreate(speed,scale,reach,efficiencyetc.)maysignificantlyinfluencehowgovernmentsgoaboutco-production.Andinspiteofrhetoric,thismayhavenotthatmuchtodohavingcitizensactivelyco-producingtheservices.Therefore,whentheaimofusingdigitaltechnologiesistoincrease
93
theefficiencyandeffectivenessofpublicservicesbyinvolvingcitizensinactiveco-production,thereisstillplentytodoinordertodesigntheco-productionprocessesinawaythatallowsrealempowerment,activeengagementandtwo-waycommunicationbetweenthecitizenandthestate.
References
Androutsopoulou,A.,F.Mureddu,E.Loukis,Y.Charalabidis(2016)PassiveExpert-SourcingforPolicyMakingintheEuropeanUnion,InE.Tambourisetal.(Eds.),ePart2016,LNCS9821,pp.162–175,�DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_13.
Arnstein,S.R.A.,(1969)Ladderofcitizenparticipation.JAIP35(4),216-224.
Bandura,A.(2001)SocialCognitiveTheory:AnAgenticPerspective,AnnualReviewofPsychology,52(1),pp.1–26,DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Bartels,K.P.R.(2013)PublicEncounters:TheHistoryandFutureofFace-To-FaceContactbetweenPublicProfessionalsandCitizens,PublicAdministration,91(2),pp.469–483,DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02101.x.
Batty,M.,Axhausen,K.W.,Giannotti,F.etal(2012).SmartCitiesoftheFuture,EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics,214,pp.481-518.
Bouckaert,G.,S.VandeWalle(2003)ComparingMeasuresofCitizenTrustandUserSatisfactionasIndicatorsof‘GoodGovernance’:DifficultiesinLinkingTrustandSatisfactionIndicators,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,69,pp.329–343,DOI:
Bovaird,T.(2005)PublicGovernance:BalancingStakeholderPowerinaNetworkSociety,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,71(2),pp.217–228,DOI:10.1177/0020852305053881.
Bovaird,T.(2007)BeyondEngagementandParticipation:UserandCommunityCoproductionofPublicServices,PublicAdministrationReview,67(5),pp.846-860,DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.
Bovaird,T.,E.Löffler(2012)FromEngagementtoCo-Production:TheContributionofUsersandCommunitiestoOutcomesandPublicValue,Voluntas,23(4),pp.1119–1138,DOI:10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
Bovaird,T.,G.Stoker,T.Jones,E.Löffler,M.P.Roncancio(2015a)Activatingcollectiveco-productionofpublicservices:influencingcitizenstoparticipateincomplexgovernancemechanismsintheUK,InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,0(0),1–22,DOI:10.1177/0020852314566009.
Bovaird,T.,G.G.VanRyzin,E.Löffler,S.Parrado(2015b).ActivatingCitizenstoParticipateinCollectiveCo-ProductionofPublicServices.JournalofSocialPolicy,44,pp.1-23,DOI:10.1017/S0047279414000567.
94
Brandsen,T.;Honingh,M.,2015.Distinguishingdifferenttypesofcoproduction:Aconceptualanalysisbasedontheclassicaldefinitions.PublicAdministrationReview,76(3),427-435.Brandsen,T.,V.Pestoff(2006)Co-Production,theThirdSectorandtheDeliveryofPublicServices:Anintroduction,PublicManagementReview,8(4),pp.493-501,DOI:10.1080/14719030601022874.
Breton,M.,1994.Onthemeaningofempowermentandempowerment-orientedsocialworkpractice.Socialworkwithgroups,17(3),pp.23-37.
CardulloP.,R.Kitchin(2017)Beinga‘citizen’inthesmartcity:Upanddownthescaffoldofsmartcitizenparticipation,ProgrammableCityWorkingPaper30,Publishedasanopenaccesspre-printonSocArXiv:https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/v24jn.
Clark,B.,J.Brudney,S.-G.Jang(2013)CoproductionofGovernmentServicesandtheNewInformationTechnology:InvestigatingtheDistributionalBiases,PublicAdministration
Review,73(5),pp.687–701,DOI:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-5.�
Clarke,J.(2005)NewLabour’scitizens:activated,empowered,responsibilized,abandoned?,CriticalSocialPolicy,25(4),pp.447–463,DOI:10.1177/0261018305057024.
Fagerberg,J.2005.‘Innovation:AGuidetotheLiterature’inJ.Fagerberg,D.C.MoweryandR.R.Nelson(eds),TheOxfordHandbookofInnovation.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1–26.
Fledderus,J.,T.Brandsen,M.Honingh(2013)RestoringTrustthroughtheCo-ProductionofServices:ATheoreticalElaboration,PublicManagementReview,16(3),pp.424–443,DOI:10.1080/14719037.2013.848920.
Florin,P.,A.Wandersman(1990)AnIntroductiontoCitizenParticipation,VoluntaryOrganisations,andCommunityDevelopment:InsightsforEmpowermentthroughResearch,AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,18(1),pp.41-52,DOI:
Frow,Pennie,SuviNenonen,AdrianPayne,andKajStorbacka."ManagingCo-creationDesign:AStrategicApproachtoInnovation."BritishJournalofManagement26,no.3(2015):463-483.
Gelderman,C.J.,P.W.Th.Ghijsen,R.vanDiemen�(2011)Choosingself-servicetechnologiesorinterpersonalservices—Theimpactofsituationalfactorsandtechnology-relatedattitudes,JournalofRetailingandConsumerServices,18,pp.414-421,DOI:10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.003.
Gilliatt,S.,J.Fenwick,D.Alford(2000)PublicServicesandtheConsumer:EmpowermentorControl?,SocialPolicyandAdministration,34(3),pp.333-349,DOI:
Gofen,A.(2015)Citizens’EntrepreneurialRoleinPublicServiceProvision,PublicManagement
Review,17(3),pp.404-424,DOI:10.1080/14719037.2013.822533.
GovLab(2013)TowardsReimaginingGovernance.MappingthePathwaytowardsmoreeffectiveandengagedgovernance.Availableat:http://thegovlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GovLabMapDocument.pdf
95
Hardina,D.(2003)LinkingCitizenParticipationtoEmpowermentPractice,JournalofCommunityPractice,11(4),pp.11-38,DOI:10.1300/J125v11n04_02.
Hastings,A.,Bailey,N.,Bramley,G.,Croudace,R.,&Watkins,D.(2014).‘Managing‘theMiddleClasses:UrbanManagers,PublicServicesandtheResponsetoMiddle-ClassCapture,LocalGovernmentStudies,Taylor&Francis,40,2,203-223.
Jakobsen,M.,S.C.Andersen(2013)CoproductionandEquityinPublicServiceDelivery,PublicAdministrationReview,73(5),pp.704–713,DOI:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-5.�
Janssen,M.andEstevez,E.,(2013)Leangovernmentandplatform-basedgovernance—Doingmorewithless.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,30,pp.S1-S8.
Jo,S.andNabatchi,T.,(2016)GettingBacktoBasics:AdvancingtheStudyandPracticeofCoproduction.InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,39(13),1101-1108.
Jung,T.(2010)Citizens,Co-producers,Customers,Clients,Captives?Acriticalreviewofconsumerismandpublicservices,PublicManagementReview,12(3),pp.439–446,�DOI:10.1080/14719031003787940.
Kitchin,R.(2016).Reframing,reimaginingandremakingsmartcities.TheProgrammableCityWorkingPaper20.Avilableat:https://osf.io/cyjhg.
Kornberger,M.,Meyer,R.E.,Brandtner,C.andHöllerer,M.A.,2017.WhenBureaucracyMeetstheCrowd:Studying“OpenGovernment”intheViennaCityAdministration.OrganizationStudies,38(2),pp.179-200.
Leonardi,P.M.andBarley,S.R.,2010.What’sunderconstructionhere?Socialaction,materiality,andpowerinconstructiviststudiesoftechnologyandorganizing.Academyof
ManagementAnnals,4(1),pp.1-51.
Linders,D.,2012.Frome-governmenttowe-government:Definingatypologyforcitizencoproductionintheageofsocialmedia.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,29(4),pp.446-454.
Lukes,S.(2005).Power,aradicalview.London:Macmillan.
Maringe,F.,N.Sing(2014)Teachinglargeclassesinanincreasinglyinternationalisinghighereducationenvironment:pedagogical,qualityandequityissues,HighEduc,67,pp.761–782,DOI:10.1007/s10734-013-9710-0.
Martin,S.2005.Engagingwithcitizensandotherstakeholders.In:Bovaird,T.andLöffler,E.(eds)PublicManagementandGovernance.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,189-202.
Meijer,A.(2012),“Co-productioninanInformationAge:IndividualandCommunityEngagementSupportedbyNewMedia,”Voluntas,vol.23,no.4,pp.1156–1172.
Mergel,I.,2013.Aframeworkforinterpretingsocialmediainteractionsinthepublicsector.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,30(4),pp.327-334.
Mergel,I.(2016)SocialMediainthePublicSector.In:EncyclopediaofPublicAdministrationandPublicPolicy,pp.3018-3021.DOI:10.1081/E-EPAP3-120051204·
96
Nabatchi,T.,Sancino,A.andSicilia,M.,2017.VarietiesofParticipationinPublicServices:TheWho,When,andWhatofCoproduction.PublicAdministrationReview.DOI:10.1111/puar.12765
Nam,T.,2012.Suggestingframeworksofcitizen-sourcingviaGovernment2.0.Government
InformationQuarterly,29(1),pp.12-20.DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005
Needham,C.(2008).RealisingthePotentialofCo-production:NegotiatingImprovementsinPublicServices.SocialPolicyandSociety,7,pp.221-231,DOI:10.1017/S1474746407004174.
Newman,J.,2010.Towardsapedagogicalstate?Summoningthe‘empowered’citizen.Citizenshipstudies,14(6),pp.711-723.
O’Neil,C.2015.WeaponsofMathDestruction.HowBigDataIncreasesInequalityandThreatensDemocracy.AllenLane.
Osborne,S.,K.Strokosch(2013)Ittakestwototango?Understandingtheco-productionofpublicservicesbyintegratingtheservicesmanagementandpublicadministrationperspectives,BritishJournalofManagement,Vol.24,pp.S31–S47,DOI:10.1111/1467-8551.12010.
Osborne,S.P.,Z.Radnor,K.Strokosch(2016)
Ostrom,E.(1996)Crossingthegreatdivide:coproduction,synergy,anddevelopment,WorldDevelopment,24(6),pp.1073-1087,DOI:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
Paarlberg,L.E.(2007)TheImpactofCustomerOrientationonGovernmentEmployeePerformance,InternationalPublicManagementJournal,10:2,201-231,DOI:10.1080/10967490701323720.
Parks,R.B.,Baker,P.C.,Kiser,L.,Oakerson,R.,Ostrom,E.,Ostrom,V.,Percy,S.L.,Vandivort,M.B.,Whitaker,G.P.andWilson,R.(1981)ConsumersasCo-ProducersofPublicServices:SomeEconomicandInstitutionalConsiderations,PolicyStudiesJournal.9(7),pp.1001-1011,DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x.
Parrado,S.,VanRyzin,G.G.,Bovaird,T.,&Löffler,E.(2013).Correlatesofco-production:Evidencefromafive-nationsurveyofcitizens.InternationalPublicManagementJournal,16,85-112.
Pazaitis,A.,Kostakis,V.andBauwens,M.,2017.Digitaleconomyandtheriseofopencooperativism:thecaseoftheEnspiralNetwork.Transfer:EuropeanReviewofLabourandResearch,p.1024258916683865.
Pellerin,C.(2016)DoDInvitesVettedSpecialiststo‘Hack’thePentagon,DoDNews,DefenseMedia
Activity,accessedathttps://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/684616/dod-invites-vetted-specialists-to-hack-the-pentagon/on23.05.2017.
Pestoff,V.(2006)Citizensandco-productionofwelfareservices,PublicManagementReview,8:4,503-519,DOI:10.1080/14719030601022882.
Pestoff,V.(2012)‘Co-ProductionandThirdSectorSocialServicesinEurope:SomeCrucialConceptualIssues’,inV.Pestoff,T.BrandsenandB.Verschuere(eds.),NewPublicGovernance,theThirdSectorandCo-Production,NewYork:Routledge.
97
Peters,B.G.,Pierre,J.(2000)CitizensVersusthe�NewPublicManager:�TheProblemofMutualEmpowerment,AdministrationandSociety,32(1),pp.9-28,DOI:
Rajah,E.,R.Marshall,I.Nam(2008)RelationshipGlue:CustomersandMarketersCo-CreatingaPurchaseExperience,AdvancesinConsumerResearch,35,pp.367–673,DOI:
Richter,P.,J.Cornford(2007)CustomerRelationshipManagementandCitizenship:TechnologiesandIdentitiesinPublicServices,SocialPolicy&Society,7(2),pp.211–220,DOI:10.1017/S1474746407004162.
Rissel,C.(1994)Empowerment:TheHolyGrailofHealthPromotion?,HealthPromotionInternational,9(1),pp.39-47,DOI:
Soffer,T.,A.Cohen(2015)ImplementationofTelAvivUniversityMOOCsinAcademicCurriculum:APilotStudy,InternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistributedLearning,16(1),pp.80-97,
Sørensen,E.(1997)DemocracyandEmpowerment,PublicAdministration,75,pp.553-567,DOI:
Surva,L.,Tõnurist,P.andLember,V.,2016.Co-ProductioninaNetworkSetting:ProvidinganAlternativetotheNationalProbationService.InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,39(13),pp.1031-1043.DOI:10.1080/01900692.2016.1193752
Storbacka,K.,R.J.Brodie,T.Böhmann,P.P.Maglio,S.Nenonen(2016)Actorengagementasamicrofoundationforvalueco-creation.JournalofBusinessResearch,69(8),pp.3008–3017,DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034.
Szkuta,K.,Pizzicannella,R.,&O.,David.(2014).Collaborativeapproachestopublicsectorinnovation:Ascopingstudy,TelecommunicationsPolicy,38,5–6,pp558–567.
Teichert,T.,K.Rost(2003)Trust,InvolvementProfileandCustomerRetention–Modelling,EffectsandImplications,InternationalJournalofTechnologyManagement,26(5/6),pp.621–639,DOI:10.1504/IJTM.2003.003426.
Thomsen,M.K.(2015):“CitizenCoproduction:TheInfluenceofSelf-EfficacyPerceptionandKnowledgeofHowtoCoproduce”AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,1-14.
Townsend,A.M.,2013.Smartcities:Bigdata,civichackers,andthequestforanewutopia.WWNorton&Company.
Tõnurist,P.andDeTavernier,W.,2017.Thewelfarestateinflux:Individualresponsibilityandchangingaccountabilityrelationsinsocialservices.In:RoutledgeHandbookToAccountabilityandWelfareStateReformsinEurope.Routledge.
Tõnurist,P.andSurva,L.,(2017)IsVolunteeringAlwaysVoluntary?BetweenCompulsionandCoercioninCo-production.VOLUNTAS:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,28(1),223–247.DOI:10.1007/s11266-016-9734-z
Tuurnas,S.,J.Stenvall,P.-H.Rannisto(2015)Theimpactofco-productiononfrontlineaccountability:thecaseoftheconciliationservice,InternationalReviewofAdministrative
Sciences,0(0),pp.1–19,DOI:10.1177/0020852314566010.
98
Voorberg,W.H.,V.J.J.M.Bekkers,L.G.Tummers(2015)ASystematicReviewofCo-CreationandCo-Production:Embarkingonthesocialinnovationjourney,PublicManagementReview,17:9,1333-1357,DOI:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
Webster,W.,C.Leleux(2017)SmartGovernance:AMulti-disciplinaryUnderstanding,andOpportunitiesforCitizenCo-production.IRSPMconference,Budapest,19-21April2017.
Wherton,J.,Sugarhood,P.,Procter,R.,Hinder,S.andGreenhalgh,T.,2015.Co-productioninpractice:howpeoplewithassistedlivingneedscanhelpdesignandevolvetechnologiesandservices.ImplementationScience,10(75),1-10.DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0271-8
Whitaker,G.P.(1980).Coproduction:CitizenParticipationinServiceDelivery.PublicAdministration
Review40(3):240–46.
Williams,B.N.,S.-C.Kang,J.Johnson(2015)(Co)-ContaminationastheDarkSideofCo-Production:Publicvaluefailuresinco-productionprocesses,PublicManagementReview,DOI:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111660.
Yuan,L.,S.Powell(2013)MOOCsandOpenEducation:ImplicationsforHigherEducation.Awhitepaper,JISCCentreforEducationalTechnologyandInteroperabilityStandards,downloadedfromhttp://www.thepdfportal.com/moocs-and-open-education_101588.pdf(19.05.2017).
99
ClientCoproductionfromOnlinetoOffline:EvidencefromChinese
PublicBikeService
YunxiangZhangSchoolofInternationalRelationsandPublicAffairs,FudanUniversity
YunxiangZhangisaPhDcandidateinPublicAdministrationattheSchoolofInternational
RelationsandPublicAffairs(SIRPA)ofFudanUniversity,China.Heisalsoavisitingdoctoral
studentatGeorgiaStateUniversity,US.Hisareasofexpertisearepublicservicecoproduction
andpublicparticipation.
AbstractClientcoproductionofe-servicehasbecomeanimportantresearchissueinthecontextofInformationSocietyandE-Government.FocusingonOnlinetoOffline(O2O)clientcoproduction,atypeofclientcoproductionutilizingonlineplatformtoelicitofflinecoproduction,thispaperexploreshowInternetcouldenabletheemergenceofanewtypeofclientcoproductionanditscoproductionprocessinon-/off-linelayersoffourstages.ThecaseofChinesePublicBikeServiceisanalyzedbasedonthetheoreticalmodedeveloped.ThefindinginthisarticlesuggeststhatInternetisessentialincreatingavirtualcommunityofclientsandserviceproviderssothattheirdigitalcontactcouldincreasetheirpotentialtocooperate.Inaddition,Internetisalsoimportanttoamplifyserviceproviders’toolkitinpromotingofflineclientcoproductionwithonlinemobilization.Finally,InternethelpstoconnectvariousstagesofO2Oclientcoproduction,makingcoproductionprocessbothdurableandsustainable.Thoughpreliminary,thisexploratorymodecanhelptorevealthepotentialofInternetinfacilitatingtheemergenceofanewtypeofclientcoproductionlessnoticedinthepreviousstudies.Implicationandpotentialdirectionsforfuturestudiesarealsodiscussed.
Keywords:ClientCoproduction,O2O,PublicBikeService
100
ClientCoproductionfromOnlinetoOffline:EvidencefromChinesePublicBikeService
Introduction
Coproduction,whichoriginatedintheworkshopofpoliticaltheoryandpolicyanalysisinIndianaUniversityin1970s(Percy,1984),hasattractedtheattentionofpublicadministrationscholarsagaininrecentyears(Thomas,2012).Almostalltypesofpublicservicerequiresomeextentofcontributionfromthecitizens(Ostrom,1996),whichmakesresearchofthecoproductionessentialforourunderstandingofpublicserviceinaperspectiveofService-DominateLogic(Osborneetal.,2016).
Thispaperfocusesonclientcoproduction,whichcouldbedefinedasanyactivebehaviorby‘apersonwithoneormorerolesofpaycustomer,beneficiaryorobligateeoutsidethegovernmentagency’,which:a)‘isconjointwithagencyproduction,orinindependentofitbutpromotedbysomeactionoftheagency’;b)‘isatleastpartlyvoluntary’;andc)‘eitherintentionallyorunintentionallycreatesprivateand/orpublicvalue,intheformofeitheroutputsoroutcomes’(Alford,2009:23,46).Hence,itfocusesmainlyontheclient’scontributionandcooperationinthepublicservicedeliveryandprovision.
Scholarsareinterestedintheprocessbywhichcoproductiontakesplace.Etgar(2008)hasproposedthatthisprocessincludesfivedistinctstages:(1)‘developmentofantecedentconditions’,(2)‘developmentofmotivations’,(3)‘calculationoftheco-productioncost-benefits’,(4)‘activationwhenconsumersbecomeengagedintheactualperformanceoftheco-producingactivities’,and(5)‘generationofoutputsandevaluationoftheresultsoftheprocess’.Besidesthevariousstagesclientsareengagedin,variationalsoliesindifferentcontributionsclientscouldmaketoinputs,processes,outputsandoutcomesofpublicservice(Alford,2009:179).
Theseeffortstoexplainhowclientsareengagingincoproductionhavemanagedtodepictacomparativelycomprehensivelandscapeofprocessinclientcoproductionsofar.However,howclientcoproductionprocesshasevolvedinthecontextofInformationCommunicationTechnology(ICT)isalessexploredquestion.PreviousstudiessuggestthatICTcouldeffectivelypromotethedevelopmentofsocialnetwork(Eggers,2005)andlayagoodfoundationforcoproductionandforcitizenstoimpactpublicsector(Leadbeater&Cottam,2007).Inaddition,ICThasnolongerbejustaninformationmediabutaplatformforcommunicationandinteraction,whichmeetthesocialandemotionaldemandofthecitizens,andhencepromotetheimplementationofcoproduction(Meijer,2011).Consequently,ICThasbeenaddingtoboththeinstrumentalvalueandinstitutionalvaluetothecoproduction(KlingandDunlop,1991;Snellen&vandeDonk,1998;Meijer,2012).ThesefindingsindicateICT’spotentialbenefitsforformingnewtypeofcoproduction(Meijer,2012;Osborne&Strokosch,2013),whilehowthisnewtypeofcoproductioniscreatedwiththefacilitationofInternetplatformisstillunclear.
Inthiscontext,thisarticleintendstoinvestigatethefollowingquestion:howmightaclientcoproductionprocessbeimpactedbyanInternetplatform?IfanInternetplatformhasgreatlyreshapedtheprocessofclientcoproduction,itwouldbereasonabletoarguethatanewtypeofcoproductionhasemergedandmoreattentionshouldbepaidtothisemergingtrend.
101
Forthesakeofresearchfeasibility,thisarticlemainlyfocusesononetypeofclientcoproductionusingICT,thatis,OnlinetoOffline(O2O)ClientCoproduction,theclientcoproductionutilizingonlineplatformtopromotetheimplementationofofflinecoproduction.Theremainderofthisarticlewillunfoldasfollows.First,thetheoreticaldiscussionwillexaminedefinitionandcharacteristicsofO2OClientCoproduction.Withthatfoundation,thesecondpartwillconsiderhowO2OClientCoproductionwouldvaryfromtheirtraditionalofflinecounterpartinthecoproductionprocesstodevelopamodeofO2Oclientcoproduction,drawingfromparallelliteraturesonpublicparticipation,e-serviceandO2Oe-commerce.Inthethirdpart,thecaseofChinesePublicBikeService(PBS)willbeanalyzedbasedonthepreviousdiscussion.ThepaperwillexplorehowPBSinChinausingO2Oclientcoproduction,namelyOnlineSharingBike(OSB),mightaddressobstacleshamperingsustainableprovisionofurbanPBSinthepreviousmodesinChinaandthusrocketitsmarketoccupationinrecentyears.ThelastpartprovidesconclusionofthefindingsinthisarticleandbrieflydiscusseshowthesefindingscouldrespondtopreviousliteratureofcoproductionandPBS,andrevealthepotentialforfuturestudies.
O2OClientCoproduction
Asitadvances,e-governmentismovingitsfocusfrominternalroutinestoscenariosinwhichcitizensusepublice-servicestocompletecomplextransactionswithgovernmentauthorities(Asgarkhani,2005;Layne&Lee,2001).However,embracingcitizenengagementintopracticeisactuallyachallengingmission(OECD,2009).O2Oclientcoproductionisexactlyanapproachclientcouldgetengagedinandbecontributivetoe-serviceprovision.
O2Oclientcoproductionisdefinedinthisarticleastheclientcoproductionutilizingonlineplatformtopromotetheimplementationofofflinecoproduction.ItoriginatesfromO2Oe-commerceinprivatesectors,whichcouldbeexemplifiedbyservicesprovidedbyYelp,UberandTripAdvisor(Xiao&Dong,2015).AsthesameasO2Oe-commerce,aimingto‘findcustomersonlineandbringthemintoreal-worldstores’(Rampell,2010,inHeetal.,2016),O2Oclientcoproductionintegratesonlinedigitalinteractionlikeservicemarketing,communication,andtransaction,andthuspromotesthecoproductionintheofflinerealworld.Inthisprocess,contributionsfromclientsarepromotedbyserviceprovidersthroughonlineplatform,perhapstogetherwiththeofflinecommunity,andthepublicand/orprivatevaluesarecreatedandextendedfromonlinetoofflinelayer.
SeveralcharacteristicsdistinguishO2Oclientcoproductionfromothere-servicecoproduction.First,on-/off-linelayersofO2Oclientcoproductionareintertwiningwitheachother.Theirfunctionsexisttogetherthroughoutallstagesofcoproduction,ratherthanseparateorsubstitutivewiththerest.Second,O2Oclientcoproductionrootsdeeplyintheofflinerealworld.Theserviceoutputandoutcomearemainlyproducedoffline,whichisdifferentfromthepureonlinee-transaction.ThismakesO2Oclientcoproductionemphasizesmoreonofflineclientengagement.Consequently,theinterconnectednessbetweenon-/off-linelayersaremuchtighterthanothertypesofe-service.Finally,thefunctionofonlinelayerorinternetplatformistoservetheaimtoimpactclients’offlinebehaviorsandelicittheirofflinecoproduction,ratherthansimplygatheringclientsanddeliveringinformationtothemes.
102
O2Oclientcoproductionhasbeenbecomingmoreandmorefrequentlyadoptedbyserviceprovidersallovertheworld.Forinstance,WordofMouthisatypicalwaythatclientscouldcontributetomarketingcoproductionutilizedbymanye-servicemerchantsasYelpandTripAdvisoraforementioned(Litvinetal.,2008;Brownetal.,2007).Thosedigitalservicehighlyreliesontheinformationandknowledgeprovidedbythecommunityofclientssothatclientscouldconsumeofflineservicethatismoreresponsivetotheirdemand.EspeciallyinconsistenttotherocketinggrowthofO2OcommercemarketincountrieslikeChina,moreandmoreofflineserviceprovidersaretransitingsomepartoftheirservicechainsonlinetoembraceinstantdigitalinteractionwithclients,toenhancetheirsupportofuserparticipationandtoexpanditsvenueforcoproduction.
ModeofO2OClientCoproduction
TheusageofInternetimpactstheapproachesandextentinwhichclientsandserviceprovidersinteractwitheachother.AsRustandLemon(2001inEtgar,2008)arguethatthe‘adventoftheInternetofferstrueinteractivitywiththeconsumer,customer-specific,situationalpersonalization,andtheopportunityforreal-timeadjustmentstoafirm’sofferingtocustomers’.Inaddition,Internetalsocreatesanonlinevirtualvenuethatisabsentinthetraditionalclientcoproduction,whichleadstotheparallelbutreinforcingprocessofO2Oclientcoproductiononlineandoffline.However,thepreviousstudiesmainlyfocusonhowICTcouldimpacttheinteractionmechanismsbetweenactors,andonhowtheoutputsoroutcomesareaffectedbythenewtechnology,themodeofthisnewemergingO2Oclientcoproductionprocessistheoreticallyunclearsofar.Consequently,itisessentialtoexploretheprocessofO2Oclientcoproduction,morespecifically,howO2Oclientcoproductionwiththeon-/off-linelayersisdifferentfromthetraditionalofflineclientcoproduction.
ThismodeofO2OclientcoproductionasfollowsisinspiredbytheworkofEtgar(2008).However,thesecondandthirdstagehementionedas‘developmentofthedominantlogicandofthemotivationdrives’and‘evaluationofcostsandcost–benefitanalysis’(Etgar,2008)arecombinedinthisarticle,asclients’motivationdrivesaresurelyattributetoclients’evaluationofcostsandcost-benefitanalysis,andhenceitistoohardtodistinguishthesetwostagesinreality.Moreover,differentfromEtgar’smode,whatisemphasizedhereinthisarticleishowInternetenablesanonlinescript,andextendsthisscriptintotheofflinescenarios.Consequently,thismodemainlyfocusesondecomposingO2Oclientcoproductionintodifferentstagesinbothonlineandofflinelayers.
Figure1.ModeofO2OClientCoproductionisinsertedhere.
FirstStage:Preconditions
Certainantecedentconditionsshouldbemettoengageclientsincoproduction.AndinternetisexactlytheessentialpreconditionforO2OClientCoproduction.
103
First,Internetisthefoundationtocreateanonlinelayer.Thisenablestheestablishmentofonlinevirtualcommunity,whichisthenetworkforonlineinformation,knowledgeandvaluedissemination.Italsofacilitatesclients’mutualcommunicationandreciprocity.BecauseInternetintegratesdifferentmodalitiesofcommunicationasreciprocalinteraction,broadcasting,individualreferencesearching,groupdiscussionandperson-machineinteractioninasinglemedium(DiMaggioetal.,2001),theonlinelayerofO2Oclientcoproductionenablesamultimodal,interactiveandlow-costcontactamongprovidersandclients.Onthisbase,Internetcreatesmorepotentialforclientstocontributetheirinformation,knowledge,andvalueinserviceprovisioncomparedtotraditionalofflinelayer.
Inaddition,someofofflinefunctionscouldbetransitedintoonlineplatforminO2Oclientcoproduction.Thisonlinecontextprovidessolutionforthespatial,temporalandotherphysicalobstacles(Krueger,2002;Min,2010),enablesserviceproviderstosupplyserviceremotely(Robeyetal.,2003),andestablishmorenon-localsocialnetwork(Valenzulaetal.,2012).Inthissense,Internetcoulddecreasethedifficultiesinofflineserviceprovisionforserviceproviders.
Whenthisimpactisextendedtotheofflinelayer,Internethelpstoincreasethetechnicalfeasibilityforclientcoproduction.Internetfacilitatesmanymodernserviceproductionandprovisiontechnology,GeographicInformationSystemforinstance,andthusenablesmanyserviceinnovationswithuserparticipation(Brovellietal.,2016).Hence,theemergenceofICTgivesbirthtomanytypesofclientcoproductionthatcannotberealizedintraditionalofflinevenue.Internetcouldalsoreducecostsanddelaysindeliveringservices,andincreasestransparencyandpublicaccountability(Haque,2002).ICTelicitsthepublicservicetoemphasizeexteriorconnectionotherthaninteriorprocessaswell(Tat-KeiHo,2002).Inthissense,Internetnotonlyaddstothetechnologicalfeasibilityofofflinepublicserviceprovision,butalsoaddstootherculturalandstructuralpreconditionsnecessaryforofflineclientcoproduction.
Moreessentially,Internetcouldalsoenhancethesocialtieamongtheonlineusersevenintheofflinecommunity.Forinstance,onlinegroupcommunicationcanleadtonewofflinecontacts(Valenzulaetal.,2012)andincreaseweakties,transformingmembersofsuchasocialnetworktotiestosub-network(Evans-Cowley,2010).Thiswouldbeessentialforpromoteofflinecoproductionsincesenseofcommunitybelongingisanimportantfactorforclientcoproduction(VanEijk&Steen,2015).Inthissense,theonlinesocialnetworkcouldsomehowbeextendedintotheofflinelayerinpreconditionstage,whichaddstothepossibilityofclientcoproduction.
SecondStage:Motivations
Clients’motivations,suchasmaterialself-interest,intrinsicmotivations,sociality,andexpressivevalues,areessentialinpromotingcoproduction(Alford,2009:66).DevelopingabilityinO2Oclientcoproductionisalsoimportantasclients’assessmentoftheirabilitytoimpacttheoutcomeofcoproductionwoulddeterminetheirefficacy,andwillingnesseventually.Inthissense,developingmotivationsiscombinedwithdevelopingabilityinthesecondstageofO2Oclientcoproduction.
Inmotivationstage,clientsassesstheirmotivationtodetermineiftheywouldparticipateinO2Oclientcoproduction.Internetcouldbehelpfultoincreasetheirmotivationbothonlineandoffline.Inonlinelayer,assomefunctionsofdissemination,communication,interaction,and
104
transactioncanbetransitedtoonlinelayerinthefirststage,itwouldbemoreconvenientforclientstoobtainserviceinformation,expressopinions,andcompletepaymentonline.Thismeetstheirmaterialself-interestasthesecoststoconsumeandcoproduceonlinecouldthusbedecreased.Inaddition,theonlineparticipationcouldalsomeettheintrinsicdemandsofsomeclientsasitprovidespotentialvenuesforthemtoimpacttheservicequality,benefitingotherclientsandobtainingfeelingsofcompetentandself-determinantinthemeantime.Theonlinelayercouldalsomeetclients’socialdemandsthroughenablingsocialinteractionsamongtheminadditiontoofflinecontact,andmeettheirnormofreciprocityandsharedlanguage(Yang&Li,2017).
Meanwhile,thisimpactofInternetisalsoextendedoffline.Assomemaintenancecostsarereducedbyonlineremotework,theserviceproviderscouldendurealowerpriceandthuspotentiallyincreasethebenefitsclientsmightenjoy,whichmeetstheirmaterialself-interest.Inaddition,theusageofInternetcouldalsohelptoaddtoclients’abilityincoproduction.Clientscouldseekinstantsupportfrombothserviceprovidersandotherclientswithouttimeandspatiallimitations.Attributedtothepotentialreinventionofserviceprocess,proceduralandtechnicaldifficultiesforclientcoproductioncouldalsobereduced.Consequently,clientswouldbemorewillingandcapabletogetengagedinO2OclientcoproductionwiththeeffectivesupportofInternet.
ThirdStage:Activation
Whenclientsfindthemselvesmotivatedtogetengaged,theyenterthethirdstagetoactivatetheimplementationofO2Oclientcoproduction.However,serviceprovidershavevariousexpectationsontheircontributioninon-/off-linelayers.
AsinO2Oclientcoproduction,outputandoutcomearemainlyproducedoffline,clientsaremainlyexpectedtocontributetoserviceinput.Forexample,clientscouldcontributetotheservicedesigningthroughuserparticipationandopeninnovation.Thiscoproductionofknowledgeandvaluecouldbeasolutionfortheeffectivenessandefficiencyofservicedelivered(Pohletal.,2010).Italsohelpstogetserviceproviderbetterinformedofclients’demands,andtheycouldthusproduceanddeliverrelevantservicetoclientswhohaveprovidedthisinformationaccordingtotheirpreferences(Etgar,2008).Inaddition,clientscouldbeintegratedtoareciprocalnetworkinthattheycouldprovidesupportslikeinformation,skillandevenotherresourcestoothers(Lee&Choi,2017;Pai&Tsai,2016).Thesesupportcouldbetransformedintotheinputofotherclients’coproduction.Inthisprocess,internetplaysanessentialroleasaplatformforclientstoconvenientlycoproduceserviceinput.However,itisnotice-worthythattheonlinecoproductionofinputisnottheendofO2Oclientcoproductionsincetheonlinelayeriseventuallytoservetheneedofofflinecoproduction.Therefore,clientcoproductionofserviceinputonlineiselicitedbyserviceproviderinordertoencourageandpromoteclients’contributiontoserviceprocess,outputandoutcome.
Intheofflinelayer,clientsarefirstlyexpectedtocontributetotheprocessthroughtransformingthemselves.Clientscoproduceprocessbyactively(sometimespassively)complyingtoserviceproviders’regulationsormotivationssothatthey“togetherproducethedesiredtransformation”(Whitaker,1980).Meanwhile,clientscouldalsocontributetotheserviceproductionthroughproducingoutputandconvertingtheoutputintooutcomeinoffline
105
layer.Inthisprocess,clientsaredirectlyinvolvedinservicecustomization,andpromotingserviceperformanceandqualityjointlywithserviceproviders.
Nevertheless,clientcoproductioninon-/off-linelayersarenotentirelyseparatewitheachother.Onlinelayerplaysanimportantroleinactivatingandelicitingtheofflinecoproduction.Ingeneral,Internetradicallyreducesthecostofmobilizationefforts(Krueger,2006).Morespecifically,Internetprovidesavarietyofapproacheswithcomparativelowcosttoactivateofflinecoproduction.
First,Internetcouldbeusedinnudgingclients(Espositoetal.,2017).Peoplewillneednudgeswhendecisionsaredifficult,whentheydonotgetpromptfeedback,andwhentheyhavetroubleunderstandingtheirsituations(Thaler&Sunstein,2009:72).Internetcouldbeimportanttonudgeonlineuserstocoproductionofflinethroughseveralways.OneistorevealtheinstantoutputoroutcometoclientssothattheycouldgetpromptfeedbackabouttheircontributionandbenefitsinO2Oclientcoproduction.Anotherwayistoamplifytheimpactofpeerpressuretoclientsthroughonlinesocialnetwork.Offeringinstantsupportiveinformationcouldalsohelptodecreasethedifficultiesinclients’decisionmaking.Throughnudge,thechoicearchitectisimpactedbyInternet,promotingthepossibilitythatonlineusersmightactivelyengagedinofflineservicecoproduction.
Second,InternetcouldbeanessentialvehicletoinduceclientsinO2Oclientcoproductionaswell.Suchmotivatorsincludesanctions,materialrewards,intrinsicrewards,solidaryincentivesandnormativeappeals(Alford,2009:66).Internetcouldbeusedinmonitoringandreportingactors’behaviorsthroughservicedatarecord,whichisthefoundationforprovidingselectiveincentivesandpreventfreeriding.Thispromotesthepossibilityofcoproducingcollectivegoods(Ostrom,1996).Inthemeantime,Internetalsoprovidesvehiclestomeetintrinsicandsocialdemandsthroughonlinesocialsupportingmechanismsandsocialidentity,transferringonlinesocialsupporttosocialpsychologicalfactors(Chiuetal.,2015).Thisisalsorelatedtoclients’offlinebehaviors(Chambersetal.,2017;Chiuetal.,2015).Consequently,onlineinteractionamongserviceprovidersandclientsaremoreandmoredeeplyimpactingclients’contributionandcoproductionoffline.
ForthStage:Evaluation
EvaluationisthelaststageofO2Oclientcoproduction.Inthisstage,clientsgiveassessmentofoutputoroutcomeofcoproduction,anddecideiftheyarewillingtogetengagedcontinuously.InaccordancetoServiceDominantLogic,serviceprovisionisadurableexchangeprocessbetweenproviderandclient(Osborneetal.,2016),thecontinualintentionofclientisthusessentialforO2Oclientcoproductionforthelongrun.Inthisstage,Internetisimportanttosupportclientstoevaluatetheircostandbenefit,andmaketheirdecisiontocoproduceinnextround.
Varyingfromthepreviousstages,theimpactofInternetisextendedfromofflinetoonlineinevaluationstage.Internetcouldbeusedinservicedatamonitorandcollection,andvisualizingtoclientsafterwards.Clientscouldthuslearntherealityanddetailoftheircoproduction,whichwouldthuscomposeoftheirefficacyandmotivationincoproductioninthenextround.
106
Inaddition,Internetalsoprovidesanonlineplatformforclientstoexhibittheirevaluationofcoproductiontootherclientsofthevirtualcommunity.WordofMouth,aforementioned,isimportantforclientstoassesstheservicefromotherclients’perspectives.Internetalsoprovidesopportunitiesforclientstoprovidefeedbacktoserviceproviders.Therefore,Internetextendstheofflinecoproductioninformationintoonlineplatform,sothatthisinformationcouldbetransitedintoonlineinputofcoproductioninthenextround.
Insum,O2Oclientcoproductionisacontinuousprocessnotonlybecauseclientsarecalledfortogetengagedinthelongrun,butalsobecausetheonlineandofflinelayersarecontinuouslyintertwiningandinterconnectedwitheachother,providinglastingimpactonclients’motivationandbehaviorincoproduction.InternetisthekeyinthisconnectionamongvariousstagesandroundsofO2Oclientcoproduction.ThismodeofO2Oclientcoproductionrevealsthefactthatonlineplatformissoimportanttoofflineservicecoproductionthatitnotonlyprovideresourceslikeinformation,knowledgeandvaluetoclientsonline,butalsooffersamorecomplexapproachthatserviceprovidersandclientsareinteractingwitheachotherinbothonlineandofflinelayers.UtilizingICTcouldthusgivebirthtoanewtypeofclientcoproductionthatisdifferentfromthetraditionallinearofflinecoproduction.
O2OClientCoproductionofPublicBikeServiceinChina
PublicBikeService(PBS)meanscitizenscouldrentandusepublicbikesthatareownedandmaintainedbythepublicorprivateproviders,fortheirtransportationdemands,ratherthanusetheirownbikes.Generally,residentscouldfindandunlockpublicbikesingivenpublicbikestations,andreturnthebiketotheneareststationtotheirdestinations.IfPBSconsumptionischarged,itisusuallypricedbasedonthedistanceortimethatclientsusethebike.WhilePBSproviderswouldberesponsibleformaintainingthequalityandquantityofbothpublicbikesandbikestations.
SinceitsfirstinitiationinAmsterdam,Netherlands,backtolate1960s(Shaheenetal.,2010),PBShasbeenanemergingfashionwayfornavigatingthroughdenseurbanareas,whichisperceivedaseconomic,efficient,andhealthy(O’Brienetal.,2014).Inrecentyears,PBSisincreasinglyintroducedinmoreandmorecitiesinChina.Rationalforthistrendliesinitsadvantagesofrelievingtransportationpressureinurbanareas,substitutingvehiclesthataccelerateCarbonemissionwithgreentransportationandpromotingregularexercisesofriders.ForclientsofPBS,theycanaccesspublicbikeswithoutbearingthecostsofbikeownership(Shaheenetal.,2010),whileforurbanadministrators,PBScouldbeintegratedintopublictransportationsystem,andofferanimportantsolutionfor“LastMile”dilemmaforurbantransportation(Shaheenetal.,2010).Consequently,ChinesecitiesintroducedPBSinurbanareasin2005,providingpublicbikesinareaslikesubwaystationsandresidentialestates.
Differentfrompreviousstudies,whichareinvestigatingPBSfromtheperspectiveofUrbanorTransportationPlanning,thisarticlearguesthatPBSisatypeofclientcoproductionofpublictransportationservicerequiringcitizens’activecontributionandcompliance.First,itisbecausePBSrequiresclientcoproductionofserviceprocessbytransformingtheirtransportationbehaviorandhabit.Afterall,governmentcanneverforcecitizenstoridepublicbikeas
107
substitutionofothertransportation.Second,serviceproviderscouldonlyofferbikesasserviceoutput,butconvertingthisoutputintotransportationasserviceoutcomeisaccomplishedbyclientsthemselvesthroughridingtotheirowndestinations.Thatisthecoproductionofserviceoutcome.Andfinally,PBSrequiresclientsactivelycomplytoproperbikeusage.Theimproperusageofpublicbikewouldaddtothecostofserviceproviders,andhurttheservicequalityofotherclientseventually.Consequently,promotingclientcoproductioninPBSisvitaltoaPBSprogram.
Duetothelackofclientcoproduction,thedevelopmentofChinesePBSisnotassmoothassomeserviceprovidersestimated.Forseveralyears,manyChinesecitiesinitiatedtheirmodesofPBSbutturnedouttobefailed.TheemergenceofO2OclientcoproductionofPBS,however,tosomeextentconquersthesedifficulties,andthusleadstoarapidgrowthofOnlineSharingBike(OSB)inChinesemarket.Inthispart,thecaseofChinesePBSisdiscussedtoanalyzehowtheusageofInternetplatformcouldenableanewmodeofO2OclientcoproductioninPBSprovision,thatisdifferentfrompreviousofflinePBSmodes.
PreviousEffortsinPBSclientcoproduction
PBSisconsideredbythegovernmenttobepublicserviceinChina(Lohry&Yiu,2015).Over60citiesinChinahasestablishedPBSsystemsofar(Wanetal.,2016).In2005,BeijingMunicipalityinitiatedthePBSinitsurbanareastomeetthepotentialdemandofpublictransportationbeforeandduringBeijingOlympicGames(Zheng&Zhu,2014).TwocompanieswerelicensedtorunthePBSwiththemarketprice.However,clientsarenotwillingtopayhighforPBSconsumption,duetothegenerallowpriceofotherpublictransportationsubsidizedwithpublicexpenditureinBeijing.Forexample,BeijingMunicipalitywasinvestingmorethantenbillionsRMB(1.47BillionUSD)eachyearforthesubwaytransportationbetween2009and2014(BeijingPriceMonitorCenter,2014),keepingthesubwayticketpricetobegenerallylowerthan3RMB(0.43USD)pertripformorethanfiveyears.Thisextremelyrestrictsclients’estimatedexpenditureontransportation.Onthecontrary,thecosttomaintainservicequality,likequalityandquantityofbikesandbikestationsistoohightobecoveredbylimitedbenefitforserviceproviders.
Inaddition,thelimitedinteractionbetweenserviceprovidersandclientsrestrictsthepotentialforclientcoproductionsothatlittlecontributionsfromclientscouldbeexpected.Functionslikebikeconditionexamination,clients’behaviorsupervisionandbikestationmaintenancesignificantlyaddtotheserviceproductioncosttoPBSproviders.Henceitisnotsurprisingthatthetwoserviceprovidersbankruptedverysoon,declaringthefailureofeffortofPBSmarketization(Wangetal.,2011).
Ashortperiodlater,anothermodeofPublicPrivatePartnership(PPP)isinitiatedasrefinementofthemarketizationmode.ThePBSinWuhanCityisrunbyprivateenterpriseswhilesubsidizedbygovernmentthroughPurchase-of-ServiceContract.ThePPPmodelattractsgreatattentionsafteritsemergencein2009butveryquickly,manyproblemsintheserviceprovisionwerereported.Themajorproblemsarerelatedtothelimitedbikestations,brokenbikesandeventheterminationofserviceinsomeareasinthecity(Zhu,2014).Citizenscomplainedthattheavailablebicyclesaretoohardtobefoundandtheservicetimeiseventooshort(Lohry&Yiu,2015).AssameasinBeijingMode,interactionbetweenclientsandserviceprovidersisstill
108
limitedtohuman-machineinteraction,whichrestrictsthepotentialofclientcoproduction.Inaddition,somereportsevenfoundtheserviceproviderstransferredtheirresourcestootherindustrieslikepropertymarketandclinicalenergyaftertheyaccumulatedsomeprofitsandassets(Wang,2014).ThisleadstothecriticsofPPPintheChinesePBSthattheprivateserviceproviderscouldnotservepublicinterestandwelfare(Lohry&Yiu,2015).Consequently,thelimitedmotivationsforserviceproviderstosustainPBSattributetothefailureofPPPWuhanModeofPBS,implyingthatgovernmentsubsidiaryitselfcouldnotmitigatetheobstacleofclientcoproductionofPBSinChina.
ThefailuresoftheformertwomodelsmakethesuccessofHangzhouModeoutstandinginChinesePBS.HangzhouMunicipal,fromtheverybeginning,establishedastateenterpriseinthenameofHangzhouPublicTransportGroupCo.,Ltd.,anotherstateenterprise,torunPBSexclusively(HangzhouPublicBikeService,n.d.a).ThisGovernment-RunModehasmanagedtosustainhighservicequalityasthehighcostofservicemaintenanceiscomplimentedbypublicexpenditure.AlthoughsimilarproblemscouldstillbewitnessedasinWuhan,likelimitedbikestations,brokenbikes,andshortservicetimeforinstance,Hangzhoumanagedtoincreasinglyimproveitsservicequalitywiththegovernmentincrementalinvestment.Withthelowprice,widecoverage,andhighqualityofPBS,moreandmoreHangzhoucitizensarewillingtochoosepublicbikesassubstitutionofprivatevehiclesorotherpublictransportations.Untiltheendof2016,3737stationshavebeenconstructed,and86.8thousandbikeshavebeenprovidedto0.74billionclientsinHangzhou(HangzhouPublicBikeService,n.d.a).HangzhouModehasalsobeenintroducedinPBSofmanyothercities.Forexample,Xi’anMunicipalhasbeenfollowingHangzhou’spacetoinvestover0.2billionRMB(29.14millionUSD)toprovide42thousandbikesand1460bikestationssince2013(Wang,2016).NanjingMunicipalalsoinvestedabout0.11billionRMB(16.03millionUSD)toitsPBSin2015.Ingeneral,thepastyearswitnessedrapidgrowthofpublicexpenditureonPBS,andrapidservicediffusionofHangzhouModetowardsmoreChinesecities.
However,thismodestillhasdrawbacks.Sincetheserviceisrun,ormonopolizedinactualitybystateenterprisesandtheprofitaswellasthecostarethusmainlytakenoverbythepublicexpenditure,theserviceproviders’motivationtopromotetheserviceefficiencyisdoubt-worthy(Wangetal.,2011).Inaddition,thecostitselfmightcausegreatburdenonpublicbudget.Itisreportedthatover80millionRMB(11.66millionUSD)isinvestedinPBSofHangzhoueachyear(Wanetal.,2016).Giventhegreatdemandtoexpandserviceprovision,evenifthemunicipalhasbeenseekingothersourcesoffunds,throughadvertisementforinstance,thePBScouldpotentiallybecomeahugepressureforthepublicbudgetinthefuture.
Table1.PreviousModesofPBSClientCoproductioninChinaisinsertedhere.
PreviousstudiesmainlyattributethefailuresinMarketizationandPPPmodestothehighcostandlimitedmotivationsforproviderstopromoteservicequality(Lohry&Yiu,2015;Wanetal.,2016).PBSthusbecomeslessattractivetoprivateproviderssothatGovernmentRunModeseemstobeafinalsolution.However,thisarticlearguesthatthefailuresofmanyprevious
109
effortinPBSprovisionisduetotheirlackofclientcoproduction.Onthecontrary,O2OclientcoproductioncouldservetomitigatetheobstaclesinPBSprovisioninsteadofseekinghelpofpublicfinancialinvestment.Itisthroughgettingclientsengagedinservicecoproduction,O2OclientcoproductioncouldsomehowconquerthedifficultiespreviousPBSmodesfaced,andestablishanewmodeofPBSprovision.
Infact,ICThasalreadybeenintroducedinPBSprovision.OnewaytoutilizeICTinfacilitatingclients’consumptionofPBSistouseTwo-DimensionCodeinservicetransactionslikeregistrationandpayment(Sun&Zhang,2016).Transactioncostisthusexpectedtodecrease,asclientsarenolongerrequiredtogotoofflineservicestorestoopentheirPBSaccounts,andkeepanICcardforserviceconsumption.ManyServiceOperatorshavealsoregisteredaccountsonSocialNetworkSite(SNS)orestablishedAPPsonmobiledevicessoastodeliverserviceinformation(Xu,2016).However,thelimitedinteractionamongserviceprovidersandclientsstillpreventsprovidersfromelicitingclientcoproductionfromonlinetooffline.ThepotentialofICTinPBSprovisionhasnotbeenfullydugoutuntilOnlineSharingBike(OSB)Modewasadoptedbytwosocialenterprises,MobikeandOFOin2016.
OnlineSharingBikeMode
TheemergingmodeofOSB,utilizingICTinservicecoproduction,managestopromoteO2OclientcoproductionsothatitisnowenjoyinghighmarketproportioninChina.Itisreportedthatmorethan200thousandofclientsinShanghaihaveregisteredwithinjust100dayssinceserviceisreleasedonApril2016toMobike,oneserviceproviderofOSB(Li'2016).Anotherserviceprovider,OFOalso‘connectsabout10millionregistereduserswithover1,000,000bikesacross34citiesinChina[,andt]heapplicationhasbookedmorethan100millionrides’(OFO,n.d.b).Accordingtoanconsultingreport(iResearch,2017),theweeklyactiveuserofthemajortwoOSBprovidershashit10millioninlateFebruary2017,whichisagreatproportionoftransportationmarket.
Figure2.WeeklyActiveUserofMobike&OFObetween2016/11-2017/02isinsertedhere.
ThemaindifferenceofOSBmodeliesinitsservicetechnologyandfunction.ItenablesclientstouseApp(orSNSassubstitution)tolocatetheavailablebike,unlockthebike,payforthetransaction,reportbikeproblems,andgivereviewofservice.Servicecouldalsomonitorthebikeconditionandsuperviseclients’behaviorsthroughICT.Hencethemajoroperationalfunctionsaremovedonline,comparedtotraditionalofflinePBS.Butmoreessentially,OSBmodeisdifferentfromthepreviousthreePBSmodesthroughoutallitsstagesofclientcoproductionprocess.
FirstStage:Precondition
Inthepreconditionstage,InternetenablesthecreationofanonlinelayerforOSBclientcoproduction.Asmentionedabove,functionslikesearchingforabike,unlockthebikeandpayfortheconsumptionarealltransitedtoonlineplatform.Meanwhile,theonlinecontactchannel
110
throughsmartphoneAppsenablesclientstocommunicatewithcustomerserviceinstantlyandconveniently,breachingtheblockbetweenclientsandserviceprovidersinpreviousPBSmodes.Providersarerelievedfromsustainingofflineservicestorewithonlineremoteworkaswell.ItalsoenablesthepotentialforclientstocontributetotheprocessofOSB,sincewhentheycomeacrossabrokenbike,clientscouldbeexpectedtoreportbikeproblemsthroughdigitalcontact,ratherthanwaitingforservicetamtofindoutthebrokenbikewhentheyareexaminingbikeconditions.HencesomecostofservicemaintenancecouldbetransferredtoclientsthroughO2Oclientcoproduction.
InadditiontotheusageofApp,serviceprovidersofOSBalsoattachemphasistotheonlinesocialnetworkofclients.Forinstance,onlineWeChatgrouphasbeencreatedforBikeHunters,clientswhoareactivelyparticipatinginvoluntaryservicesupervisionandmaintenance,likefindingoutandreportingbrokenorstolenbikes(Songetal.,2016).Thisonlinesocialnetwork,whichisseldomestablishedinpreviousPBSmodes,addstothecommunicationchannelsamongactiveclientsandserviceproviders,andincubatetightcooperationandcollectiveactionamongthemintheofflinelayer.
Besidesextensionofsocialtiesfromonlinetooffline,InternetalsoaddstothetechnicalfeasibilityofOSBinofflinerealworld.GPSsmartlockhasbeenintroducedinlocatingbikesbothforclientstouseandforserviceproviderstomonitor,whichrelievesOSBproviderfrommaintainingbikestationsthatservetoparkandlockpublicbikesinpreviousmodesofPBS.Theservicecouldalsobemorecustomizedsinceclientscouldparktheirbikesintheanyclosestlegalparkingpointsastheywish(OFO,n.d.a),ratherthantostationswhichmightbefullyoccupiedinrushhours.
Insum,InternethaslaidessentialfoundationforO2OclientcoproductionofPBSinnovation,inthatitcreatesanonlineplatformandnetworkforserviceprovidersandclientsthathasnotengagedinthepreviousmodes.Theimpactofonlinelayercouldalsobeextendedintooffline,andincreasesthetechnicalfeasibilityofserviceinnovation,offeringmorebenefitstobothserviceprovidersandclients.
SecondStage:Motivation
Inmotivationstage,clientscouldbemotivatedinO2OclientcoproductionwiththeimpactofInternet.Asmentionedabove,choosingPBStosubstituteothertransportationisanessentialpartofPBSclientcoproduction,inwhichInternetcouldplayanimportantrole.
Inonlinelayer,theutilizationofInternetplatformdecreasesthetransactioncostofcontactandpayment.ComparedtoofflinePBScoproductioninthatclientsarerequiredtoregisterforservicebygotothelocalservicestorewiththeirphotoID(HangzhouPublicBikeService,n.d.b),OSBenablesclientstoregisteronlinewiththeirphonenumberoremailaddress.TransactionsarealsocompletedthroughonlinepaymentratherthanpayingbyICcard.ClientscouldalsoeasilyfindavailablebikeswithAppontheirmobiledevice,insteadofgoingtonearestbikestationswithoutknowingifanybikeisavailablethere.Insum,InternetextremelydecreasestransactioncostforclientstoconsumePBScomparedtotheirexperienceinthepreviousmodes,andthusaddtotheirmotivationsinPBSclientcoproduction.
111
Meanwhile,Internetisalsobeneficialtomotivateclientsinofflinelayer.Withreducedproductionandtransactioncostforproviderstomaintainbikestationsandregulatingclients’serviceconsumption,theywouldfinditmoreprofitabletosustainandpromotethePBSquality.Inreturn,clientscouldpotentiallyenjoyhigherservicequalitywithlimitedprice,comparedtothefailedpreviousmodes.Furthermore,thebenefitofdigitalcontactande-transactionisalsoextendedtoofflinelayer.RatherthancomplainsaboutlimitedservicetimeinWuhanandHangzhoumodes(Wangetal.,2010),OSBcouldprovideservice7*24,includinginstantautomaticserviceguideandsupportaswell.Thisalsomeetstheservicematerialdemandsofclients.LetalonethehigherservicecustomizationinOSBbyusingGPSsmartlock.Insum,theprofit-motivatedproviderswouldbemorewillingtomeetthematerialdemandsofclientswithlimitedprice,whichwouldbehelpfultoengageclientsinOSBcoproduction.
ThirdStage:Activation
Inactivationstage,clientsareactivelyengagedinOSBclientcoproduction.Inonlinelayer,clientscouldcontributetoserviceinput.Forexample,someclientsareactivelyreportingbrokenbikes,orimproperusageofbikebyotherclients(Songetal.,2016).Theseserviceinputcoproductionisevenpromotedwiththoseaforementionedonlineactiveusergroups.Serviceinputcoproductionhelpstoreduceserviceproviders’costtoexaminebikes’condition,andsuperviseclients’behaviors.Clientsarealsogivingfeedbackfortheservice,throughproviders’SNSforinstance(MobikeShanghai,2017).However,thisclientcoproductionofserviceinputislimitedinpreviousofflinePBSmodeswithoutainternetplatform.
Inofflinelayer,clientsfirstlycontributetoprocessastheychoosetoridepublicbikeinsteadofotherwayoftransportation.Inaddition,theyalsocontributetoconvertserviceoutputintooutcome,byridingbiketotheirdestination,whichistheirdesiredoutcome.Duringtheirofflinecoproduction,internetisalsoimportantisitenablesserviceprovidersadozensofonlineinstrumenttoimpactclients’offlinebehaviors.Forexample,AppswithcleardirectionforavailablebikescouldpotentiallyhelptonudgeclientstochoosePBSinsteadofothervehicleswhentheyareconsideringabouttransportation.Inaddition,asawayofmarketization,OSBprovidersallowclientstosharecouponsthroughSocialNetworkSites,likeWeChatandWeibo,aftereachtransaction(Sohu,2017).ThiscouldpotentiallyaddtothepeerpressureforotherswhoarenotconsumingOSBwhentheyfindtheirSNSchattinggroupsandneweventsarefilledupwiththesecoupons.Inadditiontonudge,Internetalsoenablesasetofvirtualcreditrewardingandsanctioninstitutionsthatcouldregulateclients’offlineconsumptionbehaviors.Forexample,OSBallowsclientstoreportimproperusageofpublicbiketoearncreditonline(Hu,2017),whichprovidesmaterialincentiveforclientstocontributetoservicemonitor.Furthermore,showingoffoftheirOSBcoproductiononSNScouldalsohelptoexpressclients’normofGreenTravel,andexpresstheiridentityasfashionfansofO2Oe-commerce,whichispopularinChinarightnow.Finally,Internetofferstechnicalinstrumentsforserviceproviderstomonitorclients’improperconsumption,sothattheycouldprovidesanctionsintime,whichisanimportantmotivatorforclients’compliance.Consequently,itisreasonabletoarguethatInternetaddstoPBSproviders’toolkitinnudging,motivatingandregulatingO2Oclientcoproduction,usingonlinetoolstoimpactclients’offlinebehaviors.
112
Table2.MobikeCreditRewardingandSanctionInstitutionisinsertedhere.
ForthStage:Evaluation
Inevaluationstage,clientsassesstheoutcomeoftheirOSBcoproduction.TheassessmentoriginatesfromtheirofflineexperiencewhileInternetvisualizesitinonlineplatform.ClientscouldeasilychecktheirconsumptionrecordsinApps,andlearntheircostsinOSBcoproduction.Theridingdistance,caloriesburntandcarbonemissionreducedeachtimetheyusepublicbikearealsovisualizedtoclientsintheApps.Hence,O2OclientcoproductionhelpsclientstounderstandtheirbenefitsandcostwiththeusageofInternet.Inaddition,Internetprovidesopportunitiesforclientstogivefeedbacktoprovidersafterconsumptionandassessment,andthuscontributetoserviceinputinthenextround.Inthissense,InternetbridgesthegapbetweenvariousroundsofO2Oclientcoproduction,andaddstoclients’continuantintentioningettingengaged.
Insum,OSBservicemodeissignificantlydifferentfromthepreviousofflinePBSmodesinitsemphasisonO2Oclientcoproduction.InternetplatformenablesOSBtoprovidePBSthroughanentirelydifferentserviceprocesswithon-/off-linelayers,andenablesserviceprovidersmoreapproachestointeractwithclientsandelicitcoproduction.
ConclusionandDiscussion
WiththerapiddevelopmentofInternetTechnologyandInternet-basedindustries,coproductionutilizingICThasbecomeincreasinglycommoninpublicservicedelivery.ThisarticlerespondstothegapinpreviousliteratureabouthowInternetplatformservestofacilitatetheemergenceofanewtypeofclientcoproduction,namelyO2Ocoproduction.
ThisarticledevelopsamodeforO2Oclientcoproduction,analyzingthepotentialimpactofInternetonclientcoproductionindifferentstages,andexploreshowserviceproviderscouldutilizeInternetplatformtoelicitofflineclientcoproduction.BasedonthecaseofChinesePublicBikeService,itfindsthatInternetisessentialincreatingavirtualcommunityofclientsandserviceprovidersandthusaddingtotheirpotentialtocooperateonthebaseofdigitalcontact.Withtighterinteraction,serviceprovidershavemoreopportunitiesandlesscosttosupportclientcoproduction.Inaddition,thisvirtualcommunityisalsobeneficialforcreatingsocialtiesamongclientsaswell.
Besides,Internetisalsoimportanttoamplifyserviceproviders’toolkitinpromotingofflineclientcoproductionwithonlinemobilization.Internetcouldhelptonudgeandmotivateclientstobeactivelyandvoluntarilycontributiveandcompliant.Inthissense,digitalinteractionamongserviceprovidersandclientsisextendedintoofflinecoproduction.
Furthermore,InternethelpstoconnectvariousstagesofO2Oclientcoproduction.Internet-basedvirtualcommunityprovidespreconditionsforO2Oclientcoproduction,impactsclients’motivation,providesserviceproviderstoolstopromoteclientcoproduction,andenableonlineevaluationfeedback.Inaddition,theoutcomeofO2Oclientcoproductionisalsoconvertedintoclients’efficacyandinputofO2Oclientcoproductionthroughonlineplatform.Consequently,
113
InternetisessentialinstructuringtheprocedureofO2Oclientcoproduction,andaddingtoclients’continuanceintention.
Itisnotice-worthythatthisarticledoesnotintendstoarguethatO2Oclientcoproductionissurelymoreeffectiveorefficientthantraditionalofflinecoproduction.Infact,thisarticleintendstodepicthowInternetcouldenabletheemergenceofanewtypeofclientcoproductionwhichisdifferentfromtraditionalofflinecoproductioninthecontextofInformationSociety.O2Oclientcoproduction,asanexample,helpstocontributetoourunderstandingofhowthisnewtypeofclientcoproductioncouldbedecomposedintoonlineandofflinelayers.ThevariationbetweenO2OclientcoproductionandtraditionalofflinecoproductionrevealsthepotentialforInternet-basednewtypeofcoproductionmentionedinthepreviousstudies(Meijer,2012;Osborne&Strokosch,2013).
Giventhefactthatmanytypesofpublicserviceareprovidedoffline,thefindingsinthisarticlehelpstorevealthepotentialhowinternetandnewtechnologycouldbeaddedintotheseoffline-basedpublicservicefieldsandimprovetheirpossibilitytoengageclientsinservicecoproduction.Inthissense,thisnewtypeofcoproductioncouldbecompatibletoawiderangeofpublicservice,derivingsomeofitscommunicationandinteractionfunctionsintoonlinelayer,andpromotingofflineservicecoproductionwithonlinedigitcontact.FuturestudiescouldpaymoreeffortstoexaminethisO2Oclientcoproductionmode’sadaptationtootherserviceprograms.
Findingsinthisarticlecouldalsorelatetoargumentsinparallelresearchone-participationthaton-/off-linelayersofpublicparticipationareimpossibletobedivided(Albrecht2006).Itisfoundinthisarticlethatclientcoproductionalsosharesthispointofviewasonlineandofflineofclientcoproductionarenotseparatedbutreinforcingtoeachother.Onlineclientengagementcouldnotsubstituteofflineservicecoproduction,butitcouldpotentiallyaddtoclients’willingnessandabilitytocontribute.Andofflineexperienceofcoproductioncouldalsobeconvertedintoinputofonlinelayer.Thisfindingalsorelatetotheappealforamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofe-serviceinitsservicechain.Sincee-serviceisusuallyapartofphysicalservice,‘itisthusnecessarytoexaminethedifferentpartsofpublicservicesandidentifythesepartsaccordingtotheirroleorfunction’(Jansen&Ølnes,2016).Hence,itisvaluableforfuturestudiestoattachmoreattentiontoempiricallyandquantitativelyexaminetheinterrelationsbetweenonlineandofflinelayersine-servicecoproduction.
Giventhereassessmentofcitizens’roleinliteratureofe-service,thisarticlealsohelpstorevealthepotentialbenefitofclients’activecoproductiontoservicequality.AsOSBmodehasjustemergedformorethanoneyear,thequantitativedataisnotconcreteenoughtosupportacorrelationanalysissofar.However,themodeofOSBcouldstillbevaluabletorevealthefactthattheusageofInternetplatformenablesserviceprovidersmoreapproachestoelicitclientcoproductionthaninpreviousmodesofChinesePBS.ThecasestudyrevealsthefactthatclientsareimportantforPBSprovision,astheiractivecontributionhasgreatpotentialtoreliefserviceprovidersfrommanyproductionandtransactioncost,andthuspromotethebenefitsforbothserviceprovidersandclients.ThisemphasisonO2OclientcoproductiondistinguishesOSBfromthepreviousmodesandattributetothesuccessofOSBinChinesePublicBikemarket.
114
Anotherimplicationofthefindingsinthisarticleliesinthat,evenforthoseservicetraditionallyperceivedasdominatedbypublicsector,government-runmodemightnotbetheonlypanaceatoprovidepublicserviceeffectively.AsinthecaseofChinesePBS,themarketfailuresthatexistinBeijingandWuhanModespersuadepeopletoregardgovernment-runmodeasfinalsolutionofChinesePBSprovisionbeforetheemergenceofOSBmode(Wangetal.,2011).ThecaseofOSBrevealsthepotentialofO2Oclientcoproductioninpublicservicethatisperceivedasdominatedbypublicsector.EveninthecontextofChinathatistraditionallyperceivedasastrongstatewithweakcivilsociety,theutilizationofInternetplatformandclientcoproductioncouldstillprovideaneffectivealternativetodirectgovernment.Thisoffersinsightsoncoproduction’spotentialtobeadaptedintowiderservicefieldsandcontexts.
However,itisnotarguingthatclientcoproductionhasentirelycurethemarketfailure.ChallengesforOSBmodealsostarttooccurrecentlyinChinesecities.Forinstance,asOSBenablesclientstoparkpublicbikesanywherealongthestreetspermittedbyurbanadministrators,thecongestionandimproperparkingofbikesnearsubwaysstationsorrealestatesintherushhourshavecausedpotentialproblemsforpedestriansandvehiclespassingby(Zou&He,2017).ThisalsoleadstothepotentialconflictsbetweenOSBprovidersandurbanadministrators(Zhang,2017a).Therefore,governmentsarestillessentialinregulatingthePBSmarketandserviceprovision,sothattheservicecoproductioncouldbemorebeneficialforpublicinterests.Infact,someurbangovernmentsinChina,likeShanghai,havejustbeguntoinitiatepublichearingsonhowtoregulatethecurrentOSBserviceprovision,collaboratingwithbothcitizensandOSBproviders(Zhang,2017b;Zou&He,2017).ThiscouldalsobeaninterestingdirectionforfurtherstudiesontheinstitutionandgovernmentregulationinO2Oclientcoproduction.
Nevertheless,findingsinthisarticleprovidesapracticalstartingpointforempiricalresearchinthefuture.ResearchersofcoproductioncouldpaymoreattentiontocoproductionutilizingInternettechnology,andfocusontherelationshipbetweenInternetusageandclientcontributionininput,process,outputandoutcomeofO2Oclientcoproduction.CorrelationanalysiscouldbeconductedtoexaminetheeffectofInternetplatformusageinvariousstagesofclientcoproduction.Inaddition,theimpactofInternetonthosemotivatorsalsodeservesempiricalexaminations.Finally,thepotentialchallengeofdigitalgapinO2Oclientcoproductionisalsoaninterestingissueforfuturestudies.
115
Reference
Albrecht,S.(2006).Whosevoiceisheardinonlinedeliberation?:Astudyofparticipationandrepresentationinpoliticaldebatesontheinternet.Information,CommunityandSociety,9(1),62-82.
Alford,J.(2009).Engagingpublicsectorclients:Fromservice-deliverytoco-production.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Asgarkhani,M.(2005).Theeffectivenessofe-Serviceinlocalgovernment:Acasestudy.ElectricJournalofe-Government,3(4),157–166.
Brovelli,M.A.,Minghini,M.,&Zamboni,G.(2016).PublicparticipationinGISviamobileapplications.ISPRSJournalofPhotogrammetryandRemoteSensing,114,306-315.
Brown,J.,Broderick,A.J.,&Lee,N.(2007).Wordofmouthcommunicationwithinonlinecommunities:Conceptualizingtheonlinesocialnetwork.Journalofinteractivemarketing,21(3),2-20.
Chambers,S.E.,Canvin,K.,Baldwin,D.S.,&Sinclair,J.M.(2017).Identityinrecoveryfromproblematicalcoholuse:Aqualitativestudyofonlinemutualaid.Drugandalcoholdependence,174,17-22.
Chiu,C.M.,Huang,H.Y.,Cheng,H.L.,&Sun,P.C.(2015).Understandingonlinecommunitycitizenshipbehaviorsthroughsocialsupportandsocialidentity.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,35(4),504-519.
DiMaggio,P.,Hargittai,E.,Neuman,W.R.,&Robinson,J.P.(2001).SocialimplicationsoftheInternet.Annualreviewofsociology,27(1),307-336.
Eggers,WilliamD.2005.Government2.0:UsingTechnologytoImproveEducation,CutRed
Tape,ReduceGridlockandEnhanceDemocracy.Plymouth,UK:Rowman&Little-field.
Esposito,G.,Hernández,P.,vanBavel,R.,&Vila,J.(2017).Nudgingtopreventthepurchaseofincompatibledigitalproductsonline:Anexperimentalstudy.PloSone,12(3),e0173333.
Etgar,M.(2008).Adescriptivemodeloftheconsumerco-productionprocess.Journaloftheacademyofmarketingscience,36(1),97-108.
Evans-Cowley,J.S.(2010).PlanningintheageofFacebook:theroleofsocialnetworkinginplanningprocesses.GeoJournal,75(5),407-420.
HangzhouPublicBikeService.(n.d.a).Aboutus.http://www.hzsggzxc.com/about.aspx?c_kind=521&c_kind2=522&c_kind3=531(AccessMar.16th,2017).
HangzhouPublicBikeService.(n.d.b).HowtoRegisterforthePublicBikeICCard.http://www.hzsggzxc.com/about.aspx?ID=992&p_kind=&c_kind=521&c_kind2=524&c_kind3=543(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Haque,M.S.(2002).E-GovernanceinIndia:ItsImpactsonRelationsAmongcitizens,PoliticiansandPublicServants.InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,68(2),231-250.
116
He,Z.,Cheng,T.C.E.,Dong,J.,&Wang,S.(2016).EvolutionarylocationandpricingstrategiesforservicemerchantsincompetitiveO2Omarkets.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,254(2),595-609.
Hu,W.(2017).People’sDailyOpinion:Bikecouldnotridefarwithoutsteering.http://opinion.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0117/c1003-29027718.html(AccessMar.16th,2017).
iResearch.(2017).ResearchReportonChineseSharingBikeIndustry(� ��$�� ��).http://report.iresearch.cn/wx/report.aspx?id=2961.
Jansen,A.,&Ølnes,S.(2016).Thenatureofpublice-servicesandtheirqualitydimensions.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,33(4),647-657.
Kling,R.,&Dunlop,C.(Eds.).(1991).Computerizationandcontroversy:Valueconflictsand
socialchoices.SanDiego:AcademicPress.
Krueger,B.S.(2002).AssessingthePotentialofInternetPoliticalParticipationintheUnitedStatesaResourceApproach.AmericanPoliticsResearch,30(5),476-498.
Krueger,B.S.(2006).AcomparisonofconventionalandInternetpoliticalmobilization.AmericanPoliticsResearch,34(6),759-776.
Layne,K.,&Lee,J.(2001).DevelopingfullyfunctionalE-government:Afourstagemodel.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,18(2),122–136.
Leadbeater,Charles,andHillaryCottam.2007.TheUserGeneratedState:PublicServices2.0.http://www.partnerships.org.au/Library/Public_Services_2.0.htm[accessedOctober13,2016].
Lee,S.,&Choi,J.(2017).Enhancinguserexperiencewithconversationalagentformovierecommendation:Effectsofself-disclosureandreciprocity.InternationalJournalofHuman-
ComputerStudies,103,95-105.
Li,H.(2016).Popularwithin100DaysofBirth:Mobike’sStoryofPublicBike.ShanghaiLawJournal(�����).August5th,A02.
Litvin,S.W.,Goldsmith,R.E.,&Pan,B.(2008).Electronicword-of-mouthinhospitalityandtourismmanagement.Tourismmanagement,29(3),458-468.
Lohry,G.F.,&Yiu,A.(2015).BikeshareinChinaasapublicservice:Comparinggovernment-runandpublic-privatepartnershipoperationmodels.NaturalResourcesForum39(1),41-52.
Meijer,A.(2011).NetworkedCoproductionofPublicServicesinVirtualCommunities:FromaGovernment-CentrictoaCommunityApproachtoPublicServiceSupport.PublicAdministrationReview,71(4),598-607.
Meijer,A.(2012).Co-productioninaninformationage:Individualandcommunityengagementsupportedbynewmedia.VOLUNTAS:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,23(4),1156-1172.
117
Min,S.J.(2010).Fromthedigitaldividetothedemocraticdivide:Internetskills,politicalinterest,andthesecond-leveldigitaldivideinpoliticalinternetuse.JournalofInformation
Technology&Politics,7(1),22-35.
MobikeShanghai.(2017).IllustrationofDepositRefund,BillingAnomalyandBalance.http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAxNzc1Nzk0OQ==&mid=2652537389&idx=1&sn=547bad01e8356b17edccde6b17ccc0a8&chksm=800e81bfb77908a98ca73d6ba1015ffc33c57c159a2f921f10133d6bb44039d9474ccd270b7e&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=0327Rjq2FDtpElIwJIduILVk#rd(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Mobike.(n.d.)FAQ.http://mobike.com/global/faq.
O'Brien,O.,Cheshire,J.,Batty,M.,2014.Miningbicyclesharingdataforgeneratinginsightsintosustainabletransportsystems.J.Transp.Geogr.34,262–273.
OECD(2009).Focusoncitizens:Publicengagementforbetterpolicyandservices.OECD.
OFO.(n.d.a).Home.http://www.ofo.so/index.html(AccessMar.16th,2017).
OFO.(n.d.b).AboutUs.http://www.ofo.so/aboutus.html(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Osborne,S.P.,&Strokosch,K.(2013).Ittakestwototango?understandingtheCo-productionofpublicservicesbyintegratingtheservicesmanagementandpublicadministrationperspectives.BritishJournalofManagement,24(S1),S31-S47.
Osborne,S.P.,Radnor,Z.,&Strokosch,K.(2016).Co-ProductionandtheCo-CreationofValueinPublicServices:Asuitablecasefortreatment?.PublicManagementReview,18(5),639-653.
Ostrom,E.(1996).Crossingthegreatdivide:coproduction,synergy,anddevelopment.World
Development,24(6),1073-1087.
Pai,P.,&Tsai,H.T.(2016).Reciprocitynormsandinformation-sharingbehaviorinonlineconsumptioncommunities:Anempiricalinvestigationofantecedentsandmoderators.Information&Management,53(1),38-52.
Percy,StephenL.(1984).CitizenParticipationintheCoproductionofUrbanServices.UrbanAffairsQuarterly,Vol.19(4),pp.431-46.
Pohl,C.etal.,(2010).Researchers'rolesinknowledgeco-production:experiencefromsustainabilityresearchinKenya,Switzerland,BoliviaandNepal.ScienceandPublicPolicy,37(4),267.
Robey,D.,Schwaig,K.S.,&Jin,L.(2003).Intertwiningmaterialandvirtualwork.Information
andorganization,13(2),111-129.
Shaheen,S.A.,Guzman,S.,Zhang,H.,2010.BikesharinginEurope,theAmericas,andAsia:past,present,andfuture.Transp.Res.Rec.2143,159–167.
Snellen,I.T.M.,&vandeDonk,W.B.(Eds.).(1998).Publicadministrationinaninformation
age:Ahandbook(Vol.6).IOSpress.
118
Sohu.(2017).Howtouseofosharingbikeandtheruleforofopricingandcoupon.http://mt.sohu.com/view/p/127483457_105445(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Song,Y.,Xu,C.&Lai,Y.(2016).EmbarrassingOnlineSharingBike:FraudingTwo-DimensionCodeontheBody,andRelyingSupervisionontheHunter.http://www.chinanews.com/cj/2016/11-22/8071185.shtml(AccessFeb.23,2017)
Sun,C.&Zhang,Y.(2016).IncreasingUsingRateandExperience:PubicBikesNoLongertoBeDecorations.People'sDaily(����).May24th,001.
Tat-KeiHo,A.(2002).Reinventinglocalgovernmentsandthee-governmentinitiative.Publicadministrationreview,62(4),434-444.
Thaler,R.H.,&Sunstein,C.R.(2009).Nudge:ImprovingDecisionsAboutHealth,Wealth,and
Happiness.YaleUniversityPress.
ThomasJ.C.(2012).Citizen,customer,partner:engagingthepublicinpublicmanagement.MESharpe.
VanEijk,C.,&Steen,T.(2015).Whyengageinco-productionofpublicservices?Mixingtheoryandempiricalevidence.InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,0020852314566007.
Wan,J.,Wang,H.,&Dong,X.(2016).FinancialGranteeplusMarketOperation:BrighterFutureforUrbanPublicBike.ChineseTaxNews(� ���).July25th,B04.
Wang,H.(2016).EnhancingPublicBikeServiceSystem,andPromotingGreenTransportationMode.Xi’anDaily(%���).April27th,006.
Wang,L.,Yu,Q.&Huang,B.(2010).DevelopmentofHangzhouPublicBikeSystemandItsOptimization.ModernCity(����),5(4),39-42.
Wang,W.,Wei,W.,&Tian,C.(2011).Comparativestudyofcommercialoperationmodeofpublicbicyclesystems—basedonanewChinesemodel.WorldAcademyofScience,
EngineeringandTechnology,57,557-560.
Wang,X.(2014).PublicBikeRent:WhySuccessinHangzhoubutFailureinWuhan?.JueCeTanSuo("�#),(11),16-18.
Whitaker,GordonP.(1980).Coproduction:CitizenParticipationinServiceDelivery.PublicAdministrationReview,May-June,Vol.40(3),pp.240-246.
Xiao,S.,&Dong,M.(2015).Hiddensemi-Markovmodel-basedreputationmanagementsystemforonlinetooffline(O2O)e-commercemarkets.DecisionSupportSystems,77,87-99.
Xu,Q.(2016).NotEasytoSayLovePublicBike.GuangxiDaily(�%��).March2nd,005.
Zhang,L.(2017a).MoreThan5000SharingBikestobeSequestered:WhoisTroubles?http://static.zhoudaosh.com/4F37AD2F92AD1AE7BE28F43F478F6EAD6BCB528C6C8F7626ECAE4F9C5B6F9CF1(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Zhang,Y.(2017b).ShanghaiFinallySayNotoOFOMode,theCancerCellofSharingBike.http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3MTYyNjMyOQ==&mid=2451576374&idx=1&sn=0b
119
c7a706a9f10659b2f0d3a035f34396&chksm=88fe0d00bf8984166b84cf82321746c5edd0f9eac864114cee204809f7f0c944cc1d35476883&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=0314U7KdOQDDuNrEqxsELivY#rd(AccessMar.16th,2017).
Zheng,Y.&Zhu,S.(2014).TheComparativeAnalysisofPublicBicycleTransportationinBeijingandHangzhou.JournalBeijingInternationalStudiesUniversity(��!�� ��&��),36(3),64-68.
Zhu,B.(2014).SurveyofPublicBikesinDifferentCities.ZhonghuaJianshe(����),(5),14-17.
Zou,J.&He,Y.(2017).ShanghaiCompilingStandardsforSharingBike:ClientsShouldBeOver12andBikesShouldBeEquippedwithGPS.ThePaper(���).http://www.thepaper.cn/www/resource/jsp/newsDetail_forward_1638381(AccessMar.16th,2017).
120
DataSource:Summarizedbytheauthor
121
DataSource:iResearch,2017
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2016/10/31-2016/11/6
2016/11/14-2016/11/20
2016/11/28-2016/12/4
2016/12/12-2016/12/18
2016/12/26-2017/1/1
2017/1/9-2017/1/15
2017/1/23-2017/1/29
2017/2/6-2017/2/12
2017/2/20-2017/2/26
Figure2.WeeklyActiveUserofMobike&
OFObetween2016/11-2017/02
Mobike(million) ofo(million)
122
Table1.PreviousmodesofPBSclientcoproductioninChina
MarketizationMode PPPModeGovernment-Run
Mode
ExemplifiedCity Beijing Wuhan Hangzhou
Serviceprovider PrivateEnterprise PrivateEnterprise StateEnterprise
Revenue Self-Financing Self-Financing&GovernmentSubsidy GovernmentSubsidy
OperationCondition Failed Failedinmostcities Well-run
MajorChallengea)Highcostcomparedtolowincome;b)Limitedinteractionwithclients.
a)Highcostcomparedtolowincome;b)Limitedinteractionwithclients;c)Deviationbetweenproviderandgovernment.
a)Highburdenonpublicbudget;b)Monopoly.
Source:summarizedbyauthor
123
Table2.MobikeCreditRewardingandSanctionInstitution
GainCreditEachride +1Reportbrokenbike +1Reportincorrectparking +1
Usinganotheruser’sinvitationcodewhenregistering +1
SuccessfullyinviteafriendtouseMobike +1LoseCreditParkinacompound -20Abandoningthebikewheninterceptedbypolice -50Forgettolock,buteventuallyretrievethebike Reduceto0Useaprivatelock Reduceto0Forgettolockandbikeislost Reduceto0Illegallytransportingthebike Reduceto0
DataSource:Mobike,n.d.
124
EXPLORINGHOWTHESTRATEGICACTIONFIELDFRAMEWORKILLUMINATES
COPRODUCTION:SEEINGTHEUTILITYOFMATERIALARTIFACTS(SANDFORTAND
PHINNEY)
JodiR.Sandfort
&
RobinPhinney
FutureServicesInstituteatthe
HumphreySchoolofPublicAffairs
UniversityofMinnesota
May22,2017
PaperforPresentationattheInternationalInstituteforAdministrativeSciences(IIAS)StudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicServices,June6-7,2017inWashingtonDC.Formore
informationaboutFutureServicesInstitutes’interventionsseewww.futureservicesinstitute.org
125
Coproduction–namelyhowcitizensandprofessionalsareinvolvedinpublicservice
provision–isaburgeoningareaofresearchinpublicmanagement.Whileoftenrootedin
theoriesofdemocraticengagement,coproductionresearchdoesnotoftenacknowledgea
simultaneousintellectualfoundationinpolicyandprogramimplementationanalysis.Whilethe
topicofpolicyimplementationhasfollowedameanderingintellectualpath(deLeon&deLeon,
2002;O’Toole,2004;Saetren,2005),italsoisarobustandgrowingfieldwithinbehavioral
scienceshapedbydistinctquestions(Nilsen,etal,2013).Tohelpintegratetheseandother
traditionsofimplementationresearch,SandfortandStephanieMoultondevelopedthe
strategicactionfield(SAF)frameworkforimplementationanalysis(MoultonandSandfort
2017).Groundedinsociologicaltheory,thisframeworkpresumesafundamentalhuman
motivationforsociability,ratherthanthecommonpolicyanalyticassumptionofeconomically
self-interestedactors(Fligstein&McAdam2012;Latour2005;Giddens1984).Toanalyzethe
implementationprocess,analystsmustappreciateandengagethecomplexsystemsdynamics
withinnestedsocialcontexts(FligsteinandMcAdams2011;ColanderandKupers2014).
Asaresult,thisframeworkhassomepotentialforbroadeningtheintellectuallytradition
ofcoproduction.Thispaperconsidersthatpossibilityandlooksspecificallyathowmaterial
artifactscanbeusefulinshiftingandshapingtheauthorityofsocialsystemswhencitizensand
state-actorsareengagedincoproduction.Webeginwithabriefoverviewpolicy
implementationscholarshipanddescribeboththestrategicactionfieldtheoreticalframework
andhowmaterialartifactscanbeunderstooditastoolstoshapesocialsystemdynamics.We
thensummarizeanexploratorycaseofco-productioninvolvingacountygovernmentthatis
involvedindevelopingitsowncapacitiesforengagingwithpeoplelivinginalow-income
126
community.Inthatcase,wehaveobservedtheconsequencesofmaterialartifactsandhow
theyactaspotentresourcesthatenableaco-productionprocess.Theprovidetoolsfor
managersandenablecollectiveaction.Inouranalysis,weconsiderwhatpotentialinsights
mightexistfordeepenedunderstandingoftheco-productionprocessatthefrontlineofpolicy
implementationsystems.Weconcludebyconsideringtheimplicationsofthistypeofdesign-
basedimplementationresearchforthecommunityofco-productionscholars.
POLICYIMPLEMENTATIONANALYSIS:NEWINTELLECTUALAVENUESFORCO-PRODUCTION?
Policymakers,practitionersandscholarshavewrestledwiththecomplexitiesofpolicy
andprogramimplementationformorethanahalfcentury.Somestartfromthepremiseof
“whatwentwrong?”Whydidthepolicyfailtoachievetheresultsthatwereintended?Others,
moreoptimistically,seektounderstandconditionswherethings“goright;”whatfactorshelp
leadtopolicyorprogramsuccess?Sometrytoexplorehowweobserveconflictingresultsfrom
implementingtheverysamepolicyorprogramacrossstatesorlocalities,evenwhenauthorized
bytheverysamelegislationandfundingmechanism.Researchershaveconductedcase
studies,analyzedsurveydata,anddevelopedtheoreticalframeworksinattempttomakesense
ofthesequestionsandquandaries(Sandfort&Moulton,2015).Recently,however,thereis
renewedinterestinconceptualizingimplementationasoccurringwithincomplexemergent
systems,attendingtoboththestructuresandsocialprocessesthatshapewhatpolicybecomes
throughimplementation.
Thisinterestarises,inpart,becauseoftheconsiderableattentiontothestudyof
implementationinmedicalandbehavioralsciences.Itemergesfrominterventionstudiesthat
127
identify‘whatworks’throughfieldtrialsandthenseektoreplicatetheseevidence-based
programs.Whileincreasedinternalvalidityisnowachievablethrougharangeofresearch
approaches,suchasrandomizedcontrolledexperiments,fixed-effectsandregression
discontinuitymodels,thesedesignstolittletohelpinvestigatorsidentifywhatelementsofan
interventionarecausalorhowwhatiscausalcanbecalledtorealizethataffectinother
settings.7Theseconcernsaredistinctfromtraditionalimplementationscholarshipinpublic
managementandpublicaffairs(Roll,Moulton,andSandfort2017;Nilsenetal.2013).
Unfortunately,manyresearchersareseeking,likethefirstgenerationsofpublicaffairsscholars,
topredictimplementationsuccess.Inanoften-citedsystematicreviewofnearly500published
articlesinhealthcare,Greenhalghandcolleagues(2004)developamodelwithoversixty
variables.Anda2012reviewintheAmericanJournalofPreventativeMedicineidentified61
differentmodelsforinvestigatingdisseminationandimplementation(Tabaketal.2012).This
fieldofscholarshipisrealizingparsimoniouspredictionofimplementationisanillusivegoal.
Studiesconfirmwhatpublicaffairsstudiesofimplementationconcludedinthe1980sand
1990s-therearenomagictacticsforchangingimplementers’behaviors.Thepursuitof
reductionistmodelswillbeunlikelytoyieldmuchthatisusefultoimprovingimplementationin
practice.
StrategicActionFieldFrameworkforImplementationAnalysis
7Theproliferationofthesemodelshascreatedamovementtodevelopmoreconsolidatedmeasures.Thereisa“Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)” that brings together 39 of the main research constructs deemed to be most often significant in field trials and groups them in 5 domains; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is investing in its continued refinement by a collaborative web platform. The Seattle Implementation Research Collaborative is undertaking a review of more than 450 tools to systematically identify and consolidate “dissemination and implementation” data collection instruments.
128
TheseconcernsledSandfort,withStephanieMoulton,torevisitthetraditionofpolicy
andprogramimplementationinpublicaffairsandseektodevelopanintegratedmodelto
informmoreeffectivepractice.Thetheoreticalframeworkfocusesonprovidingconceptual
claritytoanunderstandingofimplementationasoccurringthroughmultiplelevelsinacomplex
system.Ratherthanfocusingonprediction,theapproachoffersanalyticalleverssothat
scholarsandimplementerscanbecomemoreknowledgeableabouthowactionsandresultsare
relatedwhentryingtousepolicyorprogramideastomakeinstitutionalchangeonbehalfofa
targetpopulation.Ithighlightsthateffectiveimplementationchangesboththesystemdoing
theimplementingandconditionsforthegrouptargetedbythepolicyorprogram.Toanalyze
howthischangeoccurs,analystsmustappreciateandengagethecomplexsystemsdynamics
withinnestedsocialcontexts(FligsteinandMcAdam2012;ColanderandKupers2014).While
theframeworkispublishedinaspecialsymposiumofPolicyStudiesJournalfocuseduponthe
integrationofpublicmanagementandpublicpolicyscholarship(MoultonandSandfort2017),
somehighlightsaresharedheretoframequestionsofhowitmightenrichstudiesof
coproduction.
First,buildingupontheworkofothergovernancescholars(HillandHupe2014;Ostrom
2007;RobichauandLynnJr.2009),policyandprogramimplementationoccursatvariouslevels,
eachthatservedistinctpurposes.Atthemostmacro-level,therearethepolicyfields,networks
ofinstitutionsactivatedtoengageinimplementationactivitiesinaparticularplaceandtime
(StoneandSandfort2009).Atthislevel,understandingsoftheprogramtechnologyare
developed,viablealternativesaredetermined,andresourcesareassembledtosupportthe
actualimplementationactivitieswithinorganizations.Thisisacomplexprocessthatoftencan
129
involvecompetingcoalitionsandadvocacypositions(Weible,Sabatier,andMcQueen2009).
Conceptually,themezzo-levelofimplementationsystemiscomprisedoforganizationswhere
thepolicyorprogramisintegratedwithexistingoperations,accountabilitiesandpractices,
mostofteninwaysthatareconsistentwithexistingproceduresandpractices(J.R.Sandfort
2010;Khademian2002;Coburn2006).IntheSAFframework,organizationsplayingtwo
particularrolesarehighlighted:authorizingorganizationsofteninterpretandmediatethe
authorityoflawsandpublicaccountability;serviceorganizationsdeliverpublicservices.8Atthe
micro-level,theframeworkdrawsattentiontothefrontlinesofimplementationsystemswhere
interactionsbetweenthesystemandtargetgroupsoccur.Atthislevel,thepolicyorprogramis
enactedsothatitisunderstoodorexperiencedinsomewaysbytheindividuals,families,
communities,ormarketsitisintendedtoinfluence.Whilefrontlinestaffrespondtosignals
fromtheorganization(e.g.,rules,incentives,orperformancetargets),theyalsoexertagencyby
relyingupontheirownprofessionalnorms,orbeliefsdevelopedthroughexperience(Coburn
2005;May&Finch2009;Maynard-Moody&Musheno2003;Sandfort2000). Itisatthislevelof
theimplementationsystemwherecoproductionscholarsoftenfocustheirattention.
Second,theSAFframeworkstressesthateachsiteinanimplementationsystemhas
distinctsocialdynamicsandoperatesasauniquesocialsystem.Ateachsite,peoplehavea
collectiveunderstandingoftheirpurpose,knowtheirrelationships,andimplicitlyunderstand
whatactionsareconsideredtobeappropriateandlegitimateinthatcontext(Fligstein&
McAdam2012).Duringimplementation,actorstrytounderstandtheprogramorpolicy
8Itisquitepossible,however,thatorganizationsplayingotherrolesmightbequiteimportantinshapingaparticularimplementationsystem;forexample,organizationsthatcreatecriticalresourcessuchasresearch,training,orsupplementalfundingmightalsobeimportanttoanalyzetounderstandcomplexsystemdynamics.
130
intervention,workwithotherstodevelopthetermsandprocessesofimplementation,and
shapewhatisacceptabletoothersbyexertingvariousformsofauthority.Inthisnotion,
authorityderivesfromtheperceivedlegitimacyoftheentityorpersonissuingthedirectivein
thatcontext(Blau&Scott,1962;Suchman,1995).
Infact,understandingthecomplexdynamicsateachoftheselevelsrequiresclosely
analyzinghowactorsevokeformalandinformalauthorityduringtheimplementationprocess.
Buildinguponpriorscholarship(SandfortandMoulton,2015),theframeworkhighlightfour
typesofauthoritybroughtintousewhenpeopletrytoreconciletheambiguitythatoften
surroundsimplementationchoices.Mostoften,publicadministratorsandpolicyscholarsfocus
upontheexertionofpoliticalauthority,demonstratedthroughpubliclaws,formalrulesand
regulation.Butwiththeriseofnewpublicmanagement,thereisalsorecognitionofhow
economicauthority–andideasaboutcompetition,returnoninvestment,orperformance–
affecthowprogramimplementationchoicesareshaped.Informalsourcesofauthorityalsoare
quitesignificant.Professionalnormsandstandardsofbehaviordevelopedbyassociationsand
affiliationsoftenalignwithdeepethicalprinciples.Additionally,thebeliefsandvaluesthat
individualsdevelopfromexperienceandinteractionswiththeirpeerscansignificantlyshape
whatgetsdone.
Finally,theframeworkdrawsuponsocialtheorytohighlightthathumanagencyis
significantininterpreting,deployingandrespondingtothesesourcesofauthority(Fligsteinand
McAdam2011;Latour2005;Giddens1984;Bourdieu1977).Asacomplimenttocomplexity
theory,thisrecognizesthatwhiletherearemanypotentialdriversofeitherchangeorstability
withinasystem,individualsplaypotentiallyimportantroles.Throughdemonstrating“social
131
skill,”theycandrawuponknowledgeaboutthatcontexttoengageothersineither
collaborationorcompetition(Fligstein2001;Fligstein2008).9AsMoultonandSandfort (2017:
156)write,“…sociallyskilledactorsusetheirunderstandingofpeopleinthecontexttodevelop
anagreementaboutaplausiblewayforward. Theyinfluenceothers’understandingbyoffering
theirinterpretationofevents,frameactionoptions,andsetanactionagendabyengaging
othersandappealingtotheirinterests.Theycanactasaneutralpartyandbrokeragreements
betweenpeoplewhosharedistinctunderstandingofthetasksathand.”Theuseofsocialskill
isinfluencedandbolsteredbyanindividual’spositionwithinthefieldandtherelationshipsthey
havebuiltwithothersinit.
Duringimplementationofaparticularpolicyorprogram,therearemultipleandoften
overlappingstrategicactionfieldsinvolved.Ineach,peopletrytounderstandtheintervention,
developaprocessofchangetolinkinputsandoutputs,usematerialsandapplytechnicalskills,
anddevelopstructurestotrytocoordinatetheworkperformed.Incarryingoutthesetasks,
theyrelyupondifferentsourcesofauthority,attemptingtoengageeachotherbyusing
conceptsandcommunicationstrategiesthatpeoplewithinthatcontextunderstandtobe
legitimate.Infact,withinaparticularsocialsetting,peoplevestdifferentsourcesofauthority
withmoreorlesslegitimacy.Thisnotionhelpstoofferanexplanationforwhyfieldstudiesso
oftendocumentsignificantvariationinimplementationconditionsandoutcomesamong
9Thistheoreticalapproachhasadifferentontologicalassumptionthanmanyconventionalpolicyanalysisframeworks.Ratherthanseeingindividualsasfocuseduponmaximizingeconomicgain,strategicactionfieldseesindividualsmotivatedbysocialacceptability(Fligstein&McAdam,2012;Moulton&Sandfort,2017).
132
organizationsimplementingthesamepolicyorprogram(GarrowandGrusky2012;Sandfort
2003;Selden,elal2006).
ThustheSAFframeworkoffersananalyticalapproachtounderstandingtheoperationof
varioussitesanddriverswithincompleximplementationsystems.Thepurposeofthemodelis
nottopredictimplementationsuccessorfailure.Instead,itistoincreaseattentiontothe
variouspartsofthesystemanddescribeageneralizableprocessthatshapeswhat
implementationisinpractice.Initsideal,thecomplexsystemsinvolvedinpolicyandprogram
implementationshouldbeorientedtowardcreatingpublicvalueoutcomes–both
improvementsinthesystemandinconditionsforthegrouptargetedbythepolicy–on
purpose(Bryson,etal2015;SandfortandMoulton,2015).Yetthatoftendoesnotoccur.The
frameworkenablesapragmaticresponsebecauseithighlightsinterrelationshipamongsystem
partsandpointstopotentialinterventionpoints(Sandfort,2017).Assuch,itoffersthe
possibilityofenablingscholarstocarryoutdesign-basedresearchfocuseduponimproving
thefrontlineconditionswherepublicsystemsandcitizensinteract.Todoso,wemust
understandmoreabouttheparticularelementswithinsocialsystemsandhowtheymightbe
deployedtoimprovedesiredresults.
FocusingupontheUseofMaterialsandArtifacts
Publicdeliberationresearchislikelyfamiliartoscholarsinterestedincoproduction.
Withinthatbodyofliterature,itisrecognizedthatwhileengagementtechniquesandgoalsare
important(Brysonetal.2013;Creighton2005;Kaner2007,NabatchiandLeighninger,2015),it
isclearthatdeliberativepractitionerspayconsiderableattentiontomaterialobjectsthat
133
includethephysicalsetting,suppliessuchasbutcherblockpaper,coloredmarkers,andsticky
notes,andvisualproductssuchaswrittenproceedingsorgraphicnewsletters(GirardandStark
2007).Materialobjectscaninfluencethesubsequenteventsbydrawingattentiontocertain
insights,creatingrecords,orinvitingadeeperlisteningandengagement.Inotherwords,
materialobjectsbecomesignificantartifactswhentheyareusedtoalterrelationshipsand
results(Latour2005).
Inotherwork(SandfortandQuick2017),weanalyzeethnographicdatetoilluminate
howthereisa“deliberativetechnology”atworkinparticipatoryprocess.Thisconceptfocuses
analyticalattentiononboththeresourcesanddynamicsthatfacilitatorsofsuchprocesses
designandadaptduringapplication.Inthisanalysis,wediscoveredthatmaterialobjectswere
criticalresourcesthatbothshapedthenatureofthedeliberativeinteractionsandgatherings
anddocumentedwhatresultedtoassurethatresultswereretrievablebyothers.Infact,we
sawsuchobjectsoperatingas“propsonadeliberativestage,”offeringpotentiallysignificant
resourcesthatbothfacilitatorsandparticipantscouldutilizetoshapewhatunfolded.Inthe
empiricalcasesinvolvingregionaleconomicdevelopment,servicedeliveryredesign,andstate
budgetdialogues,materialartifactscouldbeusedtofocusattentionandchallengedominant
formsofauthoritywithinthesocialsettingofdeliberation.
Thisfindingisechoedinthescholarshipofdesign.Inenvironmentalandproduct
design,graphicrenderingsofcontextualconditionsarebroughtintoasocialspacetogether
withengineeringandsocialscienceresearch.Throughfacilitation,stakeholdersco-create
artifactsthatrepresentthekeyideasofdesignthatthenshapeorganizationalandpolicy
decision-making(Cordon,2012;Hester,2012).Theartifactsthemselvesenduphaving
134
significancewithinthesocialsetting.Theyrepresentintentionbuttheyalsoshapeattention.
Issuesthatneedfurtherinvestigation,resolutionofcontroversybetweenvariousstakeholders,
hopesforfuturedevelopment–theseallcanbecapturedandsharedthroughthematerial
artifactsgeneratedbyprofessionalsandcitizensinthedesignersCharretteProcess.10
Tobeexplicit,however,themeaningorsignificanceofamaterialobjectisnot
predeterminedineitherthedeliberativeordesignprocess.Individualswithknowledgeofthe
context–whatthestrategicactionfieldframeworkcalls“socialskill”–useahandout,graph,
photographormodelactwhentheywanttofocusothersoncollectionactions.Associal
theoristshaveconceptualized(Giddens1984;Goffman1959;FligsteinandMcAdam2011),the
materialobjectsareresources.Theyaretoolsthatmightshapesocialdynamicsand
understanding.
Drawinguponanin-depthstudyofproductmanufacturing,Carlile(2002)theorizes
abouthowmaterialobjects,whichhecalls“boundaryobjects,”functionasessentialresources
inbridgingdifferences.InCarlile’sconception,bestpracticereports,visualanalytics,or
performancemeasurescanbeusedtobridgethesyntactic,semanticandpragmaticboundaries
thatseparatedepartmentsororganizations.Thetoolshelprepresentinformationtoothers,
offerawaytolearnotheralternatives,andtransformtheirownunderstandings.Theyallow
groupsofdifferentlysituatedindividualstoconsiderwhatisand,byfacilitatingaprocessof
examinationandreflection,makechanges.Othersrefertotheseas“facilitativedevices,”for
10Thisisacommonprofessionalpracticeinarchitecture.See,forexample,theNationalCharretteInstitute(www.charretteinstitute.org).
135
howtheyenableactorstomanagetheinteractionsbetweenprocess,content,contextand
outcomes(BrysonandFinn,n.d.)
Withinpublicmanagement,theesteemedtheoristsMarthaFeldman,AnneKhademian,
HelenIngram,andAnneSchneiderfurtherdevelopthisidea.Ina2006essay,theyarticulate
thatpublicmanagersinterventionswithcitizensinvolvesengagingacrossdifferentwaysof
knowing(Feldmanetal.2006).Throughinclusivemanagementpractices,boththedesignand
implementationwillbeimprovedandthepracticeofdemocracywillbestrengthen.Tohone
suchpractices,theydrawscholars’attentiontoboundaryexperience,boundaryobjects,and
boundaryorganizations.Whiletheydrawuponanothervariantofsocialtheory(actor-network
theory),theoverallapproachisconsistenttowhatisbeingsuggestedhere.Actorscandraw
uponmaterialobjectstobridgethedifferencesthatoftenseparatethewaysofknowingthat
groupsofpeopleworkingtogetherdeveloptosolveproblems.
Beforeturningtotheexploratorycasethatillustratestheseideas,itisimportantto
explicitlynotehowthistheoreticalunderstandingdiffersfundamentallythantherationalactor
theoriesthatdominatemuchofpublicmanagementresearch.Inrationalchoice,individuals
andinstitutionsareassumedtohavefixedpreference.Theformalauthority,suchasrules,
policy,orperformancecriteria,areassumedtobebothexogenoustothesystemand
predeterminedtobelegitimateinshapingwhathappensduringimplementation.Inthe
strategicactionfieldframework,theoppositeisassumed.Actorshavemanydistinct
constituenciestobalanceandtheymakestrategicchoicesabouthowtousetheformsof
authoritytosatisfythemostcompelling.Authorityisendogenoustothesystemandemerges
fromthesensemadebypeopleastheygrapplewiththeirchoicesamongpotentialframes
136
offeredbyotherstodefineproblemsandsolutions.Oftentimes,thischoiceisinfluencedby
theirdesiretobelikedbyothers.Yet,cooperationbetweenthevariouspointsofviewmustbe
constantlynegotiatedandrealignedamongpeopleinvolved.Thosewhohavesocialskilland
areknowledgeableaboutthecontexthavemoreabilitiestoprovideleadership.Thoseableto
deployboundaryobjectsthattranscendtheparticularsocialsettingareabletomobilize
collectiveunderstandingandresourcestogetthingsdone.
ANEXPLORATORYCASE:DISCOVERTOGETHER
Inearly2017,wewerebroughtinbyalocalcountygovernmenttodesignandworkwith
stafftobuildneworganizationalcapabilitiesforauthenticcommunityengagementfocused
initiallyinacommunitywithgrowingconcentrationofpoverty.11Theseniorleadersandcounty
boardwereinterestedinmovingbeyondconventionalapproachtohealthandhumanservice
provisiontomore‘generative’approaches,definedbyfieldleadersasfocusingupon
“generatinghealthycommunitiesbyco-creatingsolutionsformulti-dimensionalfamilyand
socioeconomicchallengesandopportunities”(Oftelie,2014).
OurteamisdrawingheavilyaboutengagementpracticesandmodelsfromtheArtof
HostingandHarvestingConversationsthatMatter,aglobalcommunityofsystems’change
facilitatorswhosharetheirknowledgethroughopensourcetrainingworkshopsand
practitionergatherings(WheatleyandFrieze2001;Lundquistetal.2013;QuickandSandfort
11From2000to2015,thepovertyrateinthecommunityincreasedfrom6.1to13.2,althoughthepercentageofadultsintheworkforceremainedthesame.Theproportionoffamiliesreceivingpublicassistancebenefitsincreasedsubstantially.Simultaneously,thecommunityexperiencedasignificantincreaseinLatino/Hispanicresidents.
137
2014;SandfortandQuick2017).ThisapproachleadsustorelyuponaCoreTeamofdiverse
teamofcommunityleaderswhomeetregularlytonametheeffort,designandimplementthe
communityengagementactivities.Currentlycomprisedofministers,youngresidents,
engagementstafffromthecitygovernmentandschooldistrict,aswellascounty-government
staff,thecompositionofthe“DiscoverTogether”CoreTeamevolvesastheprojectdevelops.
Thefirstphaseoftheprojectinvolvedanalysisofsecondarydataaboutprogram
participationandsocialandeconomicconditions.MembersofthisCoreTeamalsocarriedout
participantobservationofnumerouscommunitymeetings,afocusgroupwithresidentswho
arealsoemployeesoftheCounty,andtwentysemi-structuredethnographicinterviewswith
notablecommunityleaders,includingcityofficials(includingthecurrentandpastmayor),
schooldistrictofficials,nonprofitstaff,alocalhistorian,andleadersofdifferentfaith
communities.Theinitialfocuswastobetterunderstandconditionsinthecommunity,including
assetsandconcerns,andbetterunderstandhowthehistoryofintergovernmentalrelationships
influencedthepotentialofnewserviceinnovationthatmoredeeplyengagedthecommunity.
Thisinitialdatacollectionuncoveredmanycommunityassets:Therearemany
resourcesandcharacteristicsthatappealtoyoungfamilies.Theyaredrawntothecommunity
dueitsaffordablehousing,highqualityschools,amplepublicspace(includingtheparksand
accessibilitytotheriver),andthe“smalltownfeel.”Commutestothecentercityareshortand
neighborsknownoneanother.Thereisapalpableamountofloyaltyandcommunitypride
presentandmanyrecountedalong-standingnormthatchildrengrowupintheschoolsand
thenreturntothecitytoraisetheirownchildrenaftertechnicalcollegeora4-yeardegree.
138
These“BornandRaised”familiespossessadeeplyembeddedloyaltytothecityandinvesttheir
timeandmoneyinlocalchurches,schools,andcommunityevents.
Thereare,however,growingneedsoflow-incomefamilieswhoareattractedtothe
communitybecauseofitsaffordablehousing.Withintheschools,thenumberofchildren
qualifyingforfreeandreducedlunchhasincreasedinrecentyearsandthereisrecognitionthat
childrenfromsuchfamilieshavemultipleneedsthecityandcommunityarestrugglingto
addressontheirown.Theseparationofservicesfromoneanother,coupledwiththe
transportationbarriersthatmanyface,makeitdifficulttoaccesstheservicesthatdoexist.The
needsareacutelyfeltinthepublicschools.Sincethelate1970swhentheindustrialmeat
packingplantsshutdown,economicdevelopmenthasbeenachallenge.Theindustryleft
behindaninfrastructurethatneededtobetorndown,creatingalong-feltburdenoncity
resources.Thereisageneralsensethatthecommunitylacksanadequatenumberofjobs,
commercialandentertainmentspace,andthereislimitedabilitytosupportadiverarrayof
smallandmediumsizebusinesses.
Theinterviewsandfocusgroupalsoidentifiedtheabsenceofcommunitygathering
spaces.Whilehighschoolactivitiesandsportingeventsareimportant,therearen’tmany
placeswherepeoplegatherforcommunityevents.Compoundingthislackofphysical
gatheringspacesistheabsenceofothertypesofavenuesforsharedexperiences,suchasa
weeklyormonthlynewspaperforthecity.WhilethereareanumberofactiveFacebook
groups,theycanalsobecomeeasilycapturedbyextremevoices.Therealsoarefewgathering
spacesthatbridgeracialorgenerationaldivisionswithinthecommunity.Theracialdivisionis
particularlysalientandnotableforitsgenerationaldimensions.“Newfamilies”representing
139
LatinoandAfricanAmericanfamilies(oratleast,familiesthatincludegreaterracialandethnic
diversity)werecalledoutandcontrastedwith“oldfamilies”ofolderwhitehouseholds.The
growingracialdiversityappearstobesomethingthatoldergenerationsiswrestlingwithmore
thantheyouth,whoaremoreaccustomedtosuchdifferencesbecauseoftheirexperiencesin
school.Inconversationswithresidents,racialdivisionsoftensurfacedinthecontextof
“change.”Participantsmentionedthatthecityischangingintermsofitsdemographicsand
thatthischangeisuncomfortabletosome.RecentnationaleventsinvolvingtheTrump
administration’sstrictstanceonillegalimmigrationhavecreatedasenseoffearwithinthe
Latinocommunitysurroundingdeportation,thebreakupoffamilies,andofthegovernmentin
general.Suchsentimentsarenotdefiningfeaturesofthecommunity,yetareimportant
contextualdimensionsthatarepresent.
Asaresultofthisinformationcollection,theCoreTeamsettleduponasimplepurpose
fortheengagementactivitiesduringthesecondprojectphase:Todiscoverhowcommunity
members,communityagencies,andthecountygovernmentcanworktogethertoinvestin
makingthecommunityagreatplaceforallwholive,learn,work,andplayheretodayandinto
thefuture.Specificactivitiesareshapedbyco-developedprinciples,andadevelopmental
evaluationisdocumentinghowtheCoreTeamadherestothem:magnifyandleverageassets
ofthecommunity;buildandinvestinrelationshipsacrossdifference;identifyresourcestoact
onideasfromallpartsofthecommunitytosupportourpurpose;believethatgovernmentcan
co-createcapacityandbroadersolutionstocommunity-widechallengesbyhelpingtofacilitate
communityconversationsandenablingcollectiveaction;andplaytogetherandfindjoyinthis
work.
140
Throughouttheimplementationoftheengagementactivities,theCoreTeamis
stressingtheresponsibilityforcommunitymemberstoco-createsolutionswiththeschool
district,andcountyandcitygovernments.Through“pop-up”engagementsatvarious
communityeventsandwell-traveledby-ways,theyareaskingquestionsaboutcentralconcerns
aboutfamilycircumstances:howstableishousingandwhataretheconsequenceswhenitis
not?Whataretheconsequencesofincomeinstabilityandinsufficientaccesstofood?Howare
peopletryingtoaccesseducationandcreatesafeplacesfortheirfamilies?Howarethey
assuringtheenvironmentishealthyandthatwell-beinginsupported?Thesequestionsseekto
uncoverinformationaboutfactorsresearchshowarethesocialdeterminantsofwell-beingand
health.Throughfocuseddesigncharrettes,theyareengagingcommunitymembersinvision
sessionsaboutpotentialcommunitygatheringspotswheresocialservices,educational
programsmightbecollocatedwiththehistoricalsocietyandcitylibrary.
RoleofMaterialArtifactsinFrontlineCoproduction
Thestrategicactionfieldframeworkdrawsattentiontotheroleofsocialsystemsat
multiplelevelsindetermininghowaprogramorpolicyisunderstoodandenactedbyactors.
Studiesofcitizenengagementindeliberativedemocracyandenvironmentaldesignhighlight
thesignificanceofphysicalartifacts.IntheDiscoverTogetherexploratorycase,some
interestinginsightsareemergingabouttheroleofmaterialobjectsinsupportingthe
coproductionprocess.Threethemesstandoutfromthisinitialanalysis:
First,roughsketchesofconceptualframeworksarecriticalduringtheformationofa
participatoryprocesswithindividualsfromdiverseprofessionalorientations.Such“collective
impact”projectshavebecomealloftherageinthelastfiveyears,fuelinginpartbythe
141
mismatchbetweensolo-sectorsolutionstointractablesocialproblems,suchaspoverty(Kania
andKramer,2011).Whilethestrengthofcross-sectorcollaborationisthemultipleresources
andperspectivesthatarebroughttogether,thissamediversitycanprovidechallengingwhen
shapingavision,decidinguponstrategies,andexecutingtactics.Understoodtheoretically,
thereareboundariestobenegotiatedbetweenpeoplewhoconventionallyunderstandandact
indistinctstrategicactionfields.
Inthiscase,wefindthatroughsketchesofconceptualmodelsprovideessential
cognitivereferencepointstohelporientandalignactorstotheirsharedwork.Forexample,at
thebeginningoftheDiscoverTogetherinitiative,countymanagersattendedathree-day
trainingofferedtoothersinthestateaboutparticipatoryengagementprocesses.Various
conceptualframeworkswerepresentedthathelpedorientpeopletotheemergentnatureof
participatoryprojects,includingonethatrepresentstheconventionprocessesofdivergence
andconvergence,anotherthatillustratestheprocessofmovingbetween‘order’and‘chaos’in
projectmanagement(Lundquist,etal,2013).Theyalsoreceivedacolorfultrainingmanualthat
summarizedkeyterminology,frameworks,andengagementpracticesfromtheopen-sourceArt
ofHostingmethodology(QuickandSandfort,2014).Themodelswerepresentedorganicallyat
thetraining,inmoduleswheretrainersitontheflooranddrawkeyconceptsonnewsprint,
withparticipantsencouragedtowritenotesandquestionsintheirtrainingmanual.Asthe
DiscoverTogetherprojectwasbeingshaped,thesemodelsweresharedinasimilarwayasnew
membersoftheCoreTeamjoinedtheeffort,tohelporientthemtotheworkandmakeclear
theexplicitorientationtowardscoproduction.Intheseconversations,peoplewhowere
trainedreinforcedtheconcepts,communicatingtheirfacevalidity,andsharedpartsofthe
142
manualwithotherstoexplaintheideasmorefully.Thisprovidedadurablereferenceusedby
thegroupthroughouttheproject.
Second,providingtangibleandevocativedocumentationofeventsiscriticalthroughout
theengagementactivities.Thedocumentationhastakenmultipleformats–largeposterswith
compellingvisualsofpeopleorideas,artcreatedspontaneouslyinparksduringevents,large
colorfulplanningtemplateswithgraphicalillustrationsofcauseandeffectrelationshipsto
promptthoroughdesign.Newslettersthatsummarizetheinsightssharedbyattendeesand
two-pagedocumentsdescribingtheprojectpurposeandengagementprinciplesarealso
resources.Coreteammemberssharesuchartifactspurposively,throughwebsitestoenable
otherstoviewthedevelopmentoftheinitiative,atCityCouncilmeetings,withcountysenior
managers,atengagementevents.Theartifactsarecriticaltoolsthatexpandopportunities
coproduction.Forexample,ataCityCouncilmeeting,citystaffthoughtitwasimportantto
postsomelargedrawingscreatedtocapturewhatpeoplethoughtwerethecommunities’
“mustseeanddos.”Inthediscussionthatresulted,theelectedofficialswelcomedthe
DiscoverTogetherstaffintoakeycitypriorityfortheyear-howtobestredeveloppublicspace
includingalibraryandhistoricalsociety.MembersoftheCoreTeamhadpreparedforthe
discussionbytalkingwithpeoplewhohadformalauthoritysuchastheMayor,CityManager,
andLibrarianbutthepresenceoftheartonthewallshelpedtosignalthatthiswasnot
businessasusual.Asonecitycouncilmembersaid,“Wearesoexcitedtobeabletohearfrom
communitymembersthemselves.”ByinvitingtheDiscoverTogethercoreteamintothe
ongoingpublicspaceplanning,theelectedofficialsexplicitlydecidedtoengagemoredeeply
143
thecommunityindetermininghowtheshapeandservicesmixforthenewbuildingwouldbe
determined.
Whilethetangibleartifactsarepowerfulresourcesforengagingothers,theyalsoare
importanttoolswithintheCoreTeamitself.Membersdrawuponthemwhiletalkingaboutkey
learningsuchastheinteractionsbetweenethnicityandage.Theyrelyuponthemwhen
shapingevaluationactivities,referencingthetwo-pagesummarydocumentwhendesigningthe
evaluationtoassesswhetherornotactivitiesarealignedwiththearticulatedpurposeand
principles.Whenplanningrefinementstofutureengagements,theypulloutthecolorful
templatesdevelopedattheretreatandembedthecreativeideasintomoreformalworkplans.
Third,moreformalreportsareoftenusedtoenableotherstocometoconclusionsand
committotheinvestmentofadditionalresources.Forexample,staffandcommunitymembers
intheDiscoverTogethercoproductionprojectfirstbeganbycollectingdatathroughoutthe
community.Thatinformation,alongwithotheranalysisofthecounty’sprogramparticipation
andU.S.Censusdataovertime,wasassembledintoaformalreport.Itwassharedwithcounty
managers,citycouncilmembers,andtheelectedcountyboardtodescribetheengagement.
Projectleadersusedthisartifactasanexcusetomakepresentationstothesevariousgroupsto
increasetheirawarenessoftheprojectandbuilditslegitimacy,respondingtoquestionsand
invitingthestakeholderswhopossessformalauthoritytoparticipateintheengagement
activities.
Thisinitialanalysisillustratestheworkthatcanbedonewhenmaterialartifactsare
recognizedandusedasresources.Withinastrategicactionfield,thesethingscanbecome
importanttoolsincoproduction.Theyallowabstractideastobegroundedandallowpeopleto
144
understandwheretheyareinthedevelopmentofaproject,plansharedactivities,andassess
progress.Theyalsopotentiallybridgeacrossfieldsbymakingactivitiestransparentto
communitymembersandbuildlegitimacyforfutureactivities.Becausetheyaretangible,
materialartifactscancreatevisibilityforcoproductionactivitiesthat,inturn,garnermore
investmentorbroadenedscopeofwork.
Yet,assuggestedbythetheoreticalframework,thesignificanceofartifactsisnot
exogenoustothesocialsystem.Theyrelyuponsociallyskillfulactorstobringtheintouse
(FeldmanandQuick2009;SandfortandQuick2017).Indoingso,theseactorstrytocreate
agreementwithothersaboutviablewaysforward.IntheDiscoverTogethercase,theuseof
theconceptualmodelsandArtofHostingframeworkshelpedinducecooperationinthe
collectiveactionnecessaryforcoproduction.Sociallyskilledactorsalsousethesetoolsto
frameothers’understandingofexperiences.Inthiscaseofengagement,thecolorful
newsletterssummarizewhatoccurredandmajorthemesaboutthecommunityneedsthat
werelearned.Whenusedindiscussionwithcountymanagers,theyhaveenablednew
programmingandmorehonedinvestmentofexistingfundstobettermeettheneedsof
citizens.Socialskilledactorsalsousematerialobjectstoframeactionoptionsandsetan
agendaforactionbyappealingtoothers’interests(Kingdon1984).AswasillustratedintheCity
Councildeliberationsaboutdevelopmentofpublicspace,theybroadenedconsiderationofthe
projectandenableacoproductionapproachtobeembracedbecauseofthesuggestion,
enabledbythecolorfulmaterialobjectshungonthewall,thatthisprocesswouldsolvethe
needforbroadcommunityengagement.
145
Thestrategicactionfieldtheoryalsostressesthatmaterialobjectsarebroughtintouse
whenactorsshapeorrecognizethemconsistentwithwhatisalreadyunderstoodtobe
legitimateinthatsocialsetting(FligsteinandMcAdam2012).IntheDiscoverTogethercase,
thetrainingworkshoptheyattendedearlyintheprojecthelpedcountymanagersunderstand
thelargerbodyofknowledgeunderpinningtheconceptualmodels.Thelookandfeelof
documentsreflectsthenormsofthecommunity;thetwo-pageprojectoverviewusescolors
consistentwiththehighschoolandimagesofcommunitygatheringplaces;theartcaptured
localknowledgeaboutcurrentconditions.Tooperateasboundaryobjects,thesetoolsmustbe
groundedincommunityconditionsandthenusedtotranslateitfordifferentaudiences.
CONCLUDINGTHOUGHTS
Thispaperisafirstattempttoconnectthelargerliteratureonpolicyandprogram
implementationwiththeemergingscholarshiponcoproduction.Atbase,itisaneffortto
broadenthedialogueandillustrateanotherwayofconceptualizinghowpublicservicesystems
interactionswithcitizensispartofthelargerpolicyprocess.Inadditiontosummarizingthe
strategicactionfieldframework,wehavesharedsomepreliminaryanalysisofaninteresting
caseofcitizenengagementincoproductioninahighpovertyneighborhoodbyacounty
government.
Inouranalysis,wewantedtofocusattentionupontheuseofmaterialobjectsand
provideatheoreticalaccountofthecoproductionworktheycanenable.Whenactors
knowledgeableabouttheparticularcontextdrawstrategicallyupontheseresources,theycan
becomepotenttoolsofchange.Hopefully,thisanalysishighlightsthepracticalsignificanceof
146
materialobjects.Thehelpbuildcollectiveunderstandingbymakingtheprocessesand
productsofcoproductionmoretangible,moreobjective,moreabletoinspirefocused
discussionsandenablecollectiveaction.
References
Bearman,SarahKate,JohnR.Weisz,BruceF.Chorpita,KimberlyHoagwood,AlyssaWard,AnaM.Ugueto,andAdamBernstein.2013.“MorePractice,LessPreach?TheRoleofSupervisionProcessesandTherapistCharacteristicsinEBPImplementation.”AdministrationandPolicy
inMentalHealthandMentalHealthServicesResearch40(6).SpringerUS:518–29.
Bourdieu,Pierre.1977.OutlineofaTheoryofPractice.EditedbyJackGoody.CambridgeStudies
inSocialAnthropology.Vol.16.CambridgeStudiesinSocialAnthropology.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bryson,John,KathrynQuick,CarissaSlotterback,andBarbaraCrosby.2013.“Designingpublicparticipationprocesses.”PublicAdministrationReview73(1):23-34.
Coburn,CynthiaE.2006.“FramingtheProblemofReadingInstruction:UsingFrameAnalysistoUncovertheMicroprocessesofPolicyImplementation.”AmericanEducationalResearch
Journal43(3):343–79.
Colander,David,andRolandKupers.2014.ComplexityandtheArtofPublicPolicy:Solving
Society’sProblemsfromtheBottomUp.Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Condon,P.M.2012.DesignCharrettesforSustainableCommunities.Washington:IslandPress.
Creighton,James.2005.ThePublicParticipationHandbook:MakingBetterDecisionsthrough
CitizenInvolvement.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Deane,FrankP,RettaAndresen,TrevorP.Crowe,LindsayG.Oades,JosephCiarrochi,andVirginiaWilliams.2013.“AComparisonofTwoCoachingApproachestoEnhanceImplementationofaRecovery-OrientedServiceModel.”AdministrationandPolicyin
MentalHealthandMentalHealthServicesResearch.SpringerUS,1–8.
Feldman,MarthaS.,AnneM.Khademian,HelenIngram,andAnneS.Schneider.2006.“WaysofKnowingandInclusiveManagementPractices.”PublicAdministrationReview66(s1):89–99.
Feldman,MarthaS.,andKathrynS.Quick.2009.“GeneratingResourcesandEnergizingFrameworksThroughInclusivePublicManagement.”InternationalPublicManagement
Journal12(2):137–71.
147
Feldman,MarthaS.andAnneM.Khademian.2007.“TheRoleofthePublicManagerinInclusion:CreatingCommunitiesofParticipation.”Governance20(2):305-324.
Fligstein,Neil.2001.“SocialSkillandtheTheoryofFields.”SociologicalTheory19(2).AmericanSociologicalAssociation:105–25.
———.2008.“Fields,PowerandSocialSkill:ACriticalAnalysisoftheNewInstitutionalisms.”InternationalPublicManagementReview9(1):227–53.
Fligstein,Neil,andDougMcAdam.2011.“TowardaGeneralTheoryofStrategicActionFields,”SociologicalTheory29(1):1–26.
———.2012.ATheoryofFields.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress.
Garrow,EveE.,andOscarGrusky.2012.“InstitutionalLogicandStreet-LevelDiscretion:TheCaseofHIVTestCounseling.”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory23(1):103–31.
Giddens,A.1984.TheConstitutionofSociety:OutlineofaTheoryofStructuration.Berkeley,California:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Gira,EmmanuelleC,MichelleLKessler,andJohnPoertner.2004.“InfluencingSocialWorkerstoUseResearchEvidenceinPractice:LessonsfromMedicineandtheAlliedHealthProfessions.”ResearchonSocialWorkPractice14(2):68–79.
Girard,Monique,andDavidStark.2007.“Socio-technologiesofAssembly:SenseMakingandDemonstrationinRebuildingLowerManhattan.”InGovernanceandInformation
Technology:FromElectronicGovernmenttoInformationGovernment,ed.ViktorMayer-SchonbergerandDavidLazerDavid.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,145-176
Goffman,Erving.1959.ThePresentationofSelfinEverydayLife.EditedbyEdinburghUniversityOf.Teacher.Vol.21.AnchorBooks.Doubleday.
Greenhalgh,Trisha,GlennRobert,FraserMacFarlane,PaulBate,andOliviaKyriakidou.2004.“DiffusionofInnovationsinServiceOrganizations:SystematicReviewandRecommendations.”TheMilbankQuarterly82(4):581–629.
Hester,R.T.2010.DesignforEcologicalDemocracy.Cambridge,Mass:MITPress.
Hill,Michael,andPeterHupe.2014.ImplementingPublicPolicy:AnIntroductiontotheStudyof
OperationalGovernance.3rded.SagePublications.
Kaner,Sam.2007.Facilitator’sGuidetoParticipatoryDecision-Making.2ndedition.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Kania,JohnandMarkKramer(2011),"Collectiveimpact,"StanfordSocialInnovationReview:36-41.
Khademian,AnneM.2002.WorkingwithCulture:TheWaytheJobGetsDoneinPublic
Programs.WashingtonD.C.:CQPress.
Kingdon,JW.1984.Agendas,Alternatives,andPublicPolicies.NewYork:Longman.
148
Latour,Bruno.2005.ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActor-NetworkTheory.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress/UK.
Lundquist,Leah,JodiR.Sandfort,ChristLopez,MarcelaSotelaOdor,KarenSeashore,JenMein,andMyronLowe,eds.2013.CultivatingChangeintheAcademcy:PracticingtheArtof
HostingsConversationsThatMatterwithintheUniversityofMinnesota.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnsotaDigitalConservancy.
Moulton,Stephanie,andJodiR.Sandfort.2017.“TheStrategicActionFieldFrameworkForPolicyImplementationResearch.”PolicyStudiesJournal45(1):144–69.
Nabatchi,TinaandMattLeighninger(2015).PublicParticipationfor21stCenturyDemocracy.Jossey-Bass.
Nadeem,Erum,AlissaGleacher,andRinadS.Beidas.2013.“ConsultationasanImplementationStrategyforEvidence-BasedPracticesAcrossMultipleContexts:UnpackingtheBlackBox.”AdministrationandPolicyinMentalHealthandMentalHealthServicesResearch40(6).SpringerUS:439–50.
Nilsen,Per,ChristianStåhl,KerstinRoback,andPaulCairney.2013.“NevertheTwainShallMeet?--aComparisonofImplementationScienceandPolicyImplementationResearch.”ImplementationScience8(63).ImplementationScience.
Oftelie,AntonioM.2014.“TheHumanServicesValueCurve:AFrameworkforImprovedHumanServicesOutcomes,Value,andLegitimacy”.OutcomeofWorkshopconvenedbyLeadershipforaNetworkedWorld,TechnologyandEntrepreneurshipCenteratHarvardUniversity.
Polletta,FrancescaandPangChingBobbyChen.2013.“TheGenderedPublicSphere:AccountingforWomen’sVariableParticipationinSettingsofPoliticalTalk.”
Ostrom,E.2007.“InstitutionalRationalChoice:AnAssessmentoftheInstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework.”InTheoriesofthePolicyProcess,editedbyPaulASabatier,2nded.,21–64.Cambridge,Massachusetts:WestviewPress.
Quick,Kathryn.S.,andMarthaFeldman,2014.Boundariesasjunctures:Collaborativeboundaryworkforbuildingefficientresilience.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory24(3):673-695.
Quick,Kathryn,andJodiSandfort.2014.“LearningtoFacilitateDeliberation:PracticingtheArtofHosting.”CriticalPolicyStudies8(3).Routledge:300–322.
Robichau,RobbieWaters,andLaurenceELynnJr.2009.“TheImplementationofPublicPolicy:StilltheMissingLink.”PolicyStudiesJournal37(1).Wiley-BlackwellPublishing:21–36.
Roll,Stephen,StephanieMoulton,andJodiSandfort.2017.“AComparativeAnalysisofTwoStreamsofImplementationResearch.”JournalofPublicandNonprofitAffairs3(1):3–22.
Sandfort,Jodi,andKathrynS.Quick.2017.“DeliberativeTechnology:AHolisticLensforInterpretingResourcesandDynamicsinDeliberation.”JournalofPublicDeliberation13(1).
149
Sandfort,JodiR.2003.“ExploringtheStructurationofTechnologywithinHumanServiceOrganizations.”Administration&Society34(6).605–31.
Sandfort,JodiR.2010.“HumanServiceOrganizationalTechnology.”InHumanServicesas
ComplexOrganizations,editedbyYeheskelHasenfeld,2ndedition:269–90.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.
Selden,SallyColeman,JessicaESowa,andJodiSandfort.2006.“TheImpactofNonprofitCollaborationinEarlyChildCareandEducationonManagementandProgramOutcomes.”PublicAdministrationReview66(3):412–25.
Stone,Melissa,andJodiRSandfort.2009.“BuildingaPolicyFieldsFrameworktoInformResearchinNonprofitOrganizations.”NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly38(6):1054–75.
Tabak,RachelG,ElaineCKhoong,DavidaChambers,andRossCBrownson.2012.“BridgingResearchandPractice:ModelsforDisseminationandImplementationResearch.”AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine43(3).ElsevierInc.:337–50.
Weible,ChristopherM.,Paula.Sabatier,andKellyMcQueen.2009.“ThemesandVariations:TakingStockoftheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework.”PolicyStudiesJournal37(1):121–40.
Wheatley,Margaret,andDeborahFrieze.2001.WalkOut,WalkOn:ALearningJourneyinto
CommunitiesDaringtoLivetheFutureNow.NewYork:Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.
150
Asystematicreviewofredtapeasabarrierforco-producingpublicservices(VanDijckand
Steen)
By
CharlotteVanDijckandTruiSteen
PublicGovernanceInstitute,KULeuven
paperpreparedfor
IIASStudyGroupon‘CoproductionofPublicServices’–Fifthopenmeeting
6-7June2017,Washington,D.C.
Introduction
Collaborationhasmanifesteditselfasanimportantvehicleforpublicsectorinnovationoverthepastdecade.Theprospectofcostreductions,enhancedservicequalityandgreaterusersatisfactionmakesastrongcaseformoreresearchintocollaborativeinnovationfromasocietalaswellasanacademicpointofview(Löffler,2009).Thereforecollaboratingforinnovation,forexamplethroughco-production,isbooming.Governmentsincreasinglycollaboratewithexternalstakeholderssuchasbusinesses,non-profitorganizations,interestgroupsandcitizens(OECD,2011).Thisspecificformofcollaborationcanprovidethegovernmentwithawideareaofnewanddifferentideasonthegenerationofpoliciesandservices,andtheirimplementation.Asaresultco-productioncanbeatruedriverforinnovation(Head2008;Sørensen&Torfing,2011).
Becausethefieldisstilldeveloping,fewstudieshavebeenconductedwithregardtoconditionsforsuccessfulco-production.Thereforewelookatthecollaborativeinnovationliteratureandthepublicsectorinnovationliteraturefordriversandbarriersinthisarticle(Windrum&Koch,2008;Voorbergetal,2013).Itisnotablehowauthorsusedifferentcategorizationsandfocusondifferentaspects.Hartley(2005)dividesdriverandbarriersintop-downandbottom-upconditions,whileGreerandLei(2012)discussorganizationalstructural,communicationrelated,individuallevel,technologyrelated,andexternalforcesthataffectcollaborativeinnovation.
151
SørensenandTorfing(2011)inturndistinguishbetweencultural,institutional,inter-organizational,organizationalandidentityrelateddriversandbarriers.
Inshortthereisnorealconsensusontherelevantorganizationalconditionsforcollaborativeinnovationnorforco-productionspecifically.Avariablethatisrarelyconsidered,isredtape,definedas‘burdensomerulesandproceduresthatnegativelyaffectperformance’(cf.Bozeman,1993).Thisisremarkablesinceredtapeisknowntohaveanegativeimpactonbothinnovationandcollaboration(Feeney,2012;Ljungholm,2014).Insightsintothedynamicsoftheserelationshipsarefragmentedhowever.Still,intheliteraturewefindsomepotentialexplanationsofhowredtapemightaffectpublicserviceorganisations’potentialforcollaborativeinnovationandforsettingupnewco-productioninitiatives.Studiesshowhowredtapecanincreasepracticalthresholdstoengageincollaborationwithexternalstakeholdersandintroduceinnovations,orhowitcancreatearisk-aversiveenvironment(Albury,2005;Sørensen&Torfing,2011).Redtapeisfoundtooriginatenotonlyfrominsidebutalsofromoutsidetheorganization;forexampleasitmayresultfromexternalcontrolandinteractionwithexternalstakeholders(Bozeman,2000).Asaresult,redtapecanhaveadiscouragingeffectonpublicprofessionals’motivationtoinvestinco-productionwithcitizensandotherexternalstakeholdersifsuchcollaborationisfearedtocomewithextraadministrativeburdens(cf.Florin&Dixon,2004;vanEijk&Steen,2013).
Thispaperpresentsasystematicliteraturereviewlinkingredtapetoinnovation,collaboration,andco-production.Themainresearchquestionis‘Howdoesredtapeaffectco-production,andinwhichways?’.Toanswerthisquestiontheliteraturereviewtakesintoaccountthedimensionsofredtape(personnel/budget/procurement…)andtheireffectsoninnovation,collaboration,andco-production.
Methodologyforsystematicreview
Weusedfoursearchstrategies,adaptedfromCooper(2016),toidentifystudieseligibleforthesystematicreview.FirsttheWebofSciencedatabase(http://webofknowledge.com)wassearchedtoincludethemostinfluentialpapersontherelevanttopics.Thesearchtermsusedwere:[(redtape)OR(administrativeburden)OR(bureaucracy)OR(regulation*)](AND)[(co-production)OR(coproduction)OR(cocreation)OR(co-creation)OR(stakeholdermanagement)OR(socialinnovation)OR(openinnovation)OR(innovationpublicsector)OR(collaborative
152
innovation)OR(innovationgovern*)].Articleswereeligibleiftheywerepublishedfrom2007onwards.Thissearchwaslastconductedonthe9thofMarch2017andyielded2705results.Thearticlesfoundwerefilteredfirstbasedontitleandthenonabstract.Thosethatremainedwerescannedoncontentaswell.Fromthe2705articlesfound,only32turnedouttoberelevantforthisreview.Thiscanbeexplainedbythefactthatonly153ofthearticlesweresituatedinpublicadministrationresearchbecauseofthebroadnessofthetermsusedforthesearch.
Secondly,publicationsintentoppublicadministrationjournalswereexamined.Sinceredtapeisacommonconceptinthefield,differenttermsfortheconceptwerenotusedinthissearch.Thesearchtermsweresimplifiedto(redtape)ANDinnovation.Thissearchwasconductedonthe14thofMarch2017.Inthissearchtherecentnessofarticleswasnotincludedasacriterion,sinceallsearchesgeneratedunderonehundredresultsandtheaimofthisparticularsearchstrategywastoincludeallkeyarticlesonthetopic,regardlessofwhentheywerepublished.Thiswaymanyinfluentialworksby,forexampletheonebyBozeman,Pandeyandotherspublishedbefore2007gottobeincluded.InPolicySciencesandGovernancenoadditionalrelevantarticleswerefoundofthe12and23resultsthesearchesrespectivelygenerated.ThesamewastruefortheInternationalPublicManagementJournal,thePublicManagementReview,RegulationandGovernanceandtheJournalofEuropeanPublicPolicy.ThesearchinPublicAdministrationsupplemented2articlesamongthe78hitsresultingfromoursearch.TheJournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandthePublicAdministrationReviewcontributedthemostrelevantadditionstotheWebofSciencesearch,respectivelyadding9articlesoutof60searchresultsand4outof92.LastlyoursearchintheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministrationadded2extraarticlesoutof29hits.Intotalthissupplemented17articles,bringingthenumberoftotaleligiblearticlesto49.
NexttheKULeuvenuniversitydatabasewassearchedforadditionalarticlesandbooks.Thiswasdonetoincludeabroaderrangeofstudies.Thesearchwasconductedonthe17thofMarch2017.UsingthesametermsasweusedforsearchingtheWebofSciencedatabase,over100000resultsappeared,sothetermsweresimplifiedto[(co-production)OR(innovation)AND(redtape)].Onlyarticlespublishedfrom2007onwardwereincluded.Thisstillgeneratedover20000hitssothesearchwasfurthernarrowedbasedonthetopic‘publicsector’.500resultsremainedandwerefilteredfirstontitle,thenonabstractandultimatelyoncontent.Thisreachedgenerated8morearticleseligiblefortheliteraturereview,bringingthetotalto57.
153
Lastlywescannedthereferencesofthearticlesalreadyincludedintheliteraturereview.Thiswayweidentifiedmultiplehighlyinfluentialstudiesandbooksontheeffectsofredtape.Thisresultedin16morearticlesorbooksfortheliteraturereview,bringingthetotalto73.
Inusingsearchengines,theattemptwastoincludeasmanydifferenttermsfortheconceptswewantedtoresearchaspossible.However,co-productionespeciallymighthavesynonymswedidnotthinkof,excludingrelevantarticlesfromourreview.Thisisalimitationofthesearch.Asapartialremedyforthisproblemthereferenceswerescannedforeveryarticleonco-productionweincludedinordertobroadentheterminologyweusedforthesearchasmuchaspossible.Thiswasnecessarysincetheconceptualizationof(formsof)collaborativeinnovationdoesnotenjoyacademicconsensusyet.Intotalwescannedfor10differentterms12whenresearchingco-productionforexample.
Withregardtoinclusioncriteria,tobeincludedinoursystematicreviewstudieshadtobepublishedafter2007.Exceptionsweremadeformuchcitedkeyarticlesthatwerefrequentlymentioned(overthreetimes)inthereferencesofotherincludedstudies.OnlystudiespublishedinEnglishwereincluded.Therewerenoinclusioncriteriaconcerningthetypeofstudy,thestudy-design,theparticipantsortheregionwherethestudywasconducted.Crucialhowever,wasthateveryincludedstudyorbookmentionedeffectsofredtapeontheworkingsofanorganizationingeneraloron(collaborative)innovationinparticular.Intotaltherewere48empiricalstudies,3literaturestudiesand21theoreticalworksintheliteraturereview.67ofthemwerearticlesand6ofthemwerebooks.
Reviewmethodandcoding
Theincludedarticleswerescannedfortheconcepts‘redtape’,‘co-production’andalltermslinkedtothemthatweidentifiedinthepreviousstep.Thisresultedin288textfragmentsforanalysis.Thefragmentswereinitiallycodedusingfourcolour-codelabels:oneforthedimensionofredtape(personnel/budget…),oneforthetypeorformofredtape(rules/procedures/…),onefortheextentofredtape,andoneforthedescribedeffectsofredtape.Thetextfragmentsdealingwiththesesubjectscouldbepartoftheintroduction,literaturestudy,resultsorconclusionoftheincludedarticles.
12co-production,coproduction,cocreation,co-creation,stakeholdermanagement,socialinnovation,openinnovation,innovationpublicsector,collaborativeinnovation,innovationgovernment
154
Incodingthetextfragments,itsoonturnedoutthatthemostcommonwayofcategorisingredtapeinarticlesisbydimension.Authorsrarelydistinguishedintypesorformsofredtapewhenlinkingtheconceptto(collaborative)innovation.Additionallythelabel‘extent’resultedinlittletonousefulinformationforthepurposeofthisarticle,resultinginthelabels‘type/form’and‘extent’beingdropped.Afterthefirstroundofcoding,highlightedportionsfromalltextfragmentsweregroupedinatableorschemeperlabel.Thedoublesinthetableforthelabel‘redtapeeffects’weredeletedandeveryeffectwasdistributedintooneoffourcategorieswedeterminedbasedonthedataathand.Amongtheeffectsofredtapeforexamplewedistinguishedseveraltextfragmentsrelatedtodelaysforinstance.Thefinaltableisincludedintheappendix.
Becauseoftheuseofopencodingweidentifiedmorethanjustdimensionsofredtapeorredtapeeffects.Thereweremultipletextfragmentsthatpointedoutadditionalinformationthatcouldindirectlybenefitouranalysis.Thesetextfragmentsmostlyincludednuancesthatweretakenintoaccountinsomebutnoteverystudywereviewed.Anexampleofsuchanuanceisthedifferencebetweenobjectiveredtapeandperceivedredtape.Anotherexampleweretextfragmentsdealingwithmediatingvariables.
Thedifferenttypesofredtape
AsBrewerandWalker(2010)pointedout,redtapeisamultidimensionalconstruct.Notinghowdifferenttypesofredtapeaffectdifferentaspectsoforganizationalperformanceindifferentways,theycalledforafiner-grainedanalysisontheeffectsofredtape.Unwrappingthegeneralnotionoftheconcept,theliteratureshowsdifferentcategorizations.Ageneraldivisionistheonebetweeninternalandexternalredtape,whileredtapecanalsobedividedintofivedifferentdimensionsthatcanbedistinguishedbasedonthefieldoftheburdensomerulesandprocedures(Feeney,2012).
Internalversusexternalredtape
Bothinternalandexternalredtapeareaboutbureaucraticprocedures,regulationsandroutinesthatmakefunctioningmoredifficult.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoiswhotheymakeitmoredifficultfor.Essentiallythisdifferentiationishencebasedontheredtapeeffects.Internalredtapenegativelyaffectstheinternaloperationsofapublicagencyandishenceburdensomefortheagencyitself,whileexternalredtapeburdenscitizensandotherstakeholdersintheirdealingswiththeagency.Externalredtapeisexperiencedbycitizensor
155
stakeholders(non-profitorganizations,businesses…)whentheyhavetocomplywithlegalmandatesforexample(Walker&Brewer,2008).Ofthe26booksandarticlesmentioningamulti-dimensionalredtapeconstruct,4mentionedinternalredtapeand5mentionedexternalredtape.
Apartfromdifferentactorsbeingaffected,internalandexternalredtapealsohavedifferentorigins.Bozemanstatesthatinternalredtapecanoriginatefromfivecategoriesofdysfunctionalrules:inadequatecomprehensionrules,self-aggrandizementandillegitimatefunctionsrules,negativesumcompromiserules,overcontrolrulesandnegativesumprocessrules.Ontopofthatheidentifieseightways‘goodrulescangobad’,whichalsoresultininternalredtape(Bozeman,1993).Theseeightwaysare:ruledrift,ruleentropy,changeinimplementation,changeinthefunctionalobject,changeintherule'sefficacy,rulestrain,accretionandmisapplication.Externalredtapemostlyoriginatesoutsidetheorganizationinanattempttocontrollargenumbersofdiversestakeholders(Torenvlied&Akkerman,2012).
AsBozeman(1993)stated,redtapeoftenoriginatesfrom‘goodrulesthatgobad’.Itisimportanttorememberthatsomerulesstayfunctionalandthatnoteveryruleorprocedureshouldbeclassifiedasredtape.Onthecontrary,overthelastdecadetheconceptofruleeffectivenessor‘greentape’isgainingimportanceinpublicadministrationresearch.DeHart-Davis(2009)foundthat“theprobabilityofruleeffectivenessdependsonthecombinedpresenceof(1)writtenrequirements,(2)withvalidmeans-endsrelationships,which(3)employoptimalcontrol,(4)areconsistentlyapplied,andthathave(5)purposesunderstoodbystakeholders.”
Typologyofredtapebyfield
While30ofthearticlesinoursystematicreviewhandledredtapeasaone-dimensionalconstruct,26articlesdistinguishedmultipleareasordimensionsofredtape13.Themostcommonredtapedimensionispersonnelorhumanresourceredtape.Itwasseparatelymentionedin20worksor77%ofthebooksandarticlesthatconsideredredtapetobemultidimensional.Procurementredtapewasmentionedin7articles(30%).Budgetredtapeandcommunicationredtapewerementionedin4(15%),andinformationredtapein6(23%)13The17otherincludedarticlesorbooksdidnotspecifywhetherredtapewasviewedone-dimensionalormulti-dimensional.Mostoftheseworksdidnothaveredtapeastheirmaintopic.
156
articles.ThesefivemostcommonlyuseddimensionswereoriginallyidentifiedbyPandey,CourseyandMoynihan(2007).Informationredtapeandcommunicationredtapewillbediscussedtogetherinthispapersincetheywereresearchedtogetherinallfourpapersoncommunicationredtapeintheliteraturereview.Sincedefinitionsofredtapedimensionsareuncommontonon-existentintheliterature,weprovidedadescriptionforeachdimension,basedontheitemsusedtomeasurethem.Nextwesearchedtheliteraturefortheoriginofthatdimensionofredtape.Lastlywecollectedalleffectsofthatparticularredtapedimensiondescribedacrossthe73articlesandbooksincludedinthereview.
Budgetaryredtape
Budgetaryredtapearerulesandproceduresthatlimitamanager’sabilitytoreprogramfundsinaccordancewiththeagency’smission.Theyalsolimitamanager’sabilitytodealwithunexpectedprogram/projectcostoverruns(Chen&Williams,2007).Thisareaofredtapeoftenstemsfrommechanismsthatturngoodrulesdysfunctional.Thesemechanismsincluderuledrift,ruleentrophy14orachangeintherule’sefficacy.Thislastchangeoccurswhenthecircumstanceswhichmitigatetherule'susefulnessarealtered(Bozeman,1993).Afictionalexamplewherethereisachangeinefficacy,iswhenarulestatesthatallreprogrammingoffundsaboveacertainamountofmoneyneedspecialapproval.Inflationrendersthosekindofbudgetrulesmoreburdensomeeachdecade.
ScottandPandey(2006)foundthatperceptionsofbudgetaryredtapearesignificantlynegativelyrelatedtopublicservicemotivation(PSM)(ascitedinBozeman&Feeney,2011).PandeyandGarnett(2006)alsodiscoveredthatbudgetaryredtapecanincreasetheinterpersonalcommunicationperformancesinceitrequiresgreaterinteractionamongparticipantsintheprocessintheformofclearances,meetingsandpublichearings.
Personnelredtape
Personnelredtapearetherulesandprocedureslimitingamanager’sabilitytorewardemployeesinaflexibleway,tohaveauthorityoverpersonnelactionsandtoexecutepersonnelmeasuresinatimelyfashion.Rewardingemployeesinaflexiblewayentailspromotingthembasedonperformanceorraisingtheirpay.Thisaspectofpersonnelredtapeisaboutrulesandpaymentstructures.Havingauthorityoverpersonnelactionsisabouthiringemployeesanddismissingthemwhentheyperformpoorly.Thelastaspectconcernstheapprovaltimefor
14Ruleentropyisaspecialcaseofruledrift;itoccursasrulesgetpassedfromoneorganizationtothenextandonepersontothenext.
157
personnelactionsandishencemostlyaboutdelays(Coursey&Rainey,1990;Moon&Bretschneider,2002).
Personnelredtapemostlyoriginatesfromthedesiretopreventfavouritismandlimitpoliticalinterferenceinrewarding,promoting,hiringorcivilservants.Italsoresultsfromunclearpublicgoalswithregardtoperformanceandtheabsenceofmarkettests(Baldwin,1990).Governmentmanagersreportthatpersonnelconstraintspreventthemfromactingefficientlyandeffectively.Itisassociatedwithbureaucraticcontrol,delays,extensivepaperworkandagreatnumberofdecisionmakers(Chen,2012;Li&Feeney,2014).ItismentionedbyBaldwinandmanyotherauthorsthatthelackofflexibilityandautonomyperceivedbythemanagersasaresultofpersonnelredtapeleadstodeclinedmotivation(Bozeman&Feeney,2011;OpdeBeeck,Wynen&Hondeghem,2016).
YetfindingsbyBrewerandWalker(2010)contradictthissincetheyfoundthatrewardingmanagersinthepublicsectorwithhigherpaycanbecounterproductive.Theypointoutevidencethat‘publicemployeesarelessmotivatedbyextrinsicrewardssuchaspayincreasesandmoremotivatedbyintrinsicrewardssuchasthesatisfactionderivedfromhelpingothersandmakingadifferenceinsociety’(Brewer&Walker,p.246,2010).Stillregardlessofthebestwaystoincentivizecivilservants,personnelredtapeleadstohighlevelsoffrustrationandvexation,evenmoresointhepublicsectorthanthenon-profitsector(Chen,2012).Additionallypersonnelredtapeisnegativelyrelatedtoalocalgovernmentorganization’sabilitytoadopttoinnovations(Li&Feeney,2014).
Procurementredtape
Procurementredtapearerulesandproceduresthatmakeitunnecessarilymoredifficultformanagerstopurchasegoodsandservices.Theyarestandardproceduresthatmakeprocurementmorebasedonthevendor’sabilitytocomplywithrules,thanonthequalityofgoodsandservices.Whentherulesgoverningprocurementmakeithardtoexpeditethepurchaseofgoodsandservicesforacriticalprojects,theprocurementredtapeinanorganizationishigh(Pandey&Garnett,2006).Kelmandescribedhowexcessiverulesinprocurementhavetwomainorigins.Ononehandthereareprocurementpracticesinplacetopreventindividualswithinorganizationsfromhavingto“rediscoverthevirtuesofcompetition”(p.608).Andontheotherhandprocurementrulesreducepotentialpurchasingabusesbylimitingthegovernmentofficials’abilitytoengageinprocurementpracticesthatmightbecorruptorunfair(ascitedinStazyk,Pandey&Wright,2011,p.608).Mostprocurementredtapearetextbookexamplesfromthe‘goodrulesgonebad’mechanismdescribedbyBozeman(1992).
158
AsStazykandothers(2011)pointout,thefocusonprocessoverresultsleadstohighlycomplexandinefficientprocurementsystemsthatcancausemajordelays.ThisisrecentlyconfirmedbyTõnurist,KattelandLember(2017)astheydescribehowprocurementredtapehaltersinnovationbycreatingalossofmomentumatcrucialtimes.Theyvoiceanadditionalneedformoreflexiblestructures.Grandia,SteijnandKuipers(2015)weresimilarlyassumingprocurementredtapewouldmakecivilservantslesscommittedtochange,butcontrarytotheirhypothesistheydiscoveredthatprocurementredtapeis“simplyafactorthatallprocurershavetodealwithintheirwork,butthatdoesnotspecificallydecreasetheircommitmenttochangeorsustainableprocurementbehaviour”(p.254).Italsohasnosignificanteffectonaffectiveorganizationalcommitment(Stazyketal.,2011).ScottandPandeydopointouthowever,thatprocurementredtapeislinkedtoadeclineinPSM(2005).
Communicationandinformationredtape
Informationredtapeorinformationsystemsredtape,arerulesandproceduralrequirementsfortheinformationsysteminanorganization,thatmakeitmoredifficultformanagerstoobtainrelevantinformationanddosoinatimelyfashion(Bozeman&Feeney,2011).Communicationredtapearetherulesandproceduresthathamperorunnecessarilyrestrictthecommunicationofinformation.Thiscanconcerncommunicationwithinagovernmentorganization,amonggovernmentorganizationsorbetweenagovernmentorganizationandtheoutsideworld(e.g.throughthepress)(Chen&Williams,2007).Bothcommunicationredtapeandinformationredtapehavebarelybeenresearched,contrarytotheareasofredtapediscussedinpreviousparagraphs.NeithertermproducesanyrecordsintheWebofSciencedatabase.SearchingtheGoogleScholardatabasetheyrespectivelygenerate45and60results.Theiroriginhasnotbeenspecificallyresearchedsofar.Thisisagapintheliteraturethathasyettobefilled.Giventhattheyarebothexamplesofinternalredtapehowever,theassumptioncanbemadethatthegeneralinternalredtapeoriginsapply(Bozeman,1993).
Eventhoughthereisfewspecificresearchoncommunicationorinformationredtape,scholarsdidstudytheireffects.PandeyandGarnett(2006)foundthatinformationandcommunicationredtapehavenegativeinfluencesoninternalcommunicationperformance.AdditionallyLjungholm(2014)notesthatinformationredtapehampersmanagersfromgettingeffectiveanduseableinformationnecessaryfordecisionmaking.Itisalogicalassumptionthatthishasanegativeeffectonperformance,collaborationandinnovation.
159
Measurementofredtape
Inthestudieswereviewedforthispaper,redtapeismostoftenmeasurequantitativelybyusingLikert-typescalesinsurveys.ExamplesofstudiesusingsurveystoassesslevelsofredtapearetheworksofBrewer,WalkerandBozeman(2012),andthoseofPandeyandWalker(2005).Thequestionstheyusewereadaptedandusedbyotheracademicsaswell.Measuresforalldimensionsexceptbudgetaryredtapeshowacceptablelevelsofinternalconsistency(Pandey&Garnett,2006).Anotherwidelyusedwayofmeasuringredtapeisaone-itemmeasurecalledthegeneralredtape(GRT)scalethatasksrespondenttoindicatetheoveralllevelofredtapeintheirorganizationbyusinga10-pointLikert-typescale(Bozeman&Feeney,2011).Eventhoughthepreviouslymentionedmeasuresarestillwidelyused,someacademicsdevelopnewscalesorformulatenewitemsforaspecificpurpose.VanLoon,Leisink,Knies&Brewerrecentlydevelopedandvalidatedanewmeasureofredtapeadding“ajob-centeredapproachthatmeasuresredtapeasexperiencedbyemployeesintheirjobsratherthanmoregenerallyintheorganization”(VanLoon,Leisink,Knies&Brewer,2016,p.1).Redtapeisrarelymeasurequalitatively,Pandey,Coursey&Moynihan(2007)werethefirstonestodosoonlytenyearsagoinamulti-methodstudy.Theliteraturestudycontainedtwomoremixedmethodstudiesconductedsincethen.Outofthe46empiricalstudiesincludedinourreview,twowereexperimentaland41containedquantitativeresearchonly.
Instudyingredtape,therearetwowaysinwhichtheconceptcanbeapproached.Firstofallthereistheobjectiveamountofredtapeinanorganization.Thisisaconceptonecanmeasurebyobservingobjectiveindicatorssuchasprocessingtimeandthenumberofapprovalsneededtoperformkeymanagerialtasks.Theseareonlytwoelementsoutofanumberofmeasures(Pandey&Scott,2002).Yetthisliteraturereviewshowedthatthemajorityofarticlesmeasureperceivedredtapeinstead.TheimportanceofthatperceptionshouldnotbeunderestimatedsinceBrewerandotherspointoutthatitistheperceptionofredtape,ratherthanredtapeitselfthatformstherelevantbarriertopublicsectorinnovation(Breweretal.,2012).Frustration,adeclineinmotivation,andmanyotherpsychologicalredtapeeffectswewilldiscusslater,resultsfromredtapeperceptionratherthanfromtheobjectiveamountofredtape(Li&Feeney,2014).AsKaufmannotedin1977,"Oneperson'sredtapemaybeanother’streasuredsafeguard”andmaythusaffectdifferentpeopleindifferentways(ascitedinPandey&Kingsley,2000).Inourliteraturereviewtherewere15articlesandbooksthatonlyconsideredtheobjectiveamountofredtape,38worksthatdealtwithredtapeperceptionsand2articlesthatconsideredboth.Itisnotablethatoverhalfoftheworksconsideringobjectiveredtapedatebacktobefore2007andhalfoftheseare(co)-authoredbyBozeman,asaleadingauthorinredtaperesearch.
160
Thedifferenteffectsofredtape
Therearemanywaysinwhichredtapeaffectsorganizations.Twokeyarticlesresearchingtheseeffectsare‘Theimpactofredtapeongovernmentalperformance’byBrewerandWalker(2010)and‘Organizationaleffectivenessandbureaucraticredtape:amultimethodstudy’byPandey,CourseyandMoynihan(2007).Yettheseeffectshaveneverbeencategorizedbeforeintheliteraturetoourknowledge.Forthepurposeofthisreview,271textfragmentsselectedfrom73articlesandbookswereexamined.Allthesefragmentslinkedredtapetoinnovation,collaborationorco-production.Searchingthosefragments,wedistinguished57differentkindsofeffects.Wegroupedtheseincategories,classifyingthedifferent(potential)effectsredtapecanhaveinto:effectsrelatedtochange,psychologicaleffects,operationaleffectsandeffectsoncollaboration.
Psychologicaleffects
Thelargestandmostresearchedredtapeeffectsareits‘adversepsychologicalconsequencesonemployees’asGrandia,SteijnandKuipers(2015)describethem.Theseeffectsincludefeelingsofnormlessness(Bozeman&Scott,1996),adecreaseinemployeesatisfaction(Li&Feeney,2014)andadeclineinjobinvolvement(Pandey&Scott,2002),lowerpublicservicemotivation(Pandey&Bretschneider,1997)andlessemployeemotivationingeneral(Welch&Pandey,2007),plusincreasedworkalienation(DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005).Thiscanresultinalackofindividualmotivationtoseekorprovideneededinformationtoengageincollaborativeinnovationsuchasco-productionforexample(Pandey&Bretschneider,1997).
Othereffectsredtapecanhaveonemployeesincludemorestress(Turaga&Bozeman,2005),increasedfrustration(Pandey&Garnett,2006),decreasedcreativity(Welch&Pandey,2007)andaugmentedvexation(Chen,2012).Theseeffectsinturnleadtoanincreaseofturnoverintention(Welch&Pandey,2007)andalowerorganizationalcommitment(Li&Feeney,2014).Ontopofthatperceptionsofredtapecanbemoreimportantthanmeritattimeswhenanadministratorevaluatesthedesirabilityofapolicy(Li&Feeney,2014).Whenredtapeburdenscivilservantsinexecutingtheirday-to-dayassignments,theycanalsoresorttowork-placeblameforproblemstheyexperience,insteadoffeelingresponsiblethemselvesfordeliveringgoodresults(DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005).
Stillnotallauthorsagreethatredtapeisaccountableforthenegativepsychologicaleffectsdescribedabove.FeeneyandDeHart-Davis(2009)foundthatredtapedoesnotnecessarilydecreasecreativityatworkand,asexplainedinthesectiononpersonnelredtape,thereisdiscussingontowhatdegreeredtapeimpactsmotivationgiventhefactthatpublicservantsareassumedtobemoreintrinsicallymotivatedthatregularemployees(Brewer&Walker,2010b).
161
Operationaleffects
Thesecondlargestgroupofstudiedredtapeeffectsareofamoreoperationalnature.Researchshowsthatredtapenegativelyaffectsorganizationalefficiency,effectivenessandperformance(Ljungholm,2014).Ontopofthatredtapecanhampergoalclarityandgoalattainment(Pandey&Garnett,2006).Thiscanalsocauseproblemsindirectlybecauseofredtape’snegativeeffectsoncommunicationsinceredtaperestrictsthenumberandcapacityofcommunicationchannelsavailablefortransmittinginformation(DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005;Quratulain&Khan,2015).Furthermorestudiesshowhowitalsokeepsmanagersfromgettingeffectiveanduseableinformationnecessaryfordecisionmaking(Chen,2012).Apartfromtheclearconstrainsredtapeputsoncommunicationperformance,theconceptisalsoresponsibleforextensivepaperworkandmanyauthorsreportseveredelaysasacommoneffect(Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009;Ljungholm,2014;Tõnurist,Kattel&Lember,2017).Redtapealsoaccountsforageneralrigidnessinanorganizationthatmakeitmoredifficulttorewardgoodemployees,removelazyworkers,andpromotewellperformingsubordinates(Chen,2012;Welch&Pandey,2007).
Effectsrelatedtochange
Afirstclusteroftheredtapeeffectsarethoseeffectsrelatedtochange.Researchhasshownthatredtapecanbeanincentivetochangeorinnovateaswellasabarrierinattemptingtodoso(VandeVrandeetal,2009;Ljungholm,2014).WithregardtotheimplementationofITinnovationsespecially,theeffectsofredtapearemixed(Pandey&Bretschneider,1997;MoonandBretschneider,2002).Highlevelsofredtapecancreatepressuretoseekalternativesolutionsforredtapeproblemssuchastheuseofnewtechnology.InthosecasesredtapecanspuronITinnovation(Moon&Bretschneider,2002).Theacademicconsensushoweveristhatredtapemostlyimpedesanorganization’scapabilitytoadapt(Vrandeetal,2009),disruptstheadoptionofinnovations(Ljungholm,2014)andlimitsthepotentialfornovelproblemsolutions(Li&Feeney,2014).Thelossofmomentumininnovativeprojects(Bozeman&Scott,1996)andthegeneralrisk-aversenessinorganizationsasaresultofredtape(Bozeman&Kingsley1998)canbedetrimentalforanorganization’swillingnessandabilitytoinnovate.Theseeffectshavebeenspecificallyconfirmedforlocalgovernments(Ljungholm,2014).
Effectsoncollaboration
Thesmallestgroupofeffectswederivedfromtheliteraturearetheeffectsredtapehasonprojectsandcollaborations.Thefocusinthissectionisoneffectsspecificallylinkedtocollaboratingwithothershere.Anissueredtapecancauseincollaborativeprojectsare
162
problemswithventuringandgettingcrucialfundingintime(Pandey&Garnett,2006;Bovaird&Löffler,2012).Astrictadherencetobudgetsandplanninghorizonscanmakethecollaborationrunlesssmoothlyaswell(Albury,2005;Verschuere,Brandsen,&Pestoff2012).Governmentorganizationsexperiencelessflexibilityinthisareathanexternalpartnerswhichcancausefriction.Notjustprocurementredtape,butalsoredtapeingeneralisfoundtoimpedepublicmanagers’interactionswiththeorganizations’stakeholdersandexternalactors(Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009).Thereputationofredtapeingovernmentorganizationscanalsocauseproblemswhenattemptingtopersuadeexternalstobeinvolvedaswell(Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009).Anothereffectisthatredtapeincommunicationcanreduceconnectivityandintegration,whichnegativelyimpactscollaborativeinnovation(Tuurnas,2015;Gieske,vanBuuren,&Bekkers,2016).Alasteffectisthatburdensomerulesandprocedurescanmakegovernmentorganizationstooinflexibletochangepartnerswhenthecollaborationdoesnotworkout.Theycanevenpreventanorganizationfrombeingabletoendaprogramprematurely,regardlessoftheorganization’sneedtodoso(Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009).
Discussion:linkingredtapedimensionstoredtapeeffects
InthisfinalstageoftheliteraturereviewweattempttolinkthedifferentdimensionsofredtapedistinguishedbyPandey,CourseyandMoynihan(2007),tothedifferentcategoriesofredtapeeffectswecreatedinthisarticle.Inthefigurebelowisdisplayedhowthedimensionsandcategoriesarerelatedaccordingtotheliterature.Tointerpretthefigurewestartwiththedimensionsofredtape.Takingtheamountofarticleswecameacrosslinkingacertaindimensiontoacategoryofredtapeeffects,thereisathinlinedrawnbetweenlinksthatoccurredin0to30%ofthearticlesdiscussingthatredtapedimension.Linksthatoccurredin30%to100%ofthearticlesofacertainredtapedimensionaredrawninbold.
163
Studyingthefigure,afirstremarkisthatalldimensionsofredtapearestronglyassociatedwiththeoperationaleffectsofredtapesuchasdelays,paperworkandcommunicationissues.Anothergroupofeffectsassociatedwithmanyoftheredtapedimensionsarethepsychologicaleffects.Personnelredtapeespecially,isstronglyassociatedwithnegativepsychologicaleffectscausedbyredtapeaccordingtotheliterature.Outofthe69textfragmentsthatspecificallydealtwitheffectsofpersonnelredtape,28mentionedpsychologicaleffectssuchasdeclinedmotivationandmorefrustration.WithregardtobudgetaryredtapeandprocurementredtapetherewasonlyonearticlelinkingthemtopsychologicaleffectsasScottandPandey(2006)discoveredthattheybothcausedeclinesinPSM.
Intheliteraturereviewedtherewereonlyfewstudieslinkingspecificredtapedimensionstoeffectsonchange.BozemanandScott(1996)foundthatprocurementrulescancausealossinmomentumhalteringinnovation,althoughGrandia,SteijnandKuipers(2015)foundthatprocurementredtapedoesnotaffectthecommitmenttochange.Thesecondredtapedimensionlinkedtochangeispersonnelredtape.Ljungholm(2014)discoveredthatthisredtapedimensionisnegativelyrelatedtolocalgovernments’abilitytoinnovate.
Thelastcategorytodiscussaretheeffectsredtapehasoncollaboration.Althoughthesekindofeffectsaretoucheduponintheliterature,thereishardlyevermentionofaspecificredtapedimension.YetifwecombinethefindingsbyLjungholm(2014)thatredtapeincommunicationandinformationsystemshampersmanagersfromgettingeffectiveanduseableinformationnecessaryfordecisionmakingontheonehand,withtheknowledgefromresearchonco-
164
productionthatcommunicationandinformationarekeyforcollaborationontheotherhand(Tuurnas,2015);wediscoveralink.
Consideringthedivisionbetweeninternalandexternalredtape,itcouldbearguedthatexternalredtapewouldresultinredtapeeffectsoncollaborationespeciallysinceitaffectsstakeholdersintheirdealingswiththegovernment.Internalredtape,incontrast,canbelinkedtopsychologicaleffectssinceitistheredtapeexperiencedwithinthegovernment(Walker&Brewer,2008).
Recognizingthelimitationsofthisliteraturereview,weacknowledgethatthefigureaboveismerelyastart.Becausefewstudieshavebeenconductedontheeffectsofspecificredtapedimensionsandredtapeeffectshavenotbeencategorizedbefore,thereisstillinformationmissingthatisneededtocompletethescheme.Inotherwords,thefactthatsomedimensionsandeffectsarenotconnectedinthefiguredoesnotmeanthatthereisnorelationship,merelythatwedidnotcomeacrossevidenceofsuchalinkintheliterature.Similarly,thereisnoguaranteethatthethinlinesrepresentlesscommonlinks.Whatwecanassumehowever,isthatthelinesinboldrepresentreallinkssincetheywereconfirmedandreconfirmedinmultiplestudies.
Conclusion
Afirstinsighttotakeawayfromthissystematicliteraturereviewistheimportanceofsplittinguptheconceptofredtape.AsthearticlesbySanjay,CourseyandMoynihan(2007)andBrewerandWalker(2010)showed,redtapeisnoone-dimensionalconcepteventhoughitwastreatedassuchin54%ofthestudiesinourreview.Thisstudyconfirmedthatdifferentredtapedimensionsdoaffectorganizationsindifferentways.RedtapeincommunicationsandinformationmaybeanincentivefororganizationstopursueITinnovations,butbasedontheliteraturewecanassumethatsuchaneffectisfarlesslikelyasfaraspersonnelredisconcerned.Whenredtapeistreatedasaone-dimensionalconstructthecomplexityofthedynamicsamongredtapedimensionsremainsinvisible.Thiscanleadtofalseassumptionswhentheeffectsofredtapeonacertainparameter(e.g.innovation)inoneorganizationareassumedtobesimilarinanotherorganization.Itshouldbetakenintoaccountthattwoorganizationsthatscoresimilarlyonaone-itemgeneralredtapemeasuredonotnecessarilyscoresimilarlyonthepresenceofindividualredtapedimensions.Apartfromtheredtapedimensionsthataretakenintoaccount,itisalsoimportanttokeepinmindwhethertheobjectiveorperceivedamountofredtapeisbeingmeasured.Theycouldhavedifferenteffects,assumingperceivedredtaperatherthanobjectiveredtapeisresponsibleforpsychologicalconsequences.Additionallyobjectiveredtapewouldlikelyresultindelaysandotheroperationaleffects,perhapsmoresothanperceivedredtape.
165
Yetevenwhenconsideringmultipledimensionstoredtape,itiscurrentlystillunclearwhichdimensionsthatshouldbe.Ofallarticlesthatmentioneddifferentredtapedimensions,only19%distinguishedbetweeninternalandexternalredtape,whileonly12%mentionedallfiveredtapedimensions(personnel,procurement,budget,communication,information)asdistinguishedbyPandey,CourseyandMoynihan(2007).Otherredtapedimensionsdescribedintheliteratureareformal,informal,administrative,pass-throughandinter-organizationalredtape.Yetthesearenotall.Inshortthereisnoconsensusonwhichredtapedimensionsshouldbedistinguishedandwhattermsshouldbeusedtoaddressthem.Ontopofthatperhapstherearestillredtapedimensionsnotyetresearchedwhoshouldhavetheirowncategory,supplementingourcontribution.Littleisknownaboutredtapeinservicedeliveryorredtapeinplanningforexample.
Asecondconclusionfromthissystematicreviewisthatredtaperesearchoftenhasanormativebias.Itshouldnotbeautomaticallyassumedthatthepresenceofredtaperesultsinnegativeeffects.Yetonly32%oftheworksinthesystematicreviewconsideredredtapehavinganythingotherthannegativeeffectsintheirsummaryoftherelevantliteratureorintheirhypothesis.Thisalsoleadsomeauthorstointerpretnon-significantresultsasafailureofthemeasurementinsteadofconsideringthattheremightinfacttrulybenonegativeredtapeeffect.AstheresearchbyGrandia,SteijnandKuipers(2015)showed,redtapeisoftenafactorthatemployeesareaccustomedtoandhavelearnedtoconsiderandworkaround.Moreover,manyresultsinredtaperesearcharenuanced.Thearticle‘DoestheperceptionofredtapeconstrainITinnovativenessinorganizations?Unexpectedresultsfromasimultaneousequationmodelandimplications.’byMoonandBretschneiber(2002)wascited175timesaccordingtogooglescholar.Remarkablyenoughourliteraturereviewshowedthatthisarticleisusedtopointoutthatredtapecanspuroninnovationineightstudiesinourreview,whilealsobeingusedtopointoutpreciselytheoppositebyfourotherstudies.
Thirdlywecontributedtotheexistingliteraturebytrackingdownthedifferentknownredtapeeffectsandcategorizingtheseintopsychologicaleffects,operationaleffects,effectsonchangeandeffectsoncollaboration.Thiscategorizationisimportantbecauseitprovidesastructurenecessarytozoominoncausalpaths,forexamplerelatingredtapeandco-production.Thedivisionwemadeisbackedupbythefindingsofourliteraturereview,linkingalleffectswedetectedintheliteraturetooneoffourgroups.Yetthisdoesnotmeanthatotherdivisionscannotbemadeorthatadditionalcategoriesarenotappropriate.Thereforethenatureofredtapeeffectswouldneedtobestudiedfurther.Inthatrespectagreateramountofmixed-methodstudiesorqualitativeredtapestudieswouldbebeneficial.Nowredtapestudiesareoftenoperationalizedpurelyquantitatively.TheresearchersstartwithahypothesisanduseLikert-scaleitemstomeasurebothredtapeandtheassumedeffectsitwillhave.Asaresultanyeffectsthatwerenotanticipatedareoftenmissedasaresultsofthosevariablesnotbeingpartofthestudy.Evenwhentheredtapeeffectwasincluded,theuseofitemsinasurveyreducesthecomplexityofthereality,limitingwhatwelearn.Thereforefurtherresearchcouldattempt
166
touseamoreopenformatwhenquestioningaboutredtape,withabroaderviewonredtapeeffects.
Afourthandfinalconclusiontobedrawnisthatthereismuchstilltobediscoveredabouttheeffectsofredtapeon(collaborative)innovationandco-production.Furtherresearchintospecificeffectsthedifferentdimensionsofredtapehaveisrequiredtogetamorecompleteoverviewofhowredtapeaffectsanddoesnotaffectcollaborativeinnovationandco-production.Hereweofferedastartwithconsideringtheeffectsonchange(linkedtoinnovation)andtheeffectoncollaborationthatwereofferedinaprevioussection.Thereitwasnotablehowespeciallycommunicationandinformationredtapewerelinkedtotheseeffects.Thesespecificeffectsshouldbetestedinfutureresearchinordertodeterminewhetherafocusonreducingthesespecificredtapedimensionscanbebeneficialforco-production.Anincreasedunderstandingoftheredtapeeffectsonchangeandcollaborationcouldalsoimproveanorganization’sabilitytocopewiththeseeffectsandworktheirwayaroundthem.
Finally,asdescribedabovethispaperoffersmanysuggestionforfurtherresearch.Firstofallacompleteoverviewofallredtapedimensionsanorganizationfaceswouldbeverybeneficialforabetterinterpretationofspecificredtapeeffects.Furthermoreresearchofamoreopennatureintoredtapeeffects,bothpositiveandnegative,couldfosterabetterimageofthedifferencesinnaturebetweensucheffectsandthewaytheseeffectscanbelinkedtoredtapedimensions.Andthirdlywithregardstotheredtapeeffectsonco-production,aspecificfocusonredtapecollaborationeffectsandredtapechangeeffectscouldfostertheunderstandingofthecomplexdynamicsatplayincasesofco-production.
References
Albury,D.(2005).Fosteringinnovationinpublicservices.PublicMoneyandManagement,
25(1),51-56.
Bovaird,T.,&Löffler,E.(2012).Fromengagementtoco-production:Howusersand
communitiescontributetopublicservices.NewPublicgovernance,thethirdsectorandco-production.London:Routledge,35-60.
Bozeman,B.(1993).ATheoryofGovernment"RedTape"JournalofPublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory,3(3),273-303.
Bozeman,B.,&Anderson,D.M.(2016).PublicPolicyandtheOriginsofBureaucraticRedTape:ImplicationsoftheStanfordYachtScandal.Administration&Society,48(6),736-759.
Bozeman,B.,&Feeney,M.K.(2011).Rulesandredtape:Aprismforpublicadministration
theoryandresearch.ME:Sharpe.
167
Bozeman,B.,&Kingsley,G.(1998).Riskcultureinpublicandprivateorganizations.PublicAdministrationReview,109-118.
Bozeman,B.,&Scott,P.(1996).Bureaucraticredtapeandformalization:Untanglingconceptualknots.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,26(1),1-17.
Brewer,G.A.,&Walker,R.M.(2010).Theimpactofredtapeongovernmentalperformance:Anempiricalanalysis.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,20(1),233-257.
Baldwin,J.N.(1990).Perceptionsofpublicversusprivatesectorpersonnelandinformalredtape:Theirimpactonmotivation.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,20(1),7-28.
Chen,C.A.(2012).Sectorimprinting:Exploringitsimpactsonmanagers’perceivedformalizedpersonnelrules,perceivedredtape,andcurrentjobtenure.TheAmericanReviewofPublic
Administration,42(3),320-340.
Chen,C.A.(2007).Explainingthedifferenceofworkattitudesbetweenpublicandnonprofitmanagers:Theviewsofruleconstraintsandmotivationstyles.TheAmericanReviewof
PublicAdministration42(4):437-460.
Chen,G.,&Williams,D.W.(2007).Howpoliticalsupportinfluencesredtapethroughdevelopmentalculture.PolicyStudiesJournal,35(3),419-436.
Coursey,D.,&Rainey,H.G.(1990).Perceptionsofpersonnelsystemconstraintsinpublic,private,andhybridorganizations.ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration,10(2),54-71.
Cooper,H.(2016).Researchsynthesisandmeta-analysis:Astep-by-stepapproach(Vol.2).Sagepublications.
DeHart-Davis,L.,&Pandey,S.K.(2009).Redtapeandpublicemployees:Doesperceivedruledysfunctionalienatemanagers?.JournalOfPublicAdministrationResearchAndTheory,15(1),133-148.
DeHart-Davis,L.(2009).Greentape:Atheoryofeffectiveorganizationalrules.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,19(2),361-384.
Feeney,M.K.(2012).Organizationalredtape:Ameasurementexperiment.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,22(3),427-444.
Feeney,M.K.,&DeHart-Davis,L.(2009).Bureaucracyandpublicemployeebehavioracaseoflocalgovernment.ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration,29(4),311-326.
Florin,D.,&Dixon,J.(2004).Publicinvolvementinhealthcare.BritishMedical
Journal,328(7432),159.
Gieske,H.,vanBuuren,A.,&Bekkers,V.(2016).Conceptualizingpublicinnovativecapacity:Aframeworkforassessment.TheInnovationJournal,21(1),1.
Grandia,J.,Steijn,B.,&Kuipers,B.(2015).Itisnoteasybeinggreen:increasingsustainablepublicprocurementbehaviour.Innovation:TheEuropeanJournalofSocialScienceResearch,28(3),243-260.
168
Greer,C.R.,&Lei,D.(2012).Collaborativeinnovationwithcustomers:Areviewoftheliteratureandsuggestionsforfutureresearch.InternationalJournalofManagement
Reviews,14(1),63-84.
Hartley,J.(2005).Innovationingovernanceandpublicservices:Pastandpresent.Publicmoney
andmanagement,25(1),27-34.
Li,M.H.&Feeney,M.K.(2014).AdoptionofelectronictechnologiesinlocalUSgovernments:Distinguishingbetweene-servicesandcommunicationtechnologies.TheAmericanReviewof
PublicAdministration44(1),75-91.
Ljungholm,D.P.(2014).Thepervasivenessofredtapeinpublicorganizations.Geopolitics,History,andInternationalRelations,(1),117-122.
Moon,M.J.,&Bretschneiber,S.(2002).DoestheperceptionofredtapeconstrainITinnovativenessinorganizations?Unexpectedresultsfromasimultaneousequationmodelandimplications.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,12(2),273-292.
OpdeBeeck,S.,Wynen,J.,&Hondeghem,A.(2016).HRMimplementationbylinemanagers:explainingthediscrepancyinHR-lineperceptionsofHRdevolution.TheInternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,27(17),1901-1919.
Pandey,S.K.,&Bretschneider,S.I.(1997).Theimpactofredtape'sadministrativedelayonpublicorganizations'interestinnewinformationtechnologies.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,7(1),113-130
Pandey,S.K.,&Garnett,J.L.(2006).Exploringpublicsectorcommunicationperformance:Testingamodelanddrawingimplications.PublicAdministrationReview,66(1),37-51.
Pandey,S.K.,&Kingsley,G.A.(2000).Examiningredtapeinpublicandprivateorganizations:Alternativeexplanationsfromasocialpsychologicalmodel.JournalofPublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory,10(4),779-800.
Pandey,S.K.,Coursey,D.H.,&Moynihan,D.P.(2007).Organizationaleffectivenessandbureaucraticredtape:Amultimethodstudy.PublicPerformance&Management
Review,30(3),398-425.
Pandey,S.K.,&Scott,P.G.(2002).Redtape:Areviewandassessmentofconceptsandmeasures.Journalofpublicadministrationresearchandtheory,12(4),553-580.
Quratulain,S.,&Khan,A.K.(2015).Redtape,resignedsatisfaction,publicservicemotivation,andnegativeemployeeattitudesandbehaviors:Testingamodelofmoderatedmediation.ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration,35(4),307-332.
Stazyk,E.C.,Pandey,S.K.,&Wright,B.E.(2011).Understandingaffectiveorganizationalcommitment:Theimportanceofinstitutionalcontext.TheAmericanReviewofPublic
Administration,41(6),603-624.
Tõnurist,P.,Kattel,R.,&Lember,V.(2017).Innovationlabsinthepublicsector:whattheyareandwhattheydo?.PublicManagementReview,1-25.
169
Torenvlied,R.,&Akkerman,A.(2012).Effectsofmanagers’workmotivationandnetworkingactivityontheirreportedlevelsofexternalredtape.JournalofPublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory,22(3),445-471.
Tummers,L.G.,Bekkers,V.J.J.M.,Vink,E.,Musheno,M.(2015)Copingduringpublicservicedelivery:Aconceptualizationandsystematicreviewoftheliterature.JournalofPublicAdministration,ResearchandTheory,25(4),1099-1126.
Turaga,R.M.R.,&Bozeman,B.(2005).Redtapeandpublicmanagers'decisionmaking.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,35(4),363-379.
Tuurnas,S.(2015),Learningtoco-produce?Theperspectiveofpublicserviceprofessionals,InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,28(7),.583–598.
VandeVrande,Vareska,etal.(2009).OpeninnovationinSMEs:Trends,motivesandmanagementchallenges.Technovation29(6),423-437.
vanEijkC.&SteenT.(2013),Waaromburgerscoproducentwillenzijn.Eentheoretischmodelomdemotivatiesvancoproducerendeburgersteverklaren,Bestuurskunde22(4),72-81.
Verschuere,B.,Brandsen,T.,&Pestoff,V.(2012).Co-production:Thestateoftheartinresearchandthefutureagenda.Voluntas:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,23(4),1083-1101.
Voorberg,W.,Bekkers,V.J.J.M.,&Tummers,L.(2013,September).Co-creationandco-productioninsocialinnovation:Asystematicreviewandfutureresearchagenda.InProceedingsoftheEGPAConference(pp.11-13).
Walker,R.M.,&Brewer,G.A.(2008).Anorganizationalechelonanalysisofthedeterminantsofredtapeinpublicorganizations.PublicAdministrationReview,68(6),1112-1127.
Welch,E.W.,&Pandey,S.K.(2007).E-governmentandbureaucracy:Towardabetterunderstandingofintranetimplementationanditseffectonredtape.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,17(3),379-404.
WindrumP.&P.KochP(eds.)(2008),InnovationinPublicSectorServices,EdwardElgar:Cheltenham.
Appendix:clustersofredtapeeffectsbytypeofeffect
Redtapeeffects Redtape
dimension
Categoryof
effects
Citation
Hamperinnovation Change VandeVrande,etal.2009
Incentiveforchange Change VandeVrande,etal.2009
170
PursueITinnovations Change VandeVrande,etal.2009
Impedecapabilitytoadapt Change VandeVrande,etal.2009
Negativelyrelatedtolocalgovernmentinnovation
personnel Change Ljungholm,2014
Interestinnewtechnology Change DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005
Disruptadoptionofinnovation Change Ljungholm,2014
Createlossofmomentum Change Bozeman&Scott,1996
Causerisk-averseness Change Moon&Bretschneider,2012
Limitpotentialfordevelopingnewproblemsolutions
Change Li&Feeney,2014
Feelingsofnormlessness Psychological Bozeman&Scott,1996
Lowerorganizationalcommitment Psychological Li&Feeney,2014
Burdenovermeritinpolicydecisions
Psychological Li&Feeney,2014
Lowersatisfactionwithjob Psychological Li&Feeney,2014
Reducemotivation Psychological Moon&Bretschneider,2002
UndercutsPSM Budgetary,procurement,personnel
Psychological Bozeman&Feeney,2011
Lowerjobinvolvement Psychological Pandey&Scott,2002
Adversepsychologicalconsequencesonemployees
Psychological Grandia,Steijn&Kuipers,2015
Decreaseincreativity Psychological Welch&Pandey,2007
Noeffectcreativity Psychological Bozeman&Kingsley1998
171
Turnoverintention Personnel Psychological Welch&Pandey,2007
Increasestress Personnel Psychological Turaga&Bozeman,2005
Increasefrustration Personnel Psychological Pandey&Garnett,2006
Morevexation Personnel Psychological Walker&Brewer,2008
Work-placeblame Personnel Psychological DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005
Increaseworkalienation Psychological DeHart-Davis&Pandey,2005
Negativelyinfluenceindividualmotivationtoseekorprovideneededinformation
Psychological Pandey&Bretschneider,1997
Problemswithinvolvementofexternals
Collaboration Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009
Problemswithventuring Collaboration Pandey&Garnett,2006
Problemscannotbeendedprematurely
Collaboration Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009
Impedespublicmanagers’interactionswiththeorganizations’stakeholdersandexternalactors
Communication&information
Collaboration Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009
Inflexibilityinchangingpartners Collaboration Feeney&DeHart-Davis,2009
Diminishesorganizationalperformance
Operational Ljungholm,2014
Issueswithefficiencyandeffectiveness
Personnel Operational Ljungholm,2014
Burdensomedelays Alldimensions Operational Tõnurist,Kattel&Lember,2017
Extensivepaperwork Personnel Operational Grandia,Steijn&Kuipers,2015
Interruptioninimplementationsinnovation
Operational Brewer&Walker,2010
172
Constrainedcommunicationperformance
Communication&information,general
Operational Quratulain&Khan,2015
Lessflexibility Operational Chen,2012
Improvedcommunication Budgetary Operational Chen,2012
Hampermanagersfromgettingeffectiveanduseableinformationnecessaryfordecisionmaking
Communication&information,procurement
Operational Chen,2012
Noeffectonprocurement Procurement Operational Chen,2012
Difficultiesrewardinggoodemployeesandremovinglazyworkers
Personnel Operational Welch&Pandey,2007
Restrictstrictthenumberandcapacityofcommunicationchannelsavailablefortransmittinginformation
Operational Pandey&Garnett,2006
Hampergoalclarityandgoalattainment
Operational
173
SOCIALLABORATORIES–ANINNOVATIVEAPPROACHTOCO-PRODUCTION(Brand)15
DJBrand16
ABSTRACT
Local government in South Africa is in a crisis characterised inter alia by poor financialgovernance,unsatisfactorylevelsofservicedelivery,insufficientskillsandhugedemandsfromthe citizens formore andbetter services. It needs support from theprovincial andnationalspheresofgovernment,butitalsoneedssupportfromthebusinesssectorandtheuniversitiesto build the necessary capacity and to redesign the service deliverymodel to provide in thedemandforimprovedservicedelivery.
Co-productionofpublicservicesisaverypracticalandusefulapproachtodealingwithsomeoftheseproblemsfacedbymunicipalities.InaninnovativeinitiativetheUniversityofStellenboschhasdevelopedtheconceptofasociallaboratoryinlocalmunicipalitieswiththeaimofaddressingthe needs of local communities by re-designing and co-creating identified services in thoseparticipating communities. This isnot a singleor simplistic co-productioneffort, but ratheramulti-partycomprehensiveco-productionexercisethattransformthewayinwhichservicesareproducedandstrengtheninggovernanceandsustainabilityofthelocalmunicipalities.
Throughsuchasociallabtheuniversitymobilisesitsinstitutionalmulti-disciplinarycapacitytohelp address the social, economic, organisational and capacity needs of local participatingmunicipalities.Theworkinthesociallabfocusesonevidencebasedinnovationingovernanceand action-learning research that is not only beneficial to the university but also to localcommunitieswhoexperiencenew,moreorbetter services, and it canbe replicated inothermunicipalities.
Such an initiative starts from a co-creating perspective. A municipality together with theuniversity, with the financial support from the Western Cape Government, and the localcommunityagreetostartwithsuchasociallaboratoryinitiativeandjointlyasco-creatorsidentifythespecificserviceneedsandwaysofredesigninganddeliveringit.Theuniversityfacilitatesthesocial laboratoryprocesses,butcanonlyworkwithintheframeworkagreedtowiththe localmunicipality. It provides a newmindset for looking at service delivery at local level and co-designing and co-producing services through which the community benefits but the localmunicipalityalsobenefitthroughtheaddedpublicvalueproducedthroughthisprocess.
ThispaperlooksatsomeofthefirstsociallaboratoriesinSouthAfricaandanalysesittoprovidesomenewperspectivesandevidenceonco-productionwithinalocalgovernmentcontext.
15PaperdeliveredattheannualconferenceoftheInternationalCo-productionStudyGroupinWashingtonDC,June2017.16BCommLLBLLMLLD.ExtraordinarySeniorLecturer,StellenboschUniversity,SouthAfrica.
174
1. Introduction
Intherapidlychangingworldweliveintoday,governanceproblemsareoftencomplexproblemsthat require innovative and collaborativeways in solving them. Societies characterised by avarietyofsocial,economicandgovernancechallengeswhicharenotdealtwitheffectivelybyexistinggovernmentinstitutionsandpolicyprocesses,struggletoprogressonthedevelopmentladder,causingincreasingunhappinessandrisingexpectations.Variousinitiativeshaveemergedintherecentpastindifferentcountriesintheworldtotacklesomeofthecomplexgovernanceproblemsinwaysthatutilisesavarietyofresourcesinsomeformofcooperationwiththepublicgovernance institutions. One such an initiative is the Mindlab in Denmark, which is anintergovernmental platform that also utilises community resources in finding new policysolutionsthatwillcreatebetteroutcomesforthecitizens(Christiansen&Sabroe,2015).
Coordinated, integrated government is the key to unlocking efficiency and effectiveness inservicedeliverydueto itspotentialtoremoveanyunnecessaryduplicationandtheimprovedutilisationofscarceresources.ConsideringthenatureandscopeofthecurrentproblemsSouthAfricafaces,thereisagrowingconcernabouttheabilityofgovernmenttorespondtoitinanymeaningfulway.Bernstein(2014)highlightedthegovernancecrisisinSouthAfrica,andinteraliareferredtothedecliningcapacityofthestateandthepoorqualityofgovernanceinmanystate-ownedenterprisesassomeofthekeyproblems.Inacountry,suchasSouthAfrica,wheretherearemany capacity shortages in variousgovernment institutionsandhighexpectationswithincommunities for good service delivery, there is a need to rethink the design and delivery ofservices.Increasingdemandsfromcommunitiesforawiderangeofpublicservicesputadditionalpressure on government institutions to fulfil their respective constitutional mandates.Continuous building of administrative and management capacity within local government isessential,but ina fast-changingenvironment it isnotenoughtoensure theestablishmentofwell-functioningmunicipalities that can deliver a diversity of public services at the requiredservicelevels.Thereshouldbeageneralapproachtoutilisealltheavailableresources,whethertheyarefoundwithinlocalgovernmentorintheprivatesector.Co-productionofpublicservicesisoneoftheoptionsthatwarrantfocusedattentioninordertorespondtovariousgovernanceneedsinthecountry.
Thereisgreatoftenuntappedpotentialwithincommunitiesthatcouldbeutilisedpro-activelyintheco-creationandco-deliveryofpublicservices(OECD,2011). Consumersofpublicservices
175
haveagoodideaabouttheirownneedsandcouldmakeameaningfulcontributiontoenhancethecapacityofgovernmentinstitutions.
2. Theoreticalcontext
A short description of the general theoretical context of co-production of public services isnecessary in this paper in order to provide the appropriate framework for discussion of theconceptofsociallaboratorieswithinlocalcommunitiesinSouthAfrica.
The increased discussion on co-production in the public sector over the last few years hascontributedto thedevelopmentofawiderangeofdefinitions inexistence that illustrate theconceptof co-production.BovairdandLöffler (2014:1)providea crispdescriptionwhen theydefineco-productionas“thepublicsector,serviceusersandcommunitiesmakingbetteruseofeachother’sassetsandresourcestoachievebetteroutcomesorimprovedefficiency”.
Co-productionreferstothecontributionmadebytheservicebeneficiary,bothpublicandprivatesector,withintheservicedeliveryprocess.Itdoesnotreferonlytoself-helpbyindividualsortheself-organisingbycommunitiesbut refers to thecontributionsofbothcitizensandthepublicsector.Thereisacombinedeffortbydifferentcontributorsorpartners.IntermsofBovaird’sdefinitiontheremustbeajointefforttoutiliseeachother’sassetsandresourceswiththeaimtoimproveoutcomesandefficiency.Co-productionisthusaboutanyactivebehaviourofanyonewhoisoutsidethegovernmentagencywhoispromptedbysomeactionoftheagency,andwhichthenleadtoacombinedorcollectiveeffort.Theinitiativetocontributetoco-productioncouldalsocomefromthecitizens.Theactiontakenisalsoatleastpartlyvoluntaryandintentionally,andcreatesprivateand/orpublicvalueintermsofoutputsoroutcomes(Alford,2003).
Toachievesuccessfulcollectiveactsofco-production,itisessentialtohaveformallyorganisedandinstitutionalisedactivitieswhilstworkingincooperationwithothers.Theseactsareoftenproduced by a smaller group, rather implying collective interaction than collective action.Collective interaction can lead to reciprocity and the development of social capital (Pestoff,2014).
176
TypesofCo-Production
Type Example
Co-DeliveryofServices
Co-ManagingServices Managementofassetsbycommunity
Co-Assessment (co-monitoring and co-
evaluation)ofservice
Participatoryvillageappraisals
Co-PerformingofServices NeighbourhoodWatchorMeals-on-Wheels
Co-CommissioningofServices
Co-PlanningofPolicy Deliberativeparticipation
Co-designofServices Userconsultation,crowd-sourcingofideas
Co-FinancingServices Assistancewith fundraising, agreement on
taxincreases
Source:Adaptedfrom(Bovairdetal,2011).
3. Motivatingfactors
Thereisavarietyofreasonswhypeoplegetinvolvedinco-productionandthemotivationforthepublicsectormightalsonotbethesameasfortheconsumersorprivatesectorco-productionpartners. VanEijkandSteenhavedevelopedatheoreticalmodelthatdescribesthedifferentcategoriesofmotivatingfactorsforcitizenparticipation(VanEijk&Steen,2016).Theylistthefollowingcategoriesoffactors,namely:
(i) Socio-psychologicalfactors,whichrelatetocitizens’perceptionsonthespecificco-productiontaskandabouttheirowncompetencetomakeacontribution.
(ii) Socio-economicvariablesandsocialconnectedness,which include issuessuchasaperson’seconomicclass,gender,community.
177
(iii) Self-interest and community-centred motivations, which include creating publicbenefitandcontributingtothecommonpublicgood.
This categorization of motivating factors makes a useful contribution to understanding whycitizensconsiderparticipatinginco-productionofpublicservicesinspecificcases.Itisarguedthat,dependingonthesituation,oneormoremotivatingfactorsinanyofthethreecategoriescouldbepresent.
InSouthAfricathereisawholerangeofproblemswithinthelocalgovernmentspherethatcausespooror,insomecases,noservicedelivery.InastudyonthestateoflocalgovernmentpublishedbythenationalDepartmentofCooperativeGovernmentandTraditionalAffairsin2014,itwasconcluded that one third of South Africa’s more than 250 municipalities were totallydysfunctionalandonethirdexperiencedseriousproblems(COGTA,2014).Onlyonethirdwasfullyfunctionalanddeliveringanacceptablelevelofservicestotheirrespectivecommunities.Manyoftheproblemsexperiencedbymunicipalitiesrelatetoadministrativeandmanagementcapacity,forexamplenotenoughsuitablyqualifiedstaff,alackofspecifictechnicalskills,poorfinancial management and political interference in management decisions. This situationinevitablyhasanegativeimpactonthedeliveryofservices.
Insomecommunitiespoorservicedeliveryledtocivilprotestsandunrestwhichbecameviolentinsometownsandevencauseddestructionofpublicandprivateproperty (Bernstein,2014).Citizenswanttheirconcernstobeheardandconsidered.Intheareasthataremostlyaffectedbypoorservicedeliveryradicalchangeisnecessaryandmanycitizensarewillingtodosomethingtoimprovetheirsituation.Thegapcreatedbypoorservicedeliveryopensthepossibilityforco-productioninitiativestobeconsidered.
Itis,however,alsoinwell-functioningmunicipalitieswherethereisaneedtogetmorecitizeninvolvementandexploredifferentpossibilitiesfortheco-productionofpublicservices.Economicdevelopmentneedssuchasinvestmentinnewinfrastructure,urbanplanninganddevelopmentand tourism promotion and support place high demands on limited financial and humanresourceswithinmunicipalitiesandthisthusprovideopportunitiesforcitizens,whethertheyareconsumersorprivatesectorcontributors,toengageinco-productionactivities.
4. Co-creationpartners
178
Inthecasestudypresentedinthispaperthefollowingpartnersareinvolved:
4.1 theStellenboschUniversitythroughitsSchoolofPublicLeadership,whoactsasknowledgepartnerandwheretheideafortheestablishmentofsociallaboratoriesinSouthAfricawasborn;
4.2 themunicipality,beingtheofficialgovernmentinstitutionresponsibleforthedeliveryofarangeofspecificserviceswithinlocalcommunities;
4.3 theWesternCapeProvincialGovernment,whichisresponsiblefortheinitialfundingfortheestablishmentofthesociallaboratory;and
4.4 a variety of groups and individuals within the local community. During the publicengagementphasespecific institutionsor individualexpertiseareidentifiedasfurtherco-productionpartners.
5. Sociallaboratoriesunderthespotlight
Throughitsworkinprovidingcuttingedgeresearchandqualitytrainingwithinthefieldofpublicgovernance, the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University is often faced withquestions about dealing with complex governance and societal problems. Various actionresearchprojectsconductedbytheSchoolofPublicLeadershipwithinlocalcommunitiesintheWesternCapehavehighlightedtheneedfornewapproachestodealwithcomplexproblems.Italso provided an opportunity to initiate innovativemethods in assisting local government infulfillingitsconstitutionalmandate.ThebasicconceptofasociallaboratoryintheSouthAfricancontextwasthusdevelopedbytheSchoolofPublicLeadershipattheStellenboschUniversityasaninnovativeapproachinresponsetoexistingcomplexgovernanceproblems,butalsotobepro-activeincreatingspaceforsocialinnovation.
Inthenatureofa laboratorywherephysicalexperimentsareconductedinthecontextofthenaturalsciences,thesociallaboratoryhasacomparablecharacter,namelythatitcreatesaspacefor testing ideas and conceptswithin the social sciences, or put differently, it is a space forexperimentationandinnovationregardingpublicservicesandthecreationofpublicvalueinlocalcommunities.Hassan,intheSocialLabsFieldBook,definesasociallaboratoryasfollows:
“Similarasociallabcanbethoughtofas:
179
- Alaboratory
- Aspaceformulti-disciplinarycollaboration
- Astrategyforaddressingacomplexchallenge
Andwithinthespaceofasociallaboratory,apractice,awayofaddressingcomplexchallenges,isundertaken.”(Hassan,2015).Inthesociallabthemultiplepartnersworkincollaborationtosolvecomplexissues,and,accordingtoHassan,throughthesecollaborativeprocessesvariousformsofcapital(intellectual,human,financial,social,physical)aregeneratedorregeneratedtothebenefitof society. Theconceptofa social laboratorycouldclearlybeutilisedwithin thecontextofco-productionofpublicservices inviewofthefactthat itcould includepublicandprivatesectorpartnersaswellascontributionsbythecitizens.
The first two social laboratories were established by the School of Public Leadership in twomunicipalities in the Western Cape during 2015, namely Hessequa Local Municipality andSaldanhaBayLocalMunicipality.TheformalestablishmentofthesociallaboratoryisdonebywayofaCo-operationAgreementbetweentheStellenboschUniversity,actingthroughitsSchoolofPublicLeadership(SPL),andthespecificmunicipality,butthisfollowsmonthsofpreliminaryandpreparatorydiscussionsbetweenthesetwoinstitutionalpartners.Theaimoftheagreementistoestablishasociallaboratorywhichwillhavethefurtheraimstocreateandgrowpublicvalueand facilitateeconomicdevelopmentwithin the local community. TheSPLalsouses it asanacademicresearchandlearningexperience.TheWesternCapeGovernmentthencomesintothepicture as a third partner in the process when it agrees to provide funding to the localmunicipalitytoestablishasociallaboratorywiththeuniversity.Insomecasesthemunicipalityhasalsoprovidedsomefunding.
Theconstitutionalgovernanceframeworkstipulatesthattheconstitutionalobjectivesof localgovernmentinSouthAfricaare:
(a) Toprovidedemocraticandaccountablegovernmentforlocalcommunities;
(b) Toensuretheprovisionofservicestocommunitiesinasustainablemanner;
(c) Topromotesocialandeconomicdevelopment;
(d) Topromoteasafeandhealthyenvironment;and
(e) To encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in themattersoflocalgovernment(sec.152(1),Constitution).
180
All the services to be delivered by municipalities are thus anchored in this constitutionalprovision,whichalsoprovidestheproperconstitutionalframeworkforco-productionofpublicservicesinlocalcommunities.
It isevident fromtheassessmentdoneby thenationalgovernment that localgovernment inSouthAfricaisinacrisisanditwarrantsagreatdealofsupporttogetallmunicipalitiesatawell-functioninglevel.Nationalgovernmentaswellasthenineprovinceshaveaconstitutionaldutytosupportmunicipalitiesinvariousways,butthisisclearlynotenough.Thereisthusstillaneedfor constructive involvement from consumers of services and private sector partners tocontributetopublicservicedelivery.
Thecategorisationofmotivatingfactorsforcitizenparticipationinco-productiondevelopedbyVan Eijk and Steen is quite helpful in this case, but also limited since it only considers themotivation for citizens to get involved. It nevertheless provides useful guidance forunderstandingtheinvolvementofanacademicinstitutioninsuchaninitiative.ThemotivationfortheUniversityrelatestothethirdcategory,namelytohelpcreatepublicvalueandcontributetothecommongood.TheUniversity,beinganacademicinstitution,alsohasanotherinterest,namelythatofresearch.Ifitcanuseitsworkinasociallaboratorytodoactionresearchandother studies which could be published and could also be utilised in teaching, it will bringadditionalbenefitstotheUniversity,andthisisanadditionalmotivatingfactor.
The concept of the social laboratorymust be dissected to get a better understandingof themotivating factors for citizens to get involved. Oneof the first activities conductedwithin acommunityaftertheformalestablishmentofthesociallaboratoryistohaveapublicdiscussionforum to do a needs assessment of public service issues. Various interest groups, such asbusiness chambers, churches and non-governmental organisations are invited to attend thisevent togetherwith theUniversity and representativesof themunicipality. Membersof thegeneralpublicwithinthelocalcommunityarealsowelcometoattend.Thiseventtakesatleasta full day and is followedby further smallerwork groupdiscussions. Theneeds assessmentprocessleadstothegenerationofavarietyofideaswhicharethenprioritisedanddiscussedinmoredetailbythepeopleattendingthisforumandinthesmallerworkgroups.Theseideasmustfitwithin theoverallbroadmandateof localgovernmentasstipulatedabove,which includessustainabledeliveryofservices,economicandsocialdevelopmentandinvolvingthecommunityinlocalgovernmentmatters.Onecouldthusatthisstagedistinguishthreepotentialpartners,namelythemunicipality,theUniversityandthecommunity,whichincludesavarietyofinterest
181
groupsandconsumersofservices.TheUniversityfacilitatesthepublicengagementprocessandthesubsequentdiscussions.
The ‘community group’ is indeed a diverse group of institutions and individual citizens whoattend the event for various reasons, but primarily because they want to see a generalimprovement in the general living conditions in the local community, which implies a newapproachtothedeliveryofservicesbythemunicipality.Thecontributionofindividualmembersof society and of private sector organisations is primarily motivated by socio-economicconsiderations or community-centred motivations such as insufficient delivery of services,povertyortheneedforneweconomicdevelopmentinitiatives,thusfalling inthesecondandthirdcategoriesofVanEijkandSteen’smodel.Theywanttoseemoreandbetterpublicservices,ortheywanttointroduceinnovativeideasintheexistingservicedeliverycontext.Someoftheexpertsusedaspartofthisprocessmightalsobemotivatedbysocio-psychologicalfactorssuchas their perception of their specific competence to make a contribution. An engineer withexpertiseinsolarenergycouldthusforexamplebemotivatedtocontributeintheco-designofnewenergysolutionsinalocalcommunity.
Throughthepublicengagementprocesstheinstitutionalpartners,namelythelocalmunicipalityand the University, are informed about specific expertise within the local community andsometimesalsofromelsewherethatcouldmakeameaningfulcontributiontoco-creationandco-deliveryofpublicservices.TheSchoolofPublicLeadershipusesitsextensivenetworkofin-houseexpertise,alumniandpartnerstosourcerelevantexpertisethatcouldcontributealreadyinthefirstexploratoryphaseofengagementinalocalcommunity.Thelackofspecificexpertisewithin the municipal administration is thus balanced by eliciting specific expertise from thecommunity.TheUniversityalsocontributestothepoolofexpertiseinviewofitswiderangeoffieldsofknowledge.Onewayofdescribingthisfirstpublicengagementprocessistoviewitasaformofcrowdsourcingofideasandexpertise.
It is already in this first exploratory phase that some formof co-design is taking place. Theprioritised ideas are refined by the University together with the Municipality in order toformulateprojects that fallwithin theservicedeliverymandateof theMunicipality. Externalexpertise, for example on renewable energy, entrepreneurship or information technology, isbroughtintoassistintheprojectformulationandimplementation,andthuscontributingtotheco-creationprocess.
182
Once a co-designed project is agreed to by the University and theMunicipality, it must beimplementedwithinthatcommunity.Dependingonthenatureoftheprojectorservice,oneoftheco-productionpartnerswouldtaketheleadintheimplementationthereofwhiletheotherswouldplayasubsidiaryrole,asdiscussedbelow.
Inordertounderstandthepracticalimplementationofthesociallaboratorysomeexamplesofinitiativesthatwerebornthroughthepublicengagementprocessesarediscussedbelow.
Hessequa isarural localmunicipality that is locatedabout300kmfromCapeTownalongtheGarden Route, which is an important tourist route in the country. Some of the towns inHessequa, however, experience high unemployment which contributes to various socialproblems.Socio-economicdevelopmentthatcouldalleviatepovertyisthereforeaprioritywithinthis municipality. The effective delivery of services that can enhance socio-economicdevelopmentisthusakeypriorityfortheHessequaMunicipality.Itsabilitytodosoislimiteddue to limited financial and human resources. Additional appropriate expertise is thereforeneededtoassisttheMunicipalityinfulfillingitsmandate.Thereisthusscopeandaneedforco-productionofpublicservices.Tourismpromotion,includingsomeinnovativeideasforspecificeconomicactivitieslinkedtotourism,wasthusoneofthekeypriorityissuesidentifiedduringthepublicengagementprocesses.Asaconsequence,atourismindaba(atwo-daypublicevent)washeldattheendof2016toactasanexploratoryforumfordiscussingvarioustourismpromotionconceptsandprojects. Variousindividualrole-playersandenterprises inthetourismindustryprovidedproposalsfornewtourismroutesandactivities.TheHessequaMunicipalityagreedtoadoptappropriateproposalspresentedinthiswayinitsintegrateddevelopmentplan.Inthiswaylocaleconomicdevelopmentthroughtourismwasco-designed,co-createdandco-deliveredbythemunicipalityandarangeofprivatesectorpartners.TheUniversityplayedafacilitatingroleintheprocess.
AnothersociallaboratorywasestablishedinSaldanhaBayLocalMunicipalityin2015.Saldanhais a harbour town about 150 km north-west of Cape Town and it also has a new industrialdevelopmentzonelinkedtotheharbour,whichisalargedeep-seaport.Inthissociallaboratorytherewasalsoaninitialpublicengagementwithavarietyofpeoplefromthelocalcommunityaswell asdifferent associatesof the Schoolof Public Leadershipwhohaveexpertise in specificeconomicfieldsofinterest.Thismunicipalityalsohasahighunemploymentrate,butthereisalot of economic development potential that could createmore jobs and contribute to socio-economic upliftment. There is a need for more skills development and tertiary education,includingentrepreneurshiptraining.Althoughthemunicipalityhasanimportantsocio-economic
183
developmentmandate,itdoesnothaveanyjurisdictionfordeliveryoftertiaryeducation.Themunicipality clearly needs different service providers that can contribute to delivery of suchserviceswhichcouldcreateopportunities forpeopleto learnnewskillsandgetqualificationsthatcouldhelptofindorcreatejobs.
Two of the issues listed during the public engagement process are skills development, inparticular in entrepreneurship, and internet connectivity. A project, which utilises expertiseprovidedbytheUniversity,aswellasinputbyofficialsfromtheMunicipality,wasinitiatedtocreate jobs and skills, namely From Unemployment to Entrepreneurship (U2E), which isimplementedbytheMunicipalityandformspartofitssocio-economicservicedeliveryportfolio.Thisprojectwasco-designedbytherespectivepartners,andtheimplementationthereofaspartofthedeliveryofeconomicdevelopmentservices,nowrestswiththeMunicipality.
AsecondprojectrelatingtointernetconnectivitywasformulatedbyagroupofprivatesectorcompaniesandassociatesoftheSchoolofPublicLeadershipandapprovedbytheMunicipality.This initiative is called the Fibre to the Home project and it provides modern fibre opticconnections tohouseholdsandbusinesses selected for thepilotproject. High speed reliableinternet connectivity is thus provided, which contributes to the Municipality’s mandate topromotelocaleconomicdevelopment.TheMunicipalitymadeavailableitswaterinfrastructureinwhich the fibreoptic cablesare laid. Agroupofprivatecompaniesdida feasibility study,contributed their technical know-how and physically laid the fibre optic cables to create theinternet infrastructure. This enables theMunicipality aswell as private service providers toprovide internet based services to the citizenswithin the local community. In this respect itshouldbenotedthatthisinitiativeisalsosupportedbytheWesternCapeGovernment,whichhasastrongfocusoninformationandcommunicationtechnologyasakeydriverofeconomicgrowthasconfirmedbyPremierHelenZillein2013:
“Agrowingeconomymustconnectpeoplethroughtransportandtechnology.WehavetolearnfromplaceslikeKenyawhereanICTrevolutionisdrivingstrongeconomicgrowth.Toemulatethis,wearedevelopingatelecommunicationsstrategy,basedonafibreopticnetworkinfrastructurethatconnectsgovernment,citizensandtheeconomytoimproveproductivityandaccesstonewmarkets.TheWorldBankhascalculatedthattheeconomyof a developing country grows by 1.38% for every 10% increase in broadbandpenetration.”
The first social laboratories were new terrain for the key institutional partners, namely theUniversity and the relevant municipalities, as well as for all the community groups andinstitutions.Itwasthusalsoalearningexperiencethathelpedtogaininsightinthemunicipality’s
184
decisionmakingprocessesandhowthatcouldbeenhancedbywayofco-designorco-creation.Someoftheproblemsexperiencedinthefirsttwosociallaboratoriesare:
• Alackofunderstandingamongthemunicipalofficialsofthenatureofco-productionofpublicservices,andthusoftheirrolesintheprocess;and
• Alackofappreciationthattheco-productionpartnersarejoint‘owners’oftheprocessandtheservicetobedelivered.
It isevidentthatclarificationofrolesandresponsibilitiesof individualco-productionpartnersmustbedoneasearlyaspossibleintheprocess,andthattheobjectivesandpotentialoutcomesoftheco-productionprocessesbediscussedandagreedto.
Sincethe identifiedsocial laboratoryprojectshavebeen,orarebeing implemented, itmeansthatthespecificmunicipalitythenenteredintoaco-productionphasewiththeUniversityandtherelevantprivatesectorpartnersasco-producersofthespecificservices.Theprocessofco-production could end there, but it does not have to. In reality, the continued engagementbetweentheUniversity,themunicipalitiesandexternalpotentialpartnersproducesvariousnewinitiatives for potential services. These ideas are often explored by the University and therelevantprivate sectorpartnersasa first stepbefore formallyengagingoneof the social labmunicipalitieswiththeaimofco-creatingthespecificservice.Ideally,theco-productionprocessshould thenbe institutionalised in themunicipality and continuedwith the private sector orcommunitypartners,evenaftertheUniversityhasmovedontoworkelsewhere.
ThethirdsociallaboratoryinPrinceAlbertLocalMunicipality,asmallruralmunicipalityabout400kmnorth-eastofCapeTowninanisolatedandaridarea,hassincethenbeenestablishedanditcouldbenefitfromthelearninggainedinthefirsttwosociallaboratories.Theinitialpublicengagement process there has been concluded and the first co-designed project is beingdelivered.
6. Benefits
Thebenefitsofthesociallaboratoriesasinnovativeplatformsforco-productionofpublicservicescanbeseenatdifferentlevels:
185
(i) ThepublicengagementphasefacilitatedbytheUniversityandthemunicipalityisasignificant process of crowdsourcing of ideas and expertise, which enriches themunicipality’sknowledgeabouttheneededservices,theirrelativeprioritiesandtherequiredqualityofthoseservices.
(ii) Itprovidesopportunitiesforexpertswithinlocalcommunitiesaswellaswithintheacademicspheretotesttheirideasandtoprovidetheirexpertisetothemunicipality.
(iii) Innovationinservicedeliveryisgivenaboostthroughthisprocess.
(iv) The identifiedservicedeliveryprojectsoftenhavesecondarybenefits, forexamplethe Fibre to the Home project created a new revenue source for Saldanha BayMunicipality,whichwasnottheprimaryaimoftheproject.Similartothedeliveryofwaterandelectricityservices,theprovisionoffibreopticinternetserviceshaveafixedorinfrastructurecomponentforwhichthemunicipalitycannowchargeafee.
(v) Newservicesareco-designedandco-deliveredandexistingservicesarereviewedandrenewedduetothecontributionsoftheacademicandprivatesectorpartners.
(vi) Thecapacityofthepoliticalandadministrativeleadershipinthesemunicipalitiesisenhancedthroughthisco-creationprocess.
(vii) Publicvalueiscreatedthroughthesociallaboratoryprocesses.
(viii) Untilnowmanyoftheservicedeliveryprojectsproducedinthesocial laboratorieshave socio-economic aims and benefits, for example supporting economic growththroughinternetconnectivityortourismpromotion.
(ix) TheUniversitygainsvaluableresearchdatageneratedthroughtheseco-productionprocesses.
(x) During the co-creation processes the ability and willingness of a municipality tocooperateconstructivelywithindependentpartnersinco-productionarealsotestedandevaluated.Subsequentactionlearninglessonscanthenbeappliedtodesignnewframeworksforenhancedcooperation.
Verschureetal.(2012)indicatedthattheenhancementinthequalityofservicedeliveryisanimportant benefit of co-production. Citizen co-production can contribute to increasedsatisfactionamongtheconsumersoftheco-producedpublicservicesanditcouldalsoenhancedemocratic accountability. These benefits are also relevant within the context of sociallaboratories.
186
7. Conclusion
Itoftenhappensthatcrisissituationsproducenewideasandopportunitiesthatcouldbenefitsociety.ThemultitudeofproblemsinmanySouthAfricanmunicipalitiesprovideopportunitiesfornewideastobetestedinordertohelpmunicipalitiesandtorescuethosethatarefailing.Externalexpertiseismuchneededinviewofthelackofadministrative,technicalandmanagerialexpertiseinmanymunicipalities.TheUniversityhasanimportantroletoplaytoutiliseitsvastknowledgebasetomakean impact insocietyby interaliasupportingmunicipalitiesandthusenhancingsocio-economicdevelopment.
The development of social laboratories in Saldanha Bay, Hessequa and Prince Albert localmunicipalitieswasaninnovativeapproachtoco-designandco-producepublicservicesinthosemunicipalities.Notalltheprojectideasproducedduringthepublicengagementprocessescouldbe adopted, simply due to limited resources and the fact that there was a prioritization ofproposals.Problemsthatoccurredwithinthecontextofthesociallaboratoriescouldbeusedaspart of the learning experience, which will be beneficial in the future development of co-productionactivitiesinothersociallaboratories.ThesuccessoftheinitialsociallaboratorieshasalsoledtoothermunicipalitiesthataskedtheUniversitytoengageindiscussionswithaviewtoestablish social laboratories. There are currently three additional social laboratories underconstruction. The concept of social laboratories is indeed an innovative approach to the co-creationandco-deliveryofpublicserviceswhichismuchneededinSouthAfrica,andwhichcouldperhapsalsobeutilisedinothercountries.Furtherworkneedstobedonetocreateahigherlevel of understanding of the nature and benefits of co-production among all the potentialpartnersintheco-productionactivities,inparticularwithinthesociallaboratories.
Bibliography
Alford, J. 2014. Engaging Public Sector Clients – From Service Delivery to Co-Production.
UnpublishedpaperdeliveredatUniversityofCopenhagen.24April,Copenhagen.
Bernstein.A.2014.SouthAfrica’sKeyChallenges:ToughChoicesandNewDirections,Annals,
AAPSS,652,March2014.
187
Bovaird,T.&Löffler,E.2011.FromEngagementtoCo-Production:HowUsersandCommunities
ContributetoPublicService,inBrandsen,T.&Pestoff,V.(eds.).NewPublicGovernance,The
ThirdSectorandCo-Production.London:Routledge.
Bovaird,T.&Löffler,E.2014.UserandCommunityProductionofPublicServices:WhatDoesthe
EvidenceTellUs?ConferencePaperatIIASstudyGrouponCo-Production,Bergamo,Italy.
May2014.
Christiansen,J.&Sabroe,R.2015.InnovationLabsasPublicChangeAgents,PublicSectorDigest,
August2015.
COGTA.2014.BacktoBasicsReport,Pretoria,2014.
ConstitutionoftheRepublicofSouthAfrica,1996.
Co-operation Agreement between Stellenbosch University and Hessequa Local Municipality,
2015.
Co-operationAgreementbetweenStellenboschUniversityandSaldanhaBayLocalMunicipality,
2015.
Hassan,Z.2015.TheSocialLabsFieldBook–apracticalguide tonext-generationsocial labs,
Berret-KoehlerPublishers,www.social-labs.orgJanuary2015.
OECD.2011.TogetherforBetterPublicService,PartneringwithCitizensandCivilSociety.Paris:
OECD.
Pestoff,V.2014.CollectiveActionandtheSustainabilityofCo-Production.PublicManagement
Review,16(3):390.
Verschure,B.,Brandsen,T.&Pestoff,V.2014.‘Co-production:TheStateoftheArtinResearchandtheFutureAgenda’,ISTRVoluntas,18July2012.
188
Co-producingcommunity-basedtourism:theimpactofcommunitycapacity-building
(MchunuandTheron)
Mchunu,N.CityofCapeTown,SouthAfrica
Theron,F.SchoolofPublicLeadership,StellenboschUniversity,SouthAfrica
Abstract
Theemergenceofthenotionofcommunity-basedtourism(CBT)asanalternativeformoftourismdevelopmentandservicedeliverypromisedtobeaco-productionvehiclewherethemarginalisedcommunitieswouldbecomeco-producersoftheirowndevelopment.However,communitieshavenotsufficientlyparticipatedandbenefitedinCBTventuresthatlargelyutilisestheirassetsandnaturalresourcesthatshouldideallyimprovetheirlivelihoods.Thisisbecauseofthelackofcommunitycapacity-building(CCB)thatshouldempowerthemtoparticipatemeaningfullyandbecomeequalco-productionpartners.CBTshouldideallyallowspaceforcommunitiestoinfluence,direct,controlandowndevelopment17meantfortheirbetterment.Authenticandempoweringcommunityparticipationinatourismventureempowerscommunitiestocontributetheirsocialcapitalandlocalknowledgeintheventure.
Current practice of CBT through tourism ventures does not allow communities to be co-
producersoftheirowndevelopmentduetothelackofacommunitydevelopment(CD)approach.
A CD approach is biased towards themarginalised and augments CCB in that it encourages
strategic partnerships and external experts’ intervention, or rather facilitation but this
“intervention” needs to enhance community autonomy, self-reliance and their ability to do
thingsforthemselves,i.e.controlandownership.Thisidealizedstrategicpartnershiptakesthe
form of a four-level participatory planning partnership comprising of communities, public
officials,thethirdsectorandprivatesectorenablingagrassrootsspaceorsetting,whichallows
forco-production.Itthusencouragesanintegratedapproachandeffectiveresourcemobilisation
inthelightofdwindlingservicedeliverybudgetsandincreasingpublicdiscontent.
ThispaperarguesthatCCBenhancesthereleaseofgrassrootsknowledgeregimesthroughwhich
thecommunitybecomeequalpartnersintheco-productionandco-creationofaCBTventure.It
17Forthepurposesofthispaperthetermsdevelopmentandservicedeliveryareusedinterchangeable.
189
doesthisbyimprovingtheknowledgeandskillsbaseofthecommunitybynotonlyempowering
themtocontributeeffectivelyinaparticipatoryplanningpartnershipbutbuildsactivecitizenship
andcommunityresilience.
This paper’s relevance lies in its contribution to the co-production body of knowledge by
demonstratinghow theoutcomesof co-production throughCCBandutilising an assetbased
approach(ABA)inaCBTventurecanberealised.Usingacasestudy,thepaperdemonstrates
how co-production functions in practice in CBT and how it leads to the improvement of
communitylivelihoodsandcommunity-building.
The paper adopted an analytical, theoretical and exploratory approach. Besides reviewing
internationalliteratureonco-production,thepaperanalysestheprincipleofco-production,CCB
andCBT.Inaddition,itexplorespracticalexperiencesofco-productioninSouthAfricabyutilising
acasestudytoillustratetheimpactofcapacity-buildinginaco-productionparticipatoryplanning
partnership.Theauthorsreliedonsecondarydataincludingtheirexperiences,previousresearch
andparticipatoryobservationbybothauthorsintheirprofessionalcapacitiesandtheoutcomes
ofparticipatoryworkshopswithlocal/provincial/nationalgovernmentofficialsduringfacilitation
ofnationallyaccreditedshortcourseprogrammesoncitizenparticipation,goodgovernanceand
integratedcommunitydevelopmentplanning.
Keywords:co-production,community-basedtourism,publicparticipation,communitycapacity-building,activecitizenship,communityresilience.
Introduction
Thenotionofco-productionhasbeeninexistencefordecadesbutitisonlyinrecentyearsthat
ithasbeenrevitalized(Verschuere,Brandsen&Pestoff,2012:1084).Asashadowofitsoriginal
conception, it has evolved from being confined into
“regularproducersandcitizens”(Alford,2014:300;Meijer,2016:596)toincludeotherpotential
co-producerssuchasvolunteers, the thirdsectorandprivatesector (Bovaird,2007).Evolving
researchshowsthatco-productionofpublicservicesisnotonlythefunctionofprofessionalsand
190
managerialstaffbutisalsoco-producedbycitizensandcommunitiesBrandsen&Honingh,2015).
Although the phenomenon has always existed, its resurgence demonstrates the emerging
governanceparadigm inwhichcollaborationandpublicparticipationarecentral (Brandsen&
Honingh,2015).
Whatisclearfromco-productionresearchisthatalthoughithasbeenmultidisciplinaryinnature
(Brandsen&Honingh,2015)focushasbeenonsocialservicessuchaspolicing,heath,education
andhousing (Bovairdet al., 2015;Pestoff et al., 2012;Meijer, 2014;Brandsen&Helderman,
2012). Thus, the potential for CBT as co-production vehicle in the tourism domain remains
unexplored.Availableresearchshowsthatcommunitieshavenotsufficientlyparticipatedand
benefited in CBT ventures that largely utilises their assets and natural resources that should
ideally improve their livelihoods (Manyara& Jones, 2007:403;Giampiccoli&Kalis, 2012:174;
Chok,Macbeth&Warren,2007:144).Inthesamevein,CCBhasalsoreceivedlimitedattention
intourismdebates(Askeretal.,2009:400).
Thisisnotsurprisingbecausethispracticeisbeneficialtothosewhopossessandcontrolpower
andtheelite.Inthisregard,Agger(2012:2)pointsoutthatparticipatoryinitiativesmayhavegood
intentionsofallowingthe“participation”ofmarginalisedcommunities,butinmostcasesthose
whoparticipateareoftenthosewithpoliticalknow-how,timeandprofessionalknowledgewhich
in turn crowds-out communities and alienates them from their own development, mainly
because they lack skills, knowledge and capacity that should enable them to participate
meaningfullyandbecomeequalco-productionpartnerswhoareabletosafeguardtheirinterests
intheco-productionprocess.
Similarly, public legislation and policies can encourage co-production (Brandsen & Honingh,
2015)ordiscourageit.ForexampleinSouthAfrica,thepolicyWhitePaperonLocalGovernment
(1998) sets out the principle of Developmental Local Government (DLG) which stresses the
importance of people-centred service delivery and a partnership between government, the
citizensandcommunityorganisations in findingviableand long-lastingwaysthatwilladdress
theireconomic, social andmaterialneeds.Butwhathas since transpired is far from ideal. In
191
essence,theWhitePaperacknowledgesthatpeoplewhouseserviceshaveassetsthatcanhelp
improvethoseservicesratherthansimplyhavingneedswhichmustbemet(Needham&Carr,
2012).
Inlightoftheabove,howcancommunitiesclaima“stake”intheirowndevelopmentinthelight
ofthefactthatthesecommunitiesoftenlackcapacitytousetheseassetsfortheirbetterment?
Tointernalizethisphenomenon,thispaperinvokesacommunitydevelopment(CD)paradigm;
particularlytheABAwhichfocusesonthestrengthsofacommunityratherthanitslimitationsor
deficits(McKnight,1997;Suarez-Balcazaretal.,2008).TheABAwillenlightenunderstandingof
co-production inCBTbecause itcomplementstheCDparadigm(Swanepoel&DeBeer,2016)
thatvaluesthecapacity,skills,knowledge,socialnetworksandpotential inacommunity, the
essenceofCBT.
Communitiesdohaveassetsbutwhattheylackistheskill,knowledgeandcapacitytoenable
themtousetheirassetseffectivelyandefficientlysothattheycanderivepublicvaluethatwill
improvetheirlivelihoods(Theron&Mubangizi,2014).It isthisknowledgegapthatthispaper
aimstonarrowbypresentinganunderstandingofco-productioninCBTdomainsinrelationto
how CCB enhances capabilities, capacity and empowers the community to become equal
partnersintheco-productionofaCBTventureusingtheirassets.Thispaperdepartswiththe
hypothesisthat:
Co-production in CBT can (mostly) only be realised when communities gain authentic
participation,capacity,capabilityandareempoweredtoeffectivelyutilisetheirassetsasleverage
in a CBT venture to become equal partners in the co-production process, thus claiming and
enablinglocalmeaning-givingandcontextualspacetoparticipateascapacitatedco-designers,
co-implementers and co-evaluators of the co-production “intervention”and decision-making
process.
Departingfromthishypothesisitisimperativetoclarifyconceptualconfusionofthenotionof
CCBbecauseithasacriticalroletoplayinenablingpoorcommunitiestodeveloptheirskillsand
192
competences to take charge in transforming their livelihoods, now in becoming active and
resilient communities. For the purposes of this paper, we adopt Noya et al.’s (2009:19)
explanationwhichstatesthatCBTisa“…processofenablingthoselivinginpovertytodevelop
skillsandcompetences,knowledge,structuresandstrengthssoastobemorestronglyinvolved
incommunityaswellassocietallifeandtotakegreatercontroloftheirownlivesandthatof
theircommunities”.
Flaspohleretal.(2008)explainthatCBTexistsattheindividual,organisational,andorcommunity
levels, and consists of skills, motivations, knowledge and attitudes necessary to implement
programmes. In involves the transfer of competencies necessary for community groups or
individualstoidentifytheirissuesandaddresstheirconcerns(Flaspohleretal.,2008;Noyaetal.,
(2009). What stands out in the above explanations of CBT are the dimensions of capacity-
building, i.e.skills,motivation(s),knowledgesetsandattitudeswhicharenecessarytoensure
thatcommunitiesareempoweredtoparticipateasequalco-productionpartners.
Thispaperanalysesthreedimensions,i.e.skills,motivationsandknowledgesetsatacommunity
levelasinternalfactorsandpowerrelationsbetweentheco-producersasexternalfactorthat
enables co-production in CBT. Ideally, co-production should transform relations between
communitiesandpublicprofessionalsbytransferringpowertothecommunitywhonowhave
capacity and capability tomeaningfully participate in co-designing, co-implementing and co-
evaluationoftheCBT“intervention”.Aboveallthey,thecommunityparticipantsasbeneficiaries
aretheownersofgrassrootsassets.
Thequestionwillbeaddressedwhethercommunitieswhoareaffectedbyco-productionpossess
the skills and knowledge to meaningfully participate and how they can use their assets as
leveragetotransformtheirlives.Howdoesco-productioninCBThappeninpractice?Whatare
theimplicationsofCCBintheco-productionofCBT?Besidesreviewinginternationalliterature
on co-production, the paper analyses the principle of co-production and CBT. In addition, it
explorespracticalexperiencesofco-productioninSouthAfricabyutilisinganexampleofaCBT
casestudytodemonstratetheimpactofcapacity-buildingintheco-productionofCBT.
193
Communitycapacitybuildinginco-producingCBT
Co-productionhasevolved frombeingconfined into“regularproducersandcitizens” (Alford,
2014:300;Meijer,2016:596)toincludeotherpotentialco-producerssuchasvolunteers,thethird
sectorandprivatesector(Bovaird,2007).Thisaugurswellforco-productioninCBTbecauseco-
producing communities enhance their benefits if they partner with other stakeholders who
contributewhatthecommunitydoesnotpossess,e.g.expertise,funding,training,etc.Research
onCBTventuresshowthatthosethatfunctionontheirownfinditdifficulttosustainthemselves
(Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:5).This means that the notion of co-production and CBT denote
collaboration,sharedresponsibilityandapartnershipbetweenthecitizens(individuallyorasa
collective),Stateandthethirdsector(Brandsen&Pestoff,2006:495).
Asargued,inSouthAfricacommunitieshavenotsufficientlyparticipatedandbenefitedinCBT
venturesthatlargelyutilisestheirassetsandnaturalresourcesthatshouldideallyimprovetheir
livelihoods mainly because they lack capacity to contribute meaningfully to their own
development.Citizensareconsidered“lesscapable”ofparticipatingmeaningfullyinCBTandare
easilycrowdedoutbecausetheylackskillsandknowledge(Vanleeneetal.,2015).Inthisregard,
Brandsen & Honingh (2015) state, most scholars agree that disadvantaged populations, and
thoseinlowersocioeconomicconditionstendtoparticipatelessinco-productionserviceswhich
lessentheirabilitytobenefitfromco-productionactivity.Assuch,Alford(2014)pointsoutthat
co-production facilitation should be based on its simplification, capacity-building and the
provisionofnecessaryassistancetothelessprivileged.
CBTtourismwasfoundedinthe1970sinsearchofalternativestothenegativeeffectsofmass
tourism and also through development agencies which had experiences of community
development in other sectors (Suriya, 2010). CBT needs to be understood as a response to
mainstreamtourismthatischaracterisedbytheexclusivecontrolandelitecaptureofthetourism
industryby thedominantpowerofbig tourismestablishments suchashotel chainsand tour
operatorswhoareinterestedinmaximisingprofits,whileCBTisseenas“backwards,un-dynamic
and a hindrance to innovation and growth” (Thomas et al., 2011:1 in Koen and Thomas,
194
2015:320). The latter line of thinking and action leads to the reduction of communities to
“spectators”intheirowndevelopment,takingawaylocalcontrolofassets,empowermentand
transformation opportunities which should ideally radically transform their lives. The
introduction of the CBT - approach was to create a “safe space” or a “protection net” for
marginalised communities to explore their assets and resources towards improving their
livelihoods.
In lightoftheabove,CBTshouldbeseenasavehicle,atoolandaCDstrategytobeusedto
partnerwith other stakeholders (public sector, private sector and the third sector) who can
ideallyassistcommunitiestoempowerthemselves(Jugmohan&Steyn,2015:1077;Giampiccoli
&Kalis,2012:174).Thismeansthatcommunitieswouldcreateatourismproduct,inthiscase,a
CBTdevelopmentventurethatwillbeusedtodrawtourist/visitorsandbesoldtothem(Goodwin
& Santilli, 2009:4). It is important to note that CBT is not aimed at maximising profits for
communities but to safeguard the impacts of tourism on their assets and natural resources
(Giampiccoli&Kalis,2012:174;Suantsri,2014:10).
Locating CBT within the community development discourse means that it should serve the
purposeofCCB,empowermentandsocial justice (Goodwin&Santilli,2009:5).Thisapproach
focusesonanoutcome(radicalchangeincommunitylivelihoods)thatissynonymouswithco-
production.What is required is the “promotionof full reversal”whereby local expertise and
knowledge (social capital and indigenous knowledge systems) is blended with external
knowledgeandexpertise(governmentofficials,NGO’s,etc.)respectingandacknowledgingboth
asequalpartnersinamutuallybeneficiarysociallearningprocess(Theron&Mchunu2014:111-
128;Chambers,1993inGiampiccoli&Kalis2012:178).
TheCDparadigm(Swanepoel&DeBeer,2016)isnotonlybiasedtowardsthemarginalisedin
promoting“localvoice”and local“choice”,butalsocalls forapractice involvingskillsbase,a
knowledgebaseandastrongvaluebase,whileensuringthegoalofCCB(BudapestDeclaration,
195
2004 in Noya et al., 2009). This means that CD has as its goal meaningful participation of
beneficiarycommunitiesindevelopmentendeavoursinthattheyparticipateasequalpartners
in theco-productionprocessandalso improvetheir livelihoods.Therefore,aCD focusedCBT
approachwillenablecommunitymemberstodevelopskillsandcompetencetoexploreinaco-
productionprocesstowardstransformingtheirlivesandlivelihoods.Thiswillensurethecreation
ofcoherentandresilientbeneficiarycommunitypartnersandpartnershipsinCBTventureswho
(now)canfacetheirchallengesbecausetheyhaveearnedpower(Noyaetal.,2009:11).
TocomprehendCCB,itisimportanttodifferentiatebetweeninternalandexternalfactorsthat
can promote or hinder it. Noya et al. (2009:11) identify internal factors as a lack of skill,
experienceand resources thatcanbeaddressedbyvariouspartners.External factors include
demandingcedingauthorityandcontrol.AsNoyaetal. (2009:11)pointout;addressingthese
challenges requiresapartnershipbetween thecommunity, government, the third sectorand
privatesector. In thismutuallycapacitatingpartnership,eachpartnermust ideallycontribute
equallytowardsthesuccessofaco-production“intervention”whileCCBremainscommunity-
driven.
The authors alignwith the CBT definition provided by the International LabourOrganisation
(2005:3)whichstatesthat:
“…any business organisational form grounded on the property and self-management of the
community’s patrimonial assets, according to democratic and solidarity practices; andon the
distribution of the benefits generated by the supply of tourists’ services, with the aim of
supportinginterculturalqualitymeetingswiththevisitors”.
ThisdefinitionentailsvariouselementsthataresynonymouswithCD,i.e.itstressestheutilising
of community assets for community benefit and ownership of these assets, sharing tourism
benefits.Anassetcanbeanyfactororresourcewhichenhancestheabilityof individualsand
communitiestomaintainandsustaintheirwell-beingandlivelihoods.Theseassetscanoperate
attheindividual,familyorcommunitylevelasprotectiveandpromotingfactorstobufferagainst
196
life’sdifficulties(ImprovementandDevelopmentAgency,2010).ItwasarguedabovethatCBTis
basedoncommunityassetsthatareusedwithotherstakeholderstoderivebenefitstothewider
community.Itthereforemakessensetobaseco-productioninCBTinanABA.Inthisregard,Foot
andHopkins (2010:6)pointout that “…usinganABAenables communities tobuildonwhat
assetstheyhavetogainwhattheyneedandmakeimprovementstotheircommunity,thereby
improveindividualandcommunitywell-being”.Thisenablescommunitiestoexercisecontroland
power by participating in both the design and implementation of core CBT “interventions”
becauseitissupposedtobetheirassets.
In an ABA, “… the glass is half-full rather than half-empty” (Improvement and Development
Agency,2010:2).Theproblemwiththepopular“deficit”-approachisthatinsteadofacommunity
mappingexerciseandbuildingonthat,itfocusesontheproblems,needsanddeficienciesina
community.Itdesignsservicestofillthegapsand“fixtheproblems”.Asaresult,acommunity
can feel disempowered and dependent; people can become passive recipients of expensive
services rather than active agents in their own and their families’ lives (Improvement and
DevelopmentAgency,2010:2;Theron&Mchunu,2016:1-26).
Theshiftfromusingadeficit-basedapproachtoanABAmodelrequiresthattherebeachange
inattitudesandvalues.Authoritiesandpublicprofessionalshavetobewillingtosharepower;
insteadof“doingthingsforpeople”,theyhavetohelpacommunityto“dothingsforitself”,they
havetoplayafacilitationrole(ImprovementandDevelopmentAgency,2010:2).Are-generated,
mobilised,resilientandempoweredcommunitywillnotnecessarilychoosetoactonthesame
issuesthatpublicprofessionalsseeastheirpriorities.InauthenticCBTitiscertainlynotthecase
that external facilitators (partners) “have the solution” and internal beneficiaries (partners)
“havetheproblem”(Theron&Mchunu,2016:1-26)asisoftenthecaseinprescriptive,top-down
planningregimes.Itisnot“powerover”,neither“powerto”,butpowerwithCBTbeneficiaries.
Focusingonaparticulardistrictorlocalsettinginapartnershipwithotherstakeholdersisoneof
thestrengthsoftheABAasthecasestudywilldemonstrate.Silo-typethinkingandplanningand
rigidagencyboundariesstandinthewayofpeople-centredoutcomesandcommunity-building
(Swanepoel&DeBeer,2016).TheABAdoesnot replace investment in improvingservicesor
197
tackling the structural causes of in-equality. The aim is to achieve a better balance between
servicedeliveryandcommunity-building(ImprovementandDevelopmentAgency,2010).
DeBeer(1997:21)arguesthatcapacity-buildingrestsonthepremisethatpeoplewhostandto
gainfromparticipatinginaprojectcanleadtheirownchangeprocesses.Thiscanbeachievedby
adoptingamutualsociallearningprocessaimedatcapacitatingthebeneficiariesofaprojectto
eventually take control (Korten, 1980:502 in De Beer, 1997:21). Here collaboration between
grassrootsprojectbeneficiariesandtheirexternalCBTpartnersisessential.
Inthelightoftheabove,Monaheng(2000:135) identifiesthreecomponentsofCCB.Firstly, it
providesaccesstoinformationandknowledge,socialmobilisationandthematerialandfinancial
resources required for meaningful participation by grassroots beneficiaries in decisions that
affecttheirlives.Thesecondcomponentinvolvesmakingproductiveresourcesavailabletothe
underprivileged,entailingequitabledistributionofeconomicresourcesandaccesstolandand
financialresources.Inthiswaythenegativeeffects,emanatingfromtheimbalancesofthepast,
areminimisedandbeneficiaries gradually realise itspotential.Of significance is that theCCB
processmusttakeintoconsiderationandaccommodatethevarietyofsocietal,economicand
culturaldifferencesfoundinthatparticularcommunity.
ThelastcomponentofCCBrelatestotheeffectivenessofbothadministrativeandinstitutional
structures(Bryant&White,1992:15).Thismeansthatpoliticalstructuressayalocalauthority,
mustbeaccountableandresponsivetotheneedsof localcommunities. Itmustbefreefrom
corruptionandservicesmustbedeliveredinanefficientmanner.
AccordingtoDeBeer(1997:22),government,primarily,mustbringaboutCCB,butonlyasan
enabler,nothands-on.“Non-governmentalorganisations,voluntaryorganisations,community-
basedorganisationsandtheprivatesectormustalsoassist incapacity-building,dependingon
the extent of their participation in development interventions” (De Beer, 1997:22). This
assistance, according to Korten (1990:484),must be part of amutual social learning process
characterisedbyaflexible,sustained,experimental,action-based,capacity-buildingapproach.
WhileitisobviouslyimportantthattheCCBprocessshouldbedevelopedinparticipationwith
198
the participants, i.e. theCBTbeneficiaries, theremust be a structure capacitatedby capable
people, toavoid thedangerofattracting ill trained trainerswithno support system toassist
them.Iftrainingproceedsundersuchconditions,participantswillbefrustratedandresortto
protestaction.
Co-productionincommunitybasedtourism
“A growing body of evidence shows that when practitioners begin with a focus on what
communitieshave(theirassets)asopposedtowhattheydon’thave(theirneeds)acommunity’s
efficacyinaddressingitsownneedsincreases,asdoesitscapacitytoleverinexternalsupport.It
provides healthy community practitioners with a fresh perspective on building bridges with
sociallyexcludedpeopleandmarginalisedgroups"(FootandHopkins,2010:6)
The above statement hold true in that the success of CBT largely depends on community
membersusingtheirassetsasleveragetoimprovetheirlivelihoods.Withinthebroadconception
andbeforediscussinghowco-productioninCBThappensinpractice,itisimportanttoprovide
backgroundon theongoing co-productiondebate. Brandsen&Honingh (2015:15) suggest a
definitionofco-productionthatisbasedonthebasicelementsthatco-productionshouldseek
toachieve. Theydefine co-productionas a“… relationshipbetween thepaidemployeeofan
organisationand(groupof)individualcitizensthatrequiresadirectandactivecontributionfrom
these citizens to theworkof theorganisation”.Basedon theseelements, theydifferentiated
betweentwovariationsinco-productionpractice:(1)theextentofcitizenparticipationinthe
designofservicesdeliveredtothemand(2)whethercitizen’seffortsarethecoreoftheprimary
process or not. These led to the development of a typology comprising of four types of co-
production. This paper focuses on the fourth typewhich is co-production in the design and
implementationofcoreservices.
Whatstandsoutfromtheabovedefinitionisthatco-productionofpublicservicesisnolonger
the function of the professionals and theirmanagers in government alone, but they are co-
199
produced by users and communities, i.e., the grassroots beneficiaries (Verschuere et al.,
2012:1085)whichrepresentashifttotheNewPublicGovernanceparadigm(Osborne,2010).As
such, co-production in this instance denotes collaboration, shared responsibility and a
partnership between the State and citizens (Brandsen & Pestoff, 2006:495). However, the
definitionaboveseemstoomitotherpotentialpartnerslikethethirdsectorandprivatesector
who play an important role in CD and by extension in CBT. It is important to note that
governments that co-operatewith communitiesandprivateand third sectororganisations in
definingpoliciesatpolicy-makingstagesisreferredtoasco-construction,co-policyplanningand
co-prioritisation(Verschuereetal.,2012:1083).
BrandsenandPestoff(2006)calltheaboveprocessco-governance.Conversely,agovernment
thatco-operateswithprivateorganisationsinservicedeliveryisco-managementwhichmeans
that third sector organisations have a say in the design of the service (Verschuere et al.,
2012:1083).Asstated,forthepurposesofthispapertheauthorsfocusonthefourthtypewhich
isco-productioninthedesignandimplementationofcoreservices(Brandsen&Honingh,2015)
but also take private and third sector organisation into consideration in the co-production
processwhichisco-management.
In CBT communities participate through the creation of a tourism venture(s) which are
distinguishablefrommainstreamenterprisesmainlybecausetheyarecomprisedofsmalland
mediumenterpriseswiththepotentialtoproduceeconomicandsocialresultsespeciallyifthey
followaCDapproach (Swanepoel&DeBeer,2016)whichwouldcontribute tocommunities’
wellbeing and where other development types or “interventions” are unlikely to succeed
(Giampiccoli&Kalis,2012:174).Here,CBTismeanttoincreasetheparticipationofcommunities
in tourism; therefore it is a key contributing factor in poverty alleviation. If marginalised
communitieslackskillsandknowledgeitmakesitnecessarythattheyenterintoapartnership
withotherstakeholders.CBTventuresontheirownarenotabletoachievethedesiredresultsas
mostinitiativesarelesssuccessfulwithoutexternalsupportintheformofinvestments(Mtapuri
&Giampiccoli,2013:3).ACBTventurecanbecreatedbyutilisingcommunitymember’sassets
200
(e.g.houses,land)eitherindividuallyorasagroup,inwhatBrudney&England(1983)callgroup
co-production.
ThetourismvaluechainillustratesvariousformsandprocessesthatCBTtakeinordertoallow
ordisallowcollaborationtotakeplace.CBTventuresalsotakevariousformsbasedonthechoice
ofthatparticularbusinessmodel.Theseformsincludejoint-ownershipwithotherstakeholders,
CBTventuresthataremanagedbynon-communitymembers,andCBTthatmayormaynotbe
locatedwithinthecommunityitself(DraftCommunityBasedTourismGuidelines,2015:3).When
usinganABA,thecommunityparticipatethroughaCBTventurewhichassistsmembersofthe
community and they thus should derive benefits that go beyond itself but to the wider
community(Mtapuri&Giampiccoli,2013:3).Inthisregard,participationintheventureshould
have as its aim to derive benefits for individual and common social, economic, political and
emotionalbenefits.Here,theexpectationisthatCBTshouldcreateeconomicandsociallinkages
withinthecommunityanduseresponsibletourismpracticesthataddressenvironmental,social
andculturalsustainability.
Infollowingtheabovearguments,inSouthAfricatheDraftCommunityBasedTourism
Guidelines(2015:3)providethreetypesofCBTmodelsthatcanbechosentotransform
grassrootslivelihoods:
(1) Communityownedandmanagedtourismassets:resourcesaresourcedfromfundsfrom
socially responsible investment (SRI) or government funds. Technical support, training
andCCBmaybeprovidedbysupportagenciessuchasgovernmentornon-governmental
organisations,butoverallresponsibilityfortheenterpriselieswiththecommunity
(2) Community initiatives in a joint venturewith the private sector: a new commercial
enterprise is established jointly by a community entity and a private sector entity for
mutualbenefit.Usuallythecommunityprovidesresourcesthattheyhaveaccessto(e.g.
land,accesstograntfundingandlabour)whiletheprivatesectorcontributesexpertise
201
and investment (e.g. business and financial management expertise, marketing
knowledge,existingclientbases,credibilityandsecurityforcommercialloans)
(3) Entrepreneurs and enterprises in communities sell their products or services to
tourism companies and to tourists: tourism businesses may also provide
opportunities for guests to visit communities and spend money directly on products
(e.g. craft, décor and food) or services (e.g. guided tours, visits to cultural
attractionsandtransport).Thisapproachemphasizestheparticipationofcommunities
inthe tourism supply and value chain. It is important to note that the type of
communityentitythatisinvolvedintheseCBTmodelsmaybeanindividual,a Small,
MediumandMicroEnterprise(SMME)thathaslessthan200employeesoran organisation
withacollectivestructurethatincludesthemajority(orall)membersofadefinedcommunity.
Theaboveformsofco-productionintheCBTdomainhelptodecideonthetype(s)ofbusiness
model that the CBT venture should adopt. The authors have indicated above that the CBT
definitionhascriticaloutcomesthatshouldbeachieved,i.e.effectiveutilisationofcommunity
assets,democracyanddistributionofbenefits.Thereforeitisimportanttoalsoanalysethevalue
thataccruestocommunitiesasaresultofparticipatinginaCBTventure.
Co-production in CBT presents an interesting demonstration of a shift from the original
conception of co-production to collaborative partnerships where communities work with
stakeholders to transform community livelihoods. As argued, communities, particularly so in
SouthAfrica,havenotsufficientlybenefitedinwhatisseenasaverylucrativetourismindustry
whichismainlydominatedbymainstreamtourism.Mainstream/masstourismleanstowardsa
service management perspective in that production and consumption does not happen
separatelybutitisconsumedintheprocessofproduction.Co-productioninmasstourismtends
totakea“servicedominantapproach”whichfocuseson“intangibleprocessratherthanconcrete
product”(Osborne,2010).Inotherwords,productsareconsumedatthepointofproduction.At
theheartoftheco-productionprocessisthequalityandperformanceofaserviceprocesswhich
202
is shapedprimarilyby theexpectationsof theuser, theirpassiveoractive role in theservice
deliveryandsubsequentexperienceoftheprocess(Osborne,2010).
Consideratouroperatorinthatatouristvalueisnotbasedonthemoneythatispaidforatour
butvaluecreationonthepartofatouristiscreatedwhenthetouristandatouroperatorvisitsa
touristattractionwhichdoesn’tonlyincludethequalityofatourbuttourismexperienceandthe
mannerinwhichthetouristisreceivedbythehost.Thismeansthatvalueisco-createdduring
the interaction of an experience and the expectation which is more relational rather than
transactional(Brandsen&Honingh,2015).Thetouroperatorderivesvaluewhichisprivateand
thesameappliestoatourist.Thequestionthatbegsishowvalueiscreatedforacommunityin
CBT?Asindicated,beneficiaryparticipationinCBTisviaaCBTventurewhichcaneitherberun
byanindividual(guesthouseowner),grouporacollectivecommunity(assets,landandother
resources)basedonanassetbasedapproach.Inthiscasepublicvalueislikelytobecreatedas
benefitsaccrueforthebroadercommunity.
Casestudy-IkhayaLeLanga(theHouseofSun)
Introduction
IkhayaleLangaisa“not-for-profit”organizationthatisoperatinginLangaTownshipinCapeTown,SouthAfrica.LangaistheoldesthistoricallyBlacktownshipintheWesternCape.IkhayaleLanga’sfocusisenterpriseandentrepreneurialdevelopmentandbelievesthattheabilitytosustainone-selfeconomicallyisfundamentaltoone’sabilitytogrow.Withapopulationof+-58,000peopleanda60%unemploymentrate,Langahasitsfairshareofsocialchallenges.WhileLangahaslanguishedatthebottomoftheradicalizedsocio-economicorderinCapeTownforgenerations,itisalsoblessedwithabundantresources,e.g.history,heritageandaprimecentralcitylocation.Theseassetsareleveraged,primarilythroughtourismandhospitality,todevelopconditionsforentrepreneurialandenterpriseactivity.Entrepreneurialinnature,IkhayaleLangaManagementenablesinvestment,jobs,trainingandbusinessopportunities.
Theconceptasperthecasestudywasrealisedbyasocialentrepreneur,MrTonyElvinwhospent
mostofhisworkinglifeinLondon.WhenhevisitedLangaTownshiphesawthepoorstatethe
203
communitywaslivingunderandhewantedtodosomethingtoimprovethelivingstandardsof
thecommunity.HestartedengagingtheCityCouncilandthecommunitywithanintentionto
gaintheirsupportforhisprojectconcept.HereceivedthesupportoftheCityCouncilandIkhaya
leLangawasbornwhichhasasitsleadproject,theLangaQuarter,thefocusofthisstudy.
Background
IlangaQuarterisanexampleoftheco-productionofatourisminitiativethatfocusesonusingan
ABA inassisting theLangacommunity toestablishCBTventures. It isbasedonapartnership
betweenthecommunity,thethirdsector,privatesectorandpublicprofessionals.Thepartners
work together to revitalise the LangaQuarter, anareaof13 streets comprising fivehundred
homes housing approximately 7,000 people. Their aim is to establish at least one form of
enterpriseineachofthe350houseswithintheLangaQuarterprecinctanddrawtouristintothe
townships,attractinvestmentandcreateemploymentopportunitiesforlocals.Thefollowingco-
productionprocessisfollowedinthecasestudy:
• Thecommunitylettheirassets(houses)tobeusedashomestaysandartgalleriesandensurethattheyarereadytoreceivevisitorsandenjoytheirstay
• Thethirdsectormobilisefinancialandnon-financialsupportandprovidethenecessarytrainingtothehomestaysandartgalleryowners
• Theprivatesectorprovidesbusinessexpertise,financialandnon-financialsupport
• Publicprofessionalsfacilitateothersupportsuchastourism,environmentalsupportandbusinesszoning
In the above partnership, the Langa community receives CCB to improve tourism skills and
knowledge so that they are empowered to become a resilient (case study) community. This
enablestheparticipantstosafeguardtheirinterestanduseittotransformtheirlivelihoods,thus
becomingself-reliant.Theventurealsoensuresthatbenefitsdonotonlyaccruetoassetholders
204
but to thewider Langa community andpartners as the LangaQuarterworkswithotherCBT
ventureswhoprovidedifferenttourismexperiencesinthebroaderLangaarea.
Experiences
Thework of iKhaya Le Langa and LangaQuarter support individuals and communities and is
investedintacklingthecountry’ssocio-economicchallenges.TheLangaQuarterhome-stayHotel
isprovidingbusinesstrainingandpermanentemploymentopportunitiesto17poorhouseholds
whicharesettogrowupto50familiesbeforetheendof2017.ApartnershipwithCapeTown’s
largerhotelsthroughtheirenterprisedevelopmentstrategiesallowsaccesstothehotelsector's
trainingresources.Theretailspace“iindawo”hasitsownworkshopdevelopmentspacewhich
enablestownshipcreative’stohonetheirtechnicalskillsandbecomecommerciallyviable.
This Social Enterprise Hotel concept organises participating “homestay” families under one
structure.LangaQuarter’sHomestayHotel(LQHH)isa44-bedroom“hotel”withroomsinhomes
dottedaround thecasestudyarea.Thestrategicbenefitsofahotel;marketing,bookingand
trainingarecombinedwiththeuniqueexperientialqualityoflivingwithafamilyinahomestay.
Other residents supply the LQHH with services, from laundry, food supplies and hair and
pedicures.SinceApril2016,160peoplehadbooked,bringinginmorethanR150,000(11548.50
USD)for20familieswhoparticipated.
An academy has been establishedwhere all types of learning takes place. Their flexible and
scalableapproachtolearningisdeliveredviaonsiteandoffsitepartnershipswithaccreditedand
non-accredited institutions. Throughworkshops, formal and informalmentorship, on the job
training,peopleofallskillslevelsaresupported.MajorinstitutionssuchastheUniversityofCape
TownandCapePeninsularUniversityofTechnologyworkalongsidenewlyformedandinnovative
NGO’ssuchasBrothersForAll'scodingacademy,todeliverpracticallearning.
205
A partnership with the Council of International Educational Exchange, places United States
ServiceLearningstudentsatIkhayaleLangaworkingonarangeofcommunityprojectstogain
necessary points for their overseas development studies. Strategic partnerships with the
corporatesector,suchasMicrosoftdeliveringsocialmediatraining,orsmallbusinesslikeCaturra
CoffeedoingBaristatrainingallowsIkhayaleLangatoofferarangeoftrainingopportunities.A
partnerships approach has secured bursaries to AFDA film school aswell as for tour guiding
opportunitiesforLanga’sunemployedyouth.
IKhayaLeLangahasalreadygarneredsupportfromtheprivatesector.Itscenterforenterprise
andentrepreneurshipissponsoredbyMicrosoftandisoneofthefewplacesinCapeTownto
offerfreepublicWi-Fi.Localtourismrelatedbusinessesarelearninghowtousetechnologyto
growtheirbusiness.IkhayaLeLangacreateshundredsofjobandbusinessopportunitiesthrough
tourismandtheredevelopmentofthebroaderLanganeighbourhood.
Conclusion
TheIkhayaLeLangacasestudydemonstrateshowCCBcanhaveapositiveimpactinthelivesof
marginalisedcommunitymembersofLangaTownship.ThecasestudyshowsthatCBT largely
dependsonanassetbasedcommunitydevelopmentapproachaskeyinformantofCBTventure
creation.Theprocess isundertakentoestablishwhatcommunityassetscanbeusedtobring
aboutchangeinthelivesofcommunitymembers.
What is clear is that the Langa Quarter mobilises potential small business that would have
ordinarilyoperatedindividuallytoco-produceasagroupwhichenhancestheirproductoffering.
Forexample,homestaysarenowofferingthecombined44bedswhichcanattractbiggertourists
groups. What is experienced is individual community members actively collaborating with
governmentandthethirdsectortodesignandimplementtheirowncommunitybasedprojects
that does not only change their lives but the broader community, the essence of CBT. It is
206
advisablethatthisinnovativeservicedeliverymodelbereplicatedtootherareassothatother
communitiescanreapthebenefits.
Thirdsectorparticipationinpublicservicedeliverypartnershipshowsthatitcannotonlymediate
indwindlingmunicipalbudgetsduetofiscalconstraintsand increasingcitizen’spublicservice
delivery discontent but can increase authentic citizen participation in a co-production
partnership of public services provision as it is based on group action and direct citizen
participation.Thishaspotentialtoclosea“greatdivide”thatexistsbetweenpublicprofessional
and citizens. Therefore, third sector participation needs to be understood as a platform for
participation,a“conduit”toimprovedservicedeliveryanddemocratisation.
Inessence,thecitizensandthethirdsectorinco-productionpartnershipwiththeStateprovides
aplatformforthepartnerstoco-design,co-implementandco-evaluatetoreflectdifferentstages
oftheirparticipationandinput.Thispartnershipworksas it ismorebottom-upandbasedon
people-centred development in that it allows citizens space to increase their personal and
institutional capacities tomobilise andmanage resources to produce sustainable and justly-
distributedimprovementsintheirqualityoflife,consistentwiththeirownaspirations.
Thecasestudyshowsthatco-productionisabletofundamentallychangetheroleofcitizensand
government (Bovaird, 2007;Pestoff, et al. 2013;Meijer, 2016; Theron&Mchunu,2016) in a
publicservicedeliveryprocess,astheroleofpublicofficialshavechangedfromthatofaservice
deliverer to that of a facilitator. This partnership empowers and encourages community
memberstocontributetheirownresources(socialcapital,localknowledge,timeandeffort)and
enablethemtotakecontrolofpublicservicesandbecomeactiveparticipantssothatoutcomes
canbeachieved.
207
References
Agger, A. 2012. Towards tailor-made participation: how involve different types of citizens inparticipatorygovernance,TownPlanningReview,83(1):29-40.
Alford,A.2014.Themultiplefacetsofco-producing:BuildingontheworkofElinorOstrom,PublicManagementReview,16(3):299-316.
Asker,S.,Boronyak,L.,Carrard,N.andPaddon,M.2010.Effectivecommunitybasedtourism:abestpracticemanual,APECTourismWorkingGroup,GiffinUniversity:SustainableTourism
CooperativeResearchCentre.
Bovaird,T.2007.Beyondengagementandparticipation-usercommunityco-productionofpublicservices.PublicAdministrationReview,67:846-860.
Bovaird,T.,VanRyzin,G.,Loeffler,E.andParrado,S.2015.Activatingcitizenstoparticipateincollectiveco-productionofpublicservices.JournalofSocialPolicy,44:1-23.
Brandsen, T. and Helderman, J.K. 2012. The trade-off between capital and community: theconditionsforsuccessfulco-productioninhousing.Voluntas,23(4):1139-1155.
Brandsen,T.andHoningh,M.2015.Distinguishingdifferenttypesofco-production:conceptualanalysisbasedontheclassicaldefinitions.PublicAdministrationReview,76(3):427-435.
Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. 2006. Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of publicservices:Anintroduction.Publicmanagementreview,8(4):493-501.
BrandsenT.,Verchuere,B.andPestoff,V.2012.Conclusion:takingresearchonco-productionastepfurther,inPestoff,V.,Brandsen,T.andVerschuere,B.(eds.),NewPublicGovernance,thethirdsector,andco-production,Routledge,London,NY.
Brudney,J.L.andEngland,R.E.1983.Towardsadefinitionofthecoproductionconcept,PublicAdministrationReview,43:59-65.
Bryant,P.A.&White,L.G.1982.ManagingdevelopmentintheThirdWorld.Boulder:WestviewPress.
Chok,S.,Macbeth,J.andWarren,C.2007.TourismasaToolforPovertyAlleviation:ACriticalAnalysisof‘Pro-PoorTourism’andImplicationsforSustainability.CurrentIssuesinTourism,10(2-3):144-165.
DraftCommunityBasedTourismGuideline,2015.DepartmentofTourism,Pretoria:GovernmentPrinter.
DeBeer,F.1997.Participationandcommunitycapacitybuilding.InLiebenberg,S.&Stewart,P.(Eds.),ParticipatoryDevelopmentManagementandtheRDP.CapeTown:Juta.
Flaspohler,P.,Duffy,J.Wandersman,J.,Stillman,A.andMaras,M.2008.Unpackingpreventioncapacity:anintersectionofresearchtopracticemodelsandcommunity-centredmodels,AmericanJournalforCommunityPsychology,41(3-4):182-196.
FootJ,HopkinsT.2010.Aglasshalffull:howanassetapproachcanimprovecommunityhealthandwellbeing.ImprovementandDevelopmentAgency,London.
208
Giampiccoli,A.andKalis,J.,2012.Community-basedtourismandlocalculture:thecaseoftheamaMpondo,Pasos.RevistadeTourismPatrimonioCultural,10(1):173-188.
Goodwin,H.andSantilli,R.2009.Community-BasedTourism:asuccess?ICRTOccasionalPaper11.[Online]Available:http://www.icrtourism.org/documents/OP11merged.pdf.Accessed:1December2015.
Improvement andDevelopmentAgency. 2010.AGlassHalf Full: howan asset approach canimprovehealthandwell-being.Accessedat:http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/18410498.
Jugmohan,S.andSteyn,J.N.2015.Apre-conditionandevaluationandmanagementmodelforcommunity-basedtourism.AfricanJournalforPhysical,HealthEducation,RecreationandDance,21(3:2):1065-1084.
Koens, K. and Thomas, R. 2015. Is small beautiful? Understanding the contribution of smallbusinessesintownshiptourismtoeconomicdevelopment,DevelopmentSouthernAfrica,23(3):320–332.
Korten,D.C.1990.Getting to the21st century:Voluntaryactionand theglobalagenda.WestHarford:KumarianPress.
McKnight,J.L.1997.Atwentyfirstcenturymapforhealthycommunitiesandfamilies,InstituteforPolicyReseach,North-westernUniversity,Evanson.
Manyara,G.andJones,E.2007.Community-basedtourismenterprisesdevelopmentinKenya:Anexplorationoftheirpotentialasavenuesofpovertyreduction.JournalofSustainableTourism,15(6):628-644.
Mchunu, N.A. and Theron, F. 2016. Coproducing planning partnerships – contextualisingcommunitybasedtourismwithincollaborativetheory,PaperpresentedattheIIASStudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicServicesWorkshopinTampere,13-14June2016.
Meijer,A.J. 2014.Newmedia and the coproductionof safety: an empirical analysis ofDutchpractices,AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,44(1):17-34.
Meijer,A.J.2016.Coproductionasastructuraltransformationofthepublicsector,InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,29(6):596–611.
Mtapuri,O.andGiampiccoli,A.2013.Interrogatingtheroleofthestateandnon-stateactorsincommunitybased tourismventures: towards amodel for spreading thebenefits to thewidercommunity,SouthAfricanGeographicalJournal,95(1):1-15.
Mohaneng,T.2000.Communitydevelopmentandempowerment.InDeBeer,F.&Swanepoel,H.Introductiontodevelopmentstudies.CapeTown:OUP.
Needham,C.andCarr,S.2009.Co-production:anemergingevidencebaseforadultsocialcaretransformation.ResearchBriefing31.SocialCareInstituteforExcellence,London.
Noya,A.,Clarence,E.andCraig,G.2009.Executivesummary, incommunitycapacitybuilding:
creatingabetterfuturetogether,OECDPublishing.
Osborne,S.P.(Ed.)2010.TheNewPublicGovernance?EmergingPerspectivesontheTheoryandPracticeofPublicGovernance,Routledge,NewYork,NY.
209
Pestoff,V.,Brandsen,T.andVerschuere,B.(Eds).2012.NewPublicGovernance,thethirdsectorandco-production,Routledge,London,NY.
RepublicofSouthAfrica,1998.WhitePaperonLocalGovernment.Pretoria:GovernmentPrinter
Suantsri, P. 2014. Community Based Tourism Handbook. Responsible Ecological Social Tours(REST),Thailand.
Suarez-Bolcazar,Y.,Balcazar, F.E., Taylor-Ritzler,T.and Iriarte,E.2008.Capacitybuildingandempowerment: a panecia and challenge for agency-university engagement,Gateways:InternationalJournalofCommunityResearchandEngagement,1:178-196.
Suriya,K.,2010.Impactofcommunity-basedtourisminavillageeconomyinThailand:AnanalysiswithVCGEmodel.EcoMod2010conference,Istanbul.
Swanepoel, H. and De Beer, F. (eds.). 2016. Community development. Breaking the cycle of
poverty(5thedition).CapeTown:Juta.
Theron,F.andMchunu,N.2014.Publicparticipationasamicro-leveldevelopmentstrategy:theprinciplesandcontextofauthenticandempoweringdevelopment.InDavids,I.andTheron,F.(eds.)Development,theStateandCivilSocietyinSouthAfrica(3rdedition).Hatfield:VanSchaikPublishers.
Theron,F.andMchunu,N.(Eds.).2016.Development,changeandthechangeagent–facilitation
atgrassroots(2ndedition).Hatfield:VanSchaikPublishers.
Theron,F.&Mubangizi,B.2014.Micro-leveldevelopmentandpublicvalue:anintroductiontoconceptsandprinciples.InDavids,I.andTheron,F.(Eds.).Development,theStateandCivilSocietyinSouthAfrica(3rdedition).Hatfield:VanSchaikPublishers.
Vanleene, D., Verschuere, B. and Voets, J. 2016. The democratic quality of coproduction in
communitydevelopment.ConferencePaperforthe12thTransatlanticDialogue,8-11June2016.
Verschuere,B.,Brandsen,T.&Pestoff,V.2012.Co-production:thestateoftheartinresearchandthefutureagenda.Voluntas,23(4):1083-1101.
210
KeynoteLecture:JeffreyL.Brudney
“Coproduction:TheStrangeTaleofHow“Sometimesthe‘WrongTrain’CanTakeUstotheRightPlace”
Coproduction: The Strange Tale of how “Sometimes the ‘wrong train’ can take us to the right place”*
PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES STUDY GROUP
ON COPRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES
WASHINGTON, D.C, JUNE 6-7, 2017
*Paulo Coelho de Souza, Brazilian lyricist and novelist
Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D.
211
WhoEngagesintheCoproductionofPublicServicesandWhy?(Uzochukwuand
Thomas)
TheCaseofAtlanta,Georgia
KelechiUzochukwu
UniversityofBaltimore
Email:[email protected]
And
JohnClaytonThomas
GeorgiaStateUniversity
Email:[email protected]
212
WhoEngagesintheCoproductionofPublicServicesandWhy?
TheCaseofAtlanta,Georgia
Abstract
Withtherecentresurgenceofinterestincoproduction,questionsarisearoundwhowilljoinwithgovernmentincoproducingservicesandwhy.Theanswerstothesequestionscouldholdimportantimplicationsforpublicmanagementgiventhefrequentdesireofgovernments,inthefaceofcontinuingresourceconstraints,toincreasethepublic’sroleinserviceproduction.ThispaperwilllookforanswerstothesequestionsusingsurveydataoncitizenengagementinvariousformsofcoproductionwiththecityofAtlanta,Georgia.
Drawingfrompriorresearch,wewilltesttwoprincipaltheoriesforcitizenengagementincoproduction:(1)Politicalparticipation:Asaformofinvolvementwithgovernment,coproductionmightfollowpatternsdocumentedforpoliticalparticipation,wherecivicandsocialmotivationsoftendominate.(2)Citizen-initiatedcontacting:Involvementwithcoproductionmightalsoresemblethiscontacting,wherecitizensoftenaremotivatedbyspecificserviceneedstheyperceive.Thetwotheoriestogetherimplyasetofhypothesesthatthispaperwilltest.
Thehypotheseswillbetestedusingdatafromaself-administeredsurveyquestionnaireofAtlanta,Georgia,residents.TheCityofAtlantaoffersaspecialopportunitytoexamineco-productionbecauseitsNeighborhoodPlanningUnit(NPU)systemwasestablishedin1974tofacilitatesuchactivities.WewillexaminesurveydataonwhichNPUmembersengageinspecificcoproductionactivitiesandthefactorsthatmotivatetheirengagement.Aconcludingsectionwillconsidertheimplicationsofthefindingsforpublicmanagerswhowanttoincreasethecitizenroleincoproducingservices.
213
INTRODUCTION
Coproductionreferstoaphenomenonwhereincitizensjoinwithgovernmenttojointly
producepublicservices.Coproductionoccursattheindividuallevel,aswhencitizenssort
recyclablesfromtrash,andatthecollectivelevel,aswhenanon-governmentalneighborhood
organizationassumesresponsibilityforrunninganeighborhoodrecreationcenter.
Coproductionhasbeenaroundforaslongasgovernmentshaveexisted,butitwasnot
explicitlyrecognizeduntilthepioneeringworkofElinorOstromandahandfulofotherU.S.
scholarsinthelate1970s(e.g.,Levine1984;BrudneyandEngland1983;Parksetal.1981;
Percy,Kiser,andParks1980;Whitaker1980;Ostrometal.1978).Aftervirtuallydisappearing
fromacademicdiscourseforalmosttwodecades,thephenomenonhasdrawnnewattention
recently,firstoverseasandthenintheU.S.again.
Withtherenewedattentionhascomeavarietyofquestionsaboutthenatureof
coproduction,includingwhointhepublicjoinsinservicecoproductionandwhy.Thepresent
studyseeksanswerstothatquestionusingsurveydataonparticipationofneighborhood
activistsinvariousformsofcoproductioninAtlanta,Georgia.
Thepaperproceedsasfollows.Wefirstreviewthehistoryofthecoproductionconcept,
intheprocessdefiningthemeaningandtypesofcoproduction.Lackingpriortheoryonwho
engagesincoproduction,wenextdrawontheoriesofotherformsofcitizenengagementto
proposehypothesesspecifictocoproduction.Afteranexplanationoftheresearch
methodology,aresultssectiondetailswhatthedatatellusaboutwhoengagesincoproduction
inAtlanta.Weconcludebyreflectingonwhatthefindingsimplyabouttheoriesof
214
coproductionandabouthowpublicadministratorsmightbetterengagethepublicto
coproducemoreeffectivepublicservices.
TheSignificanceandMeaningOFCOPRODUCTION
Anewsenseofthepotentialsignificanceofcoproductionappearstoexplainthe
phenomenon’sreemergenceontheworldstageinbothgovernmentalandacademiccircles.
First,studentsofpublicserviceshaveincreasinglyrecognizedthattheeffectivenessofservices
typicallyrequirescontributionsfromboththepublicandgovernment.Intheclassicexample,
publiceducationsucceedsonlyifbotheducatorsandstudentsdotheirparts,butthesame
truthholdsforawiderangeofpublicservices(e.g.,Whitaker1980).Second,theworkof
governmentincreasinglyfocusesonproducingservices,ratherthangoods,anditiswith
servicesthatcoproductionismostprevalent(Osborne,Radnor,andNasi2013).People
typicallywanttheirservicescustomized,andthatonlyhappensiftheyjoininproducingthe
services.Third,decliningfiscalcapacityhassparkedgovernmentalinterestinfindingmore
efficientwaystoproduceservices,asbyincreasingthepublic’sroleinthatproduction.Finally,
apushtodemocratizeadministrativeprocesseshasalsocontributedtointerestin
coproduction.
Howcoproductionisdefineddependsonwhoisdoingthedefining(see,forexample,
BrandsenandHoningh2015).WepreferthedefinitionofJohnAlford,arguablythemost
authoritativecoproductionscholarsinceElinorOstrom,whodefinescoproductionas“any
activebehaviorbyanyoneoutsidethegovernmentagencywhich”:
215
• isconjointwithagencyproduction,orisindependentofitbutpromptedbysome
actionoftheagency;
• isatleastpartlyvoluntary;and
• eitherintentionallyorunintentionallycreatesprivateand/orpublicvalue,inthe
formofeitheroutputsoroutcomes.
Wepreferthis“relativelybroad”definitionforitsabilitytoencompassawiderangeof
coproductionbehaviors.
Coproductioncanbeundertakenindividuallyorcollectively,andbothformsare
importantwithpublicservices(Petukiene2010;Bovaird2007;Roberts2004;Brudneyand
England1980).Individualcoproductionisoftencriticaltothepublicserviceproduction
process,aspublicagenciescannotsuccessfullyplan,implement,ormonitormostservices
withoutthehelpofindividualcitizens.Theycanhelpby,forexample,pickinguplitteraround
theirneighborhoods,usingpublicfacilitiesjudiciouslytohelpextendtheirlife,andproviding
feedbacktopublicagenciesonserviceissues(e.g.,potholes,graffiti).
Ascommonasindividual-levelcoproductionmaybe,manyscholarsaccordgreater
importancetocollectivecoproduction,arguingthatitconveysmorepowertocitizens,as
sometimesthroughpower-sharingcollaborationsbetweengovernmentandthepublic(e.g.,
Petukiene2010;Bovaird2007;BrandsenandPestoff2006;CooperandKathi2005;).AsVictor
Pestoff(2009,218)hasargued,“onlywhencitizensareengagedinorganizedcollectivegroups
cantheyachieveanysemblanceofdemocraticcontrolovertheprovisionofpublicfinanced
services.”Collectivecoproductionarrangements,involvingneighborhoodorganizationsor
216
schoolcouncilsorthelike,maybestowrealpoweroncitizensbyengagingtheminthe
planning,delivery,andmanagementofpublicservices.
Coproductionalsovariesbythestageofthepolicyprocessinwhichitoccurs.Citizens
mayjoinincoproducingduringprogramplanning,servicedelivery,and/orservicemonitoring,
phaseswhicharetermedbelow(1)co-planning,(2)co-delivery,and(3)co-monitoring.Co-
planningoccursinthedevelopmentofprograms,co-deliveryintheprovisionofservices,and
co-monitoringintheassessmentofthoseservices.
THEORY:WHOENGAGESINCOPRODUCTIONANDWHY?
Withtheresurgentinterestincoproduction,questionsariseaboutwhojoinswith
governmentincoproducingservicesandwhy.Answerstothesequestionscouldhold
importantimplicationsforpublicmanagers,whomayhopetoincreasethepublic’srolein
serviceproduction,andfordemocracymoregenerally,asweconsiderhowtoengageamore
representativepublicwithitsgovernments.Yet,asVanEijkandSteen(2016)recently
reported,priorresearchhasleftthesequestionsmostlyunansweredasthe“coproduction
literaturemerelydiscussescitizens’motivations,andempiricalevidenceisscarce.”Moreover,
exceptforasingleexploratorystudybythosesameauthors,theliteratureoffernotheoryof
involvementincoproduction.
Asearchfortheorymightlookfirstattheliteratureonpoliticalparticipation,abehavior
alsofocusedonengagementofthepublicwithpublicaffairsandgovernment(e.g.,Schlozman
2002).Asisthecasewiththatparticipation,involvementincoproductionmightbeexpectedto
increasewith,forexample,anindividual’s(1)senseofpoliticalefficacy(i.e.,abilityto
217
influence),(2)senseofcivicduty(i.e.,feelingaresponsibilitytoserve),and(3)feelingableto
makeadifference.Consistentwiththatspeculation,VanEijkandSteen(2016)found
engagementincoproductionwaslinkedtoboth“internalefficacy,”definedas“citizens’
feelingsofpersonalcompetence,”and“community-centeredmotivation,”definedasthe
“beliefthatthatindividualshaveresponsibilityforcontributingtothecommongood.”In
addition,thepoliticalparticipationliteraturealsosuggesrscoproductioninvolvementmayalso
growwith(1)encouragementfromfriendsorneighborsandwithhigherlevelsof(2)education
and(3)income(Schlozman2002,440-443).
Butinvolvementincoproductiondifferssignificantlyfrommostorallformsofpolitical
participation.Wherepoliticalparticipationmayfocusonaffectingthegeneralpolicydirection
ofgovernment,involvementincoproductiontypicallyfocusesonmorespecific,immediate,and
oftenpersonalneeds.Itisthedifferencebetween,ontheonehand,wantingtomove
governmentinamoreconservativedirectionbyworkinginanelectoralcampaignand,onthe
otherhand,seekingtocleanupaparkbypartneringwithamunicipalparksdepartment.
Thatfrequentfocusonpersonalneedssuggeststhatanytheoryofcoproduction
involvementmightalsodrawfromtheliteratureoncitizen-initiatedcontactswithgovernments
(e.g.,ThomasandMelkers1999;Coulter1992;Hirlinger1992).AsThomasandMelkers(1999,
668)haveobserved,“Citizen-initiatedcontactsdiffermostclearlyfromothertypesofpolitical
participationbytheirrootsinneedsforgovernmentservices.”Thesecontactsfindindividual
citizensphoning,emailing,ortextinggovernmentwithrequestsfororcomplaintsabout
services,rangingfromcomplaintsaboutpotholestoreportsofmissedgarbagecollectionto
requestsforpoliceassistance.
218
Thesharedbasisinserviceneedscouldmeanthatmanyofthesamefactorsthatappear
topromptcitizen-initiatedcontactscouldalsospurengagementincoproduction.Thosefactors
includepersonalneeds,especiallyperceivedneedssince“theneedslikelytobecrucialin
motivatingcontactsarethosethatcitizensperceiveforparticulargovernmentservices,”not
needsinsomeobjectiveeconomicsense(e.g.,lowincome)(ThomasandMelkers1999,669).
Theymayalsoincludefactorsreflectiveofpersonalinvestmentinthecommunity,suchas
homeownershipandinterestinlocalgovernment(Cox1982;ThomasandMelkers1999,671).
Finally,theymayalsoincludesomefactorsimportantforpoliticalparticipation,suchasasense
ofpersonalefficacy.Feelingpersonallyefficaciousshouldincreaseone’sconfidenceinbeing
ablebothtoapproachpublicofficialsaboutjoininginserviceproductionandthentocontribute
tothatproduction(Alford2009,2002;PowersandThompson,1994),muchasitspurspolitical
participationandcitizencontacting.
Ultimately,acomprehensivetheoryofcoproductioninvolvementprobablyneeds
elementsfromtheoriesofbothpoliticalparticipationandcitizen-initiatedcontacting,withthe
relevantelementsvaryingbytheformofcoproduction.Engagementinindividual
coproduction,forexample,maymostcloselyresemblecitizen-initiatedcontactinginthatboth
mayhavetheirprincipalrootsinperceivedserviceneeds.Asforcollectivecoproduction,since
itentailsworkingwithothers,socialfactors(e.g.,encouragementfromfriendsorneighbors,
wantingtobepartofacommunity)couldplaymoreofarolethanwithindividualcoproduction
oranindividualcitizencontact.Thatrolemightbecomparabletotherolesocialfactorsplayin
politicalparticipation,thoughthesocialfactorswithcollectivecoproductionaremorelikelyto
reflectneighborsandthelocalcommunityincontrasttofriendsmoregenerallywithpolitical
219
participation.One’ssenseofcivicdutymayalsofiguremoreprominentlyincollective
coproductionandco-monitoring,giventheircommonfocusonissuesthatextendbeyondthe
personal,thaninotherformsofcoproduction.Finally,engagementinco-planningwithits
locusinpublicorquasi-politicalarenasmightmorecloselyresemblepoliticalparticipation,
whereasengagementinco-deliveryorco-monitoringmightmorecloselyresemblecontacting
behaviorgiventhestreet-levellocusofallthree.
MaterialMotivations:ServiceNeeds
Thisthinkingimpliesasetofhypothesesaboutwhowillengageinwhichformsof
coproductionandwhy.Giventheexpectedprimacyofperceivedneedsforservicesformuch
coproductioninvolvement,webeginwithtwohypothesesabouttheroleofthoseneeds.
Hypothesis1. Asperceivedneedsforneworimprovedpublicservicesincrease,involvementincoproductionwillalsoincrease.
Atthesametime,thoseneedsmayexertastrongerinfluenceonsomeformsofcoproduction
involvementthanonothers:
Hypothesis2. Perceivedneedsforneworimprovedservicewillexertastrongerinfluenceoninvolvementin(a)individualasopposedtocollectivecoproductionand(b)co-deliveryandco-monitoringasopposedtoco-planning.
NonmaterialMotivations:ThePersonal,Social,andExternal
Avarietyofnonmaterialmotivationsalsoseemslikelytoinfluenceengagementin
coproduction.First,astrongersenseofpersonalefficacyislikelytospurmorecoproduction
involvementbyincreasingone’sconfidenceinapproachingpublicofficials.Thislinkageshould
holdwithallformsofcoproductionsinceallentailapproachingpublicofficialsandexpectingto
beabletoinfluenceorcontribute.
220
Hypothesis3. Asone’spersonalsenseofefficacyincreases,involvementinallformsofcoproductionwillincrease.
Asenseofcivicduty—afeltneedtosharetheresponsibilityforone’scommunity—may
motivateinvolvementincoproduction.Whilecitizenscanchoosewhethertoengagein
coproduction,“if[they]refusetocoproducewheretheireffortsareneeded,thencitizensshare
responsibilitywithserviceagenciesforinadequateservicelevelsinthecommunity”(Percyetal.
1980,15).
Hypothesis4. Asone’ssenseofcivicdutyincreases,involvementincoproductionwillincrease.
Atthesametime,thesenseofcivicdutymayexertmoreinfluenceoninvolvementinformsof
coproductionfocusedonaddressingcommunityneeds,theessenceofthecivic,thanonthose
formsfocusedonone’spersonalneeds,theanti-thesisofthecivic.
Hypothesis5. Apersonalsenseofcivicdutywillexertastrongerinfluenceonengagementincollectivethanindividualcoproduction.
Involvementincoproductionmayalsobedrivenbytheperceivedintrinsicvalueof
gainingasenseofpurposeandaccomplishmentfromtheeffort.Wemightexpectthatkindof
publicservicemotivation—withitsfocusonservingothers(e.g.,PerryandWise1990)—toplay
alargerrolewithinvolvementincollectivethanindividual,morelikelyself-interested
coproduction.
Hypothesis6. Asone’ssenseofpurposeandaccomplishmentincreases,involvementincollectivecoproductionwillincrease,butinvolvementinindividualcoproductionwillremainunchanged.
221
Peoplemayalsojoinincollectivecoproduction“becausetheyenjoythecompany,
fellowshipandesteemofothers”orwanttofeelpartofacommunity(Alford2009,27).That
desiretobelongtoacommunitymayexertevenmoreinfluenceonkeepingpeopleinvolvedin
collectiveproduction,asLevine(1984,183)hassuggestedforcrimepreventionactivities:
“Whilecrimeisagreatissueforgettingpeopleorganized,itisapooroneforkeeping
themorganized.Instead,gettingpeopletogethertogettoknoweachotherandthen
makingcrimepreventiononeactivityofmanythegroupundertakeslikelywouldbea
bettermechanismforbuildingandmaintainingacrimepreventiongroupthanashort-
termcrimecrisis.”
Ontheotherhand,aneedtobelongseemsunlikelytoinfluenceinvolvementinindividual
coproductionbecauseindividualshavechosentoworkalone,notaspartofagroup.Two
hypothesesresult:
Hypothesis7. Asone’sinterestsinbeingpartofacommunityincrease,involvementincollectivecoproductionwillincrease,butinvolvementinindividualcoproductionwillremainunchanged.
Theremayalsobeexternalmotivatorsthatdrivepeopletojoinincoproduction.First,
inapatternrelatedtowantingtobepartofacommunity,encouragementfromneighbors
couldinfluencepeopletojoinincoproduction,thoughperhapsonlycollectivecoproduction
giventhenon-socialnatureofindividualcoproduction.
Hypothesis8. Asperceivedencouragementfromneighborsincreases,involvementincollectivecoproductionwillincrease,butinvolvementinindividualcoproductionwillremainunchanged.
222
Second,governmentmayalsoencourageengagingincoproduction,asbyproviding
mechanismsthatfacilitateandsopotentiallyincreasethatengagement.Anygovernmental
encouragementmayaffectinvolvementinallformsofcoproductionequally.
Hypothesis9. Asperceivedencouragementfromgovernmentincreases,involvementinallformsofcoproductionwillincrease.
DemographicFactors
Demographiccharacteristicsreflectiveofgreaterinvestmentinthecommunitymay
contributetogreaterinvolvementincoproduction.Themostnotableoftheseis
homeownership,whichincreasesone’sinvestmentinthecommunityandstakeincommunity
affairsevenasitreducesone’sabilitytoexitthecommunity(ThomasandMelkers,1999).
Hypothesis10. Controllingforotherfactors,homeownerswillbemoreinvolvedincoproductionthanwillrenters.
Forsimilarreasons,parentsofminorchildrenmightalsobeexpectedtojoinmorein
coproduction.However,sincepriorresearch(e.g.,ThomasandMelkers1999)onbothcitizen-
initiatedcontactsandpoliticalparticipationhasseldomfoundsuchalinkage,wedonotexpect
havingminorchildrenwillincreaseinvolvementincoproduction.
Hypothesis11. Controllingforotherfactors,residentswhohaveminorchildrenathomewillbenomoreinvolvedincoproductionthanwillresidentswithoutminorchildrenathome.
Theliteratureisdividedonapossibleinfluenceforincomeoreducation,withsomeof
thepoliticalparticipationliteraturesuggestingaroleandmostofthecitizen-initiatedcontacts
researchsuggestingnorole.Thatdivisionmighttranslatetoaroleforincomeandeducationin
thoseformsofcoproductionthatarelikepoliticalparticipationandnorolewithotherforms.
223
Hypothesis12. Asincomeandeducationincrease,involvementinco-planningwillincrease,butinvolvementinotherformsofcoproductionwillremainunchanged.
Racerepresentsanespeciallyinterestingfactorforthisresearch.Substantialprior
researchsuggestslessinvolvementincoproductioninpredominantlynon-White,low-income
communities(Jakobsen2012;RosentraubandWarren,1987),atleastinpartbecausepast
bureaucraticinjusticesandfailedattemptsatmeaningfulcitizenparticipationinthese
communitieshaveledtocynicismandapathyandadisinclinationtoworkwithgovernment
(Thomas,1995,25;Levine1984).IntheAtlantacase,however,thecity’sNeighborhood
PlanningUnitswereestablishedprincipallytoservetheneedsofthecity’sBlackandhistorically
disenfranchisedpopulations.ThecityalsohasauniquehistoryofpublicparticipationofAfrican
Americanstracingtothecity’scentralityintheCivilRightsMovement.Recognizingthisunusual
history,wesuspectthat,otherthingsbeingequal,Blackswillbemorelikelytojoinin
coproductioninAtlanta.
Hypothesis13. Controllingforotherfactors,BlackswillbemoreinvolvedthanWhitesincoproduction.
Tobeclear,weproposethishypothesisspecificallyforthecityofAtlanta.Theroleofracein
coproductioninothercitieswilllikelydependontheirspecifichistories.
Finally,althoughsomestudies(e.g.,ConwayandHatchen2005)havefoundno
significantroleforageinlocalinvolvement,wesuspectthatolderadults,becausetheyare
“moredependentonpublicservices”andhavemoreavailabletime,willjoinmorein
coproducingservices(ThomasandMelkers1999,669).
224
Hypothesis14. Controllingforotherfactors,olderresidentswillbemoreinvolvedthanyoungerresidentsincoproduction.
DETERRENTS
Evenasmanyfactorsmayencourageinvolvementincoproduction,otherfactorsmay
deter.ThescholarlyliteratureandafocusgroupofAtlantaneighborhoodleaders(seebelow)
suggestseveralpossiblepossibilities:
• Peoplemayfeeltheylackthetimetobecomeengaged.
• Theymaysimplynotbeinterestedinspecificservicesor,inanyevent,notbeinterested
enoughtowanttoassistinitsproduction.
• Somecouldfeelthateverythingisfine,thatservicedeliveryisfunctioningatleast
adequately,makingtheircontributionsunnecessary.Thatperspectivecouldbeencouraged
byserviceproviderswhoviewthemselvesasthe“experts”withcitizensasonlythe
recipientsortargetsofservices(e.g.,Bryer2009).
• Finally,peoplemayfeelserviceproductionisgovernment’sjobandshouldnotrequire
assistancefromcitizens(Thomas2012;GoetzandGaventa2001).
Combiningthosefactorsresultsinthishypothesis:
Hypothesis15. Themorepeoplereportlackingtimeorinterest,viewservicesasfinewithouttheirassistance,and/orviewserviceproductionasgovernment’sjob,thelesstheywillbeinvolvedincoproduction.
METHODOLOGY
Wetestthesehypothesesusingdatafromasurveyof797participantsinNeighborhood
PlanningUnits(NPUs)inthecityofAtlanta,Georgia.Thesurveydataaresupplementedby(1)
225
resultsfromafocusgroupofNPUleaders,(2)Censuspopulationdata,and(3)direct
observationofselectedNPUmeetings.
WechoseAtlantaanditsNPUsasthecontextforthisstudyforseveralreasons.First,as
alargecity(populationapproximately456,000atthetimeofthesurveyin2014)withadiverse
population,Atlantaofferstheopportunitytomeasurethequantityandvarietyofcoproduction
amidst“asharplycontrastingmosaic”ofhighinner-citypovertyinsomeareasandsubstantial
economicprosperityinothers(Sjoquist2000,1).Lessonslearnedfromthisdiversecontext
mightgeneralizetoothercentralcitieswithsimilarprofiles.
Second,Atlanta’sNPUsofferanexcellentvenueforstudyinginvolvementinavarietyof
coproductionactivitiesbysomeofthecity’smoreengagedresidents.Bythenatureof
neighborhoodplanning,NPUparticipantsseemlikelytoreflectinvolvementinabroadrangeof
municipalservices,extendingwellbeyondzoningandlanduse.AsMartinandCarolyn
Needleman(1974,93)observedintheirclassicearlystudyofarangeofcommunityplanning
programs:
“Thedeepestconcernsofcommunityresidentsareusuallysocial:crime,idleyouth.
Employment,ratcontrol,airpollution,changesinthearea’sracialcomposition,getting
streetscleanedandgarbagecollectedregularly.Iftheplannercanconvinceresidents
heisreallytheretohelpplanforneighborhoodimprovement,thesearetheproblems
theydirecttheplannertoward—notthephysicalstructuresandlandusepatternsinthe
area.”
226
Onthatbasis,weexpectAtlanta’sNPUmemberscantellusagreatdealabouttherangeand
extentofinvolvementinmunicipalcoproduction.
Asafirststeptowardthesurvey,oneoftheauthorsconductedafocusgroupofNPU
leaderstolearnaboutcoproductionactivitiesoccurringintheirlocales.All25NPUchairswere
invitedtoparticipateafteranannualAtlantaPlanningAdvisoryBoardannualtrainingthatthey
wererequiredtoattend.Eightactuallycametothefocusgroup,whichwasconducted
immediatelyafterthetraininginaCityHallconferenceroom.Hopingtoavoidthe“ifonlywe
hadknownbeforehand”problem(Patton2002,431),participantswereaskedto(1)identify
examplesofcoproductionactivitiesinAtlanta,(2)provideideasonwhichpublicserviceareas
aremorefrequentlyand/ormoreeasilycoproduced,and(3)suggestthegeneralmotivations
behindcitizencoproduction.
Takingideasgainedfromthefocusgroupandfromtheliteratureoncoproduction,we
constructedamostlyclosed-endedquestionnairetoaskNPUmembersabouttheirinvolvement
incoproductionofmunicipalservices.Thequestionnairewaskeptbrieftorequireonly10-15
minutestocomplete,andwaspretestedoncolleagueswholivedinthecityofAtlantaandon
attendeesatanNPUmeeting.
Twocollectionmodeswereusedtoadministerthequestionnaire:anonlinesurveyof
NPUmembersandahardcopypapersurveyatNPUmeetings.Fortheonlinesurvey,afterthe
principalauthorhadattendedanumberofNPUmeetingsandbecomeknowntoNPUleaders,
emailinvitationsweresenttothe25NPUchairpersonsrequestingthattheyforwardtheSurvey
Monkeyquestionnairelinktotheirmembershiplists.(ThecityprovideseachNPUwitha
databaseofmembers’emailaddresses.)HavingthesurveyinvitationsentbyarecognizedNPU
227
leaderratherthanbyanunknownresearcherwasdesignedtoencourageparticipation
(NewcomerandTriplett2004).
Apapersurveywasalsonecessarybecause,duringvisitstoNPUmeetings,some
membersexpressedapreferenceforahardcopyversion.Toemphasizeitsbrevity,thisversion
waslimitedtoaone-page,double-sidedquestionnaire.Forthispartoftheresearch,oneofthe
authorsattendedtheregularlyscheduledmeetingsforall25NPUs,anddistributedthe
questionnairestoattendeeswhohadnotcompletedthewebversion.Toemphasizethe
anonymityoftheirresponses,theresearcherbroughtasealedballotboxintowhichcompleted
questionnaireswouldbeinserted(Grovesetal.2009;NewcomerandTriplett2004).
Theexactnumberofpaperquestionnairesdistributedisunknown.However,withthe
exceptionoftypicallyoneortwoabstentionspermeeting,nearlyallNPUmeetingattendees
completedthepaperquestionnaire,usuallywithapparententhusiasm.Theresponseratefor
theonlinequestionnaireisalsounknownbecausetheemailinvitationscamedirectlyfromthe
NPUchairs,butitisreasonabletoassumealowerresponseratethanforthepaperversion
(Wholey,Hatry,Newcomer2004).Inall,therewere406paperresponsesand391online
responsesforatotalof797responsesinthedataset.
Thetwoformsofsurveyadministrationbroughttheadditionalbenefitofdiversifying
therespondentbase.Thehardcopyquestionnaireswerecompletedbyresidentswhowere,on
average,moreactiveintheirNPUs,asevidencedmostobviouslybytheirattendanceatthe
NPUmeetingswhenthesurveywasadministered,thanweretheonlinerespondents.
228
Table1showssummarycharacteristicsforthefullsampleofrespondentsandforthe
separatesamplesofpaperandonlinerespondents,withthefarright-handcolumnshowing,in
addition,summarycharacteristicsfora2007randomsampleofAtlantaresidentsforaquarterly
citizensatisfactionsurveythenbeingconductedforthecity.(Thecity’ssurveywasconducted
bytheCarlVinsonInstituteofGovernmentattheUniversityofGeorgia.)Thelatterpermitsa
comparisonofhowthecurrentstudy’srespondentscomparetocityresidentsasawhole.
[Table1abouthere]
Tonosurprise,respondentstooursurveydifferonseveraldimensionsfrom
respondentstothecity’ssurvey.Asmightbeexpectedofpeoplewhoaremoreinvolvedin
theirneighborhoods,ourrespondentsaremoreWhite,havehigherincomesandmore
education,andaremuchmorelikelytoowntheirownhomesthanistrueforresidents
citywide.Theonlineandpaperrespondentsdifferfromeachotheronanumberofdimensions,
withthepaperrespondentsbeingmoreBlack,havinglowerincomesandlesseducation,and
beinglesslikelytoowntheirhomes.Thelowersocioeconomicstandingoftherespondentsto
thepapersurveymighthavebeenpredictedgiventheirpreferencenottorespondonline.
Overall,thecomparisonssuggestthatwewillbeexamininginvolvementin
coproductionbypeoplewhoaremoreinvestedintheircommunitiesthanistheaverage
resident.Thatrealitymakesoursamplemorelikelytobemoreinvolvedincoproduction,but
alsopotentiallymoreinterestingforexploringvariationsinlevelsofandmotivationsforjoining
incoproduction.
FINDINGS
229
AfterimportingthedataintoSPSSandStatastatisticalsoftwarepackagesforanalysis,
weuseddescriptivestatisticsandlogisticalregressionanalysestoanswerourresearch
questions.
DescriptiveStatistics
Toassesstheextentofcoproductioninvolvement,thequestionnaireaskedforeachof
theactivitiesinTable2:“Inthelast12months,howmanytimeshaveyouparticipatedinthe
followingactivities?”Answeroptionswere“never,”“1to3timesperyear,”“4ormoretimes
peryear,”and“morethanonetimepermonth.”Asthetableshows,respondentsreported
beingextensivelyinvolvedincoproduction,butwiththatinvolvementvaryinggreatlyacross
thedifferentformsofcoproduction.Attendingcommunity-relatedmeetings(otherthanNPU
meetings)emergedasthemostcommonactivitywith79percentofrespondentsreportingthis
attendance,butcomparableproportionssaidtheyhadjoinedincleaninguptheir
neighborhoods(76%),donatedmoney(76%),attendedNPUmeetings(75%),sharedopinions
withelectedofficials(72%),andreportedsuspiciousactivities(71%).Smallerproportions—but
stillmajoritiesoftherespondents—saidtheyreportedserviceproblems(63%)orcode
violations(55%),attendedcitycouncilmeetings(52%),andthankedserviceagents(51%).
[Table2abouthere]
Thislistingappearsrelativelyrepresentativeofwhatotherscholarshavepreviously
reportedasprincipalformsofcoproductionatthelocallevel(e.g.,Fledderus,Brandsen,and
Honingh2014;Albrechts2013;DeWitteandGeys2013;Linders2012;PaarlbergandGen
2008).Theprincipalomissionspertainalmostentirelytospecializedlocalentitiesandservices,
suchasschools,healthcenters,libraries,andpublichousingprojects.
230
Tolearnwhatmotivatesjoiningincoproduction,respondentswereaskedabouteight
possiblereasonsfordoingsoandfourotherreasonsthatmighthavedeterredthat
involvement.AsshowninTable3,respondentsrankcivicandsocialfactorsasthemost
importantreasonsforjoiningincoproduction,muchmoreimportantthanpersonalservice
needs.Thestrongestmotivationsbyfar,eachcitedbyamajority,were(1)feelingtheycould
makeadifference(63%),(2)feelingitwastheirduty(59%),and(3)makingthemfeel
connectedtotheircommunity(58%).Asthefarright-handcolumnofthetableshows,those
werealsothethreefactorscitedasmostimportantbytherespondents.Farsmaller
proportionsreportedbeingmotivatedbyspecificserviceneeds(27%and10%,respectively),
andevensmallerproportionscitedencouragementfromneighborsorgovernment(18%and
4%,respectively).Astheothersideofthecoin,respondentsclearlyseelackoftimeasthe
principaldeterrenttotheirjoiningincoproduction,with62percentcitingthatfactorand40
percentratingitthebiggestdeterrent.Smallbutstillnotableproportionsalsoreportednot
beinginterested(33%)orfeelingeverythingisfine(23%)asreasonsfornotengagingin
coproduction.
[Table3abouthere]
Toprovideasenseofwhojoinsincoproduction,Table4summarizesdemographic
centraltendenciesforthevariouscoproductionactivities.Amongtheinterestingpatterns,
mostformsofcoproductionappeartobemoretheprovinceofblackthanwhiterespondents,
perhapsreflectingtheaffirmativeactionrootsoftheNPUs.Menarealsomorelikelythan
womentoengageinmostformsofcoproduction.Somewhatsurprisingly,involvementin
coproductiontendstobehigherforthosewhoarelesseducatedrathermoreandthosewith
231
lowerincomesratherthanhigher.Finally,asexpected,olderresidentsandthosewhoown
theirhomesaremorelikelytojoininmostformsofcoproduction.
[Table4abouthere]
MultivariateLogisticAnalysis
Asthecentralquestionofthisresearch,weaskedwhichfactorsappeartoexertthe
strongestinfluenceonengagementindifferentformsofcoproduction.Toanswerthis
question,weperformedthisanalysis:
Logisticregressionanalysis:y1-5=β0+β1x1+β2x2+β3x3+…+βMxM+ε
Where:
y1isparticipationinindividualcoproduction
y2isparticipationincollectivecoproduction
y3isparticipationinco-planning
y4isparticipationinco-delivery
y5isparticipationinco-monitoring
x1isfemalerespondent x8isserviceprovisionmotivation
x2isBlackrespondent x9isservicequalitymotivation
x3isincomeofrespondent x10ispersonalefficacymotivation
x4iseducationrespondent x11iscivicdutymotivation
x5isageofrespondent x12issocialneedmotivation
x6isdependentchildlivingwithrespondent x13isneighborencouragementmotivation
x7isrespondent’shome/businessownershipstatus x14isgovernmentencouragementmotivation
εistheerrorterm
Gender,race,homeownership,andhavingminorchildrenlivingathomearealltreated
asbinaryvariableswhere(1)femalecodedas1andmaleas0,(2)Blackcodedas1andWhite
232
as0,(3)beingahomeownercodedas1andbeingarenteras0,and(4)havingaminorchild
livinginthehomecodedas1andnothavingachildathomeas0.Incomeandeducationboth
havefourcategoriescodedfrom0-3,andagehassevencategoriescodedfrom0-6.
HypothesisTesting
Tables5,6,and7showtheresultsoftheseanalysesforinvolvementinthevarious
formsofcoproduction.Totesteachhypothesis,wecountthenumberofformsforwhichthe
hypothesisholds(i.e.,thenumberofstatisticallysignificantlogisticrelationships)versusthe
numberforwhichthehypothesisdoesnothold.Thesecountsadmittedlyrepresentcrude
metrics,butstillperhapsthebestmetricspossiblefortestingthehypotheses.
[Tables5,6,and7abouthere]
Tobeginwith,thedataofferpartialsupportforthehypothesesontheroleofperceived
needs.Onhypothesis#1,oneorbothoftheperceivedneedsmeasuresemergedasa
significantpredictorofinvolvementinsixofthefourteenformsofinvolvement,butforoneof
thoseforms(attendanceatacitycouncilmeeting)therelationshipwasinverse,moreneeds
appearingtomakecouncilmeetingattendancelesslikely.Astheothersideofthecoin,neither
measureofperceivedneedsprovedasignificantpredictorofinvolvementineightormostof
theformsofcoproduction.Consistentwithhypothesis#2,thoseneedsdidappeartobemore
significantforinvolvementinindividual(significantforfourofnineforms)asopposedto
collectivecoproduction(nostatisticallypositiverelationships).
233
Personalpsychologicalmotivations,thesubjectsofhypotheses#3-6,emergedasmore
frequentsignificantpredictorsofinvolvementincoproductionthandidperceivedneeds,as
follows:
• Beingabletomakeadifference(senseofpersonalefficacy):significantfortenof
fourteenformsofcoproduction.
• Senseofpurposeoraccomplishment(senseofpersonalefficacy):significantfornine
forms.
• Senseofcivicduty:significantfornineforms.
However,contrarytohypothesis#6,one’ssenseofaccomplishmentwasnotmoreimportant
forinvolvementincollectivecoproduction(significantfortwoofthreeforms)thanindividual
coproduction(significantforsixofnineforms).
Hypotheses#7-9ontheroleofsocial,neighborhood,andgovernmentalmotivations
foundonlylimitedsupportinthedata.Interestinbeingpartofacommunityor
encouragementfromneighbors,thefocusofhypothesis#7,emergedasasignificantpredictor
forinvolvementinonlyfourformsofcoproductionandinoneofthefour,therelationshipwas
inverse—encouragementfromneighborsbeinglinkedtolowerlikelihoodofattendingacity
councilmeeting.Ontheotherhand,hypothesis#8foundsomesupportinthatthe
neighborhoodandcommunitymotivationsprovedsignificantpositivepredictorsof
involvementonlyincollectivecoproduction(attendinganNPUorothercommunitymeeting)or
possiblecollectivecoproduction(cleaningormaintainingacommunityfacility).Neither
emergedassignificantforinvolvementinanyoftheindividualformsofcoproduction.Finally,
234
encouragementfromgovernment(hypothesis#9)wasonlyoccasionallyafactor,significantfor
twoformsofcoproduction(filingacomplaintagainstaserviceagentandattendingacourt
hearing).
Thedataproviderelativelystrongsupportforseveralofthehypothesesonpossible
demographicinfluences.Aspredicted,owningahome(hypothesis#10)isasignificant
predictorofinvolvementinnineformsofcoproduction,ageasignificantpredictorforseven
forms(hypothesis#14),andhavingminorchildrenathomeisnotasignificantpredictorforany
form(hypothesis#11).Consistentwithhypothesis#12,incomeandeducationemergedonly
occasionallyassignificantpredictorsofcoproduction,eventhenmoreoftenininverse
relationships.However,thetwosignificantpositiverelationshipsforthetwovariables
appeared,aspredicted,withinvolvementintwoformsofcollectivecoproduction(attendinga
non-NPUcommunitymeetingandsharinganopinionwithanelectedofficial),apattern
consistentwithtraditionalpoliticalparticipation.Thedataprovidelesssupportforhypothesis
#13,withrace—specifically,beingBlack—provingsignificantforonlyfourformsof
coproduction.
Consistentwithhypothesis#15,severalpossibledeterrentsprovedsignificantpredictors
forwhyrespondentsdidnotjoininallbuttwooftheformsofcoproduction.Themost
frequentsignificantdeterrentwasthinkingeverythingis“fine”(significantforinvolvementin
sevenforms),followedcloselybyreporting“notime”tobeinvolved(fiveforms)andnotbeing
interested(fourforms).
235
Thefindingsalsosuggest,though,theimpossibilityofexplaininginvolvementin
coproductionbyanysinglepatternortheory.Thedataappearinsteadtoreflectsomeclassic
patternsofcoproductionalongwithsomeanumberofidiosyncraticvariations.
Pattern#1:CoproductionasCitizenContacting
Inpatternssimilartothosefoundwithcitizencontacting,residentsappeartojoinin
severalformsofcoproductionduetosomecombinationof(1)perceivedserviceneedsand(2)
personalintrinsicmotivations(e.g.,senseofpurpose,senseofcivicduty,andthefeelingof
makingadifference.Thatdescriptionfitsfouroftheactivitiesrespondentswereaskedabout:
• Reportingcodeviolations,reportingserviceproblems,andreportingsuspiciousactivities.
• Involvementinneighborhoodcleanups:Thisactivityrepresentstheprototypical
coproductioncasesinceinvolvementissignificantlylinkedtobothkindsofserviceneeds,all
thepsychologicalmotivations(senseofpurpose,senseofcivicduty,wantingtomakea
difference),andwantingtoconnectwithneighbors.Thisisapatternwethoughtmightbe
morecommon,butthedatasuggestotherwise.
Pattern#2:CoproductionasPoliticalParticipation
Twoco-planningactivitiesmorecloselyresemblepoliticalparticipationthanclassic
coproductionduetotheirapparentrootsin(1)intrinsicpersonalmotivationsand(2)
community/neighborhoodmotivations,withoutanysignificantlinkagetoserviceneeds:
• AttendanceatNPUmeetingsandattendanceatothercommunitymeetings.
236
Theseactivitiesdifferfrommostpoliticalparticipationinthatresidentsappeartobenotso
muchrecruitedbyneighbors,asinmuchpoliticalparticipation,asmotivatingbywantingto
havemoreofacommunityconnection.
IdiosyncraticVariations
Theidiosyncraticvariationsmaybeatleastasstrikingsincetheyextendtothe
remainingsevenofthefourteenformsofcoproduction.Thatidiosyncraticnatureisevident
firstintheunexpectedpatternofperceivedneedsnotprovingsignificantforinvolvementin
fiveofthenineformsofindividualcoproduction.Possibleexplanationscanbefoundonlyby
examiningeachofthoseformsinturn:
• Donatingmoneyforacommunityeventorproject:Thismaybethekindofcivic-oriented
behaviormorelikelytobecatalyzedbywantingtobeagoodcitizenandagoodneighbor
thanbyanypersonalneeds.Accordingly,foursignificantpredictorsofthisbehaviorare(1)
asenseofpurposeoraccomplishment,(2)feelingsofmakingadifference,(3)asenseof
civicduty,and(4)wantingtoconnectwithneighbors.
• Attendinggovernmentinformationortrainingsessions:Attendanceatthese
governmentalsessionsappearssimilarlytobemoreofacivic-orientedbehaviorthanan
efforttosatisfypersonalservices.Aswithdonations,attendanceappearstobemotivated
by(1)asenseofpurpose,(2)asenseofcivicduty,and(3)afeelingofbeingabletomakea
difference,allofwhichemergedassignificantpredictors.Serviceneedsdidnotemergeas
asignificantpredictorpresumablybecause,ifyouhaveaserviceproblem,attending
governmentaltrainingwillnotlooklikeapromisingroutetoasolution.However,in
237
contrasttodonations,encouragementfromgovernment,notfromneighbors,alsofigures
significantlyinattendance.Perhapsresidentsmayattendgovernmentalsessionsinpart
becausegovernmentencouragesthatattendance,wheretheydonatetocommunity
projectsinpartduetoencouragementfromneighbors.
• Attendingacourthearingandsharingpositivefeedbackwithapublicservice
representative:Bothoftheseactivitiesappearalsotobemorecivic-orientedbehaviors,
withonly(1)asenseofpurposeand(2)afeelingofbeingabletomakeadifference
emergingassignificantmotivators.Asforpersonalserviceneeds,courtsseemanunlikely
arenaforaddressingthoseneeds,andsomeonefeelingsufficientlyappreciativetooffer
thanksseemsunlikelytofeelkeenlyinneedatthesametime.Theuniquenessofthese
activitiesrestsonthesignificanceofageasapredictor,perhapsreflectingthatolder
residentsaremorelikely(1)tohavethetimetoattendoftenlengthycourtproceedingsand
(2)totakethetimetosharepositivefeedback.
• FilingacomplaintagainstaserviceagentviatheAtlantaCitizenReviewBoard(ACRB):The
explanationheremaylieinthemechanismitself.Governmentencouragementistheonly
significantpersonalmotivationforcomplainingtotheACRB,suggestingthattheavailability
oftheACRBoptionmaybeprincipallywhatencouragesitsuse.Aswell,thesecomplaints
mayreflectproblemswithaspecificpublicofficial,notaparticularservice.
Finally,thetworemainingcoproductionactivitiesfitnoneofthepatternsorvariations
describedabove:
238
• Patrollingone’sneighborhood:Theonlysignificantpredictorsforthisinvolvementwerea
fewdemographiccharacteristics:BlackswerefarmorelikelythanWhites,homeowners
morelikelythanrenters,andthelesseducatedmorelikelythanthemoreeducatedtojoin
inthispatrolling.Asapossibleexplanation,thejoinerscouldbemoreBlackbecauseareas
withhighnon-Whitepopulationsfacegreaterthreatsofcrime;theycouldbelesseducated
becauseneighborhoodswithhighnon-Whitepopulationstendtobelesseducated;and,
theycouldalsoincludemorehomeownersbecausehomeownershavegreaterinvestments
toprotect.Serviceneedsmightnotemergeassignificantbecauseresidentsmaynotview
crimethreatsasservice“needs.”
• Attendingcitycouncilmeetings:Attendanceatcitycouncilmeetingsmighthavebeen
expectedtofitthepoliticalparticipationpattern,butthedatasayotherwise.Asenseof
purposeprovedonesignificantpredictorofthisattendance,butthatwastheonlypredictor
consistentwithstandardpoliticalparticipation.Otherwise,governmentencouragement
appearstomakedifference;encouragingresidentstocometocouncilmeetingsmayboost
attendance.Butencouragementfromneighborsactuallyprovesasignificantinverse
predictor,appearingtodiscouragecouncilattendance.
CONCLUSIONS
Withrenewedinterestinpublicservicecoproduction,questionshavearisenaboutwho
inthepublicjoinsincoproductionandwhy.Thisresearchwasdesignedtoseekanswersto
thosequestionsusingoriginalsurveydataontheinvolvementofneighborhoodactivistsin
239
coproductioninthecityofAtlanta,Georgia.Inthisconcludingsectionwewillbriefly
summarizethefindingsbeforeconsideringtheirimplicationsfortheoryandpractice.
Summary
Thefindingsshowedfirstthattheseactivistsengageextensivelyincoproductionandin
allitsvariousforms.Attendingnon-NPUcommunity-relatedmeetingsemergedasthemost
commoncoproductioninvolvement,reportedby79percentoftherespondents,butmajorities
alsoreportedjoiningneighborhoodcleanups,donatingfunds,attendingNPUmeetings,sharing
opinionswithelectedofficials,reportingsuspiciousactivities,complainingaboutproblem
neighbors,reportingservicemalfunctions,andsharingpositivefeedbackwithapublicservice
representative.
Asforwhytheyengageintheseactivities,respondentspointedtocivicandsocial
factorsasmoreimportantthanpersonalserviceneeds.Thestrongestmotivationsbyfar,each
voicedbyamajorityofrespondents,were(1)theyfeltliketheycouldmakeadifference,(2)
theyfeltlikeitwastheirduty,and(3)itmadethemfeelconnectedtotheircommunity.
Smallerproportionsreportedbeingmotivatedbyspecificserviceneeds.
Thelogisticregressionsproducedsimilarresults,withnonmaterialpsychological
motivationsprovingmoreimportantinexplainingcoproductioninvolvementthanwereservice
needs.Asexpected,serviceneedsdidprovemoreimportantinexplaininginvolvementin
individualcoproductionthanincollectivecoproduction,whiletheoppositewasthecasefor
neighborhoodattachments—moreimportantforinvolvementincollectivethanindividual
coproduction.
240
Anotherperspectiveonwhypeoplejoinincoproductioncomesfromthefindingson
whichdemographiccharacteristicsappeartoaffectthatinvolvement.Inparticular,thefinding
ofhomeownershipasasignificantpredictorofinvolvementinmostformsofcoproduction
suggeststhatself-interestmayplayalargerroleinthisinvolvementthanimpliedbythefinding
ofalimitedroleforpersonalserviceneeds.Thesignificanceofhomeownershiphintsof
anotherdimensiontoself-interest,thepersonalstakeinahome,asafactorinjoiningin
coproduction.
Similarly,thefindingsmayalsounderstatethesignificanceofgovernmental
encouragementasafactorincoproduction.Torecall,thelogisticregressionsshow
governmentalencouragementasasignificantpredictoronlyforattendingCityCouncil
meetings,attendinggovernmentaltrainingorinformationsessions,andfilingacomplaint
againstapublicserviceagent.However,thosefindingsoverlookthelikelyfoundationalroleof
Atlanta’sNeighborhoodPlanningUnitsinmuchofthecoproductiondocumentedhere.The
affirmativeactionrootsoftheNPUsalsolikelyunderliethegreaterinvolvementofAfrican-
Americansinsomeformsofcoproduction.Together,thosefactsimplyapivotalroleforAtlanta
citygovernmentinspurringmuchoftheresidentroleincoproductioninthecity.
Implications
Returningtothelargertheoryquestionsraisedatthestartofthispaper,thefindings
implythatinvolvementincoproductionhasmuchincommonwithbothpoliticalparticipation
andcitizen-initiatedcontacts.Likepoliticalparticipation,involvementincoproductionappears
motivatedsubstantiallybyfeelingsofpersonalefficacy,asenseofcivicduty,andasenseof
purposeandaccomplishment.Likecitizen-initiatedcontacts,coproductioninvolvementoften
241
hasrootsinperceivedpersonalserviceneeds.Inaddition,involvementincollective
coproductionlooksmorelikepoliticalparticipation,whileinvolvementinindividual
coproductionbetterresemblescitizen-initiatedcontacting.
Yet,thequestionsofwhoengagesincoproductionandwhydonotlendthemselvesto
simpleanswers.Asdetailedabove,theidiosyncraticnatureofinvolvementinhalfoftheforms
ofcoproductionmaybeasstrikingasanygeneralpatterns.Thereasonswhyresidentsjoinin
patrollingneighborhoodsorattendingcourthearings,asjusttwoexamples,arenotreadily
explainedbytheoriesofeitherpoliticalparticipationorcitizen-initiatedcontacting.Judging
fromtheseandotherexamples,theexplanationsforwhypeoplejoinincoproductioncanvary
enormouslydependingonwhatisbeingcoproduced.
Thevariousfindingsmayholdimportantimplicationsforpublicmanagerswhowishto
increasethepublic’sroleinpublicservicecoproduction.First,managersshouldnotlookfora
one-size-fits-allapproach;differentformsofcoproductionappeartocallfordifferentstrategies
forengagingthepublic.However,second,managersmayfindthatappealstopublicservice
motivations—suchaswantingtomakeadifference,havingasenseofcivicduty,orbeingdriven
byasenseofpurposeoraccomplishment—couldspurmorecoproductionengagementthan
mightappealstopersonalself-interest(e.g.,“helpimprovetheservicesyouuse”).Public
servicemotivationsappearedtobemuchmoreimportantthanpersonalserviceneedsforthe
coproductionactivitiesprofiledhere.
Itmaywellbe,though,thattheseappealswillcarrymoreforcewhentheyarevoicedin
thecontextofcommunityorganizations,suchastheNeighborhoodPlanningUnitsfromwhich
oursamplewasdrawn.Thelegitimacyofthoseorganizationsfortheirmembers—manyof
242
whomappeartovaluethesocialconnectionstheorganizationsoffer—maylendcredibilityto
appealsvoicedattheirmeetings,acredibilitythoseappealsmightlackiftheycame
unmediatedfromgovernmentinstead.
Intheend,thesepossibleimplicationsshouldbeviewedwithcautionsincethisresearch
focusedononlyonecityandonamoreengagedsegmentofthatcity’spopulation.Asthat
cautionsuggests,weneedmorestudiesofwhojoinsincoproductionbeforewecanreach
conclusionsandwhenandhowtoseekagreaterpublicpresenceincoproducingpublic
services.
REFERENCES
Ackerman,J.2004.Co-GovernanceforAccountability:Beyond“Exit”and“Voice.”World
Development32(3):447-463.
Albrechts,Louis.2013.ReframingStrategicSpatialPlanningbyUsingaCoproduction
Perspective.PlanningTheory12(1):46-63.
Alford,John.2009.EngagingPublicSectorClients:FromService-DeliverytoCo-Production.
PalgraveMacmillan.
________.2002a.DefiningtheClientinthePublicSector:ASocial-ExchangePerspective.Public
AdministrationReview62(3):337-346.
________.2002b.WhyDoPublic-SectorClientsCoproduce?Administration&Society34(1):32-
56.
243
Bovaird,Tony.2007.BeyondEngagementandParticipation:UserandCommunityCoproduction
ofPublicServices.PublicAdministrationReview67(5):846-860.
Brandsen,Taco,andM.Honingh.2015.DistinguishingDifferentTypesofCoproduction:A
ConceptualAnalysisBasedontheClassicalDefinitions.PublicAdministrationReview76:
427-435.
Brandsen,Taco,andVictorPestoff.2006.Co-Production,TheThirdSectorandtheDeliveryof
PublicServices.PublicManagementReview8(4):493-501.
Brudney,JeffreyL.andR.E.England.1983.TowardaDefinitionoftheCoproductionConcept.
PublicAdministrationReview43(1):59-65.
Cooper,TerryL.,andP.C.Kathi.2005.NeighborhoodCouncilsandCityAgencies:AModelof
CollaborativeCoproduction.NationalCivicReview94(1):43-53.
Coulter,PhilipB.1992.There’saMadnessintheMethod:RedefiningCitizenContactingof
PublicOfficials.UrbanAffairsQuarterly28:297-316.
DeWitte,Kristof,andBennyGeys.2013.CitizenCoproductionandEfficientPublicGood
Provision:TheoryandEvidencefromLocalPublicLibraries.EuropeanJournalof
OperationalResearch224(3):592-602.
Ferris,J.M.1984.Coprovision:CitizenTimeandMoneyDonationsinPublicServiceProvision.
PublicAdministrationReview44(4):324-333.
244
Fledderus,Joost,TacoBrandsen,andMarliesHoningh.2014.RestoringTrustthroughtheCo-
ProductionofPublicServices:ATheoreticalElaboration.PublicManagementReview16
(3):424-43.
Hirlinger,M.W.1992.Citizen-initiatedContactingofLocalGovernmentOfficials:AMultivariate
Explanation.JournalofPolitics54:553-564.
Jakobsen,M.2012.CanGovernmentInitiativesIncreaseCitizenCoproduction?Resultsofa
RandomizedFieldExperiment.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory
23(1):27-54.
Joshi,A.andM.Moore.2004.InstitutionalisedCo-Production:UnorthodoxPublicService
DeliveryinChallengingEnvironments.JournalofDevelopmentStudies40(4):31-49.
Levine,CharlesH.1984.CitizenshipandServiceDelivery:ThePromiseofCoproduction.Public
AdministrationReview44:178-189.
Linders,Dennis.2012.FromE-GovernmenttoWe-Government:DefiningaTypologyforCitizen
CoproductionintheAgeofSocialMedia.GovernmentInformationQuarterly29(4):446-
54.
Needleman,MartinL.,andCarolynEmersonNeedleman.1974.GuerrillasintheBureaucracy:
TheCommunityPlanningExperimentintheUnitedStates.NewYork:JohnWiley&
Sons.
Newcomer,KathrynE.andT.Triplett.2004.UsingSurveys.InHandbookofPracticalProgram
Evaluation,2nded.,editedbyJosephS.Wholey,HarryP.Hatry,andKatrynE.
Newcomer,257-291.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
245
Osborne,StephenP.,ZoeRadnor,andGretaNasi.2013.ANewTheoryforPublicService
Management:Towarda(Public)ServiceDominantApproach.TheAmericanReviewof
PublicAdministration,43(2):135-158.
Ostrom,Elinor.1996.CrossingtheGreatDivide:Coproduction,Synergy,andDevelopment.
WorldDevelopment24(6):1073-1087.
Ostrom,Elinor,RogerB.Parks,StephenL.Percy,andGordonP.Whitaker.1978.ThePublic
ServiceProductionProcess:AFrameworkforAnalyzingPoliceServices.PolicyStudies
Journal7:381-381.
Paarlberg,LaurieE,andSheldonGen.2009.ExploringtheDeterminantsofNonprofit
CoproductionofPublicServiceDelivery:TheCaseofK-12PublicEducation.American
ReviewofPublicAdministration39(1):391-408.
Parks,RogerB.,P.C.Baker,L.Kiser,R.Oakerson,ElinorOstrom,VincentOstrom,StephenL.
Percy,M.B.Vandivort,GordonP.Whitaker,andR.Wilson.1981.Consumersas
CoproducersofPublicServices:SomeEconomicandInstitutionalConsiderations.Policy
StudiesJournal9(7):1001-1011.
Patton,MichaelQuinn.2002.QualitativeResearchandEvaluationMethods,3rded.Thousand
Oaks,CA:SagePublications.
Percy,StephenL.,L.L.Kiser,andRogerB.Parks.1980.CitizenCoproduction:ANeglected
DimensionofPublicServiceDelivery.WorkshopinPoliticalTheoryandPolicyAnalysis.
Bloomington,Indiana.
246
Perry,JamesL.,andLoisRecascinoWise.1990.TheMotivationalBasesofPublicService.Public
AdministrationReview50(3):367–73
Pestoff,Victor.2009.TowardsaParadigmofDemocraticParticipation:CitizenParticipationand
Co-ProductionofPersonalSocialServicesinSweden.AnnalsofPublic&Cooperative
Economics80(2):197-224.
Petukiene,E.2010.CoproductionofPublicServices:IndividualversusCollectiveCustomer
Participation.PublicPolicyandAdministration32:137–147.
Powers,K.J.andF.Thompson.1994.ManagingCoprovision:UsingExpectancyTheoryto
OvercometheFree-RiderProblem.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory
4(2):179-196.
Roberts,NancyC.2004.TheAgeofDirectCitizenParticipation.Armonk,NY:MESharpe.
Rosentraub,MarkS.andRobertWarren.1987.CitizenParticipationintheProductionofUrban
Services.PublicProductivityReview10(3):75-89.
Schlozman,KayLehman.2002.CitizenParticipationinAmerica:WhatDoWeKnow?WhyDo
WeCare?”InIraKatznelsonandHellenV.Milner,eds.,PoliticalScience:TheStateof
theDiscipline,435-461.NewYorkandLondon:W.W.Norton&Company.
Sjoquist,DavidL.2000.TheAtlantaParadox.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
Thomas,JohnClayton.2012.Citizen,Customer,Partner:EngagingthePublicinPublic
Management.Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.
247
________.1995.PublicParticipationinPublicDecisions:NewSkillsandStrategiesforPublic
Managers.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Thomas,JohnClayton,andJuliaMelkers.1999.ExplainingCitizen-InitiatedContactswith
MunicipalBureaucrats:LessonsFromtheAtlantaExperience.UrbanAffairsReview
34(5):667-690.
VanEijk,Carola,andTruiSteen.2016.WhyEngageinCo-ProductionofPublicServices?Mixing
TheoryandEmpiricalEvidence."InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences82(1):
28-46.
Whitaker,GordonP.1980.Coproduction:CitizenParticipationinServiceDelivery.Public
AdministrationReview40(3):240-246.
248
Table1.RespondentCharacteristics(percentages)
Paper Online TotalSample 2007AtlantaSurvey
TotalSample 51 49 100(N=797) 100(N=600)
Male 53 40 47 48
Female 47 60 53 52
Afro-Amer/Black 59 27 43 57
Euro-Amer/White 36 68 52 35
Allothers(Asian,Latino,etc.) 5 5 5 8
$0-$34,999 37 14 25 40
$35,000-$54,999 15 12 14 15
$55,000-$84,999 16 19 18 10
$85,000ormore 32 55 44 35
Highschooldiplomaorless 27 8 17 45
Bachelorsormore 74 92 83 55
18-24yearolds 2 1 2 5
25-34yearolds 16 21 18 15
35-44yearolds 19 26 22 18
45-54yearolds 18 21 19 18
55-64yearolds 19 20 19 18
65-74yearolds 20 10 1526
75yrs+yearolds 7 1 4
Householdw/childunder18 22 29 25 ---
Homerenter 17 10 14 45
Homeowner 74 88 82 55
Businessowner 15 10 12 ---
249
Table2.ParticipationbyFormofCoproduction
FormofCoproduction Co-Planning
Percentwhoengagedatleastoncea
year
Co-Delivery
Percentwhoengagedatleastoncea
year
Co-Monitoring
Percentwhoengagedatleastoncea
year
Collective
AttendedanAtlantaCityCouncilmeeting.
52%
AttendedanNPUmeetinginyourcommunity.
75%
Attendedyourcommunityassociationmeeting(notNPU).
79%
CollectiveorIndividual
Cleanstreets,parks,orotherpublicareasinthecommunity.
76%
Patrolneighborhoodwithpoliceofficerorneighbors
26%
Individual
Attendedtrainingorinfosession.
46%Donatemoneyforanevent,facility,orprojectinthecommunity.
76%Reportsuspiciousactivityinthecommunity.
71%
Reportpotholes,streetlightoutage,orotherservicemalfunctions.
63%
250
Reportneighborswhentheyarenoisy,messy,orviolatingothercodes.
55%
FilecomplaintagainstserviceagentviaAtlantaCitizenReviewBoard.
6%
Sharefeelingsaboutapolicyorprojectconcerningthecommunity.
72%
Thankorsharepositivefeedbackwithpublicservicerepresentative.
51%
Attendedthecourthearingofsomeoneaccusedofcommittingacrimeinthecommunity(CourtWatchProgram).
26%
251
Table3.PrevalenceandImportanceofCoproductionMotivationsandDeterrents(Percentages)
QuestionnaireChoice TypeofMotivationPopularity
(selectedintop3)
Importance
(rankedas#1)
Makeadifference* PersonalEfficacy 63 29
Senseofcivicduty InternalCivicDuty 59 35
Connectwithcommunity InternalSocialNeed 58 29
Senseofpurpose/accomplishment*
PersonalEfficacy 39 12
Servicequality MaterialNeed 27 10
NeighborencouragementExternalSocialNeed
18 7
Serviceprovision/quantity MaterialNeed 10 5
Governmentencouragement ExternalCivicDuty 4 2
Other Other 6 4
Everythingisfine Deterrent 23 13
Notime Deterrent 62 40
Government’sjob Deterrent 10 2
Notinterested Deterrent 33 9
Note:*Proxyforpersonalefficacymotivation
252
Table4:PercentagesofRespondentsWhoCoproducebyDemographicCharacteristic
TOTAL
SAMPLE
Gender Race Income Education AgeChildin
HouseholdHome
Renter
Male Female Black White $0-$54.9K $55K+ HSdiploma
orlessBachelorsormore 0-44 45+ Yes No Yes No
COLLECTIVE
AttendedCityCouncilMeeting 52 58 45 63 43 60 46 67 48 37 62 54 44 48 48
AttendedNPUMeeting 75 81 69 90 63 85 68 86 72 64 83 77 68 66 74
AttendedOtherCommunity-RelatedMeeting
79 82 77 80 78 75 82 80 79 74 83 80 78 63 82
COLLECTIVEORINDIVIDUAL
CleanedNeighborhood 76 79 73 77 74 79 73 81 74 73 78 75 75 63 77
PatrolledNeighborhood 28 29 28 37 22 32 26 33 27 24 32 25 76 66 76
INDIVIDUAL
SharedOpinionsaboutCommunityProject/PolicywithElectedOfficials
72 75 69 77 68 73 71 73 72 60 80 68 30 18 29
DonatedMoneytoCommunity 76 76 76 75 77 73 78 77 76 74 77 78 26 26 24
ReportedCodeViolations 55 57 53 65 48 61 51 63 54 44 63 48 57 43 56
ReportedSuspiciousActivities 71 76 68 75 69 72 71 74 71 67 75 73 71 55 73
ReportedServiceProblems 63 64 63 70 59 67 61 68 63 51 72 60 65 44 67
FiledComplaintagainstServiceAgent 6 6 6 12 2 11 3 14 5 4 8 10 5 3 6
253
ThankedServiceAgent 51 54 49 60 44 55 48 56 50 39 60 47 53 40 51
AttendedCourtHearing 26 26 25 32 20 33 21 36 23 14 34 24 73 53 74
AttendedTrainingorInfoSession 46 46 46 60 35 54 40 54 44 36 52 45 45 37 46
254
Table5.ParticipationinCollectiveCoproduction–FullLogisticModels(OddsRatios)
AttendedCityCouncilMeeting
AttendedNPUMeeting
AttendedOtherCommunityMeeting
ServiceProvision/Quantity 0.67*** 1.10 1.14
ServiceQuality 1.02 1.10 1.09
SenseofPurpose 1.40*** 1.30** 1.21
MakeaDifference 1.14 1.45*** 1.31***
CivicDuty 1.12 1.31*** 1.28***
Government-Encouraged 1.68* 1.14 1.71
ConnectwithNeighbors 1.03 1.35*** 1.26**
Neighbor-Encouraged 0.79* 1.19 1.55***
Everythingisfine 0.93 0.93 0.84*
Notime 0.77*** 0.70*** 0.94
Government’sjob 0.97 0.89 1.05
Notinterested 1.04 0.93 0.82*
Female 0.39*** 0.38*** 0.76
African-American 1.39 2.68*** 1.13
Income 0.89 0.81** 1.19*
Education 0.83 0.85 0.81
Age 1.32*** 1.21** 1.11
ChildinHH 1.17 0.78 1.02
Renter 1.01 0.44*** 0.52**
Intercept 0.93 1.89 1.37
N 597 606 597
R2 0.15 0.18 0.07
Note:Allstandarderrorswerelessthan1;***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.10
255
Table6.ParticipationinIndividualCoproduction–FullLogisticModels(OddsRatios)
Respondentsreported: Respondentsshared: Respondentsattended:
CodeViolations
SuspiciousActivities
ServiceProblems
ServiceAgent
Opinionsw/ElectedOfficials
Money(CommunityDonation)
PositiveFeedback
(ThankedServiceAgent)
AttendedCourtHearing
AttendGov’tTraining
ServiceQuantity 1.44*** 1.28* 1.43*** 0.61 1.10 1.02 1.20 1.26 0.98
ServiceQuality 1.26** 1.07 1.43*** 1.18 1.64*** 1.19 1.01 0.97 1.25
SenseofPurpose 1.23** 1.18 1.32*** 0.85 1.32** 1.39*** 1.30***
1.36***1.33**
MakeDifference 1.26*** 1.33*** 1.17* 1.19 1.29*** 1.32*** 1.27*** 1.20** 1.20***
CivicDuty 1.32*** 1.39*** 1.25*** 1.09 1.39*** 1.228* 1.12 1.04 1.16**
Gov’t-Encour 1.30 1.61 1.61 2.35** 1.78 1.15 1.34 1.45 1.32*
Connectw/Ngbr 0.96 1.01 1.11 1.19 1.02 1.21** 0.93 0.87 0.97
Neighbor-Encour 0.84 0.93 0.96 1.14 0.99 1.10 0.89 1.01 0.94
Everythingisfine 0.71*** 0.88 0.77*** 0.81 0.75*** 0.89 0.84** 0.83* 0.83**
Notime 0.84** 0.89 0.81*** 0.77 0.82*** 0.91 0.90 0.83** 0.94
Government’sjob 0.99 1.39* 1.14 1.62* 0.85 0.94 1.05 1.06 1.20
Notinterested 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.54* 0.74*** 0.91 0.89 0.82* 0.91
Female 0.72* 0.69* 0.96 0.34** 0.64** 1.12 0.71* 1.03 0.87
African-American 1.20 1.11 0.91 3.79** 0.82 0.78 1.25
0.821.86***
256
Income0.87 0.97 0.84*
0.55*** 0.88 1.08 0.91
0.79**0.82**
Education 0.97 0.83 1.01 0.62 1.42** 0.87 1.12 0.90 0.85
Age 1.17** 1.06 1.22*** 1.01 1.38*** 1.01 1.24*** 1.18** 1.10
ChildinHH 0.85 1.42 1.16 5.12** 1.05 1.29 1.05 1.22 1.26
Renter 0.52** 0.60* 0.41*** 0.45 0.40*** 0.47*** 0.67 0.90 0.58*
Intercept 0.89 1.91 0.79 0.11* 0.52 1.50 0.39* 0.39 0.62
N 605 605 605 600 605 599 601 603 596
R2 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.28 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.09
Note:Allstandarderrorswerelessthan1;***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.10
257
Table7.ParticipationinEitherCollectiveorIndividualCoproduction–FullLogisticModels(OddsRatios)
Cleaned/MaintainedCommunityFacilities
PatrolledNeighborhood
ServiceQuantity 1.24 0.93
ServiceQuality 1.41*** 1.06
SenseofPurpose 1.83*** 1.13
MakeaDifference 1.25** 0.97
CivicDuty 1.30*** 1.02
Government-Encouraged
0.750.93
ConnectwithNeighbors
1.30***0.98
Neighbor-Encouraged 1.12 0.94
Everythingisfine 0.80** 0.86
Notime 0.96 0.95
Government’sjob 0.90 1.15
Notinterested 0.92 0.68***
Female 0.73 0.84
African-American 0.81 1.71***
Income 0.85 0.92
Education 0.78* 0.74**
Age 1.03 0.93
ChildinHH 1.11 0.75
Renter 0.46*** 0.25***
Intercept 2.19 1.55
N 605 600
R2 0.08 0.08
Note:Allstandarderrorswerel;***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.10
258
WhyCoproduce:TheCaseofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolsinSouthKorea(Kang)
SeongC.Kang
Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy
UniversityofGeorgia
Abstract:Citizencoproductionentailsthejointproductionofgovernmentservicesbypublic
employeesandcitizens.Knowingwhycitizenscoproducecanenablepublicmanagersto
betterdesignprogramsforrecruitingcitizensandimprovemanagerialpracticesfor
sustainingcitizeninvolvement.However,oncecitizensbecomeinvolvedincoproduction,
thequestionofwhysomecitizensaremoreactivethanothershasyettobeexploredin
furtherdetail.ThisstudyseekstoaddressthisgapbyanalyzingaSouthKoreansurveyof
localresidents’involvementincitizenpatrolswithinalargemetropolitancity.Thefindings
indicatethatgreaterfrequencyofcoproductionbehaviorislargelyassociatedwith
motivationsconcerningexpressivebenefits,self-efficacy,communityconditions,andsocial
cohesion.Inadditiontoenhancingourunderstandingofhowdifferentmotivesoperateat
differentlevelsofactivity,thestudyprovidesacontributionbyinvestigatingcoproduction
processesinadifferentnationalandcontextualsetting.\
259
IIASStudyGroupon‘CoproductionofPublicServices’
Washington,DC,6-7June2017
Introduction
Byincorporatingcitizensinthedeliveryofpublicservices,governmentshavethepotential
togenerateanumberofbenefitssuchasfiscalsavings,improvementinservicequality,and
greaterlegitimacyofgovernment(Needham2008).Withoutcitizencoproduction,
governmentsmaynotbeabletoprovideservicestothefullestextentwhilecitizensmaynot
thoroughlyenjoythebenefitsofpublicservices.Citizeninvolvementcanoccurthrough
governmentinitiativesorbycitizenscommencingformalactivitiesthemselves(Jakobsen
2013;Percy1978).However,scholarshavepointedoutthatevenwithgovernmentefforts
toengageabroaderrangeofcitizens,onlyasmallnumberoraparticularsetofcitizens
respondtosuchinitiatives(VanEijkandSteen2016).Thus,thequestionofwhycitizens
coproduceisimportantasthisallowsforgovernmentstodesignprogramsthatcanrecruit
citizensforcoproductionorimproveexistingprograms.Butoncecitizensbecomeinvolved
incoproducingservices,asubsequentquestionbecomeswhyaresomecitizensmoreactive
thanothers.Thetaskofgettingcitizensinvolvedinthefirstplaceissomewhatdifferent
fromthetaskofdesigningprogramsthatencouragethemtobemoreactive.Theformer
pertainstomattersofadvertisingandrecruitment,whilethelatterconcernsissuesoflong-
termsustainabilityandongoingmanagementofexistingprograms.However,empirical
researchintothislatteraspectofmotivationsisstilllimited,andthisstudyseekstoaddress
thisgapbyexploringthefactorsthatinfluencecoproductionbehaviorsatdifferentlevelsof
activityusingalarge-samplesurveyfromaSouthKoreanmetropolitancity.Thissurvey
260
containsinformationaboutlocalresidentswhoparticipateinvoluntarycitizenpatrols
(JayoolBhangbeomdae)registeredunderpoliceagencies,therebyenablinganinvestigation
ofthequestionofwhysomecitizensaremoreactivethanothers.Althoughthereissome
debateastowhethervolunteeringcanbeconsideredcoproductionascitizensarenotdirect
serviceusers(Pestoff2010),thisstudyadoptstheviewpointthatvolunteersrepresent
citizenswhodeliverservicesonbehalfofothers(BovairdandLoeffler2013).Citizensare
involvedinamoreorganizedandinstitutionalizedcapacity,andcoproduction“resultsin
collectivegoodswhosebenefitsmaybeenjoyedbytheentirecommunity”(Brudneyand
England1983,64).
Ontheonehand,mostrecentempiricalstudiesonmotivationstocoproducehave
beenconductedinWesternsettingssuchasEuropeandtheUnitedStates(i.e.,Parradoet
al.2013;VanEijkandSteen2014).Therefore,theshiftingeographicsettingtoanEastAsian
countrymaycomplicateaprecisecomparisonofcoproductionwithWesterncountries.In
addition,thecultureofcollectivismreflectedinEastAsiadisplaysastrongertendency
towardssolidaryorcommunitymotives(ChoiandLee2016).Ontheotherhand,duringthe
pastthirtyyears,publicadministrationscholarshipinKoreahasbeenheavilyinfluencedby
Westernscholarship,andthisisreflectedinrecentSouthKoreancoproductionscholarship
aswellasgovernmentpolicymakingwithrespecttoincorporatingcitizensinpublicservice
delivery.Forinstance,scholarshaveborrowedfromthemessuchascommunity-oriented
policing,socialcontroltheoryandcoproductiontoexaminealternativepolicingstrategies
(Choi2001;Jung1994;Kim1997;Son2007).Fromthisperspective,thisstudycanprovidea
contributiontothecoproductionliteraturebyenablingscholarstogarnerinsightinto
coproductionprocessesinadifferentnationalandcontextualsetting.
261
Thisstudyisorganizedasfollows.Thenextsectionreviewstheliteratureon
motivationstocoproduce,followedbyadescriptionoftheempiricalsetting,dataand
methodsforthecurrentstudy.Thestudythenproceedstoanalyzethedataandpresentthe
findings.Thestudyconcludeswithimplicationsforpracticeandfutureresearch.
TheQuestionofMotives
Thecoproductionliteraturedrawsfromanumberofdisciplinestoexplainmotivesbehind
whycitizenscoproduce.Aneconomiclineofargumentinspiredbypublicchoicetheory
arguesthatcitizensaredrivenbyself-interestinwhichtheyparticipateifthebenefits
outweighthecosts(Parksetal.1981).Thissuggeststhatcitizenscoproducebecauseof
extrinsicormaterialrewardssuchasmonetarycompensation,acquisitionofnewskills,or
non-monetarybenefitssuchasenhancedservicelevels.Meanwhile,scholarshave
suggestedreasonsbeyondself-interestforwhycitizenscoproduce.Intheirdiscussionabout
thewaystomobilizecitizens,RosentraubandSharp(1981)suggestthreetypesofincentives
consistingofmaterial,solidary,andexpressivemotives.Materialorextrinsicincentives
includetangiblebenefitssuchasmoneyandgoodsornon-tangiblebenefitssuchasgreater
levelofservices,solidaryincentivesentailbenefitsenjoyedbyassociatingwithothersor
havingasenseofgroupmembership,andexpressiveincentivesareintangiblerewardsthat
relyonaltruismorasenseofsatisfaction.Theyargue,however,thatnosingleincentiveis
dominantinanysituationbutthatthemosteffectivetypeofincentive“dependsonthe
formofcoproductionbeingpromoted”(1981,535).Forinstance,materialincentives
generallyapplytoindividualisticformsofcoproduction,whereascollectiveactionrelies
262
moreonexpressiveincentives.Solidaryincentivescanbeappliedtobothtypesof
coproduction.
Volunteerismisamajorrelatedstreamofresearchonmotivationsbehindpublicor
non-profitvolunteeringactivities(Brudney1989;Smith1994).Thisstreamhasgenerally
emphasizedtheimportanceofaltruisticoregoisticmotivationsunderlyingvoluntaryefforts
(DekkerandHalman2003;ReedandSelbee2003;Steen2006).However,somehavenoted
howvolunteersarefundamentallydifferentfromcitizensandclientsintermsoftheir
motives(Alford2002).Volunteersworkforthebenefitsofothers,whilecitizensorclients
areoftentheusersofthepublicservicesandbenefitpersonallyfromthem,especiallyinthe
caseofclients.Thisimpliesthatself-interestisonemajormotivebehindcoproductive
behaviors.Alford(2002)expandsuponthesedifferentmotivationsbehindcitizens,
volunteers,andclients.Forinstance,citizens’motivationsaredrawnfromtheworkby
RosentraubandSharp(1981)describedabove.Volunteers’motivationsaredrawnfromthe
volunteeringliteraturesuchasClaryetal.(1996;1998)whoclassifysixcategoriesof
psychologicalfunctionsconsistingofvalues,understanding,enhancement,careergoals,
socialandprotectivemotivations.Finally,theoryaboutcustomerorclientmotivations
comesfromthemarketingliteraturetoarguethatclientsarenotonlydrivenbymaterial
benefits,butalsointrinsicrewardssuchasself-esteemandexternalsanctionsfromlegal
obligations.
Someresearchershavecitedthemesconcerninggovernment-citizenrelations,
citizenparticipation,andactivecitizenshipthatfocusonthecapacitiesofindividualstoact
(VanEijkandSteen2014).Ascoproductionisakindofengagementwithsociety,the
argumentisthattherearesimilaritiesinthemotivationsofcitizensforengaginginother
263
wayswithsociety.Fromtheseliteratures,scholarshaveexaminedsocioeconomicvariables
(Sharp1984;Timpone1998),networks(Amna2010;Putnam1993),salience(Pestoff2012),
self-efficacy(Kristensen,Andersen,andPedersen2012;Parradoetal.2013),andtrust
(FledderusandHoningh2016).Saliencereferstotheimportanceoftheserviceprovided,
andtheideaisthatcitizensconsidertheimpactthatithasontheirlifeandwilldetermine
whethereffortsareworthinvestinginparticipation.Self-efficacyentailsthebeliefthat
one’sactionscanleadtopositiveresults.Internalefficacypointstoanindividual’s
perceptionsabouthisorhercompetenciestounderstandandtoengageeffectivelyinorder
toproducepositiveresults,whileexternalefficacyconcernsthebeliefinwhichone’sactions
canpotentiallyinfluencedecision-makingandserviceprovisionbygovernmentalauthorities
andinstitutions.Finally,trustisanotherfactor.Ifcitizensperceivegovernmentto
adequatelydeliversservicesandprovideopportunitiestomeaningfullyengage,levelsof
trustarelikelytobeenhanced.Meanwhile,trustcanalsobelinkedwithgovernment
performance(Parradoetal.2013).Thisisgenerallyconsideredapositivefactorandisboth
aconsequenceanddeterminantofgovernmentperformance(VanRyzin2007;2011).
Greatertrustmeansthatcitizensaresatisfiedwithgovernmentserviceprovision,while
greaterdistrustisreflectiveofpoorgovernmentperformance,whichcanincentivizecitizens
toresorttoalternativeservicedeliveryarrangementssuchascoproduction.Forinstance,
policingstudieshavearguedhowAfrican-Americanstendtobelesssatisfiedwithpolice
servicesandsotheyaremorelikelytopursuepolicereformsandmorewillingtoengagein
communityinitiatives(WehrmanandAngelis2011).
VanEijkandSteen(2014)pointoutthattheconceptofpublicservicemotivation
(PSM)alsohasthepotentialtocontributetoanunderstandingofcitizens’motivationsfor
coproductionduetoitsrelationtocommunity-centeredmotivations.Sincetheconcept
264
focusesonmotivationsgroundedinthepublicinterest,or“anindividual’spredispositionto
respondtomotivesgroundedprimarilyoruniquelyinpublicinstitutionsandorganizations”
(PerryandWise1990,368),scholarshaveusedPSMtoanalyzepublicsectoremployees’
participationnotonlyinofficialdutiesasformalemployeesbutalsoininformalcivic
activities(Brewer2003;Pandeyetal.2008;PerryandHondeghem2008).ThePSM
literaturehasdevelopedasignificantamountofresearchconcerningthemotivationof
publicservants,butsuchresearchhasnotbeenextensivelyappliedtothepublicservice
motivationofcitizencoproducers.Nonetheless,recentscholarssuchasVanEijkandSteen
(2014;2016)havediscussedPSMas“community-oriented,pro-social”behaviorswhich
enablecitizenstoassumegreaterresponsibilitiesinthepublicdomain.
Inadditiontoindividualmotivations,conditionscaneitherfacilitateorhinder
coproduction(Verschuere,BrandsenandPestoff2012).Theseincludetransactioncosts,
suchaseaseofinvolvement,andlevelofsalience,suchasperceptionsofcrimethatprompt
citizenstoparticipate(Pestoff2012).Inmanycasesthesearenecessaryconditionsinwhich,
beforemotivationsareputintopractice,attentionshouldbepaidtothepossibilityof
becominginvolvedinthefirstplace.Ifcitizensdonotperceivecoproductiontobeeasy
enoughoriftheactivityisdeemedunimportant,theywillnotconsiderparticipating.
Thesedifferentbutrelatedstreamsofliteratureprovideinformationonseveral
commonthemesthatassistinexplainingindividuals’motivationstoengageincoproduction
includingintrinsic,extrinsic,expressive,solidary,PSM,salience,andself-efficacyrelated
factors.Inaddition,capacityrelatestobothhumancapital,suchasincomeandeducation,
andsocialcapital,suchasbelongingtoanetwork.Inturn,humanandsocialcapitalcanbe
expectedtoinfluencehowcitizensdeterminethesalienceofengagementandtojudgetheir
265
levelofefficacyconcerningparticipation.Beforeproceeding,however,recallthatthe
empiricalcaseforthisstudyinvolvescitizenvolunteerswhoarepartofaformalpublic
organization.Becauseofthedifferentmotivationsamongcitizens,clients,andvolunteersto
coproduce,onemightquestionwhetherthefactorsidentifiedinthissectioncanapplyto
volunteers.However,whileitisgenerallyassumedthataltruisticmotivesarelargelybehind
thereasonsforvolunteering,differentpolicyareasattractdifferentindividualsforvarying
reasons.Forinstance,inpublicsafety,SiegelandSundeen(1986)findthathigherincidence
ofcrimeisacriticalmotivatorforcitizenstovolunteerinmunicipalpolicedepartments,
whileRenetal.(2006)findthatcitizens’perceptionofcrimeproblemsintheir
neighborhoodisasignificantpredictorforvolunteeringinpolicework.Thesestudies
suggestthatvolunteersaremotivatedbymorethanmerealtruismandaredrivenbyfactors
thataffectparticipantsdirectlyi.e.,concernforsafetyorfearofcrime.Inshort,volunteers
maynotbedirectservicesusers,butthisdoesnotmeantheyarenotinvolvedinjointly
producingapublicservice.
Meanwhile,anotherlimitationisthatcoproductiveinteractionsoccurbetweencitizensand
professionals,whileclassicalvoluntarismdoesnotalwaystakeplaceinsimilar
professionalizedservicedeliveryenvironments.However,thefocusofthisstudyison
volunteerswhoparticipateinapublicorganizationalcapcaity,andpriorstudieshave
exploredthesignificanceofcoproductiontheorywithinthecontextofpublicsector
volunteering(BrudneyandWarren1990;Sundeen1990).Whiletheprimarybeneficiaries
aretheclientsservedthroughgovernmentservices,volunteersarestillcoproducinginthe
sensethatthesearecitizenswhodeliverservicesonbehalfofothers(BovairdandLoeffler
2013;Brudney1990).Inshort,citizensarecoproducerswhochoosetovolunteer,namely,
tocoproduceinamoreformalandorganizedcapacity.Therefore,thisstudyassumesthat
266
themotivationscitedabovecanapplytovolunteers,justastheyapplytocitizensand
clients.
CoproducingPublicSafety
Priorstudiesconcerningcitizenmotivationstocoproduceinpublicsafetyhaveidentified
variablessuchasfearofcrime,perceptionofvictimization,andpriorexperiencewithcrime
tobeassociatedwithagreatertendencytoengageincoproduction(Percy1987;
RosentraubandSharp1981;RosentraubandHarlow1983;RosentraubandWarren1987).
Thesestudieshavetendedtomeasureindividualcoproductionactivitiessuchasinstalling
alarmsorlocks,purchasingpersonalsafetyweapons,installingpropertyidentificationsigns,
andattendingmeetings.Studiesattheorganizationallevelexamineanumberoffactors
pertainingtosocio-economicanddemographicfactorsthataffectindividualstovolunteerin
general(Ferris1988;SiegelandSundeen1986;Sundeen1988).Studiesusingindividualsas
theunitofanalysisfindthatgenderandperceptionsofcrimeproblemsaresignificantly
associatedwithvolunteering(Renetal.2006).
Meanwhile,citizenpatrolshavebeenidentifiedasatypeofgroupororganized
coproductionactivitywherecitizenscooperatedirectlywithpoliceagenciestoengagein
patrolorothercrimepreventionactivities(Percy1978).Whilepatrolgroupsindependent
organizedbycitizensarelesscommonintheUnitedStates,asimilarformoforganized
coproductioninvolvesvolunteerpoliceofficersworkinginreserve/auxiliaryprograms
establishedwithinformalpoliceorganizations(DobrinandWolf2016).Empiricalstudieson
themotivationstocoproduceasvolunteerofficersarelimited,butstudieshaveexplored
thedifferentcharacteristicsofindividualswhovolunteer.Wolf,HolmesandJones(2016)
267
identifythreemajorsubgroupsofvolunteersinpolicingprogramsconsistingofthosewho
wishtogainthetrainingandexperiencenecessarytoapplyforfull-timepositions,retired
officerswhocontinuetomaintainapresenceintheorganization,andindividualswhoview
volunteerpolicingasanavenueofcommunityservice.Whiletheseprovideinformation
aboutwhovolunteersforlawenforcementwork,researchislimitedonwhatdrivesthese
individualstobeinvolvedinthefirstplaceorcoproducemoreactivelythanotherswithin
theseorganizedcapacities.Thenextsectionturnstotheempiricaldataandanalysisto
addressthisissueinmoredetail.
DataandMethods
VoluntaryCitizenPatrolsinSouthKorea
ThissectionexaminesaformofcollectivecoproductioninthecontextofanEastAsian
nation.InSouthKorea,voluntarycitizenpatrolsrepresentanimportantformof
coproducingpublicsafetywherelocalresidentsjoinpatrolunitsregisteredunderlocal
policeagencies(Chun2005;Lee2001;LeeandHwang2009;Lee2012).Ontheonehand,
whilethedifferentialgeographicsettingcomplicatesaprecisecomparisonofcoproduction
withWesternnations,duringthepastthirtyyears,publicadministrationinKoreahasbeen
heavilyinfluencedbyWesternscholarship.ThishasimpactedKoreancoproduction
scholarshipaswellasgovernmentpolicymakingwithrespecttoincorporatingcitizensin
publicservicedelivery.ScholarshaveborrowedfromtopicssuchasCommunity-Oriented
Policing,SocialControlTheoryandCoproductiontoexaminealternativepolicingstrategies
(Choi2001;Jung1994;Kim1997;Son2007).Furthermore,theheateddebatesduringthe
recent17th(2004-2008),18th(2008-2012),and19th(2012-2016)NationalAssembly
268
sessionsconcerningtheVoluntaryCitizenPatrolBill,aswellastheadoptionoflocalCitizen
Patrolordinancesbymorethan90municipalitiesacrossthecountry,atteststothe
increasingchallengesandopportunitiestomanagecitizenvolunteersinpublicsafety.
In2012therewereanestimated3,917citizenpatrolorganizationswith100,517
activemembers(Min2014).Beginningin2009,localgovernmentsacrossthecountrybegan
institutingordinancestoprovidefundingandotherassistanceforvoluntarycrime
preventionactivities,andasof2015morethan90municipalitieshavesomeformof
regulationinplace.1Table1showsthenumberofcitizenpatrolorganizations,volunteers,
andtheamountoflocalgovernmentfundingaccordingtomajormetropolitancityor
provincein2012.Table2illustratesthecontributionofcitizenpatrolactivitiestolaw
enforcementperformance,whichdemonstratestheextenttowhichcitizensare
coproducingpublicsafety.
(InsertTable1hereabouthere)
(InsertTable2hereabouthere)
TheoriginsofcitizenpatrolsdatebacktotheaftermathoftheKoreanWarinwhichlocal
residentsweremobilizedtosupplementregularpoliceforcesinsubduingcommunist
insurgents(Oh2000).Afterwards,forseveraldecades,citizenpatrolscontinuedtoexistin
variousformsthroughoutdifferentlocalitiestoservethepurposeofcrimeprevention.Due
tothelackofcentralizedmanagementorsupport,however,thereisnodatacollectedon
theirnumbersortheirexactformoforganization.ItwasnotuntiltheSouthKorean
government’s“WarAgainstCrime”policyin1990thatpolicingandcriminaljustice
269
advocatesraisedtheneedformoreeffectivemanagementofcitizen-participatorycrime
preventiongroups,andin1996theKoreaNationalPoliceAgencyissuedtheVoluntary
CrimePreventionPatrolGuidelines(JayulBhangbeomdaeGwaliJichim)toformalizethe
managementandoperationofvoluntarypatrolswithinpoliceorganizations(Hwang2011).
Atpresent,eachoftheprovincialpoliceheadquartersmaintainVoluntaryCrimePrevention
Patroldirectivesthatcontainguidelinesontheorganizationofcitizenpatrols,missionand
tasks,recruitmentanddismissal,trainingandeducation,uniformsandequipment,and
rewardsorincentives.Implementationofthesedirectivesmayvaryaccordingtolocalities.
Meanwhile,beginningin2009municipalitiesacrossthenationbeganenactinglocal
regulationstomanagecitizenpatrolorganizations.Alongsidepatrollingofhighcrimerisk
areas,citizenpatrolsengageinvarioustypesofactivitiessuchasteendelinquency
prevention,monitoringofinfractionssuchaslitteringorpublicintoxication,assistingin
trafficcontrol,snowremovalandstreetmaintenance.Itiswithinthiscontextthatthisstudy
examinescitizens’motivationstovolunteerincitizenpatrols. Onepointtoconsideris
thatthisuniquegeographicsettingmayrenderitdifficulttodirectlyapplythe
aforementionedtheoriesoncoproductivemotivations.Inparticular,ChoiandLee(2016)
findthatcitizenparticipationincommunitysafetyinSouthKoreaislargelydrivenby
communityvaluessuchassocialharmonyandcohesionbasedonthecultureofcollectivism
reflectedinEastAsiancountries.Therefore,wewouldinitiallyexpecttofindagreater
dispositiontowardssolidarymotivesratherthanindividualreasonsforvolunteering.While
thisassumptionmayholdtrueingeneral,however,thispredispositionmaybeintensified
duetosocialdesirabilitybiasinwhichindividualsincollectivisticsocietiesanswerinamore
sociallydesirablemannerthatoveremphasizethesolidaryaspectsofparticipation(Kimand
Kim2016).Nonetheless,inpracticeindividualmotivesmayoperateatdifferentlevelsof
270
activity.Forinstance,thosewhoparticipatemorefrequentlythanothersmaydosofor
otherreasonssuchasbeingapriorvictimofcrimeorretainingagreaterdesireto
contributetopublicsafety.However,thesemotivationsmaynotbereadilyapparentinself-
reportedmeasures,andsotheempiricalsectionbelowproceedstoexplorethese
underlyingmotivationsthroughtheanalysisofcoproductionbehaviorsoperatingat
differentlevels.
DataandMeasures
Toexaminethequestionofwhysomecitizenscoproducemoreactivelythanothers,data
arederivedfromthe2005SurveyofLocalResidents’ParticipationinCitizenPatrols
administeredbytheKoreanInstituteofCriminology(KIC),agovernmentresearchinstitute,
andareavailablefromtheKoreanSocialScienceDataArchives(KOSSDA).2Thesurvey
containsavarietyofquestionsaboutthestatusofcitizens’participationinlocalvoluntary
citizenpatrolunits.Inaddition,demographicinformationsuchasgender,age,levelof
education,maritalstatus,numberofchildren,typeofresidence,typeofneighborhood,
lengthofresidence,andoccupationareincluded.Thisisaone-timecross-sectionalsurvey
administeredacross31policedepartmentswithinthecityofSeoul,SouthKorea.Theunitof
analysisisattheindividuallevel,andrespondents’characteristicsconsistofcitizenswhoare
existingmembersofcitizenpatrolunits.Thefinalsamplesizeconsistsofn=450.3One
cautionarynoteisthatsincethecitizenpatrolunitsareformallyregisteredunderpolice
departments,samplingbiasmaybeinherentinwhichthecharacteristicsoftherespondents
differfromthegeneralvolunteerpopulationwhereindividualsvolunteerindiversesettings
withdifferingrequirements.
271
Concerningthedependentvariable,thesurveyasksrespondentsaboutthedegree
ofparticipation.Specifically,itmeasuresthefrequencyofengaginginpatrolactivitieson
average,andresponsecategoriesinclude:lessthanonceamonth,onceamonth,onceevery
15days,onceaweek,twiceaweek,andeveryday(codedfrom1=lessthanonceamonth
to6=everyday).Thismeasuresacoproductionbehaviorandisnottiedtospecific
perceptions,meaningitisnotaperceptualoutcomemeasureandsothepotentialfor
commonsourcebiasislower(MeierandO’Toole2013).Sincethemeasureisordinalin
nature,orderedlogitregressionisusedtoestimatethemodel.Thestructuralmodelforan
orderedlogit(orproportionaloddsmodel)isspecifiedbythefollowingequation:
Y*# = β&X&# + ε#*
&+,
Themodelcanbeexpressedintermsofprobabilitiesasfollows:
Prob Yi = j = eχiβ-Κj-11+eχiβ-Κj-1
WhereProb Y# = j istheprobabilitythatindividualiwillselectalternativej,χ#isthe
vectorofquestionsexploringmotivations,andΚ9-,indicatestheresponsethresholds.Since
therespondentsarecitizensinvolvedinanexistingcoproductionactivity,thesixcategories
measuringthefrequencyofparticipationallowforaninvestigationofdifferentmotives
operatingatdifferentactivitylevels.Basedonpriorliteraturesconcerningcitizen
motivations,theindependentvariableswereselectedfromquestionsthatgarner
272
informationaboutthefollowingmotivationalcategories:material,expressive,solidary,
PSM,self-efficacy,salience,andsatisfactionwithgovernmentperformance.Capacityis
reflectedinthecontrolvariables.
First,pertainingtounderlyingmotivesforparticipatingincitizenpatrols,thesurvey
asks:“Whatistheinitialreasonthatyoubecameinvolvedincitizenpatrols?”Foursub-
itemsthattapintothesemotivationswereselected:(1)toprotectthephysicalsafetyof
myselfandfamilymembers(material);(2)tosocializewithlocalresidents(solidary);(3)to
ensurethesafetyofmycommunity(expressive);and(4)toassistlocalpoliceactivities
(PSM).Responsecategoriesforeachofthesesub-itemsinclude:stronglydisagree,
somewhatdisagree,agreeonaverage,andstronglyagree(coded1=stronglydisagreeto4=
stronglyagree).EnsuringcommunitysafetymayhavesomeoverlapwithPSM,butis
categorizedasanexpressivemotivesince“toassistlocalpoliceactivities”isamorespecific
itemtiedtotheactivitiesofassistingpoliceagencies.
Second,intermsofself-efficacy,thesurveyasks:“Whatkindofinfluencedoyou
expectthecitizenpatrolactivitiestohaveinyourcommunity?”Thefollowingtwosub-items
wereselected:(1)decreaseincommunitycrimes;(2)improvedrelationshipbetween
communityresidentsandthepolice.Foreachofthesesub-indexes,responsecategories
include:stronglydisagree,somewhatdisagree,agreeonaverage,andstronglyagree(coded
1=stronglydisagreeto4=stronglyagree).
Third,intermsoftheconditionsthataffectthelevelofsalienceforcitizens,the
surveyasks:“Pleaseratethedegreeofseverityofcrimeproblemsinourcountry.”Response
categoriesare:notsevereatall,somewhatsevere,average,moderatelysevere,andvery
severe(codedfrom1=notsevereatallto5=verysevere).Anotherquestionincludes:“Have
273
youbeenavictimofcrimeduringthepast2years?”(coded0=no,1=yes).Thesetwo
questionsrelatetothesalienceofbecominginvolvedincitizenpatrols.
Fourth,thesurveycontainsaquestionpertainingtosatisfaction/dissatisfactionwith
governmentperformance,whichasks:“Doyouthinkpoliceactivitiesaresufficientto
preventcrime?”Responsecategoriesare:veryinsufficient,somewhatsufficient,moderately
sufficient,andhighlysufficient(codedfrom1=veryinsufficientto4=highlysufficient).In
someways,thistapsintothelevelofcitizentrustinpoliceperformance.
Finally,coproductionbehaviorwillvarybydemographicandsocio-economicfactors
thataffectindividualcapacitiestoparticipate.Theanalysisincludesinformationaboutage,
levelofeducation,presenceofchildren,homeownership,andlengthofresidence.Other
keycontrolvariablessuchascrimeratearenotincludedbecausethesedataareunavailable
atthedistrict(Gu)levelinwhichpolicedepartmentsarelocated.Crimerateisonlyavailable
onanaggregatedbasisforthecityofSeoul.Genderisalsoexcludedfromtheanalysisas
nearly94percentofrespondentsaremale.
AnalysisandResults
Thenumbersinthedescriptivestatisticsintable3arerelativefrequenciesbasedonLikert
scalesforeachofthevariables.Priortoconductingtheorderedlogitregressionanalysis,we
firstexaminethesummaryofthedescriptiveresponsestoeachofthesurveymeasuresfor
abetterunderstandingoftheattitudesofcitizenpatrolmembersandtocomparewiththe
orderedlogitresultslateron.First,abreakdownofthefrequencyofvolunteeringshows
thatnearly70percentofmembersrespondthattheyengageincitizenpatrolactivitiesat
leastmorethanonceaweek(table4).
274
(InsertTable3hereabouthere)
(InsertTable4hereabouthere)
Thesurveycontainsaseparatequestionaskingwhatisthesinglemainreasonforbeing
currentlyactiveincitizenpatrols(table5).Thisisadifferentquestionfromthesub-items
containingLikertscalesaboutthevariationsinfrequencyofinvolvementincitizenpatrols.
Amongtherespondents,around50percentstatetheyareactivebecausetheyliketo
socializewithotherpatrolmembers,whilenearly21percentansweredtheygottoknow
otherlocalresidentsandpoliceofficersbetter.Onlyabout10percentstatetheyparticipate
forreasonsconcerningcommunitysafety,and7percentsaidtheyvolunteerforgeneral
reasons.Inshort,nearly70percentofrespondentsansweredthattheyareactivelyinvolved
forsolidaryreasons,suggestingthatrespondentstendtoholdsolidarydispositionsfor
participatingincitizenpatrolswithintheSouthKoreancontext.However,theirstatement
aboutwhytheyareactiveisaself-reportedmeasureandisnotreflectiveofactualbehavior.
Theorderedregressionanalysisconductedbelowseekstoexploretheunderlyingactual
behaviors.
275
(InsertTable5hereabouthere)
Meanwhile,about76percentofmembersrespondedthattheythinkcrimeproblemsare
eithermoderatelyseveretoverysevere(table6),whilenearly70percentofrespondents
feltthatpoliceactivitieswereeithersomewhatinsufficientorveryinsufficienttoprevent
crime(table7).However,only12percentsaidthattheywereavictimofcrimeduringthe
pasttwoyears(table8).Theresponsesfromthesethreetablessuggestthatperceptionsof
crimehavemoreinfluencethandoactualexperiencewithcrimevictimization.
(InsertTable6hereabouthere)
(InsertTable7hereabouthere)
(InsertTable8hereabouthere)
Finally,intermsofthedemographicvariables,theaverageageisabout46yearsold,
averageeducationlevelishighschoolgraduate,majorityofmembershavechildren,most
membersownhomes,andthedurationofresidenceisabout15years.
Fortheorderedlogitregression,toreiterate,thedependentvariableconcernsthe
frequencyofparticipatingmoreorlessactivelyincitizenpatrolactivities.Theorderedlogit
assumesthatallofthecoefficientsontheindependentvariablesareequalforevery
categoryofthedependentvariableandthattheslopesoftheestimatedequationsare
276
identical.Thisisreferredtoastheproportionalodds(parallelequation)assumptionandcan
betestedusingaBrant’stestoralikelihoodratiotest.Thetestfoundanonsignificantp-
value,meaningthattheproportionaloddsassumptionhasnotbeenviolated.Table9
reportstheresultsofthefrequencyofparticipationrangingfrom1=lessthanonceamonth
to6=everyday.Becausetheestimatedcoefficientscannotbeinterpretedinthesame
manneraslinearregressionresults,thepercentagechangeinoddsratiosarealsoreported
foreachoftheindependentvariables.Ahigherpercentagechangeintheoddsratios
indicatesahigherlikelihoodoftheindependentvariablebeingassociatedwithhigherscores
onthe1to6categoricalscaleofresponsesubstance.Asmentionedbefore,thepredictors
explorethefollowingmotivationsconsistingofsolidary,material,intrinsic,expressive,PSM,
self-efficacy,salience,andsatisfactionwithgovernmentperformance.
(InsertTable9abouthere)
First,concerningkeyincentivessuchassolidary,material,expressiveandPSMmotives,the
itemfortoensurecommunitysafetyisstatisticallysignificant,andindicatesthataone-unit
increaseinthisscaleincreasestheoddsofparticipatingmorefrequentlyby44.89
percentagepoints(p<.05).Thisfindingcontrastswiththeself-reportedresponsesintable5
whichshowedthatmorethan70percentstatetheyarecurrentlyactiveforsolidary
reasons.Rather,theorderedlogitestimatesrevealthatexpressivebenefitssuchasthe
desireforgreatercommunitysafetyunderliemotivationsforgreaterfrequencyof
participation.Also,assistinginlocalpoliceactivitiesisstatisticallysignificant,butthe
decreaseintheoddsratioby17.89percentagepointsshowsthatPSMislessofadriverfor
greaterfrequencyofparticipation.However,thisisnottodevaluetheimportanceofPSMas
acriticalincentiveforengaginginpublicservice,butrathersuggeststhatgreaterfrequency
277
mayberelatedtoadissatisfactionwithcurrentformalpoliceactivitiesandthatcitizensmay
haveadesiretoinvestmorepersonaleffortsratherthanrelyonpoliceactivitiestoenhance
servicequality.
Intermsofself-efficacy,theexpectationfordecreaseincommunitycrimesindicates
thataone-unitincreaseinthisscaleincreasestheoddsofgreaterfrequencyofparticipation
by103.61percentagepoints.However,improvedrelationshipbetweenresidentsandpolice
revealsthataone-unitincreaseinthisscaledecreasestheoddsofgreaterfrequencyof
participationby19.61percentagepoints.Thesefindingssuggestthatmoreactive
participationisassociatedwiththeexpectationthatparticipants’actionswillresultin
enhancedservicequalitiessuchasimprovedcommunitysafetyratherthansolidary
benefits.
Meanwhile,concerningcrimeconditions,thedegreeofseverityofcrimesshowsthataone-
unitincreaseinthisscaleincreasestheoddsofgreaterfrequencyofparticipationby23.64
percentagepoints,suggestingthatsalienceisapertinentmotivationforactiveparticipation.
However,beingavictimofcrimeduringthepasttwoyearsisnotstatisticallysignificant,
confirmingtheassumptionthatperceptionsaboutcrimeismorerelevanttoparticipation
thanactualexperiencewithcrime.
Finally,amongthestatisticallysignificantcontrolvariables,thepresenceofchildren
showsadecreaseintheoddsratioby73.52percentagepoints,suggestingthathaving
childrenactsasaconstraintwhichdecreasesthelikelihoodthatmembersspendmoretime
incitizenpatrols.However,homeownershipanddurationofresidencerevealanincreasein
theoddsratioby29.38and2.84percentagepoints,respectively,indicatingthatas
278
homeownershiprisesandthelongerdurationofresidenceinacommunity,thehigher
likelihoodofparticipatingmorefrequentlyincitizenpatrols.
Whiletheorderedlogitregressionusestheorderednatureofthedependent
variabletoderiveasingleeffectforeachoftheindependentvariables,therebysimplifying
themodel,thereisthepossibilitythattheconstraintsmayvaryaccordingtotheindividual
responsessincetheordinalcategoriesconsistofarbitrarycutoffsandarenotspaced
equally.Toaccountforthislimitation,themarginaleffectsarereportedintable10foreach
ofthesixcategoriesofthedependentvariabletoexaminethechangesinprobabilitieswhen
theindependentvariablesincreasebyoneunit.
(InsertTable10abouthere)
Themarginaleffectsconfirmtheorderedlogitresultsinthatlowercategories(i.e.,1,2,and
3)displayoppositeeffectsfromthatofhighercategories(5and6).Forexample,forthe
measuretoensurecommunitysafety,thechangesinprobabilityforthosewhoparticipate
lessfrequentlyincitizenpatrols(2and3)revealadecreaseinpercentagepointsby0.03and
0.041,respectively,whereasthosewhoaremoreactive(5and6)experienceanincreasein
percentagepointsby0.058and0.012.Forthevariableassistinlocalpoliceactivities,the
changesinprobabilityforthosewhoparticipatelessfrequentlyincitizenpatrols(2and3)
displayanincreaseinpercentagepointsby0.016and0.022,comparedtothedecreasein
percentagepointsby0.031forthosewhoaremoreactive(5).Theserelationshipshold
constantfortheotherstatisticallysignificantvariablesincludingdecreaseincommunity
crimes,improvedrelationshipsbetweenresidentsandpolice,degreeofseverityofcrime,
presenceofchildren,homeownership,anddurationofresidence.
279
DiscussionandConclusion
Thisstudyexploresthequestionofwhysomecitizenscoproducemoreactivelythanothers
usingempiricaldatacontaininginformationaboutcitizenswhovolunteerinacollective
coproductionactivity.Theresultsoftheorderedlogitregressionenableanempirical
analysisofmotivationsthatoperateatdifferentlevels,orfrequency,ofparticipationin
citizenpatrols.
Concerningseveralkeyincentivessuchasmaterial,solidaryorexpressivemotives
behindparticipation,expressivemotivesarecloselyassociatedwithgreaterfrequencyof
participation.Originallyfromtheself-reportedquestionthataskswhatisthesinglemain
motivationforbeingactive,anoverwhelmingproportionofrespondentshadstatedthatthe
mainreasonforbeingactiveincitizenpatrolsconsistofsocializingwithpatrolmembersand
othermembersofthecommunityandpolice.However,theorderedlogitresultsindicate
thatgreaterfrequencyofparticipationisexplainedbyexpressivemotivessuchas
contributingtogreatercommunitysafety.Inaddition,fromtheself-efficacycategory,the
resultssuggestthatthebeliefthattheirinvolvementcanleadtoareductionincommunity
crimesexplainsgreaterfrequencyofparticipation.Fromthecommunityconditions
category,asperceptionsabouttheseverityofcrimeincrease,citizensaremoreactive.
Thesethreefindingsindicatethatthegreaterfrequencyofengagingincoproductionis
largelydrivenbymotivesthatpertaintoexpressivemotivesintermsofbroadercommunity
safetyratherthansolidarymotivessuchassocializingwithothers.Thismeansthatcitizens
whoaremoreactivearedrivenbyadesirethatfocusesonthecoreoftheserviceitself,that
is,tocontributetopublicsafety.Inthecontextofsocialdesirabilitybias,thisisanimportant
280
findingthatshowshowindividualsincollectivistsocietiesaremorelikelytoengagein
sociallydesirableresponses,butthattheunderlyingmotivationsdrivingactualbehaviors
maybequitedifferent.
However,thisisnottodevaluetheimportanceofsolidaryincentives.Greaterfrequencyof
coproductionbehaviormaybecontingentuponthedesiretoachieveexpressivebenefits,
butasobservedfromtheself-reportedmeasureaboutthemainreasonforbeingcurrently
active,motivationsaremutuallysupportiveinthatsolidarymotivescouldactasakey
preservationforceforexpressivemotives,particularlyifanorganizationconsistsofa
volunteerworkforce.Ifmembersdonotsupporteachotherthroughsolidarymechanisms
andsomefeelleftoutorthereisconflictamongmembers,thenexpressivebenefitsalone
cannotsustainorganizationalinvolvementinthelongterm.
Meanwhile,assistinginlocalpoliceactivitieswhichreflectsPSMisassociatedwith
lessfrequencyinparticipation.However,thisisnottosaythatPSMislessofanimportant
driverforthosewhoparticipatemorefrequentlyinpublicservices.Rather,viewedfromthe
perspectiveofdissatisfactionwithcurrentpoliceactivities,whetheritbebasedon
subjectiveperceptionsoractualexperiencewithpoliceservices,thisdissatisfactionmay
ratherbeareflectionofanincreaseinPSMifweinterpretthisasinfluencingindividuals’
desiretoinvestgreaterpersonaleffortstoenhanceservicequalityratherthanrelysolelyon
policeactivities.Initially,PSMwaslinkedwithassistinginlocalpoliceactivitiessinceitistied
toamorespecifictaskofcontributingtolocalpoliceefforts.Butasmentionedbefore,there
issignificantoverlapbetweenPSMandexpressivemotivesonthegroundsthatboth
ensuringcommunitysafetyandassistinginlocalpoliceactivitiescontainelementsof
workingtowardsthepublicinterestandgenerallyinvolvecollectiveaction.Futureresearch
281
couldaddressthisissuebydevisingmeasuresthatmoreclearlydistinguishbetweenthese
nuancesamongmotivations.
Examiningtheconceptofsalienceinmoredetail,fromtheself-efficacycategory,
citizenswhobelievethatparticipationcangenerateadecreaseincommunitycrimesdisplay
agreaterfrequencyofparticipation.Inaddition,fromthecommunityconditionscategory,
thosewhoperceivecrimeproblemstobemoreseverearemorelikelytoengagemore
frequently.Thisatteststotheroleofperceptionsaboutcrimeratherthanactualexperience
withcrimevictimizationinmotivatingcitizenstoactivelyparticipate.Itconfirmsthenotion
thatsalienceoftheserviceisasignificantmotivatingfactor,andmorebroadly,suggeststhe
importanceofinformationdistributionandraisingawarenessabouthowcitizeninput
matters(ThomsenandJakobsen2015).
Finally,thesignificanceofseveralcontrolvariablessuchasthepresenceofchildren,
homeownership,anddurationofresidenceconfirmpriorstudiesaboutvolunteeringin
general.Theresultsindicatethatthepresenceofchildrencanfunctionasaconstraintwhich
increasestheopportunitycostoftime,andthereforethosewhohavechildrenwill
participatelessfrequently.Meanwhile,homeownershipanddurationofresidenceconfirms
notionsaboutsocialcohesionandstability.Lowlevelsofmobilitycaninstillasenseof
attachmentandenhancesocialcohesion,providinganincentivetobeinvolvedin
communityaffairsandtovolunteerincoproductioninitiatives(Marschall2004).Theresults
ofthisstudyprovidefurtherindicationthatcommunitycohesionandstabilitycanincrease
thedegreetowhichcitizensparticipatemoreactively.
Severalmethodologicalshortcomingsrequirementioning.Onelimitationisthatthe
resultsareconfinedtotherealmoflawenforcementandpublicsafety,andsooneshould
282
becautiousingeneralizingtheresultstootherservicedomains.Forexample,duetothe
highrisknatureoflawenforcementservices,themajorityofcitizenpatrolmembersconsist
ofmales,whereasotherpublicservicessuchaschildcareordomesticviolenceprevention
maytargetwomen.Inaddition,sincetheresponsesarederivedfrommembersinvolvedin
anexistingactivity,non-participantsarenotincludedsothattheresponsesmaybebiased.
Forinstance,participantsmaybedrivenbycertaintypesofmotivationsuniquetocitizen
patrols.Second,thestudyisconductedinanon-Westernsetting,limitingthescopeof
findingstoSouthKorea,andinparticular,toasinglemetropolitancity.Thecultural
tendencytowardscollectivevaluesisanimportantpointtokeepinmindwhenstudying
motivationstoparticipateinthepublicsector.Third,citizenpatrolsconsistofanorganized
activitythatisdifferentfrommoreindividualformsofcoproductionwhereusersdirectly
consumetheservices,andindividualsinsuchcapacitiesmaycoproducefordifferent
underlyingreasons.Finally,onemaypointouttheproblemofcommonsourcebiaswhichis
causedbytwovariablesdisplayingmeasurementerrorduetoacommonmethodsuchas
beingderivedfromasinglesurvey(FaveroandBullock2015).However,thedependent
variableisnotaperceptualmeasurebutratherareportedbehavior(frequency)concerning
respondents’volunteeractivities.Recallbiascouldstillconstituteanissue,butaslongas
performanceisnotanentirelysubjectivemeasure,thencommonsourcebiasconstitutes
lessofanissueforthisstudy.
Overall,thebenefitofaninternationalstudyisthatitappliesthesametheoriesand
researchquestionsconcerningmotivationstocoproduceinadifferentsetting,broadening
ourunderstandingofhowcoproductionvariesacrossnationalcontexts.Ifsupportedby
additionalresearch,theseimplicationscanprovidevaluableinformationforpublic
managersintermsofdistinguishingbetweendifferentmanagerialstrategiesforrecruiting
283
citizenstocoproduceaswellastheretention,coordination,andsupervisionofthosewho
areactivelyinvolvedinorganizedcoproductionprograms.Inparticular,thefactthatthose
whoaremoreactiveintheorganizationtendtobedrivenbyadesiretoimproveservice
qualityi.e.,enhancecommunitysafety,providescrucialinformationformanagerstouse.
Gettingcitizensinvolvedinthefirstplaceisanimportanttaskinandofitself.
However,oncecitizensarerecruitedandbecomeinvolvedmoreactivelyincoproducinga
service,themanagerialactivitiesofdesigningprogramsthatpromptcitizenstobemore
activeandtoretaintheminthelongrunmayrequiredifferentorganizationalobjectivesand
incentives.Inparticular,thesemanagementactivitiespertaintoissuesoflong-term
sustainabilityandcontinuousinnovationofexistingprograms.Butmotivationsaremutually
supportive,andevenifgreaterfrequencyofparticipationiscloselylinkedwithonetypeof
benefit,othermotivationsmustbeconsideredintandeminordertosustaincoproduction
activitiesinthelongrun.Futureresearchcouldbuilduponthesepointsbyexploring
motivationsbehindactivecitizenparticipationinotherformsofcoproducingpublicsafety,
inothercountries,and/orotherpolicydomainssothatdifferentmanagerialstrategiescan
betailoredtodifferentformsofcoproduction.
Notes
1.www.elis.go.kr.“EnhancedLocalLawsandRegulationsInformationSystem(ELIS)”
2.www.kossda.or.kr/eng/index_kossda.asp
3.Thesurveydoesnotcontainaresponserateasthesurveyswerecollectedthrough
conveniencesamplingmethod.
284
References
Alford,John.2002.“Whydopublic-sectorclientscoproduce?Towardacontingencytheory.”
Administration&Society34(1):32–56.
Amna,Erik.2010.“Active,passive,orstand-bycitizens?Latentandmanifestpolitical
participation.”In:Amna,Erik.(ed.),NewFormsofCitizenParticipation:Normative
Implications.Nomos:Baden-Baden,pp.191–203.
Bovaird,Tony.2007.“Beyondengagementandparticipation:Userandcommunity
coproductionofpublicservices.”Publicadministrationreview,67(5),846-860.
Bovaird,Tony,andElkeLoeffler.2013.“We’reallinthistogether:harnessinguserand
communityco-productionofpublicoutcomes.”UniversityofBirmingham,Instituteof
LocalGovernmentStudies.June2013.
Brandsen,Taco,andMarliesHoningh.2015.“DistinguishingDifferentTypesof
Coproduction:AConceptualAnalysisBasedontheClassicalDefinitions.”Public
AdministrationReview,76(3):427-435.
Brewer,GeneA.2003.“BuildingSocialCapital:CivicAttitudesandBehaviorofPublic
Servants.”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,13(1):5–26.
Brudney,Jeffrey.1989.“Usingco-productiontodeliverservices.”InJ.Perry(Ed.),Handbook
ofpublicadministration.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Brudney,Jeffrey.1990.“TheAvailabilityofVolunteers:ImplicationsforLocalGovernments.”
AdministrationandSociety,21(4):413-424.
Choi,SunWoo.2001.“AnApproachtotheTheoryofCo-productioninPoliceService.”
KoreanAcademyofPublicSafetyandCriminalJustice,11:375-411.
285
Choi,Kwan,andJu-lakLee.2016.“Citizenparticipationincommunitysafety:acomparative
studyofcommunitypolicinginSouthKoreaandtheUK.”PolicingandSociety,26(2):165-
184.
Clary,E.Gil,MarkSnyder,andArthurStukas.1996.“Volunteers’Motivations:Findingsfrom
aNationalSurvey.”NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,25:485-505.
Clary,E.Gil,MarkSnyder,RobertD.Ridge,JohnCopeland,ArthurA.Stukas,JulieHaugen,
andPeterMiene.1998.“UnderstandingandAssessingtheMotivationsofVolunteers:A
FunctionalApproach.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74:1516-1530.
Dekker,Paul,andLoekHalman.2003.“Volunteeringandvalues:Anintroduction.”In:
Dekker,Paul,andLoekHalman.(eds).TheValuesofVolunteering:Cross-cultural
Perspectives.NewYork:KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers,pp.1–17.
Dobrin,Adam,andRossWolf.2016.“Whatisknownandnotknownaboutvolunteer
policingintheUnitedStates.”InternationalJournalofPoliceScienceandManagement,
18(3):220-227.
Favero,Nathan,andJustinB.Bullock.2015.“How(Not)toSolvetheProblem:AnEvaluation
ofScholarlyResponsestoCommonSourceBias.”JournalofPublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory,25:285-308.
Ferris,JamesM.1988.“TheUseofVolunteersinPublicServiceProduction:SomeDemand
andSupplyConsiderations.”SocialScienceQuarterly,69(1):2-23.
Fledderus,Joost,andMarliesHoningh.2016.“Whypeopleco-producewithinactivation
services:Thenecessityofmotivationandtrust–aninvestigationofselectionbiasesina
municipalactivationprogrammeintheNetherlands.”InternationalReviewof
286
AdministrativeSciences,82(1):69-87.
Hwang,HyunRak.2011.“AStudyofLawPolicyforPoliceVolunteerEnactment.”Hanyang
LawReview,22(4):435-460.
Jung,Yoonsu.1994.“Co-productionofPolicingServicesandPolicyDirections.”TheKorean
AssociationforPolicystudies,3(1):85-106.
Kim,In.1997.“EffectsofCitizenCoproductiononPoliceServiceOutcomesinPusan.”The
KoreanAssociationforPublicAdministration,31(4):77-94.
Kim,SeungHyun,andSangmookKim.2016.“SocialDesirabilityBiasinMeasuringPublic
ServiceMotivation.”InternationalPublicManagementJournal,19(3):293-319.
Kristensen,Nicolai,LotteBoghAndersen,andLeneH.Pedersen.2011.“PublicService
Efficacy.”InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration,35(14):947-958.
Lee,Seong-sik2001.“AnEmpiricalStudyonParticipationinCitizenPatrolandPolice
Recommendations.”HyeongsaJungchaekYeongoo,12(3):111-137.
Lee,JinaandEugapHwang.2009.“FactorsAffectingCitizens’CommitmenttoVolunteer
PatrolActivities.”KoreanJournalofSocialScience,12(2):205-228.
Lee,Youngnam.2012.“AStudyontheStrategiesforStrengtheningthevoluntarynight
guardsorganizationalandoperationalsupport.”ThePoliceScienceJournal,7(2):363-382.
(KoreaCitationIndex:KCI)
Long,J.Scott,andJeremyFreese.2006.RegressionModelsforCategoricalDependent
VariablesUsingStata.2nded.CollegeStation,TX:StataPress.
287
Marschall,MelissaJ.2004.“CitizenParticipationandtheNeighborhoodContext:ANew
LookattheCoproductionofLocalPublicGoods”PoliticalResearchQuarterly,57(2):231-
244.
Min,HyungDong.2014.“ComparativeAnalysisonLegislativeBillsanditsLegislation
OutlinesregardingInstallationandOperationoftheVoluntaryCrimePrevention
Community.”TheKoreanAssociationofPoliceScienceReview,48:63-91.
Oh,Yoonsung.2000.“AStudyonCommunityResidentsParticipationinCrimePrevention
Activity.”KoreaSecurityScienceAssociation,3(1):175-204.
Pandey,SandeyK.,BradleyE.Wright,andDonaldP.Moynihan.2008.“PublicService
MotivationandInterpersonalCitizenshipBehaviorinPublicOrganizations:Testinga
PreliminaryModel.”InternationalPublicManagementJournal,11(1):89–108.
Parks,RogerB.,PaulaC.Baker,LarryKiser,RonaldOakerson,ElinorOstrom,Vincent
Ostrom,StephenL.Percy,MarthaB.Vandivort,GordonP.Whitaker,andRickWilson.
1981.“ConsumersasCo-ProducersofPublicServices.SomeInstitutionalandEconomic
Considerations.”PolicyStudiesJournal,9:7pp1001–11.
Parrado,Salvador,GreggG.VanRyzin,TonyBovaird,andElkeLoffler.2013.“Correlatesof
Coproduction:EvidenceFromaFive-NationSurveyofCitizens.”InternationalPublic
ManagementJournal,16(1):85-112.
Percy,StephenL.1978.“ConceptualizingandMeasuringCitizenCo-Productionof
CommunitySafety.”PolicyStudiesJournal,7(s1):486-293.
Percy,StephenL.1987.“CitizenInvolvementinCoproducingSafetyandSecurityinthe
Community.”PublicProductivityReview,10(4):83-93.
288
Perry,JamesL.,andAnnieHondeghem.2008.MotivationinPublicManagement.TheCallof
PublicService.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Perry,JamesL,andLoisR.Wise.1990.“TheMotivationalBasesofPublicService.”Public
AdministrationReview,50(3):367-373.
Pestoff,Victor.2012.“Co-ProductionandThirdSectorSocialServicesinEurope”,inPestoff,
Victor,TacoBrandsen,andB.Verschuere(eds),NewPublicGovernance,theThirdSector
andCo-Production.NewYork,NY:Routledge,pp13–34.
Pestoff,Victor.2014.“CollectiveActionandtheSustainabilityofCo-Production.”Public
ManagementReview,16(3):383-401.
Putnam,RobertD.1993.MakingDemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModernItaly.
Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Reed,PaulB.,andL.KevinSelbee.2003.“DoPeopleWhoVolunteerHaveaDistinctive
Ethos?ACanadianStudy”,inP.DekkerandL.Halman(eds),TheValuesofVolunteering.
Cross-CulturalPerspectives.NewYork,NY:KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers,pp91–
109.
Ren,Ling,Jihong“Solomon”Zhao,NicholasP.Lovrich,andMichaelJ.Gaffney.2006.
“Participationcommunitycrimeprevention:whovolunteersforpolicework?”Policing:
AnInternationalJournalofPoliceStrategies&Management.29(3):464-481.
Rosentraub,MarkS.,andKarenS.Harlow.1983.“Public/PrivateRelationsandService
Delivery:TheCoproductionofPersonalSafety.”PolicyStudiesJournal,11(3):445-457.
289
Rosentraub,MarkS.,andElaineB.Sharp.1981.“ConsumersasProducersofSocialServices:
Co-productionandtheLevelofSocialServices.”SouthernReviewofPublic
Administration,4(4):502–39.
Rosentraub,MarkS.,andRobertWarren.1987.“CitizenParticipationintheProductionof
UrbanServices.”PublicProductivityReview,41:75-88.
Sharp,ElaineB.1980.“TowardaNewUnderstandingofUrbanServicesandCitizen
Participation:TheCoproductionConcept.”MidwestReviewofPublicAdministration,
14(2):105-118.
Sharp,ElaineB.1984.“Citizen-DemandMakingintheUrbanContext.”AmericanJournalof
PoliticalScience,28:4pp654–70.
Siegel,RichardA.,andGilbertB.Sundeen.1986.“TheUsesofVolunteersbyPolice.”Journal
ofPoliceScienceandAdministration,14:49-61.
Smith,DavidH.1994.“DeterminantsofVoluntaryAssociationParticipationand
Volunteering:ALiteratureReview.”NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,23:243-
263.
Son,Neung-su.2007.“AStudyonco-productioninpoliceserviceofthepatroldivision
system.”KoreanAssociationforPolicySciences,11(2):79-106.
Sundeen,GilbertB.,andRichardA.Sundeen.1986.“VolunteeringinMunicipalPolice
Departments:SomeHypothesesonPerformanceImpacts.”PublicProductivityReview,
10(2):77-92.
Sundeen,RichardA.1988.“ExplainingParticipationinCoproduction:AStudyof
Volunteers.”SocialScienceQuarterly,69(3):547-568.
290
Steen,Trui.2006.“PublicSectorMotivation:IsThereSomethingtoLearnfromtheStudyof
Volunteerism?”PublicPolicyandAdministration,21(1):49–62.
Thomsen,MetteK.,andMortenJakobsen.2015.“InfluencingCitizenCoproductionby
SendingEncouragementandAdvice:AFieldExperiment.”InternationalPublic
ManagementJournal,18(2):286-303.
Timpone,RichardJ.1998.“Structure,Behavior,andVoterTurnoutintheUnitedStates.”
TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,92(1):145–58.
VanEijk,C.J.A.,andTruiSteen.2014.“WhyPeopleCo-produce:Analyzingcitizens’
perceptionsonco-planningengagementinhealthcareservices.”PublicManagement
Review,16(3):358-382.
VanEijk,C.J.A.,andTruiSteen.2016.“Whyengageinco-productionofpublicservices?
Mixingtheoryandempiricalevidence.”InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,
82(1):28-46.
VanRyzin,GreggG.2007.‘‘PiecesofaPuzzle:LinkingGovernmentPerformance,Citizen
Satisfaction,andTrust.’’PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,30(4):521–535.
VanRyzin,GreggG.2011.‘‘Outcomes,Process,andTrustofCivilServants.’’JournalofPublic
AdministrationResearchandTheory,21(4):745–760.
Verschuere,Bram,TacoBrandsen,andVictorPestoff.2012.“Co-Production:TheStateof
theArtinResearchandtheFutureAgenda.”InternationalSocietyofThirdSector
Research23(4):1083-1101.
291
Wehrman,MichaelM.,andJosephDeAngelis.2011.“CitizenWillingnesstoParticipatein
Police-CommunityPartnerships:ExploringtheInfluenceofRaceandNeighborhood
Context.”PoliceQuarterly,14(1):48-69.
Williams,Richard.2006.“Gologit2:GeneralizedOrderedLogit/PartialProportionalOdds
ModelsforOrdinalDependentVariables.”StataJournal6(1):58–85.
Wolf,Ross,StephenT.Holmes,andCarolJones.2016.“Utilizationandsatisfactionof
volunteerlawenforcementofficersintheofficeoftheAmericansheriff:anexploratory
nationwidestudy.”PolicePracticeandResearch,17(5):448-462.
292
Table1.NumberofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolOrganizations,Volunteers,andAmountofFundsAllocatedaccordingtoMajorMetropolitanCityorProvince
City/ProvinceNumberof
Organizations
Numberof
Volunteers
LocalGovt.funding
(indollars)
RatiooffundstoTotal
Total 3,917 100,517 12,384,518 100%
Seoula 450 10,995 1,189,478 9.60%
Busana 244 4,562 113,658 0.92%
Daegua 175 4,238 41,200 0.33%
Inchona 122 2,968 40,069 1.13%
Gwangjua 66 1,222 11,143 0.09%
Daejeona 144 2,692 46,262 0.37%
Ulsana 68 2,183 208,099 1.68%
Kyeonggibc 518 15,819 2,764,563 22.32%
Kangwonb 241 7,537 1,595,382 12.88%
Chungbukb 181 4,835 850,163 6.86%
Chungnamb 392 9,396 1,337,162 10.80%
Cheonbukb 287 8,587 1,019,229 8.23%
Cheonnamb 307 7,133 1,062,298 8.58%
Kyeongbukb 351 8,824 1,134,418 9.16%
Kyeongnamb 347 8,785 868,348 7.01%
Chaejub 24 741 3,048 0.02%
Source:AdaptedfromMin(2014)AsofSep.2012aMetropolitancitybProvincecTheoverwhelmingproportionoffundsdevotedtoKyeonggiprovinceisduetothepopulationfiguresat13million(asof2015),whichisapproximatelyonefourthoftheentireKoreanpopulation.
Table2.ContributionofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolstoLawEnforcementPerformance
RegionCriminalApprehensions Custody Reporting
ofCrimeTotal Violent Burglary Assault Other Incidents Persons
Total 614 0 10 147 457 7,304 9,883 5,854
Seoula 6 0 2 0 4 175 191 196
Busana 12 0 1 2 9 114 153 123
Daegula 14 0 1 0 13 45 80 42
Inchonla 3 0 1 1 1 13 21 44
Gwangjua 45 0 1 24 20 51 73 46
Daejeona 1 0 1 0 0 8 8 2
293
Ulsana 1 0 0 0 1 94 115 139
Kyeonggib 324 0 1 118 205 5,500 7,147 4,106
Kangwonb 2 0 0 0 2 34 54 1
Chungbukb 2 0 1 0 1 235 164 4
Chungnamb 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 14
Cheonbukb 23 0 0 2 21 38 92 82
Cheonnamb 1 0 0 0 1 67 128 66
Kyeongbukb 13 0 0 0 13 615 881 277
Kyeongnamb 167 0 1 0 166 306 756 707
Chaejub 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 5
Source:AdaptedfromMin(2014).AsofSep.2012aMetropolitancitybProvince
Table3.DescriptiveStatistics
Variables Min Median Mean MaxStdDev
Frequencyofparticipationinpatrolactivities 0 4 3.83 6 1.12
Numberofhoursspentduringsinglepatrolactivity 1 3 2.94 5 0.91
Reasonsforparticipationincitizenpatrols
Toprotectmyselfandfamilymembers 1 3 2.82 9 0.89
Tosocializewithlocalresidents 1 3 2.76 9 0.79
Tomaintainthesafetyofmycommunity 1 3 3.37 9 0.68
Toassistlocalpoliceactivities 1 3 3.04 9 0.84
Self-efficacy(impactofparticipation)
Decreaseincommunitycrimes 1 3 2.93 4 0.64
Improvedrelationshipbetweenresidentsandpolice 1 3 2.64 9 0.75
CommunityConditions
Degreeofseverityofcrimes 1 4 3.83 5 0.86
Victimofcrimeduringpast2years 1 1 1.12 2 0.33
Satisfactionwithpoliceactivitiesinpreventingcrime? 1 2 2.22 4 0.69
Controls
Age 26 46 46.46 66 6.67
Levelofeducation 1 3 3.20 9 0.93
Presenceofchildren 1 2 1.95 2 0.22
Typeofresidence 1 1 1.50 9 0.79
294
Durationofresidence(inyears) 0 15 15.85 58 10.03
Table4.FrequencyofParticipationinCitizenPatrolActivities
Frequency Percentage*
Everyday 4%
Twiceaweek 23%
Onceaweek 41%
Onceevery15days 18%
Onceamonth 11%
Lessthanonceamonth 1%
Don’tknow/noresponse 1%
Totalnumberofrespondents 450
*Responseswereroundedtoremovedecimals
295
Table5.MainReasonforBeingCurrentlyActiveinCitizenPatrols
Reasoning Percentage
Liketosocializewithotherpatrolmembers 50.23%
Becamemoreacquaintedwithotherlocalresidentsandpolice 21.46%
Maintaincommunitysafety 10.96%
Generalsenseofvolunteering 7.76%
Forthesakeofdoingso(reluctantly) 4.11%
Receiveassociatedbenefits(i.e.,exemptionfromreservetraining) 0.23%
Addressteendelinquency 0.23%
SomethingIwantedtodo(positivewillingness) 0.68%
Socialcommitment/responsibility 0.91%
Other 3.42%
Totalnumberofrespondents 450
Table6.SeverityofCrimeProblems
Responsescale Percentage
Notsevereatall 1%
Somewhatsevere 8%
Average 15%
Moderatelysevere 58%
Verysevere 18%
Totalnumberofrespondents 450
*Responseswereroundedtoremovedecimals
Table7.Satisfactionwithpoliceactivitiesinpreventingcrime
Responsescale Percentage
Notsufficientatall 11%
Somewhatinsufficient 59%
Moderatelysufficient 26%
Highlysufficient 4%
Totalnumberofrespondents 450
*Responseswereroundedtoremovedecimals
296
Table8.VictimofCrimeDuringPast2Years
Responsescale Percentage
Yes 12%
No 88%
Totalnumberofrespondents 450
*Responseswereroundedtoremovedecimals
297
Table9.OrderedLogisticRegressionofFrequencyofParticipationinCitizenPatrols
VariablesCoefficient
(RobustSE)
%Δ
OddsRatio
Material,Solidary,Expressive,andPSM
Toprotectmyselfandfamilymembers 0.15(0.26) -4.03
Tosocializewithlocalresidents -0.07(0.13) -10.52
Tomaintaincommunitysafety 0.29(0.22)** 44.89
Toassistlocalpoliceactivities -0.21(0.12)* -17.89
Self-efficacy(impactofparticipation)
Decreaseincommunitycrimes 0.46(0.21)*** 103.61
Improvedrelationshipbetweenresidentsandpolice -0.26(0.13)** -19.61
CommunityConditions
Degreeofseverityofcrimes 0.21(0.10)** 23.64
Victimofcrimeduringpast2years -0.29(0.28) -28.61
Satisfactionwithpoliceactivitiesinpreventingcrime 0.16(0.15) 18.46
Controls
Age -0.02(0.02) -1.96
Levelofeducation -0.05(0.09) -5.66
Presenceofchildren -1.35(0.48)*** -73.52
Homeownership 0.24(0.12)** 29.38
Durationofresidence(inyears) 0.03(0.01)*** 2.84
Waldchi-square=70.45;N=449;R-square=0.05
*p<0.1,**p<0.05,***p<0.01
298
Table10.MarginalEffects
Participationincitizenpatrols:1=lessthanonceamonth;2=onceamonth;3=onceevery15days;4=onceaweek;5=twiceaweek;6=everyday
VariablesResponseCategories
1 2 3 4 5 6
Reasonsforparticipationincitizenpatrols
Toprotectmyselfandfamilymembers 0.000 0.003 0.005 -0.001 -0.006 -0.001
Tosocializewithlocalresidents 0.001 0.009 0.012 -0.002 -0.018 -0.003
Toensurecommunitysafety -0.004 -0.030 -0.041 0.008 0.058 0.012
Toassistlocalpoliceactivities 0.002 0.016 0.022 -0.004 -0.031 -0.006
Self-efficacy(impactofparticipation)
Decreaseincommunitycrimes -0.007 -0.058 -0.078 0.014 0.112 0.022
Improvedresident/policerelationship 0.002 0.018 0.024 -0.004 -0.034 -0.007
CommunityConditions
Degreeofseverityofcrimes -0.002 -0.017 -0.023 0.004 0.033 0.007
Victimofcrimeduringpast2years 0.004 0.027 0.037 -0.007 -0.053 -0.010
Satisfiedwithpoliceinpreventingcrime -0.002 -0.014 -0.019 0.003 0.027 0.005
Controls
Age 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 -0.003 -0.001
Levelofeducation 0.001 0.005 0.006 -0.001 -0.009 -0.002
Presenceofchildren 0.014 0.108 0.146 -0.027 -0.209 -0.041
Homeownership -0.003 -0.021 -0.028 0.005 0.041 0.008
Durationofresidence(inyears) 0.000 -0.002 -0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001
299
WhatDoesVoluntarySectorStudiesOfferResearchonCoproduction?(BenjaminandBrudney)
LehnM.BenjaminandJeffreyL.Brudney
Abstract
Thischapteraddressesthequestionofhowliteratureonthevoluntarysectorcan
informresearchoncoproduction.Becausethissubstantialliteratureencompasseshalfa
centuryofinquiry,wecannotsummarizethisworkortheburgeoningstudyofcoproduction
here.Insteadthechapteridentifiesandpresentsthreethemesfromthevoluntarysector
literatureofespecialinteresttocoproductionscholars.First,thisbodyofresearchis
concernedintenselywiththemotivationsofindividualstovolunteertheirtime,whichmay
haveimplicationsforcoproductionsincethisactivity,too,requiresvoluntaryeffortonthe
partofservice-users.Second,researchonvoluntarysectororganizationssuggeststhatthe
investmentoftimeandeffortbythosewhovolunteerhasconsequencesnotonlyforthe
policyorserviceoutcomesachievedbutalsoforthedevelopmentandenhancementof
citizenship.Inthissensewemightconsiderhowthecoproductionprocesseffectsnotonly
policyoutcomesbutthedevelopmentofcitizenship.Third,weconsidertheorganizational
conditionsthatsupportcoproduction.Hereweexaminehowgovernmentfundingandthe
requirementsnormallyattachedtoitforvoluntarysectororganizationsmightworkto
constrainorinvigoratecoproductionprocesses.
300
Introduction
CoproductionwasintroducedintheUnitedStatesduringthe1970sandearly1980s
todescribetheactiveinvolvementofservicerecipientsintheservicedeliveryprocess(e.g.,
Brown1976;BrudneyandEngland1983;GersunyandRosengren1971;Ostrometal1973;
Parksetal.,1981;Whitaker1976).Althoughresearchonthetopicseemedtolanguishin
thelate1980stotheearly2000s,theconceptofcoproductionhasfoundnewcurrency
amongresearchersinpublicadministration,particularlyintheUnitedKingdomandEurope
(Alford2009;Pestoff,BrandsenandVesrchuere2013).Thisresearchhasconsidered
questionssuchas,whatarethecostsandbenefitsofsupplementingemployees’service-
deliveryactivitywithcitizeneffort,whattypesofcoproductionleadtobetteroutcomes,and
whatmotivatescitizenstocoproduce?
Morerecentlyresearchershaveturnedtheirattentiontovoluntarysector
organizationstoconsiderhowserviceusersinthesesettingsactivelyparticipateinthe
servicedeliveryprocess.(e.g.,BenjaminandCampbell2015;PestoffandBrandsen2008;
Prentice2006;Vamstad2012).Thisliteraturehasexaminedsuchquestionsas:Are
voluntarysectororganizationsmoreablethangovernmentagenciestosupportcitizen
coproduction?Whataretherisksofrelyingmoreextensivelyonthevoluntaryparticipation
ofserviceuserstodeliverservicesinthesesettings?Whatdoescoproductionrequireof
paidstaffinvoluntaryorganizations?Withtheseorganizationsplayinganincreasingly
centralroleindeliveringpublicservices,atreatmentofcoproductioninthecontextof
voluntarysectororganizationsistimely.
Accordingly,thischapterconsidershowtheresearchfromvoluntarysectorstudies,
whichatthiswritingspansnearlyhalfacentury,caninformourunderstandingof
301
coproduction.Wedefinecoproductionastheactiverolethatserviceuserscanplayinthe
servicedeliveryprocess.ThisdefinitionfollowsBrandsenandHoningh’sdefinitionof
coproductioninthisvolume,astheystatethatcoproductioniscitizens’directinputintothe
productionprocessthataffectstheservicesindividuallyprovidedtothem.Weusetheterm
voluntarysectorandvoluntarysectorstudiestorefertoresearchaboutorganizationsthat
areneitherfor-profitnorpublic(government)agencies,includingprofessionalsocialservice
nonprofitsandgrassrootsorganizationswithnopaidstaff.Wereservethetermvolunteer
forindividualswhoarenotdirectservicerecipientsor“coproducers”butwhomayassistin
servicedeliverynonetheless.
Weorganizeourdiscussionaroundthreeprimarythemes:motivationfor
coproduction,capacityforcoproduction,andorganizationalconditionssupporting
coproduction.Throughoutourdiscussionweintegraterecentresearchoncoproductionin
thevoluntarysector,andwhereappropriatereferenceotherliterature.Weconcludewith
suggestionsforfurtherresearch.
VolunteerMotivationandCoproduction
Securingthevoluntaryparticipationofindividualstoaddresscommonproblemsisa
principalconcernofnonprofitorganizations.Withoutthebenefitoffundingthrougheither
taxation(government)orconventionalmarkettransactions(business),nonprofit
organizationsfindthemselvesperpetuallyinneedofgeneratingresourcestopursuetheir
missions.Oneoftheseresourcesisvoluntarylaborcontributedbycitizens.Inadditionto
the“time,talent,andtreasure”peopledevotetoparticipatingonboardsofdirectorsof
nonprofitorganizations,oftencalled“policyvolunteering,”citizensvolunteertheirtimeto
302
helpnonprofitscarryouttheirmissionsontheground,through“servicevolunteering”
activities,suchasassistingclientsorpaidstaff(Connors,2012).
ThelargestrepositoryofdataonvolunteeringistheUnitedStates.Accordingtothe
U.S.BureauofLaborStatistics(2017),one-quarteroftheU.S.civiliannon-institutional
populationage16andover(24.9percent)volunteeredintheyearendinginSeptember
2015(themostrecentyearforwhichdataareavailable):About62.6millionpeopledid
unpaidwork(exceptforexpenses)throughorforanorganizationatleastoncebetween
September2014andSeptember2015.Brudney(1990)estimatesthatbetween70and80
percentofallvolunteereffortgoestononprofitorganizations,andHagerandBrudney
(2004a,2004b)findthroughasurveyofanationallyrepresentativesampleofcharitiesthat
fourinfivenonprofitorganizationsuseservicevolunteers.Althoughnoonecountrycanbe
representativeofthevolumeanddiversityofvolunteeringworldwide,thelevelof
volunteeringbothintheUnitedStatesandcross-nationallyissubstantial(UnitedNations
Volunteers,2015).
Giventhislargeendowmentofunpaidlabor,themotivationsofpeopletodonate
theirtimeisacentralissueandconcernforpractitionersandscholarsinnonprofit
organizations.Howmightthesemotivationsrelatetothewillingnessofthosereceiving
servicestotakeongreaterresponsibilityvoluntarilyinproducingtheservicestheyreceive,
orcoproduction?Empiricalandconceptualresearchprovideusefulclues.
Sevensurveysbasedonnationallyrepresentativesamplehavebeenconductedon
themotivationsofvolunteersintheUnitedStates(Brudney,2016).Although,lamentably,
thesurveysmayhavebecomedated,theconsistencyoftheresponsesofthevolunteers
acrossthesurveyssuggestthatthesemotivationsareenduring.Becauseanactivityas
303
complexasgivingtimemayhavemanyrootsormotivations,volunteerscouldselect
multiplereasonsforthisactivity;thus,thepercentagesinanyonesurveysumtomorethan
100percent.
Byfar,thesurveyresponsesgivenmostfrequentlybyU.S.volunteersexpressing
theirreasonsforvolunteeringare:“doingsomethinguseful”andto“helpotherpeople,”
statedbyasmanyas60–70percentofvolunteers,especiallyinthemorerecentnational
surveys.Thenextmostcommonmotivationofthevolunteerspertainsmorecentrallyto
thebenefitsthatvolunteersmayreceivethroughthisactivity:“enjoydoingvolunteerwork”
or“interestintheactivityorwork,”statedbyabout35–40percentofvolunteers.Asense
ofobligationisalsopresentamongasizablegroupofvolunteers:“Religiousconcerns”ora
“senseofduty”commandaround30percentofvolunteers.Similarly,havinga“friendor
relativewhoreceivedservice,”whichmayengenderasenseofobligation,wasareason
statedby17percent.
Althoughthesesurveysmayactivatebiasesinresponse,forexample,towardsocial
desirabilityandagainstrevealingself-servingreasonsforvolunteering,relativelyfewofthe
volunteersacrossthesevensurveysprofessedself-interestedmotivationsthatmightbe
mostgermanetoengagingcitizensreceivingservicesincoproduction,suchas“volunteer
receivedservice”(9–17%)andvolunteeringisa“learningexperience”(8–16%).
Ontheconceptuallevel,Claryandcolleagues(ClaryandSnyder,1991;Claryetal.,
1998)haveproposedtheVolunteerFunctionsInventory(VFI)tocapturethemotivations
thatmayanimatevolunteersintoaction.Voluminousresearchhasusedordiscussedthe
VFI(forarecentreviewseeAshhar,2015).TheVFIconsistsofsixdimensions:TheValues
functionexpressesthatthepersonisvolunteeringinordertoexpressoractonimportant
304
values,suchashumanitarianismandhelpingthelessfortunate.TheUnderstanding
functionexpressesthatthevolunteerisseekingtolearnmoreabouttheworldand/or
exerciseskillsthatareoftenunused.TheEnhancementfunctionprovidesthattheindividual
isseekingtogrowanddeveloppsychologicallythroughinvolvementinvolunteering.The
Careerfunctionproposesthatthevolunteerhasthegoalofgainingcareer-related
experiencethroughvolunteering.TheSocialfunctionconceivesthatvolunteeringcanallow
apersontostrengthensocialrelationships.Finally,theProtectivefunctionrecognizesthat
theindividualmayusevolunteeringtoreducenegativefeelings,suchasguilt,ortoaddress
personalproblems.
Contemporaryresearchaddsnuancetotheseearlierfindings.Hustinxand
Lammertyn(2003)proposethatvolunteeringisundergoingamajorchangeinstylefrom
“collective”to“reflexive.”Yet,scholarscontinuetoacceptandusetheVolunteerFunctions
Inventorytocomprehendandassessvolunteermotivations,althoughtheyfindthatthese
functionsarerelateddifferentiallytosuchfactorsasindividualwell-being,satisfactionwith
volunteering,andintentiontocontinuevolunteering(forexample,Stukasetal.2016).
AgainusingtheVFItounderstandandclassifyvolunteermotivations,Dunn,Chambers,and
Hyde(2016)investigatedthemotivationsforepisodicvolunteeringacrosssectors(sport,
tourism,events,healthandsocialwelfare)andfoundamorecomplexsetoffunctions
servedinthistypeofvolunteering(morethan80percentofthemotiveswereclassified
accordingtotheVFIfunctions,particularlyenhancement,valuesandsocialfunctions).
Otherresearchexaminesvolunteeringformally(throughanorganization)versusinformally
(alone);basedonrepresentativenationalsamplesoftheJapanesepublic,Mitani(2014)
foundthatwhilesocioeconomicresources(education)weremorestronglyrelatedtoformal
thantoinformalvolunteering,subjectivedispositionssuchasempathyandreligiousmind
305
wereessentialfacilitatorsofbothkindsofvolunteering.Researchhasalsoaddressedthe
differencesbetweenvolunteeringon-linethroughelectronicmediaversusofflineinmore
traditionalorganizationalsettingsinwhichthevolunteerisphysicallypresent;Ihm(2017)
reportsthatvolunteeringinonespherecancomplementvolunteeringintheothersphere.
Researchoncoproductionhasalsorevealeddiversemotivationsforparticipation,
althoughweshouldnotexpectthesemotivationstobeidenticaltothoseofvolunteers
sincecoproducersbenefitdirectlyfromtheservicestheyhelptoprovide.AccordingtoVan
EijkandSteen(2016,29),“Despitemanystudiesinthefield,weknowlittleaboutwhat
drivesindividualstoengageinco-production.”Theyproposeanintegrativemodelto
accountforthewillingnesstoengageincoproductionconsistingofthreesetsoffactors:
perceptionsofthecoproductiontaskandthecompetencytocontributetothepublic
servicedeliveryprocess,individualcharacteristics,andself-interestedandcommunity-
focusedmotivations.Inearlierresearchtoprovideanunderstandingof“WhyPeopleCo-
Produce”theseauthorsdrawontheliteraturesofcitizenparticipation,politicalefficacy,
volunteerism,publicservicemotivation,customerengagement,aswellascoproduction
(VanEijkandSteen2014).Theirreviewindicatesthat“whilespecificinsightsincitizens’
motivationsforco-productionisstilllimited”(p.362),individualcapacity,includinghuman
capitalandsocialcapital,andwillingness,comprisingbothself-centered(egoistic)and
community-oriented(pro-social)motivations,mighthelptoexplaincitizens’decisionsto
participateinco-production.FledderusandHoningh(2016)foundthatparticipantsin
activationservicesaremoremotivatedingeneralandhavehigherlevelsoftrustand
control,afindingtheyrelatetothepossibilityof“creaming,”i.e.,theselectiveparticipation
ofclientsincoproductionaccordingtothestrengthoftheirintrinsicmotivations.
306
LikeVanEijkandSteen(2014,2016),Alford(2002)conceivesofeliciting
coproductionasafunctionofincreasingcitizens’willingnessandabilitytocontribute;he
identifiesthekeymotivatorsforcoproductionassanctions,materialrewards,intrinsic
rewards,solidaryincentives,andnormativeappeals.InonestudyAlford(2002)observed
thatcitizensreceivingservicesaremotivatedbymaterial,solidarityandexpressive
incentives,aresultconfirmedbyPestoff(2008).ButAlfordalsofoundthatlow-income
servicerecipientsinworkforcedevelopmentprogramsnegotiatecomplexfeelingsof
hopelessnessandlackofconfidence,whichcomplicatetheirmotivation.Thisfindingis
substantiatedinabroadbodyofresearchinsocialpsychology,anthropologyandsociology
(e.g.,Mauss2002/1950,Gouldner1960;Nadler2014).Coupledwiththeliteratureon
volunteermotivation,thecoproductionliteraturesuggeststhatscholarsmightconsidera
morediversemixofmotivationsforcoproduction,andhowthesemotivationsmayvary
dependingontheextenttowhichservicerecipientsvolunteerandfeelconfidentabout
theirabilitytoengageincoproduction.
CapacityforCoproduction
DatingbacktothewritingsofdeTocquevilleinthe1830s,observersofvoluntary
organizationshavepointedoutthatcitizensdonotsimplyhelpsolvecommonproblems,
butasClemens(2006:207)pointsout,inworkingtosolvetheseproblemsindividuals
‘becomecitizens’:theyconceiveofthemselvesinpublicwaysandtheylearnskillsneeded
toparticipatemoreeffectivelyinpubliclife.Whatdoesthisunderstandingsuggestfor
scholarsofcoproduction?Althoughthevoluntarysectorliteraturehasprimarilyfocusedon
developingthecitizenshipcapacityofvolunteers,weextendthislogicheretosuggestthat
307
howdirectservicerecipientsareaskedtocoproducehasconsequencesnotonlyforservice
outcomesbutalsofortheircapacityascitizens.
Forexample,nonprofitmentalhealthclubhousesareorganizationswhere
individualswithmentalillnessworksidebyside,withpaidstafftoruntheorganization.The
firstclubhousewasstartedinthelate1940sandgrewoutofaneffortbyindividualswith
mentalillnesstoprovideaplaceofmutualsupportandanalternativetoinstitutionalization.
Asthesemembersworkwithstafftorunthehouse(e.g.,answertelephones,perform
administrativetasks,helppreparemeals,etc.),theyalsolearntodevelopcommonagendas,
workthroughconflict,consideranother’sviewpoints,dealwithotherpeople,andlead.This
experiencecaninturnfostersolidarityamongalargercommunityandrealizationofa
commoncause.Suchdevelopmentcanalsohelpsupportnormsofreciprocitythatmake
futurecollectiveactionpossibleandleadtogreaterengagementinpoliticallife,for
example,voting(Putnam1995).Inthisrespectvoluntaryorganizationsarenotonly
alternativesitesforcoproducingpubliclyfinancedservices,butalsotheyfunctionas
“schoolsofcoproduction,”toadaptaphrasefromdeTocqueville.
Fortheirpart,coproductionscholarshavecalledattentiontothefactthatcitizens
mustlearntocoproduce,andthatnotallcitizensareequallyequippedorpreparedtodoso
(seeJacobsenandEriksen2013andPrentice2006).Theseresearchershavealsopointedto
theimportanceofcoproductionforrevitalizingdemocracy,buttoourknowledgethis
researchhasnotconsideredthedevelopmentofserviceusersascitizens,asaseparateand
importantresult,alongsidedesiredpolicyoutcomes.Thevoluntarysectorliterature
suggeststhatcitizenshipdevelopmentisanimportantoutcomeforthoseparticipatingin
thesenotforprofit,non-governmentalorganizations.Althoughmostattentionbyvoluntary
308
sectorscholarshasbeengiventothecitizenshipdevelopmentofvolunteers,somerecent
literatureconsidersthecitizenshipoutcomeforthoseparticipatinginservices(SeeKarriem
andBenjamin2016,Small2009).Examiningthesetwodistinctoutcomesisalsoconsistent
withresearchonpolicyfeedback,whichhasfoundadirectrelationshipbetweenpolicy
designandcivicandpoliticalengagementbyservicerecipients(seeBruch,FerreeandSoss
2010;MettlerandSoss2004;Soss1996).
Butthevoluntarysectorliteraturealsosuggeststhatenhancedcapacityofcitizensis
notaforegoneconclusionofparticipation.Threeobservationsmaybeofparticularinterest
forscholarsofcoproduction.First,thisliteratureindicatesthatvoluntaryorganizationsare
morelikelytocultivatethesecitizenshipskillsandattitudeswhentheseorganizationsare
lessprofessionalizedandlessbureaucratic.Inotherwords,voluntaryorganizationsare
morelikelytocultivatetheseskillsandattitudeswhentheyprovidemoreopportunitiesfor
participation,andwhenthatparticipationcomeswithgreaterauthoritytomakedecisions
(Clemens2006:210).Second,thisliteraturesuggeststhatwecannotassumethatmore
participationisbetter,thatitleadstobetteroutcomes,democraticvaluesandenhanced
citizenshipcapacity.Theliteraturecontainsnumerousexamplesofvoluntaryorganizations
whichhaveenhancedsolidarityamongcitizensbutusedexclusionarypracticesthatresulted
inuncivilbehavior(Berman1997).Finally,thevoluntarysectorliteratureshowsthat
althoughparticipationcanleadtothedevelopmentofcivicskills,individualsdonot
necessarilyusetheskillstheyhavedevelopedtoparticipateinpubliclife.Forexample,
Eliasoph(1998)foundthatindividualsparticipatinginvoluntaryorganizationsavoided
talkingaboutpolitics,whichledtomoreapatheticbehavior.BrandsenandHelderman
(2012)reportedsimilarresultsintheirstudyofhousingcooperatives.
309
Becausemuchofthisdiscussioninvoluntarysectorstudieshasfocusedon
volunteers,notnecessarilyonserviceusers,thequestionforresearchersofcoproductionis
whatkindsoflessonsdoservice-userslearnintheservicedeliveryprocess?Whatdothey
learnabouttheircapacityandrolenotonlyasco-producersbutalsoascitizens?Andhow
doesthislearningchangewhenservice-usersparticipatetoagreaterorlesserdegreeor
engageinsometypesofservicerelatedactivitiesratherthanothers?
ConditionsforCoproduction
Thequestionofwhatconditionsmightsupportgreaterandmoreeffective
coproductiononthepartofthosereceivingserviceshasbeenacentralconcernforscholars
ofcoproductionsincethe1970s.InearlyresearchOstromandhercolleaguesfoundthat
decentralizedserviceprovisionprovidedmoreopportunitiesforcitizenstoengagewith
municipalpolice,whichresultedinenhancedneighborhoodsafety(Ostrometal1973).In
additiontothisservicearrangement,researchershaveidentifiedseveralotherconditions
thatcanaffectcoproduction,includingtheattitudesandskillsofprofessionalstaff,thesize
oftheorganization,andtheaccessibilityofservices(BovairdandLoffler2012;Pestoff2012).
Thevoluntarysectorliteraturealsoconsidershoworganizationalform/structurecan
constrainand/orfacilitateparticipationamongvolunteers,members,andclients.Asnoted
intheprevioussection,oneoftheprincipalfindingsofthisliteratureisthatthemore
professionalizedandbureaucratictheorganization,thelesslikelythattheorganizationwill
engageinparticipatorypracticeswithclientsandthebroadercommunity.Thisliterature
identifiesanumberofreasonsconsistentwiththefindingsinthecoproductionresearch,
310
includingstaffresistance,lackofdedicatedresourcestosupportsuchefforts,and
professionaljargon.(Benjamininpress).
Yetthisliteraturealsoshowsthatevenvoluntarysectororganizationsthatstartout
usingparticipatorypracticesmayeventuallyabandonthem.Infieldsasdiverseasdomestic
violence,communitydevelopmentandcommunityhealthcare,studieshaveshownhow
difficultitistomaintainparticipatorypracticesintheseorganizations(e.g.,seeHwangand
Powell2006;Stoecker1997;Wies2008).Althoughseveralfactorsmayleadtovoluntary
organizationsabandoningmoreparticipatorypractices,includingMichels’“ironlawof
oligarchy,”ofparticularinteresttocoproductionscholars,istheimpactofgovernment
funding.Ifweareinterestedinthecoproductionofpubliclyfinancedservices,whichare
increasinglydeliveredbyvoluntaryorganizations,howdoessuchfinancingaffect
coproductionintheseorganizations?
Whennonprofitsreceivefunding,particularlygovernmentfunding,theorganization
mustmeettheattachedaccountabilityrequirements.Studieshavefoundthatthese
requirementsleadtoorganizationalformalizationandareductioninresponsivenessto
servicerecipientsandthecommunitymorebroadly.Forexample,researchershavenoted
thatclientandcommunityengagementbecomeslimitedtoadvisorygroupsorboardsof
directors,whichoftenhavelittleinfluenceonorganizationaldecisionmaking(Smith2012);
otherstudiescorroboratethisfinding(e.g.,HwangandPowell2006;SmithandLipsky1993).
Recentcoproductionresearchlikewisesupportsthesefindings.Forexample,Vamstad
(2009)foundthatinmunicipalagenciesprovidingchildcarestaffsawthemselvesas
professionalexperts,andconsequentlyengagedparentslessinservicedelivery.Incontrast,
311
incooperativesprovidingthesameservicethestaffandparentsworkedside-bysideto
deliverchildcare.
Wecannottakethisconclusionforgranted,however.Otherresearchsuggeststhat
receiptofgovernmentfundingdoesnotinherentlyprecludemoreparticipatorypracticesin
voluntarysectororganizations.Forexample,Ospinaandhercolleagues(2002)foundthat
despitefundingrequirementsnonprofitsdofindwaystoengageclientsandremain
responsivetothem.LeRoux(2009)determinedthatgovernmentfundingwasassociated
withmoreparticipatorypracticesinnonprofithumanserviceorganizations;more
specifically,shereportsthatnonprofitsreceivinggovernmentfundingweremorelikelyto
haveclientsparticipateinworkgroupscomparedtononprofitsthatdidnotreceive
governmentfunding.Inherin-depthstudyoftwelvehumanserviceorganizations,elevenof
whichreceivedgovernmentfunding,Benjamin(inpress)foundthattheseorganizations
usedawidevarietyofstrategiestoreducebureaucraticandprofessionalauthorityand
increaseclientparticipationintheservicedeliveryprocess.Thesestrategiesincluded
reducingrules,allowingclientstochoosethestaffpersontheyworkedwith,usingpeer
basedlearningstrategiesandsupportingstafftobuildmoremutualrelationshipswith
participants.
Forcoproductionresearchersthisliteratureleadstotheconclusionthatwecannot
paintgovernmentfundingofvoluntaryorganizationswithabroadbrush.Forexample,
governmentcontractscomewithmorespecificrequirementsthangrants,whichmaymake
itmoredifficultforvoluntaryorganizationstohavetheflexibilitytheyneedtoengage
programandserviceparticipants(Salamon2002).Somegovernmentfinancingcomeswith
explicitrequirementsthatvoluntaryorganizationsdemonstrateresponsivenessand
312
accountabilitytoservicerecipients.Atthesametime,weneedtounderstandgovernment
fundingoftheseservicesinthelargernonprofitrevenuecontext.Forexample,
organizationsthatmatchpublicfundswithprivatedonationsmayfinditeasiertosustain
greaterserviceuserengagement,comparedtononprofitsthatreceiveamajorityof
governmentfunding.Inpartthisisbecauseindividualdonorsusuallydonotrequirespecific
reportsorrequirements.
Conclusion
Theliteratureonvoluntarysectorstudiesisextensive,andachapterofthislength
cannotdojusticetothisworkortotheburgeoningresearchoncoproduction.Instead,we
focusedonthreethemesfromthevoluntarysectorliteratureofinteresttocoproduction
scholars.First,wesuggestedthatmotivationsforcoproductionmayvarydependingonthe
extenttowhichthecitizenreceivingservicesalsovolunteers.Second,wesuggestedthat
theformandtypeofparticipationthatservicesrequireofrecipientshaveconsequencesnot
onlyforpolicyoutcomesbutalsoforcitizenshipoutcomes.Finally,inreviewingthe
conditionsthatsupportcoproduction,wefocusedonwhethergovernmentfundingandthe
resultingrequirementsattachedtothisfunding,supportorconstraincoproductionin
voluntarysectororganizations;theresultstodatearemixed.
Asresearchandpracticeoncoproductioncontinuestocrossdisciplinaryboundaries,
policydomains,andorganizationtypes,weseemanyareasthatcouldbenefitfromfurther
inquiry.Wesuggestfourbroadquestionsthatmightinformthecontributionofvoluntary
sectorstudiestoresearchoncoproduction:First,towhatextent,andinwhatways,might
coproductiondifferinvoluntaryorganizationsversusgovernmentagencies?Second,and
313
relatedly,canweviewcoproductionthroughtheseorganizationsas“laboratories”notonly
ofserviceoutcomesbutalsoofcitizenshipdevelopment?Third,howmightgovernment
funding,regulation,andevaluationofvoluntary,nonprofitorganizationsaffect
coproductionprocesses?Willsuchextrinsicinterestbygovernmentincoproduction
mediatedthroughtheseorganizationsdistractorevendisplacethemfromtheirpresumably
intrinsicinterestinandcommitmenttoclientparticipation?Finally,ifnonprofitsector
service-deliveryorganizationsaretosupportthecoproductionofprogramsandservice
participants,dostaffpossesstheappropriatebackgroundandtraining?Whatcurricular
changesmightbeneededinnonprofitmanagement(andrelated)educationprogramsto
supportorequipstaffmembersforthisresponsibility?
Inthischapterweconsideredhowtheresearchonvoluntarysectororganizations
notonlyfurthersourunderstandingofserviceusers’motivationtocoproduce,their
capacitytocoproduceandtheconditionsthatsupporttheircoproduction,butwealso
suggestthatthisresearchraisesnewquestionsforcoproductionscholars.Aswerelyon
manyvoluntarysectororganizationstohelpachievepublicoutcomesregardlessofwhether
theyaredeliveringpubliclyfinancedservices,weanticipatethattheresearchonthese
organizationswillbecomeevenmoreusefulforpublicmanagementscholarsinterestedin
coproduction.Intheendweseefarmoregenerativeresearchpossibilitiesfromfully
integratingtheresearchonvoluntarysectororganizationsandcoproductioninpublic
management.
References
314
Alford,J.2002.WhyDoPublic-SectorClientsCoproduce?TowardaContingencyTheory.
Administration&Society,34(1):32–56.
Alford,J.2009.EngagingPublicSectorClients:FromServiceDeliverytoCoproduction.U.K.
PalgraveMcMillian.
Ashhar,H.2015.TheVolunteerFunctionsInventory:ExaminationofDimension,Scale
ReliabilityandCorrelates.InternationalJournalofInnovativeandAppliedResearch,
3(4):52-64.AccessedMarch22,2017at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275886573_The_Volunteer_Functions_I
nventory_Examination_of_Dimension_Scale_Reliability_and_Correlates.
Benjamin,L.M.Inpress.ClientAuthorityinNonprofitHumanServiceOrganizations.
ChapterintheHandbookofCommunityMovementsandLocalOrganizations2nd
edition.EditedbyRamCnaanandCarlMilofsky.SpringerPublishing.
Benjamin,L.M.andD.C.Campbell.2015.NonprofitPerformance:Accountingforthe
AgencyofClients.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,44(5):988-1006.
Berman,S.1997.CivilSocietyandtheCollapseoftheWeimarRepublic.WorldPolitics,
49(3):401–29.
Bovaird,T.,andE.Loeffler.2012.FromEngagementtoCo-Production:TheContributionof
UsersandCommunitiestoOutcomesandPublicValue.Voluntas,23(4):1119–1138.
Brandsen,T.andJ.Helderman.2012.TheTrade-OffBetweenCapitalandCommunity:The
ConditionsforSuccessfulCoproductioninHousing.Voluntas,23(4):1139-1155.
315
Brown,M.K.1978.Theimpactofalternativeformsofcitizencontrolonpoliceorganization
andpolicediscretion.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly/JournalofVoluntary
ActionResearch,7(1-2):85-101.
Bruch,S.K.,M.M.FerreeandJ.Soss.2010.FromPolicytoPolity:Democracy,Paternalism,
andtheIncorporationofDisadvantagedCitizens.AmericanSociologicalReview,
75(2):205-226.
Brudney,J.L.(2016).DesigningandManagingVolunteerPrograms.Pages688-733inD.O.
Renz(ed.),TheJossey-BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadershipandManagement.
FourthEdition.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWileyandSons.
Brudney,J.L.(1990).FosteringVolunteerProgramsinthePublicSector:Planning,Initiating,
andManagingVoluntaryActivities.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Brudney,J.L.andR.E.England.1983.TowardaDefinitionoftheCoproductionConcept.
PublicAdministrationReview,43(1):59-65.
Clemens,E.2006.TheConstitutionofCitizens:PoliticalTheoriesofNonprofit
Organizations.Chapter9inPowell,W.W.andR.Steinberg(Eds).2006.The
NonprofitSector:AResearchHandbook.SecondEdition.YaleUniversityPress.
Clary,E.G.,andSnyder,M.(1991).Afunctionalanalysisofaltruismandpro-socialbehavior:
Thecaseofvolunteerism.ReviewofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,12:119–148.
Clary,E.G.,Snyder,M.,Ridge,R.D.,Copeland,J.,Stukas,A.A.,Haugen,J.,&Miene,P.
(1998).Understandingandassessingthemotivationsofvolunteers:Afunctional
approach.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74(6),1516-1530.
316
Connors,T.D.(ed.)(2012).TheVolunteerManagementHandbook:LeadershipStrategies
forSuccess;SecondEdition.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWileyandSons.
Dunn,J.;Chambers,S.K.;andHyde,M.K.2016.SystematicReviewofMotivesforEpisodic
Volunteering.Voluntas,27(1):425.
Eliasoph,N.1998.Avoidingpolitics:HowAmericansproduceapathyineverydaylife.
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Fledderus,J.,andHoningh,M.2016.Whypeopleco-producewithinactivationservices:the
necessityofmotivationandtrust–aninvestigationofselectionbiasesinamunicipal
activationprogrammeintheNetherlands.InternationalReviewofAdministrative
Sciences,82(1)69–87.
GouldnerA.1960.TheNormofReciprocity:APreliminaryStatement.American
SociologicalReview,25(2).
Hager,M.A.,andBrudney,J.L.2004a.BalancingAct:TheChallengesandBenefitsof
Volunteers.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute,December.
Hager,M.A.,andBrudney,J.L.2004b.VolunteerManagementPracticesandRetentionof
Volunteers.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute,June.
Hustinx,L.,andLammertyn,F.2003.CollectiveandReflexiveStylesofVolunteering:A
SociologicalModernizationPerspective.Voluntas,14(2):167-187.
Hwang,H.andW.W.Powell.2009.TheRationalizationofCharity:TheInfluencesof
ProfessionalismintheNonprofitSector.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly54:268-
298.
317
Ihm,J.2017.ClassifyingandRelatingDifferentTypesofOnlineandOfflineVolunteering.
Voluntas,28:400-419.
Jakobsen,M.2013.“CanGovernmentInitiativesIncreaseCitizenCoproduction?Resultsofa
RandomizedFieldExperiment.”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchand
Theory,23(1):27–54.doi:10.1093/jopart/mus036.
Jakobsen,M.,andS.C.Andersen.2013.“CoproductionandEquityinPublicService
Delivery.”PublicAdministrationReview,73(5):704–713.doi:10.1111/puar.12094.
Karriem,A.andL.M.Benjamin.2016.HowCivilSocietyOrganizationsFosterInsurgent
Citizenship:LessonsfromtheBrazilianLandlessMovement.Voluntas.27(1):19-36
LeRoux,K.(2009).Paternalisticorparticipatorygovernance?Examiningopportunitiesfor
clientparticipationinnonprofitsocialserviceorganizations.PublicAdministration
Review,69(3):504–517.
Mauss,M.Chapter1.1990/1950TheExchangeofGiftsandtheObligationtoReciprocate.
TheGift:TheFormandReasonforExchangeinArchaicSocieties.London:Routledge.
Mettler,S.andJ.Soss.2004.TheConsequencesofPublicPolicyforDemocraticCitizenship:
BridgingPolicyStudiesandMassPolitics,PerspectivesonPolitics2(1):56-
Mitani,H.2014.InfluencesofResourcesandSubjectiveDispositionsonFormaland
InformalVolunteering.Voluntas,25:1022-1040.
Ospina,S.,Diaz,W.,andO’Sullivan,J.F.(2002).Negotiatingaccountability:Managerial
lessonsfromidentity-basednonprofitorganizations.NonprofitandVoluntarySector
Quarterly,31(1):5-31.
318
Ostrom,E.;Baugh,W.H.;Guarasci,R.;Parks,R.B.;andWhitaker,G.P.1973.Community
OrganizationandtheProvisionofPoliceServices.Administrative&PolicyStudies
Series.
Ostrom,E.,andWhitaker,G.1973.DoesLocalCommunityControlofPoliceMakea
Difference?SomePreliminaryFindings.AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience,17(1):
48-76.
Parks,R.B.;Baker,P.C.;Kiser,L.;Oakerson,.;Ostrom,E.;Ostron,V.;Percy,S.L.;
Vandivort,M.B.;Whitaker,G.P.;andWilson,R.1981.“ConsumersasCoproducers
ofPublicServices:SomeEconomicandInstitutionalConsiderations.”PolicyStudies
Journal,9(7):1001-1011.
Pestoff,V.andT.Brandsen(Eds).2008.Co-production:TheThirdSectorandtheDeliveryof
PublicServices.London:Routledge.
Pestoff,V.T.BrandsenandB.Verschuere(Eds.).2013.NewPublicGovernance:TheThird
SectorandCoproduction.Routledge.
Prentice,S.2006.Childcare,CoproductionandtheThirdSectorinCanada.Public
ManagementReview,8(4):521-536.
Renz,D.O.Renz(ed.)2016.TheJossey-BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadershipand
Management.FourthEdition.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWileyandSons.
Salamon,L.M.1999.America’sNonprofitSector:APrimer.Washington,DC:Foundation
Center.
Small,M.L.2009.UnanticipatedGains:OriginsofNetworkInequalityinEverydayLife,New
York:OxfordUniversityPress
319
Smith,S.R.,andM.Lipsky.1995.NonprofitsforHire:TheWelfareStateintheAgeof
Contracting.HarvardUniversityPress.
Soss,J.1996.UnwantedClaims:ThePoliticsofParticipationintheU.S.WelfareSystem.
UniversityofMichiganPress.
Stocker,R.1997.Thecommunitydevelopmentcorporationmodelofurbanredevelopment:
Acritiqueandanalternative.JournalofUrbanAffairs,19(1):1–23
Stukas,A.A.;Hoye,R.;Nicholson,M.;Brown,K.M.;andAisbett,L.2016.Motivationsto
VolunteerandtheirAssociationswithVolunteers’Well-Being.Voluntas,45(1):112-
132.
UnitedNationsVolunteers.2015.StateoftheWorld’sVolunteerismReport2015:
TransformingGovernance.AccessedonJune28,2017,at:
https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/2015%20State%20of%20the%20World%27s
%20Volunteerism%20Report%20-%20Transforming%20Governance.pdf
UnitedStatesBureauofLaborStatistics.2017.VolunteeringintheUnitedStates,2015.
AccessedonJune28,2017,at:https://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
Vamstad,J.2012.CoproductionandServiceQuality:TheCaseofCooperativeChildcarein
Sweden.Voluntas,23(4):1173-1188.
VanEijk,C.J.A.,andSteen,T.P.S.2016.WhyEngageinCo-productionofPublicServices?
MixingTheoryandEmpiricalEvidence.InternationalReviewofAdministrative
Sciences,82(1):28–46.
320
VanEijk,C.J.A.,andSteen,T.P.S.2014.WhyPeopleCo-Produce:Analysingcitizens’
perceptionsonco-planningengagementinhealthcareservices.PublicManagement
Review,16(3):358-382.
Verschuere,B.,T.BrandsenandV.Pestoff.2012.Coproduction:TheStateoftheArtin
ResearchandtheFutureAgenda.Voluntas,23(4):1083-1101.
Whitaker,G.1980.Coproduction:CitizenParticipationinServiceDelivery.Public
AdministrationReview,40(3):240-246.
Wies,J.R.2008.ProfessionalizingHumanServices:ACaseofDomesticViolenceShelter
Advocates.HumanOrganization,67(2):221-233.
321
Valuedilemmasandcopingstrategiesintheco-productionofsocialcare:aqualitativestudy(JaspersandSteen)
By
SylkeJaspersandTruiSteenPublicGovernanceInstitute,KULeuven
Paperpreparedfor
IIASStudyGroupon‘CoproductionofPublicServices’–Fifthopenmeeting6-7June2017,Washington,D.C.
<<notforcitationyet–pleasecontactauthors>>
Abstract:Co-productionisexpectedtoenhancetheachievementofpublicvaluessuchasamoreresponsiveservicedelivery,reducedcosts,orincreasedaccessforvulnerablegroups.Littleis,however,knownabouttheday-to-daystrugglesofco-producersastheyfaceconflictingvalues.Thispaperaimsatstudyingifandwhichvaluetensionsarepresentintheco-productionofsocialcareservices,andwhatdifferentcopingstrategiescitizenandpublicprofessionalco-producersimplementwhenconfrontedwithsuchdilemmasituations.ThestudyfocusesononecaseinthesocialcaresectorinFlanders.In-depthstudiesareconductedandinterview-dataareanalysedwithNvivo(QSRNVivo10)followingtheopencodingresearchmethod.Theresultsofourstudyshowedthatpublicprofessionalsandcitizenco-producersdoexperiencevaluedilemmasbetweenthevaluestheyexpecttocreate.Thesevaluedilemmasoccurbetweenandamongthepublicvaluescorrespondingtoachievingbetterservices,betterrelationshipsbetweenpublicprofessionalandcitizen,betterdemocraticqualityandthevaluesspecifictoco-productionincareservices.Publicprofessionalsadheretoavarietyofcopingstrategies,whereascitizenco-producerstendtoescalateoravoidcopingwithdilemmas.
1.Introduction
AgrowingelderlypopulationandincreasingausteritymeasurestakeninthehealthsectorinWesterncountriesresultintheneedforinnovationinthedeliveryofcareservices.Nowadays,co-production,whereregularserviceproducerscollaboratewithcitizenstoprovidepublicservices,isoftenseenasawaytoinnovateservicedelivery.Despitethegrowingattentiononco-production(e.g.Bovaird2007;Alford2009;Pestoffet.al.2013;Pestoff2006;Thomsen&Jakobsen2015;Meijer2014),theunderstandingofthefundamentalnatureofco-productionanditsclaimedeffectsisstilllimited(Meijer2016).
Ontheonehand,co-productionisexpectedtoincreasetheachievementofpublicvaluesincludingamoreresponsiveservicedelivery,reducedcosts,andincreasedaccessforvulnerablegroups(suchasfrailelderly).Ontheotherhand,theliteratureacknowledgesthatpublicserviceprofessionalsfrequentlyfacevalueconflictsanddilemmas:trade-offsituationsthathavenegativeconsequencesnomatterwhichoptionischosen(Bozeman2007;Schott2015).Publicorganizationstrytobalance‘traditional’governmentalvalues-suchasintegrity,neutrality,legalityandimpartiality-with‘businesslike’values-suchasefficiency,innovation,responsivenessandeffectiveness(Hood1991;deGraaf&vanderWal2010).Additionally,publicprofessionalswerefoundnotonlytoexperiencethesedilemmas,butalsotoadhereto
322
copingstrategiesinordertodealwiththesedilemmas(e.g.Steenhuisen2009;Schott2015).Inco-productioninitiatives,publicvaluedilemmasandhowactorscopewiththemcanaffectthevaluethatiseventuallyco-created.Forexample,initiativesinwhichelderlyco-delivercaretooneanothermayincreaseresponsivenessandparticipationbutmayatthesamebringupquestionsonaccess,accountabilityandqualityofthecaredelivery.Howco-producerscopewithsuchvaluedilemmaswillinfluencetheoutcomeofthedeliveredservice.
Wethereforeaskthefollowingresearchquestions:Towhichextentdoesco-productioninsocialcareenhanceorratherobstructthecreationofpublicvalues?
Thispaperisanexploratorystudyintotheframingofvaluedilemmasencounteredbyindividualco-producers,specifictotheco-productionofsocialcareservices.ForthisstudywerelyonthedefinitionbyBrandsenandHoningh(2016)whoidentifycoreelementsofco-production,describingit“asarelationshipbetweenapaidemployeeofanorganization[i.e.apublicprofessional]and(groupsof)individualcitizensthatrequiresadirectandactivecontributionfromthesecitizenstotheworkoftheorganization”(p.431).Wefirstborrowconceptsandtheoriesfromexistingliteratureonpublicvalues,valuetensionsandcopingstrategiestodevelopaframeworkforanalysingvaluetensionsandcopingstrategiesinthecontextofco-productionofsocialcareservices.Second,thepaperanalysesasinglecasesetinasmallsizemunicipalityinFlanderswhichwegivethefictionalnameof‘ConnectedCare’.IntheConnectedCare(CC)initiative,alocalgovernments’careserviceisexperimentingwithco-productionwiththeaimofempoweringandde-isolatingthefrailelderly.In-depthinterviewsareconductedandinterview-dataareanalysedwithNvivo(QSRNVivo10)followingtheopenandaxialcodingresearchmethod.
2.Co-productionofpublicvalues
2.1Valueco-creation
Publicvaluesareawelldiscussedtopicinthepublicadministrationliterature(BeckJørgensen&Bozeman2007;Bovens,‘tHart&vanTwist2007;Rutgers2008,deGraaf&Paanakker2014;Box2015;deGraaf,Huberts&Smulders2016).Publicvaluesisthetermfor“theproceduralethicsinproducingpublicservicesandforoutcomesmadepossibleby
producingpublicservices”(Bryson,Crosby&Bloomberg2014,p.451;seealsoDeGraaf&Paanakker2014).Scholars(e.g.Brysonetal.2017)arguethatMoore’s(1995)normativeapproachandhistheoryonpublicvalue(s)shouldbeadapted,sinceitisnotmerelythepublicmanagerbutalsootheractorsinthepublic,private,voluntaryandinformalcommunitysectorswho(co-)createpublicvalue(s).Thephenomenonofco-productionhasledscholarstostudyhowavarietyofactorsareco-creatingthepublicvaluesresultingfrompublicservicedelivery(Vargo&Lusch2008;Payne,Storbacka&Frow2007;Grönroos2008,2011;Spohrer&Maglio2008;Edvardsson,Tronvoll&Gruber2011;Osborne,Radnor&Strokosh2016;Alford2014;Alford2016).Theystudyhowvaluesareco-createdthroughtheiterativeinteractionsofserviceusersandserviceprofessionalswithpublicservicedelivery.Furthermore,theydiscussthatindividualsco-createthevalueoftheirownservice,andcanalsocontributetothecollectiveco-creationforothercitizensandusersininteractionwiththepublicprofessionalandthevalueswhichcharacterisesthepublicservices(e.g.
323
communitybuildingservicesarecharacterisedwithsocialcohesion)(e.g.Osbornee.a.2016).
Therecentattentiontovalueco-creationalikesuggestscertainvaluetensionsbetweenprivateandpublicvalues(Alford2014;Alford2016;Osborneetal.2016;Farr2016).Thislineofresearchpointsoutthataservicemayentailoneormoreprivate(clientfocus)andpublic(collectivefocus)valuesco-createdbyavarietyofinvolvedactors.Theco-createdprivateandpublicvaluesinsomecasesconvergewitheachother,conflictwitheachotherinothers,orinyetothercasestheymaydoneitherwhilebeing‘justdifferent’(e.g.Brandsen&Helderman2012).Forexample,asBrandsenandHelderman(2012,p.1142)illustrateintheirstudyonsuccessfulco-productioninhousing,“theinterestsoftheindividualandthecollectiveinterestmaynotcoincide–forexample,whencollective
investmentdetractsfromthequalityoflifeofsomeresidentsandtheyopposethis
investment.However,itisalsopossiblefortheinterestsoftheindividualandthecollective
interesttocoincide,forexamplewhenanindividualinvestsincommunal[values]andbydoingsoenhanceshisownqualityoflife”.
Alsoinpublicadministrationliteratureitisoftendiscussedthatpublicprofessionalsencounterpublicvaluedilemmasintheirdailywork.Theythushavetodealwiththechallengeofbalancingvaluessuchasintegrity,neutrality,legality,andimpartiality,efficiency,innovation,responsivenessandeffectiveness(e.g.,Hood1991;deGraaf&VanderWal2010).Yet,co-productionmayalsohelptobalanceoutthedilemmasoftenencounteredinpublicserviceprovision,forexample,sincemakinguseoftheresourcesofusersmayincreasetheefficiencyoftheservicewhilesafeguardingtheeffectiveness.Introducingpeerworkersandempoweringtheclientsofaservice,i.e.invitingcitizensandclientstoco-produce,mayreducethecostoftheservicedeliverywhilebeingbeneficialforothervaluessuchasreciprocityoreffectiveness(Ross,Needham&Carr2013).Thisraisesthequestiontowhichextentco-productionhelpswiththepreventionofexperiencingpublicvaluedilemmas.Additionally,thequestionisraisedtowhichextentco-productionmayobstructthecreationofpublicvaluesorthe‘de-construction’ofvalues(e.g.PléandChumpitazCáceres2010;EcheverriandSkalen2011).
2.2Expectationsofvaluescreatedthroughco-production.
Co-productionisexpectedtoincreasetheachievementofpublicvaluessuchasamoreresponsiveservicedelivery,reducedcosts,increasedaccessforvulnerablegroups(e.g.frailelderly),etc.Specifically,forcareservices,theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO2016,p.11)expectsfromco-productionindeliveringcareservicesthatitwillimproveaccess,increasesatisfactionofthecostumer,resultinabetterrelationshipbetweenindividualandcareproviders,butalsoincarethatismoreresponsivetocommunityneeds,andinagreaterengagementandparticipatoryrepresentation.TheseexpectationsmatchwithVanleeneetal.’s(2015)clusteringofdifferentpublicvaluesthatareco-createdintheco-productionofpublicservices.Thesearecategorizedaccordingtotheiraim:deliveringbetterservices,establishingabetterrelationshipbetweenpublicprofessional(organisation)andcitizens/serviceusers,andincreasingdemocracyquality(Table1).
324
Table1.Expectedcreatedvaluesfromco-production
BetterServices Betterrelationshipbetweencitizen/costumerandtheprofessionalorganization/publicprofessional
Betterdemocraticquality
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Outcomeoriented
Processoriented
Quality
Satisfaction
Performance
Learning(mutual)
Trust
Beingconsiderableforclients’needs:accountable,responsiveandtransparent
Democracy
Empowerment
Fairness
Equity
Socialcapital
Source:basedonVanleeneetal.(2015,p.5-9)
Proponentsofco-productionclaimthatco-productionprovidestheopportunityforimprovingbetterservicessuchasefficiencyandqualityofservicedeliverythroughbetteruseoftime,effortsandresources(knowledge,expertise)ofbothpublicserviceprofessionalsandusers.Co-productionisexpectedtoreducecostsofpublicservicedelivery,whilecontributingtogreaterusers’satisfactionandbettertargetedservices(Pestoff2006).Also,itisexpectedtoenhanceabetterrelationshipbetweencitizenandpublicprofessionalthroughvaluessuchastheresponsivenessofpublicservices,andthusbecomesamechanismfortailingservicestopersonalneeds(Vanleenee.a.2017).Finally,co-productionisalsoexpectedtoenhancedemocratization,sinceco-productionisseenasasourceofcitizenempowerment,ameanstoenhancethe‘voice’ofservicerecipients(Fledderus2015).
2.3Valuedilemmasintheliterature
ArecurrentissueinPublicAdministrationliteratureisthatpublicprofessionalsexperienceconflictsbetweenpublicvalueswhentheyneedtotakedecisionsorproducepublicservices(VanderWal,deGraaf,&Lawton,2011,deGraaf,Huberts&Smulders2016;Hood1991;O’Kelly&Dubnick2006;Provan&Milward2001).Whileinrecentyearstheempiricalattentionforvalueconflictsexperiencedbypublicservantshasincreased(e.g.Maynard-Moody&Musheno2003;deGraaf&Paanakker,2014;Schott2015,p.31-35;Schott,VanKleef&Steen2015),overallstill,empiricalevidenceonconflictingvaluesisrare(deGraafetal.2016).
Thestartingassumptionformanyscholarsstudyingtensionsbetweenvalues(Spicer2001,2009;Wagenaar1999;deGraaf&Paanakker2014;vanderWaletal.2011)is‘valuepluralism’,aconceptborrowedfromthefieldofphilosophy(e.g.Berlin1982).Valuetensionsanddilemmasareaconsequenceofthecharacteristicsofvalues,i.e.theyarenotmeasurableonascaleandthereisnorationalsolutionfordefiningwhichvalueisthemostimportantinacertainsituation.Whensuchvaluesarethenalsoincompatibletheyleadtovaluetensionsanddilemmas(deGraaf&Paanakker2014,p.125;Hampshire1983,p.24,Wagenaar1999;
325
Nieuwenburg2004).Otherexplanationsfortheexistenceofvaluetensionsarethegreatnumberofstakeholdersinpublicservicedeliveryholdingdifferentexpectations(Lipsky1980;Meynard-Moody&Musheno2000)andthefuzzinessindefiningwhatis‘thepublicinterest’(e.g.Schott2015).
Co-productionoffersanewcontexttopublicvaluecreation,whichmightaddtoorresolvesomeofthetensions.Basedontherisksofco-productionidentifiedintheliteraturebyVanleenee.a.(2015),theoccurrenceoftheanumberoftensionsisprobable.Firstly,co-
productionmaystrengtheninsider/outsiderdynamicswhenequalityininputisnotguaranteedandwhenaccessisonlyguaranteedforspecificsocialgroups(e.g.,Brandsen&Helderman2012).Secondly,theissueof‘accountability’maybeproblematic:whocantheusersholdaccountablewhentheythemselvesarepartoftheproductionprocess(Verschuere,Brandsen&Pestoff2012)?Athirdissuemaybetheself-servingbias,whichoccurswhenanactortakesmorecreditforsuccessthanforfailure(e.g.Fledderus2015).In
theirliteraturestudy,Vanleenee.a.(2015)alsopointtovaluetensionsimpliedinco-production,whichismostlyreferredtoasco-productionbeingtime-consuming;resultinginuserdissatisfactionasaresultoffailuretofulfilhighexpectations;andinlackofimpactasperceivedbyusersorcitizens.
2.4Copingstrategiesintheliterature
PublicAdministrationliteraturenotonlyfindspublicprofessionalstoexperiencepublicvaluedilemmas,butalsotoadheretocopingstrategiesinordertodealwiththesedilemmas(e.g.,deGraafe.a.2014;Lipsky1980).Steenhuisen(2009)definescopingas“aresponsetocompetingvaluesthattakesformintheactionsanddecisions”(p.20).The
conceptof‘copingstrategy’providesaconceptuallenstostudyhowconflictingvaluesaredealtwithbycitizensandpublicserviceprofessionalsengagedinco-production.Knowledgeonhowvaluedilemmasaredealtwithincollaborationsbetweendifferentactorsisscarce(vanGestele.a.2008).Nevertheless,onthebasisoftheexistingliterature(e.g.ThacherandRein2004;Stewart2006;vanderWal,deGraaf,andLawton2011;deGraaf,Huberts,and
Smulders2016)oncopingstrategiesindilemmasituations,‘drawnprimarilyfromsingle
casestudiesandillustratedwithselectiveexamplesfromdifferentgovernmentsandtime
periods’(Brysonetal.2017,p.649).Stewart(2006)discussedthreecopingstrategiesnamedbyThatcherandRein(2004)‘Firewalls,cyclingandcasuistry.Stewartaddsthreemorestrategiestotheirlist:bias,hybridizationandincrementalism.deGraaf,Hubertsand
Smulders(2016)addeda7thcopingstrategy,namedescalating.Combiningthesestudieswearriveatthefollowingsevencopingstrategies:
• a‘bias’strategyoraspecifictypeoftrade-offthatgivespreferencetovaluesthatare
consistent with a dominant discourse or larger value set at the expense of otherconflictingvalues;
326
• a‘buildingfirewalls’strategyofappointingdifferentinstitutions,administrativeunits
or individual positions aimed at certain public values in order to distributeresponsibilityforpursuingthecompetingvalues;
• a‘cycling’strategyofpayingsequentialattentiontocompetingvalues;
• a‘casuistry’strategyofmakingdecisionsforeachparticularvalueconflictbasedon
theirexperiences inpreviouscasesand indoingsocraftingacustomizedresponsebasedonthoseexamples;
• a‘hybridization’strategyofseekingcoexistencebetweenvaluesbysustainingdistinctpoliciesorimplementationsthatpursuethesecompetingvalues;
• an ‘incrementalism’ strategy of slowly putting more and more emphasis on one
particularvalue;
• an ‘escalation’ strategy of elevating questions about competing values to a higher
administrativeorlegislativeauthority.
Inthisdiscussionontheliteraturewefirstlydiscussedthetheoriesaroundpublicvalue
dilemmasandwhattheexpectationsareofco-productionforvaluecreation.Secondly,wefoundaframeworkofcopingstrategies,whichmaybeusedtoconceptualisehowco-producerscopewiththevaluedilemmastheyexperience.
3.Methods
3,1Caseselection,populationsamplinganddatacollection
Severalscholarshavepreviouslydiscussedco-productionapproachesinhealthcareservices(e.g.Dunstone.a.2009;Amery2014,Butler&Greenhalgh2014,inBataldane.a.2015,p.2,Loefflere.a.2013).Incomparisonwiththeattentionprovidedtoco-productionin
healthcareandtheimprovedpartnershipbetweenpatientsandclinicians(e.g.Braddock2010;Carmane.a.2013),farfewerscholarsfocusonco-productionofsocialcare(e.g.Needham&Carr2009;Rosse.a.2013)evenifmanyco-productioninitiativescanbefoundinpractice.
Whileco-productionisnotanewdeliverymechanismforsocialcareservices,itisgainingmoreandmorepopularitysinceitaffirmsandsupportsanactiveandproductiveroleforusersoftheservices.Additionally,co-productionincareservicesvaluestheactiveinputofstakeholdersandusersindeliveringtheoutcomesoftheservices,wherebythedesiredoutcomesarenegotiatedwiththeusersoftheservice(Needham&Carr2009,p.6).
Thecasestudiedis“ConnectedCare”(CC)andhastheaimofintegratingandde-isolatingfrailelderly,apolicyfieldwhereco-productioninitiativesaremultiplyinginFlanders.InCCco-productionissituatedinasmallcityandinformalsocialcareisorganizedbytheusersthemselves,uponinvitationbythelocalserviceprofessional.Nexttode-isolatingandintegratingfrailelderly,theobjectivesofCCistoempowertheserviceusersandminimizethefinancialburdenforgovernmentandpersonsinneedbycollaboratingwithusersortheir
327
relatives.CCfitsinthemutualaidapproachmodelbyBoyleeta.(2006),whereinprofessionalscontinuetoplayakeyrole,buttheaddedvalueoftheco-productionprocesscomesfrommutualaidorusers’peer-support.
ThefirststepinourcasestudywastocreateasnapshotofallactorsinvolvedintheserviceproductionoftheCCinitiativeandtoselecttherespondents(seeTable2).Onepaidpublicprofessionalistheinitiatoroftheproject,thereare80citizensinvolvedintheco-productionofwhich76areactiveparticipantsand4arenexttobeingactiveparticipantsalsoseatinginthecoordinatingcommittee.CChasasteeringcommittee,whichexistsoutofthepublicprofessional(R9),thevolunteer(R10)andfourparticipantsfromthetargetgroup(R4,R7,R8,R11).Thiscommitteehasthetasktocoordinateandexpandordeepenthenetwork,andaimstodothisindirectinteractionwiththeotherparticipants.Thevolunteer,hasaprofessionalbackgroundasasocialworker.ForastudyprojectshehelpedworkingoutCC,andafterthisprojectended,shedecidedtokeepbeingengagedasavolunteer.Consideringherbackgroundasasocialworkerandherroleandtasksshetakesupintheinitiative,weconsiderherapublicprofessional.
Table2.SnapshotofthepopulationofthecaseConnectedCare
#publicprofessionals
#citizenco-producers
#citizenco-producerstakingpartinboardmeetings
#volunteers
total
Total 1 76 4 1 82
Respondents 1(100%) 11(18,75%) 4(100%) 1(100%) 17
RespondentsFemale
1 8(/64=12,5%)
3(100%) 1 13
RespondentsMale
0 3(/12=25%) 1(100%) 0 4
Weconductedsemi-structuredinterviewswithcitizensandpublicprofessionalsactivelyengagedintheco-productioncase.Forthisstudyweinterviewedthepublicprofessionalandthevolunteerinvolved,thefourcitizenco-producerswhoaretakingpartinthecoordinatingmeetings,and11othercitizenco-producers.Oneoftheconductedinterviewswasajointinterviewwithrespondent16and17.Theaimofthequalitativeresearchistoidentifyawiderangeofperspectivesratherthantobenumericallyrepresentative.Therefore,whennoticingthatstillnewinformationwasrevealedintheinterviews,wecontinuedselectingnewrespondents.Wedidsountilwefoundtohaveconductedenoughinterviewsasnonewinformationwasprovidedwithrespondentsreferringtothesamevalues,tensionsandcopingstrategies.Therespondentlistandtheircorrespondingcharacteristicsarepresentedintheappendix(TableA).
3.2Dataanalysis
AthoroughanalysisoftheinterviewsiscarriedoutbymakinguseofthesoftwareprogrammeNVivo(QSRNVivo10).Codeswerecreatedonthebasisofthetheoryandonthebasesofphasesofopencodingandaxialcodingappliedtothedata(cf.Strauss&Corbin2008).Inthecodingprocessattentionwaspaidtosubconsciousaccountsofvalues,andimplicitlymentioneddilemmasandcopingstrategies(cfdeGraaf&Paanakker2014).Thefinalcodelististheresultof(1)theliteraturereviewand(2)phasesofopenandaxialcodingasseenintable3.
328
Table3.Codesandsubcodesfortheinterviewanalysis.
Codesandsubcodesfortheinterviewdata
Expectationspublicvalues
- Betterservices
- Betterrelationship
- Betterdemocraticquality
- Bettersocialcareservices
Realityofexpectations
Dilemmasituations
- Betterservices
- Betterrelationship
- Betterdemocraticquality
- Bettersocialcareservices
Considerationsdilemmasituations
- Therulesandproceduresoftheadministration
- Practicalities(capabilities,resourcesetc.)
- Demandshyness
- Workingwithothers
- Ownership
- Roleperception
- Highdemandorpressureonindividualco-producer
Copingstrategies
- Bias
- Buildingfirewalls
- Cycling
- Casuistry
- Hybridization
- Incrementalism
- Avoidance/Drop-out
- Deferredcoping
Considerationscopingstrategy
Confoundingvariables
- Publicprofessional
- Volunteer
- Citizenco-producer
329
Thequalitativeanalysisfollowsaniterative,openprocess18.Thetheoriesonthepublicvaluesexpectedtobecreatedfromtheco-productionandthetheoriesoncopingstrategiesareusedasconceptuallensesinordertoidentifythevaluedilemmasandadheredcopingstrategies.Additionally,intheanalysisofthedatawewereopenfornewinsights.
Becauseofdifferentroleperceptionsweexpectthedilemmasexperiencedbypublicprofessionalstobedifferentfromtheonesexperiencedbythepublicprofessional.Forthisreasonweanalysetheexpectations,valuedilemmasandcopingstrategiesseparatelyforthepublicprofessionals(paidpublicprofessionalandvolunteer),citizenco-producers(11respondents)andthecitizensactiveinthecoordinatingcommittee(4respondents).
4.Case“ConnectedCare”
Asurveyoftheneedsoftheelderlypopulation,orderedbythemunicipalityrevealedthat17%oftheelderlyinthemunicipalitysufferfromloneliness19.Asaresultoftheinsightsprovidedbythisstudy,acivilservantofthemunicipality-togetherwithasubsidizedthirdsectororganisation(TSO)specialisedinsettingupparticipatorytrajectoriesandauniversitycollege–initiatedConnectedCare.Keyprinciplesofthisinitiativeweretheinvolvementofthetargetgroupbyvaluingtheircapabilities,reciprocityandthe(inter)connectionbetweenpeopleandorganisations.
Afterthedesignandset-upphase,theTSOanduniversitycollegewerenolongerinvolvedandtheprojectisnowexecutedbyonepaidpublicprofessional,onevolunteerand80participantsfromthetargetgroup.ConnectedCareidentifiesitselfasanetworkofpeopleandeachinhabitantofthemunicipality,irrespectivelyofage,origin,genderoreducationmayjoin.Althoughtheinitiativeprimarilytargetselderlypeopleofthevillage,allagesarethuswelcometojoin.Theyoungestparticipantisnow39yearsold(°1978)andtheoldest94yearsold(°1923).
TheideaofCCwasprimarilytoconnectdemandandsupplyamongtheelderly.Thiswasoperationalisedthroughpublishingthedirectdemandsandoffersofparticipantsinamonthlymagazineandonawebsite,orthroughmeetingeachotherinthemonthlymeetingsorweeklyworkshopsor“buurten”(drinkingcoffeetogetherinthemeetingroomsatlocalcarecentres).
5.Results
5.1Theexpectationstheco-producershavetowardspublicvalues
CCaimstoempowerelderly,de-isolateelderly,anddecreasefinancialburdenbothforthe
18However,itisnecessarytocontrolforinvestigatorbias.Inordertoensurethevalidityofthecodingprocess,threeinterviewswillbecodedparallelbyanindependentresearcher.1946788elderlypeoplefrom99citiesandmunicipalitiesweresurveyedinfunctionofastudyoftheneedsoftheelderlypopulation.ForthemethodologyofthisstudywerefertoVertée.a.2007,andforadiscussionoftheresultstoBuffele.a.2011.
330
elderlyandforthemunicipalorganisation.Theywanttoachievethesegoalsbycreatingvaluessuchasmutualaid,equality(assets)andsocialcapital.Inthissectionwediscussthepublicvaluesthattherespondentsexpectthecreateinco-producingtheservice.
5.1.1Betterservices
Thepublicprofessionalandvolunteerfirstandforemostfounditimportanttocreating“feelinggood”.Satisfactionseemstobeagoodmeasurementforthesuccessoftheproject:“itisimportantthatpeoplefeelinvolvedbecauseitgivesagoodfeeling”(R10,seealso4,8).Thisisinagreementwiththecitizenco-producerswhoexpectsatisfactioniscreatedbygainingprivatevalueandfeelingthattheinitiativeisconsiderablefortheirneeds(R16,R5).Thissatisfactionandqualityoftheserviceseemtobecoherentwitheffectiveness:thecitizensexpectCCtohelpthembede-isolated(R4,5).Citizenswanttogainqualitativeinformationoncertaintopicsimportantforelderlypopulation,forexample“oninheritancerightsinsteadofdrinkingcoffee”(R5).Furthermore,thepublicprofessionalstressedtheimportanceofbeingeffectiveandgrantsflexibilitytotheprocessinorderforittobeeffective:“Itisimportantto
ensuregrowthandsustainabilitybyensuringflexibility”(R9,also10)andtoensureoutcomeeffectiveness.Forexample,firsttheinitiative’sgoalwastoconnectdemandandsupply,andwhilethisisstillinpractice,itshowedthatorganisingjointmeetingswasfarmoreeffectiveinde-isolatingtheparticipantsandinimprovingtheirsocialcapital(R9,1),resultinginanincreasedfocusofCConorganisingsuchmeetings.Respondentsmadenodirectreferencetofindingefficiencyofhighimportance,yetindirectlytheinterviewdatashowsthatefficiencyseemstobeexpected,whenaskingabouttheconsiderationsbehindtherespondentsactionsandthought.
5.1.2Betterrelationshipbetweenprofessionalandcitizen
Mostcitizenco-producersexpecttheinitiativetobeconsiderateoftheirneeds.Thepublicprofessionalsalikeattachgreatimportancetobeingresponsiveandfacilitatethisbybeingflexible:“CCisaboutgrowthandbeingresponsivetopeople’sneedsandnottowhatwewant”(R9,also10).Theprofessionalsexpectfromtheparticipantsalsotoberesponsivetoeachother’sneeds“weinvolvetheparticipantsoftenbecausetheyareCC,wearenot,wejustofferalittleframeworkbuttheyhavetoexecutetheservice”(R9).Citizenexpectthistrustfrompublicprofessionalstotakemattersintotheirownhands(R1,2,5)whichgoeshandinhandwithmutuallearning:“youhavedifferentpeoplewithdifferentexperiencesthatmaygiveyou
adviceoncertainthings”(R6,9).Moreover,trustinthecoordinatingcommitteeisexpected:“Iexpectastrongboard,whichstayssmall,butstrong,whichsteersthemainactivitiesand
whereyoumaypresentyourissuesifnecessary”(R16).Respondentsexpressedthatthepublicprofessionalsandtheboardmeetingsareheldaccountable:“Iwanttobecriticalandaskwhycertainthingsarenecessary”(R5,also16).
5.1.3BetterDemocraticQuality
EmpowermentandsocialcapitalwereidentifiedasbetterdemocraticqualityvaluesexpectedfromCC.Fromtheinterviewdatabothpublicprofessionalsandcitizenco-producersexpect
331
thesevaluestobeco-created.Thepublicprofessionalstressestheimportanceofequalityintheco-productionwhichiscoherentwithempowerment:“weneedtogetridofthepositionsofpublicprofessionalandclients[…].Itisimportant[to]empowerpeopleinCCtohelpothers,
whothroughthisalsobecomeprofessionals”(R9).Thepublicprofessionalexpectsthattheco-productionwillincreasedemocracyinthecaredelivery:“theprojectneedstooperate[…]throughtheactiveparticipationandconsultationoftheparticipants”(R9).Additionally,sheexpecttheprojecttoincreaseequityinaccess“sincethereisstillapartofthepopulationwhichisnotreachedby[TSOs]”(R9).Aconvergentvalueisexpectedtobediversitybyinvitingpeoplefromallagesand“notexclusivelyelderlypeople”(R9).
Theco-producersexpecttheelderlytofeelempoweredsincethecapabilitiesoftheparticipantsaretakenasastartingpoint(R16,13,17).Socialcapitalbuildingisbymostparticipantsexpectedfromtheco-production(R3,2,5,14,13,7).Nextto“feelingthatyoubelongsomewhere”(R13),thissocialcapitalisnecessaryalsoforachievingprivatevaluesuchas“goingtothestore,doinghouseholdtasks,beingbusydoingsomething”(R3)or“tobeabletoliveaslongaspossibleathome,forfinancialreasons”(R2).Otherdemocraticvaluesmentionedbythecitizens,forexample,aredemocracy:“Idon’tknowifitisaccepted,butIwouldliketobeabletogotothesteeringcommitteeandaskthemcriticalquestions”(R5).Finally,citizensexpectequityofaccesstotheco-productionprocess:“allpeoplearewelcome”(R16).
5.1.4Otherexpectationsnotyetincludedintheclustersofvalues
Inadditiontothevaluesexpectedfromco-productionthatmatchtheliterature,weidentifiedvaluesparticulartotheco-productioninthesocialcaresector.
First,thereisanexpectationforthecreationofthevalueofreciprocity.Reciprocity,accordingtothepublicprofessionals,meanstoachieveabalanceinthewholeratherthanbetweenindividualcontacts(R10,9).Alsothecitizenco-producersexpect“Thenetwork[to]functiononthebasisofreciprocity”(R16)whichmayalsobeachievedbybeingappreciatedfortheeffortstheyputin(R16,13,7).
Bothpublicprofessionalsandcitizenco-producersexpecttoparticipateaccordingtotheirowncapacitiesandtorecognizetheseasassets,whichisasecondvalueexpectedtobecreatedfromco-producinginthecaresector:“approachingcitizensandappealingthemontheir
capabilitiesandtalents”(R9).
Thirdly,co-productionincareisexpectedtobesustainable,accordingtothepublicprofessional:“althoughwedon’tknowhowthiswillworkout,sustainabilityiskey”(R9).Citizensalsoexpecttheco-productiontobesustainable(R2,16),especiallythosecitizenswhoarecurrentlytakingonamorecaregiverroleexpecttogetthefavourreturnedinthefuture(R6,14,2,7,8)whichshowsamatchbetweentheirfocusonsustainabilityandself-concern.
Finally,theinterviewdatashowedafourthvaluethatbothpublicprofessionalsandcitizenco-producersexpectintheco-productionprocess:individualfreedom.Thisindividualfreedomentailsthechoiceofwhentoco-produce,howtoco-produce,howmuchtoco-produceandnotbeingobligedtodoanything:“thereshouldbenoobligations,otherwiseIdon’twanttobeinvolved”(R7,also15,4,7,8).Forthepublicprofessionalthisvalueisimportanttoensureequityinaccess“everyonecanparticipateinhisownmanner”(R9).
Insum,thesevaluesaresimilartothedefinitionofRosse.a.(2013,p.8)ofco-productionin
332
socialcareasasetofvaluesthatshouldbeattained:equality(everyonehasassets),diversity,accessibilityandreciprocity(seealsoLoefller2009).Theprincipleofreciprocityisoftenseenasakeyconceptincareco-production.Rosse.a.(2013,p.13-14)statethatreciprocity“hasbeendefinedasensuringthatpeoplereceivesomethingbackforputtingsomethingin,andbuilding
onpeople’sdesiretofeelneededandvalued”.
5.1.5Discussionofactors’expectations
Addingtotable2,thevaluesexpectedtobecreatedwhicharespecifictoourcasestudyinthecaresector,wearrivetothefollowingtable:
Table4.Expectationstowardscreatingpublicvalueinco-production
BetterServices Betterrelationshipbetweencitizen/costumerandtheprofessionalorganization
Betterdemocraticquality
Specifictocaresector
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Outcomeoriented
Processoriented
Quality
Satisfaction
Performance
Learning(mutual)
Trust
Beingconsiderableforclients’needs:accountable,responsiveandtransparent
Democracy
Empowerment
Fairness
Equity
Socialcapital
Sustainability
Reciprocity
Individualfreedom
Beingconsiderableforclients’capacities
Manyoftheseexpectedvaluesareactuallyreceivedbytheco-producersintheCCinitiative.Forexample,allparticipantsclaimtohavegainedsocialcapital.Additionally,theperceptionofadecreasedisolationoftheseelderlyisexistent.Theachievementofthesevaluesischaracterisedbysatisfaction.However,somevaluesseemdifficulttoco-create.Forexample,onlyasmallnumberofmaleparticipantsareinvolved,raisingquestionsontheequityofaccess.Additionally,theopportunityforanindividualtocreatesocialcapitalisclaimedtobedecreasingwhenmoreandmoreparticipantsjoin,becausecontactsbecomemoresuperficial.Furthermore,quiteafewrespondentsraisequestionsontheprocesseffectivenessofthemethodtolinkdemandandoffer.Otherrespondentsfeelthatagreatneedformeetingduringtheweekendsisnotbeingconsidered.
Inthenextsectionwediscusshowrespondentsexperiencesomevaluestobeconflictingwitheachotherandhowthesedilemmasmayexplainthedifficultyofcreatingsomeofthevaluesexpected.
5.2Thepublicvaluedilemmasexperiencedinco-production5.2.1Publicprofessionals
Analysingthedataoftheinterviewsofthepublicprofessionals(R9and10)wearrivetoeightvaluedilemmas.Threeoftheminvolvethevalueofefficiencyandthreeinvolvethevalueofindividualfreedom.
333
A)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofefficiency
Efficiency,althoughnotdesireddirectlybythepublicprofessionalsasavaluetobecreatedthroughtheco-productioninitiative,isperceivedasavaluetotakeintoconsideration.Therealityoflimitationsinresourcesavailable,leadstodilemma’swhenconfrontedwiththevaluesofeffectiveness,equityandsustainabilityexperiencedbythepublicprofessionals.
First,efficiencyconsiderationsareconflictingwitheffectiveness.Theactivitiesaremostlyorganisedduringtheweekandduringtheofficehoursofthepublicprofessional,becauseintheweekendthepublicprofessionalsdonothavetimetoorganiseevents(R10and9)“Idohaveahometotakecareof”(R10).However,mostoftherespondentssaytheyaresufferingmostfromlonelinessintheeveningsandweekends:“whatIdofindtoobadisthatthesethingsonlytakeplaceduringtheday,anditisduringtheweekendIammostlonely
andmostinneedofactivities”(R13,also40).Anotherexampleisthedemandandoffermethod,whichisefficientinthatitclustersalldemandandoffersoftheparticipants.However,thepublicprofessionalsdoexperiencethattheefficiencyconsiderationsaroundthedemandandoffermethodarenotprocesseffectiveandthusalsonotoutcomeeffective:“itseemstobeverydifficulttoasksomebodysomething.Ikeepwonderingwhat
mightbethesolutiontothisandhowtomakeitmoreeffective,becauseIdobelievethe
helpingpartisessential”(R9).Thepublicprofessionalacknowledgestheimportanceofprocesseffectiveness,butfindsthistoberestrictedbyefficiencyconsiderations.Increasedco-productionwouldbethewaytogotobalanceoutthisdilemma,accordingtothepublicprofessionalwhostatesthat“weneedparticipantswhocanfollowupotherpeoplebecausewecan’talwaysdothat,weneedmembersthatcantakeoverpartofourtasks.Thatisthe
bigproblem:weneedmoretimetoputenergyinthis”(R9).Againefficiencyconsiderationspreventthisfromhappening,asthepublicprofessionalstates“itisnotlikewithaprofessionaltowhoyoujustsaywhathisorhertaskinvolves”(R9)shepointsoutthatcitizenco-producersneedextrasupervisionandtrainingtotakeoversomeorallofthetasks.
Second,efficiencyconsiderationsareconflictingwiththevalueofequity.Inordertogettothemoststructurallyisolatedelderlymoretimeandeffortisneededfromthepublicprofessional:“alotofeffortisneededtoinvolvethem.Thereare,however,noresources[in
order]togetthemhereandtokeepthemhere”(R9).Additionally,timetoaddresstheproblemisalsomissing:“maybetheofferistoofemale-oriented.Wethoughtitmightbea
goodideatohaveameetingwiththemaleparticipantsandseewhatwecouldchange.But
upuntilnow,thishasnottakenplace”(R9).Thisproblemofequityinaccessisalsorelatedtothedilemmabetweenefficiencyandeffectiveness:“themostisolatedelderlyneeda
differentapproach”(R9).
Third,efficiencyconsiderationsareconflictingwithsustainability.Theinitiativewasinitiatedonthebasisofprojectsubsidies.Thismadethepublicprofessionalworryaboutsustainabilityoftheproject,whichisperceivedasanimportantvaluewhenco-producingwithelderly.“itwasveryimportanttomakeitpossibleandtoenablegrowthand
sustainability.Thatiswhytheco-productionwasveryimportant”(R9)Thepublicprofessionalshowstobeuncertainaboutthesustainabilityoftheinitiative,assheexpectsacontinuoussupervision(andthusafulltimeposition)willbenecessary.
334
B)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofindividualfreedom
Accordingtothetwoprofessionalsinterviewed,thevalueofindividualfreedomconflictswiththreeothervalues:reciprocity,socialcapitalandprocesseffectiveness.
First,individualfreedomconflictswithreciprocity.Accordingtothepublicprofessionalsonly4outofthe80participantsarepreparedtostandbytoassistotherpeoplewhenitisurgentorapparent:“thisisverylittle,especiallywhenthesearealsoallelderly”(R10).Thatparticipantsarefreetochoosewhattheydothushasproventolimitreciprocity:“Istillwanderifthedemandandoffermethodisthewaytogo.Peoplealwaysneedachoicetosayyesorno”(R9)and“itarealwaysthesamepeopleputtingeffortin”(R10).
Second,thevalueofindividualfreedom,whilesupportingtheequityinaccess,isinconflictwiththevalueofsocialcapital,anecessaryoutcomevaluefortheinitiativetobeeffective.Forexample,theprofessionalindicatesthat“wedonotwantthatfriendssittogetherwhenthereisagroupmeeting.Thisisbecausewewantthemtogetincontactwithotherpeople,
sothatthey[…]includeotherpeople”(R10,also9).
Third,individualfreedomisexperiencedbythepublicprofessionalasconflictingwiththeirdesiretobeprocesseffective.Manyparticipantsdonotshowupwiththeresultofnotbeingfullyintegratedinthegroup.Nevertheless,individualfreedomdoescontributetobeingoutcomeeffective:“Sometimespeoplecomplainaboutothersnotcomingtogroup
activities.ButifyoujoinCC,thenyoumaydosoonyourownpace”(R10).
Inadditiontodilemma’sexperiencedinvolvingefficiencyandindividualfreedom,twootherdilemmaswereidentifiedasexperiencedbytheprofessionals.
C)Beingaccountablevs.Trustincapacities
ItisoneofthemajorprinciplesofConnectedCaretotakethecapacitiesandinterestsofthemembersasastartingpoint.However,theaccountabilitydoesremainwiththeprofessionalsandthismeansthatoftenthepublicprofessionalsdonotalwaystrustthecitizenco-producers:“Iexpectedinadvancethatitwouldbenecessaryformetokeepan
eyeonthemwhiletheyco-producetheactivity”(R10).
D)Responsivenessvs.Sustainability
Finally,beingresponsivetocitizens’needsmakesitdifficultfortheservicestobesustainable:“thecoffee-afternoonwascancelledbecausecitizensdidn’tcomeanymore.Sonowthatwe
scratcheditasanactivity,peoplewantitback”(R9).
5.2.2Citizenco-producers
Fromtheinterviewdatawearrivedtoninevaluedilemmasexperiencedbythecitizenco-producers.Alldilemmasinvolveatleastoneofthevaluesthatareexpectedtobecreatedinsocialcareservices:individualfreedom,reciprocity,beingconsiderableforcitizen’scapacitiesandsustainability.Fiveofthesevaluedilemmasinvolvethevalueequityinaccess,fourindividualfreedomandthreereciprocity.
335
A)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofequity
First,citizenco-producersexperiencethatequityinaccessorwelcomingeveryonetoparticipatemaylimitthecreationofsocialcapital.Theirreasoningisthatthemorepeoplejoin,theharderitgetstogettoknoweveryone.Inadiscussionbetweentworespondentsthisexperiencebecomesclear:
- “Idonotthinkweshouldopenupmore,weshouldinvestinwhatwehaveandmake
suretostrengthentherelationshipbetweenthepeoplewhoareparticipating”(R16).
- “Ihavethesameidea,wearealreadywithenough,butofcourse,ifsomeonewants
tojoinwecannottellthemtheycan’t”(R17).
Second,citizensexperienceadilemmabetweenequityinaccess-“everyoneiswelcome”(R17)–andthequalityoftheservice-“weshouldfirstworkoutwhatwehavewiththepeoplethatareinvolvedbeforebroadeningourscope”(R16).Additionally,itisfearedthatsomeindividualsmayreducethequalityofwhatisco-produced:“notrouble-makersshould
enter,thatcanruinthebeautyoftheproject”(R17).
Third,thereisadilemmaexperiencedbythecitizenco-producersbetweenequityinaccessandefficiency.Forexample,onerespondentexplainsthat“thereshouldbealimittothe
peoplethatcanjoinbecausesomanypeoplenevercometomeetingsandthembeing
officiallymembers[i.e.theyreceivebirthdaycardsetc.]costsuslotsoftimeandenergy”(R16,also2).
Finally,thevalueofequityisalsointensionwiththevalueofreciprocityintheperceptionofcitizens.Forexample,inlinewiththevalueofequityinaccesstheactivitiesarefreeforparticipantsandonemaynotaskmoneyfortheassistanceprovided.However,therearecitizenco-producerswhofrequentlydependonothersfortransport.Forthesecitizensitishardtocreatethevalueofreciprocitysincetheyfeeltheyhave“nothingtogiveback”(R17,12,3,11),whileopposite,thedriversriskperceivingtheydonotreceivethevalueofreciprocitysince“theyknowhowmuchtheypayatthegasstation”(R16).
B)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofindividualfreedom
First,individualfreedomisexperiencedtobeconflictingwithsocialcapital(R5,14,1,16).Somerespondentsdonotparticipatebecausetheyarenotinterestedinspecificactivities(R5).Therebytheseco-producersrisknotmeetingnewpeople,oneofthemotivationsforhisorherco-production.Thisisstrengthenedbythefactthatsomecitizenshaveformedgroupsandfornewpeopleitisreallyhardtointegrateinthesegroups:“thefactthatanyonecandowhat(s)hewants,makessomepeoplelesslikelytointegrateinthegroup”(R1).
Second,individualfreedomisperceivedasconflictingwithsustainability:“peopledonotwanttobeboundtosomething,especiallynotyoungpeople.Butyoudoneedpeopleto
keeptheorganisationgoing”(R2).
336
Finally,citizenco-producersseethevalueofindividualfreedomasanecessaryconditiontoparticipateintheinitiative,yetfeelthistobeconflictingwiththereciprocityasanexpectedcreatedvalue.Respondent2discussesthedilemma:“peoplewhoparticipateonlyoccasionallyriskbeingexcludedfromthegroup”whichresultsinthembeinglessinvolvedintheoffer-demandexchange.Respondent7indicatesthathehighlyvaluesreciprocity,butonlyinsofaritdoesnotconflictwithhisindividualfreedomtoengage:“IfIsayIcanhelpIwillhelp,butifIdon’thelpthenIdon’thelp”.
Individualfreedomisthusexperiencedbythecitizenco-producersasbeingconflictingwiththeinitiative’soutcomeeffectiveness,referringtosocialcapitalbuilding,de-isolationofelderly,reciprocity,andsustainability.
C)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofreciprocity
Nexttoexperiencingavaluedilemmabetweenreciprocityontheonehandandindividualfreedomorequityontheother(asdescribedabove),citizenco-producersalsoexperienceavaluedilemmabetweenreciprocityandaccountability.Somerespondents(R16,17,1)claimthereisalimittothevalueofreciprocity.Thesecitizensfindthemselvesaccountablewhenlettingafellowco-producerhelpthem:“youneedtodrawsomekindofline,[…]youcannot
taketherisktogotakeawalkwithan80-yearold”(R1).
D)Democracyvs.efficiency:
Respondent16expressedadilemmabetweenefficiencyanddemocraticvalue:“Thingsshouldworkdemocratically,andthiscannotbedonewhenthingshavetogofast”(R16).Respondent16wastheonlycitizenco-producerreflectingonthisdilemma.However,onememberofthecoordinatingcommittee(R8)alsoexpressedthisissue.
5.2.3Coordinatingcommittee
Fromtheinterviewdatawefindthatthemembersofthecoordinatingcommitteeinterviewedexperiencetwodilemmasinvolvingthevalueofefficiencyandtwovaluesinvolvingthevalueofindividualfreedom.Thesearethesamedilemmasasexperiencedbythepublicprofessionals,exceptforthedilemmabetweenefficiencyontheonehandandtrustanddemocraticvalueontheotherhand.
A)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofefficiency
First,similartothepublicprofessionalsthememberofthecoordinatingcommitteeexperienceavaluedilemmabetweenefficiencyandeffectiveness.Theyquestionifthe
337
demandandoffermethodisthemosteffectivetoachieveoutcomevalues,althoughitseemstobethemostefficient(R4).
Second,istheperceiveddilemmabetweenefficiencyandtrust.Althoughtheboardmembersacknowledgetheneedofbeingefficientinmaking(changesto)decisions,theyexperiencedthefactthatpublicprofessionalstocommunicatedecisiontheymakewiththeusergroupwithoutconsultingtheboardtoconflictwiththevaluesoftrustanddemocracy:“Ithinkthey[thepublicprofessionals]atleastneedtowarnyouandkeepyouuptodate”(R8).
B)Dilemmasinvolvingthevalueofindividualfreedom
Thisfirstconflictexperiencedbythecommitteemembersinvolvingindividualfreedomisthesamedilemmaasexperiencedbypublicprofessionalandcitizens,i.e.whenpeopleformgroupsthisexcludes(new)participantslimitingthecreationofsocialcapital(R4,8).
Thesecondwayinwhichindividualfreedomconflictsagainissimilartotheexperienceoftheotheractors.Theindividualfreedommayhaveasaconsequencethatpeoplearenotbeinghelpedordonotreceivehelpinreturn(R7,4).Forexample,“theoldestpersonis90,youdonotexpecthertostandupandcleantables,butfromtheyoungerpeopleyouexpect
themtodosomething.[…]butnobodyisobligatedtodosomethinghere,sothatistheend
ofit”(R4).
5.3Copingstrategiesusedwhenco-producersareconfrontedwithvaluedilemmasIntheanalysisofourdatawedidnotonlystudythevaluesandvaluedilemmasbutalsoatthecopingbehaviourcitizensco-producersadheredtowhentheywereaskedhowtheydealwiththedilemmastheyexperience.Theresultsoftheinterviewdataindicatethatco-producerscopedifferentlywiththedilemma’stheyexperience.Inthissectionwediscussmoreintodetailwhatarethecopingstrategiesofthedifferentactorswhendealingwiththevaluedilemmas.
5.3.1Publicprofessionalsandtheircopingstrategies
Basedontheliteratureweidentified7copingstrategies.Allofthesewerefoundintheinterviewswiththepublicprofessionalandthevolunteer.Wefoundoneadditionalcopingstrategy,wherepublicprofessionalsdefercopingwithvaluedilemmasandexpressadesiredcopingstrategywhichtheyhopetoadhereinthefuture,werefertothisas“deferredcoping”.Weuseonlyafewexamplestodiscusseachcopingstrategy,neverthelesstherearemoreexamplestobefoundinthecollecteddata.
First,thepublicprofessionalandvolunteercopewithseveraldilemmasaccordingtoabiasstrategy,wheresomevaluesarepreferredaccordingtoadominantvalueset.Thisisatexpenseofothervalues.Thepublicprofessionalbelievesshehasanimportantrolehere:“my
338
roleistoguardthesevalues,toguardco-creation,democraticdecisionmaking,inclusion,
believingincapacitiesofelderly,inopenness,intrust,indiversity”.Theexamplemostdiscussedbytherespondents(R9and10)involvedthevaluesindividualfreedomandsocialcapital.Fromthefollowingstatementthebiasstrategybecomesclear:“Iampreferringthe
valueofsocialcapital[…].Idosobecauseit’sinfunctionofgettingtoknoweachotherand
inclusion.Iamawarethatbecauseofthissomepeoplechoosenottocometotheupcoming
generalmeeting.Butifwecannotgetthroughexclusionthisprojectcanendinmyopinion”(R9).
Anotherwayofcopingisbiasingwiththeaimofcopingaccordingtoacasuistrystrategyinthefuture.Ina‘casuistry’strategydecisionaremadeforeachparticularvalueconflictbasedonexperiencesinpreviouscases.R9:“Butitwasastudydaysoithadtobegood.ButIthought,okayletitgoandtrust[thecitizenco-producer],ifitisnotgooditisnotgoodandthenwelearnfromitaswell”(R9).Inthiscasethepublicprofessionalexperiencesadilemmabetweentrustandaccountabilityandisbiasingthedilemmainfavouroftrust.Awayinwhichcasuistrydidleadtotheoverrulingofonevalueoveranotherwasthefollowing:thepublicprofessionalexperiencedfromthepreviousgeneralactivitiesthatbecauseofindividualfreedomtherewerecitizenswhowerenotreceivingvalueofsocialcapitalorinclusion:“thereforewehaveagreedwithsomeofthe[citizenco-producers]toagainhavefixedseatingarrangementsso
youcannotchoosewheretosit”(R9).
Athirdwayinwhichpublicprofessionalscopewithvaluedilemmasisbybuildingfirewalls.Individualfreedomislimitedinthegeneralmeetings,butnotwithregardtotakingpartintheactivities.Inthismannerthepublicprofessionalbuildsfirewallsastowherewhichvalueiscreated.Inthegeneralmeetingsinclusioniscreatedthroughthecreationofsocialcapital.Inthemembershiptotheprograminclusionisguaranteedthroughthecreationofindividualfreedom.Finally,thepublicprofessionalalsobuildfirewallsbystressingthelimitsoftheprojectwithregardtoequityinaccess:“thesearethelimitsofCC:togetstructural
isolatedpeopleoutofisolation.Itisthusimportantthatothercaretakersandserviceskeep
visitingthispeople”(R9).
Cyclingisafourthstrategythroughwhichthepublicprofessionalsshowtodealwithvaluedilemmas.Becauseofefficiencyconsiderationstheinitiativeoftencyclesbetweendifferentvaluecreatingactivitiesandthereforegivessequentialattentiontothesevalues.Bydoingthisthepublicprofessionalscanberesponsivetotheirclient’sneeds:“Ithinkithastobepossibletomakethecontentoftheactivitiesvaryaccordingtothemoment”.
Anotherandfifthwaythroughwhichthepublicprofessionaliscopingishybridization,astrategyinwhichco-existencebetweenvaluesisbeingsought.Forexample,thedilemmabetweenefficiencyandeffectivenessmaybebalancedoutbyempoweringpeopletoco-produceinthemanagementoftheservice.Still,thereissomehesitationbecause“itisnotsurethiswouldwork”andthepublicprofessionalisthereforedeferringthiscopingstrategy,inthatsheispostponingtheactualcopingwiththedilemma.
Sixth,theinterviewdatashowsthatpublicprofessionalsalsodealwithdilemmasaccordingtoastrategyofincrementalism.Whencitizensexpresstheirdissatisfactionwiththelimitationoftheirindividualfreedom,thepublicprofessionalexplainswhytheyaredoingthisandexpressestheimportanceofthevaluetotheparticipants.Thepublicprofessionalclaimsthatinthefuture“wewillkeepexplainingthemwhywechooseforfixedseatsinthe
generalmeetings,Iwillinvitethemallinordertoexplainthereasoningbehindthis
decision”.Bydoingso,thepublicprofessionalslowlyputsmoreandmoreemphasisonone
339
valueandthereforeexpectsittobecreatedbyallco-producers.Alsoforthecreationofthevalueofreciprocitythepublicprofessionalsuseastrategyofincrementalism:“Wealways
saidthattheydonothavetodothis[i.e.giveback]andthattheydefinitelydonothaveto
payanything.Wedofeellikewehavetodomoretoemphasizethisthenjusttellthemthey
donothaveto.Therehavebeencertainideasonmaybemakingvouchersorotherthingsfor
thosepeoplewhodonothavethecapacitytohelpothers”(R9).
Finally,astrategyofescalationisbeingusedtocopewithdilemmasaroundaccountability:“Ialwaysgotothecoordinatingcommitteewithissuesortothe[thepublicprofessional].Thelatteristheresponsible”(R10).Alsothepublicprofessionaldiscussesissuesinthecoordinationcommitteeandthereforeescalatestheissuepartly.
Insum,thepublicprofessionalsadheretoavarietyofcopingstrategiestodealwithvaluedilemmas.Thefactthattheycanadheretoallofthesestrategiesmaybeexplainedbytheflexibilitywhichcharacterisestheproject.
5.3.2Citizenco-producersandtheircopingstrategies
Generally,whenthecitizenco-producersareconfrontedwithdilemmastheytendtoeitheravoidtheconflictbydroppingoutorescalatetheproblemtothepublicprofessionalortheboard.Somerespondentsdidalsoadheretoothercopingstrategies.
Ontheonehand,citizensescalateproblems,forexample,whenthereisadilemmabetweenequityinaccessandqualityofservice,theyexpectthecoordinationcommitteeandpublicprofessionaltodealwiththisconflict.Theyexpectconflictstobetakencareofbythepublicprofessionalandthecoordinationcommitteebecauseof(1)highpressureontheindividualco-producers–“Ialreadyhaveenoughpeopletotakecareof”(R17)-and(2)accountability–“ifthereisaconflict[thepublicprofessional]willhelpwiththedecision”(R1,also16,17).Thismaybepartlyexplainedbythefactthatmanydilemmasexperiencedbythecitizenco-producersarisefromworkingwithothers,andtheythusfeelinneedofaneutralrefereetooverlooktheseissues.
Ontheotherhand,somecitizenco-producersdonotescalatetheissuebutavoiddealingwithitbyconsideringtodrop-out.Forexampleonthetensionbetweenindividualfreedomandsocialcapital:“ifIhavetodosomethingbecauseitisobligated,thenIwillquit”(R1,also5).Othersquitbecauseparticipatingincreatingvaluesforthegroupmeansnotcreatingprivatevaluesonsafetyandcomfort:“Iwentreallyfewtimestothejointmeeting,because
youalwayshadtogothereorthereandthenIhadtocontactotherpeoplefortransport..
no,Ithinkthatisdifficult.Ionlygoifsomeoneasksmetocomewithhimorher”(R3,also11,12).Orontheissueofthedemandandoffermethodanditseffectiveness:“Idon’tputinanyeffortanymore”(R1)isalsoanexpressionofavoidance.Respondentsalsoshowedtoavoidreceivingassistancebecauseofthevalueofreciprocity:“IrathernotreceiveassistancebecausethenIfeellikeIhavetogivesomethingback”.Also,dropping-outoftenrelatestoworkingtogetherwithothers“Icannothandlethepressure[anotherparticipant]putsonme.Ithoughtaboutquitting”(R15,also16and17).
Nexttoescalatinganddropping-out,citizenco-producersalsoadheretoothercopingstrategiessuchasbiasing.Forexample,R3claimsthat“Idonotcountthatmuchinthe
340
biggerwhole.Thecommoninterestismuchmoreimportantthanthespecificinterest”(also16and17).Acopingstrategyofbuildingfirewallswasfoundintheinterviewdatatobeadheredtowhencitizenco-producersneedtoguardtheirownlimits:“Iamalwaysvery
clearonwhattheycanaskfrommeandIclearlytellthemwhattheyshouldasktoa
professional”(R2,also16).Acopingstrategyofcyclingwasalsodesiredbythepeopleinthattheefforttheyputinnowwillreturnwhentheyneedit,andthereforetheycyclebetweenprivateandpublicvalue(R13).Onerespondentclaimedthatshelearnsfrompreviousexperiencesinhowtocopewithcertainconflicts.Forexample,shelearnedtoaskforassistancefromthepublicprofessionalwhentoomuchpressureisputonher(R16).Therespondentadheredtoastrategyofcasuistryinthiscase.Next,citizenco-producersalsotendtowanttohybridizecertainvalues.Forexamplerespondent13experiencesadilemmabetweenwantingtoco-produceandhelpingoutothersontheonehandandthetimeshehasavailableontheotherhand.Shecopeswiththisdilemmabyhelpingoutwhenshecan,evenifitmeansaftertheactivityisfinished:“Ican’tbepresentatthepreparations,butthisisimpossible,soIhelpoutafter,forexamplebydoingthedishesandcleaningthe
tables”(R13).Finally,theinterviewdatashowedthatsomerespondentsadheredtoastrategyofincrementalismwhendealingwithvaluedilemmas.Forexample,onthedilemmabetweenindividualfreedomandsocialcapitalR14explainedthat“InthebeginningIfeltthatmyfreedomwaslimitedandIdidnotlikeit,butthenIaskedwhytheydidthis.
Whenyouknowwhythenyoustartunderstandingandacceptingwhy.NowItrytoexplain
othersandstressthattheaimisthatweallneedtogettoknoweachother”(alsoR5,16).
5.3.3Coordinatingcommitteeandtheircopingstrategies
Thedataofthecoordinatingcommitteeoncopingstrategieswhendealingwithvaluedilemmasdoesnotshowmanydifferenceswiththecopingstrategiesappliedbythecitizenco-producers.Theybuildfirewallsinordertoguardtheirlimits(R7)andtendtowanttohybridizeconflictingvalues(R5).Theonedifferenceistobeexplainedbytheirpositioninthecoordinationcommittee:ratherthanavoidingvalueconflictstheywillescalatethemtothecoordinationcommitteeandthepublicprofessionalswheretheycandecideonhowthecopewiththeissue(R4,7,8).Anargumentforescalatingtothepublicprofessional,ratherthandealingwithanissueinthecommittee,isthatthey“thinkthatpeoplewilllegitimizetheir
decisionsmore”(R7)whentheydoso.Anothercopingstrategyinaccordancewiththepublicprofessionalsisthatmembersofthecoordinatingcommitteebiasthosevalueswhichareinaccordancewiththeidealsoftheproject,asrespondent8statesontheissueoftheseatingarrangementsduringthemeetings“ifyoudonottalktootherpeople,youwon’tgettoknowthem.AndthisisimportanttodobecauseoftheaimofCC:gettingtoknowdifferentpeople”(R8).Similartothepublicprofessionals,theyadheretoastrategyofincrementalismwhentheywanttogivepreferencetoonevalue,forexample,byexplainingthereasontotheothercitizenco-producersandbyorganizingmoreactivitiesthroughwhichthisvalueiscreated:“Ithinkwehavetogodeeperintoexplainingwhywechooseto[havefixedseatingarrangements]byshowingthemtheirshynessisobstructingtheminfulfillingtheirneeds”(R4).
6.Conclusion
341
Inthispaperwestartedfromtheassumptionthatvaluesareco-createdintheco-productionofpublicservices.Co-productionofcareservicesisexpectedtoco-createbetterservices,abetterrelationshipbetweenpublicprofessionalandcitizen,betterdemocraticqualityaswellasvaluesrelatedtobettercareservicessuchassustainability,reciprocity,individualfreedomandequality.Fromthepublicadministrationliteraturewelearnedthatvaluesareoftenconflictingeachother.Thequestionaskedinthispaperwastowhichextentdoesco-productionenhanceorobstructthecreationofpublicvalues.Inordertoanswerthisresearchquestionswestudiedtheindividualexperiencesofthepublicprofessionalsandcitizensinvolvedintheco-productionofinformalcareforelderlyinasmallsizeFlemishmunicipality.
Thispapercontributestothediscussiononthedevelopmentofco-productiveapproachesbylookingatprocessesandoutcomesinpublicvalueco-creation.Itgivesinsightsintheindividualco-producer’sexperienceofco-productionandthusalsointheopportunitiesandchallengesforpublicvaluesinthedeliveryofservices.
Casestudiesoffertheadvantageofstudyingaphenomenonwithinitscontext,buthavethedisadvantagethattheydonotallowforstatisticalgeneralization(Eisenhardt&Graebner,2007).Nevertheless,theanalysisshowstherelevanceofvaluedilemmasandcopingstrategiesforvalueco-creation.Insightsinwhichcopingstrategiesareusedwhenconfrontedwithwhichvaluedilemmacantellusmoreonthevaluesthatareatriskofnotbeingcreated.Intheresultssectionwediscussed(1)thevaluesexpectedtobecreatedintheco-productionofsocialcare,(2)thevaluedilemmasexperiencedbypublicprofessionals,citizenco-producersandmemberofthecoordinatingcommittee,and(3)thecopingstrategiestheseactorsadheretowhenconfrontedwithvaluedilemmas.
Theanswertotheresearchquestionisthatco-producersareconfrontedwithvaluedilemmasandincopingwiththemtheymayfailtocreatesomeoftheirvaluestheyexpecttocreatebyco-producingtheservice.Theresultsshowthatavarietyofvaluedilemmasareexperiencedbyallactorsandthattheyalladheretoavarietyofcopingstrategies.Thevaluesthatareconflictingmostare:efficiencyandeffectiveness,individualfreedomandoutcomeeffectiveness;andequityinaccessandoutcomevaluessuchassocialcapital,reciprocityandqualityoftheservice.Ourresultsshowthatitisnotself-evidentthatco-productionformsasolutionforpublicvaluedilemmas.Unfortunately,co-productionofservicesstillfunctionsinacontextwhereefficiencyconsiderationsareanecessaryevilandleadtovalueconflicts.Furthermoretheco-productionofcareservicesbringswithitadditionalexpectedvaluessuchasreciprocity,equality,accessibility,individualfreedomandsustainability,whichagainmayconflictwitheachotherandwiththeotherexpectedpublicvalues.
Thepublicprofessionalsadheredtoallcopingstrategiesfoundintheliteraturewhendealingwithvaluedilemmas.However,theyoftenshowedthattheydefercopingduetoalackoftime,i.e.theyexpressadesiredcopingstrategy,butdonotyetfollowuponit.Alikecitizenco-producersadheretoallcopingstrategies,yettheymostlyadheretoanescalationstrategyandtherebymovetheconflicttothepublicprofessionalsoranavoidanceconflict,notdealingwiththeconflictatall.Thissuggeststhattheaccountabilityforvaluecreationstayswiththepublicprofessional.
Ourdatasuggestsinterestinginsightsonhowvaluedilemmasareobstructingvalueco-creation.Futureresearchshouldfocusontheimportanceofthefollowingaspectsinvaluedilemmasandcopingstrategies.
(1)Inadditiontocertainvaluesbeinginconflictwitheachother,manyoftheexamplesgiven
342
intheanalysisshowthatpublicvaluesareoftenrelatedtoeachotherinaconvergentway,bothinpositiveandnegativesense.Thismaymeanthatavaluedilemmamayhaveconsequencesforothervaluesthatarenotdirectlyconflictingbutareconvergentwithoneofbothvaluesinconflict.Forexample,inourcasestudywefoundthatwhenindividualfreedomiscreatedsatisfactionisalsocreated,andwhenindividualfreedomisneglectedsatisfactionmaydisappear.Thus,whenindividualfreedomisinconflictwithmanyothervalues,asdidourresultsshow,thesevaluesindirectlyalsoconflictwithsatisfaction.
(2)Thereweremanyotherfactorsfoundlimitingthecreationofcertainvalues.Forexamplepracticalissuessuchasaperson’shealthandabilities,butalsoworkingtogetherwithdifferentpeople,ahighdemandputonindividuals,demandshyness(andnon-takeupresultingfromthis)andnon-appreciationallseemedtolimitthecitizenco-producerincreatingprivateorpublicvalue.Futureresearchshouldfocusonhowthesefactorsareinfluencingvaluecreationandwhatisthebestwaytoreducethoseobstacles.
(3)Inadditiontothevaluedilemmasexperiencedbytheindividualco-producers,valuedilemmasalsooccuroutsidetheindividualperspective,betweenthedifferentperspectivesofthecitizenco-producers.Futureresearchshouldstudyinwhatwaysthesevalueexpectationsareconflictingandhowdilemmasbetweenexpectationsofdifferentactorsmayobstructvalueco-creation.Forexample,someoftherespondentsareconcernedmainlywithcreatingprivatevalue,whilethismightbeinconflictwiththedesireofotherstocreatepublicandprivatevalueforothers.
(4)Anotherwayoflookingatvalueco-creationanditsobstructionsmightbetolookatthevalueconflictsbetweenprivatevaluecreationandpublicvaluecreation.Forexample,avalueconflictthatstronglyemergedfromourdatawasonewerethecitizenco-producerswantedtocreateprivatevaluebyfocussingontheirindividualfreedomtositwheretheywantedandtalktowhotheywanted.Thepublicprofessional,however,wantstocreatepublicvaluebyfocussingonsocialcapitalinthecommunityofelderlyanddidnotallowfreeseating.
(5)Finally,fromtheresultsitwasclearthatthepublicprofessionalperceivedherroleasfacilitatingco-productionandguardingpublicvalues.Therefore,wesuggestthatfutureresearchshouldlookintotheeffectthattheroleperceptionofthedifferentactorshasonthevaluescreatedandthecopingstrategiesadheredto.
AcknowledgementsWewouldliketothankallactorsinvolvedin“ConnectedCare”forparticipatinginthisstudy.
BibliographyCarman,K.,&e.a.(2013).Patientandfamilyengagement:aframeworkforunderstanding
theelementsanddevelopinginterventionsandpolicies.HealthAff,223-231.
Lipsky,M.(1980).Street-LevelBureaucracy:DilemmasoftheIndividualinPublicServices.NewYork:RusselSageFoundation.
343
Loeffler,E.(2009).Afutureresearchagendaforco-production:overviewpaper.Swindon:ResearchCouncilsUK:LocalAuthorities&ResearchCouncils'Initiative(2010)Co-production:Aseriesofcommissionedreports.
Loeffler,E.,&e.a.(2013).Co-productionofhealthandwellbeinginScotland.Birmingham,UK:GovernanceInternational.
Alford,J.(2009).EngagingPublicSectorClients:FromService-DeliverytoCo-Production.Basingtoke:PalgraveMcMillan.
Alford,J.(2014).TheMultipleFacetsofCo-Production:BuildingontheworkofElinorOstrom.PublicManagementReview,16(3),299-316.
Alford,J.(2016).Co-Production,InterdependenceandPublicness:Extendingpublicservice-dominantlogic.PublicManagementReview,18(5),673-691.
Amery,J.(2014).Co-creatinginhealthpractice.UK:Radcliffe.
Batalden,M.,&e.a.(2015).Coproductionofhealthcareservice.BMJQuality&Safety,1-9.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315
BeckJørgensen,T.,&Bozeman,B.(2007).PublicValues.AnInventory.Administration&
Society,39(3),354-381.
Berlin,I.(1982).Againstthecurrent:Essaysinthehistoryofideas.London,England:HogarthPress.
Bovaird,T.(2007).BeyondEngagementandParticipation:UserandCommunityCoproductionofPublicServices.PublicAdministrationReview,846-860.
Bovens,M.,'tHart,P.,&vanTwist,M.(2007).OpenbaarBestuur,Beleid,organisatieenpolitiek.AlphenaandenRijn:Kluwer.
Box,R.(2015).PublicServiceValues.NewYork:M.E.Sharpe,Inc.
Boyle,D.,&e.a.(2006).Hiddenwork:co-productionbypeopleoutsidepaidemployment.York:JosephRowntreeFoundation.
Bozeman,B.(2007).Publicvaluesandpublicinterest:counterbalancingeconomic
individualism.Washington:Georgetownuniversitypress.
Braddock,C.(2010).Theemergingimportanceandrelevanceofshareddecisionmakingtoclinicalpractice.MedDecisMaking,30(Suppl1),5S-7S.
Brandsen,T.,&Helderman,J.-K.(2012).TheTrade-OffBetweenCapitalandCommunity:TheConditionforSuccesfulCo-productioninHousing.InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,23(4),1139-1155.
Brandsen,T.,&Honingh,M.(2016).DistinguishingDifferentTypesofCoproduction:AConceptualAnalysisBasedontheClassicalDefinitions.PublicAdministrationReview,
76(3),427-435.
Bryson,J.M.,Crosby,B.C.,&Bloomberg,L.(2014).PublicValueGovernance:MovingBeyondTraditionalPublicAdministrationandtheNewPublicManagement.PublicAdministrationReview,74(4),445-456.
Bryson,J.,Sancino,A.,Benington,J.,&Sorensen,E.(2017).TowardsAMulti-ActorTheoryofPublicValueCo-Creation.PublicManagementReview,19(5),640-654.
344
Buffel,T.,&e.a.(2011).Fysieke,socialeenpsychologischedimensiesvandewoonomgeving:Ouderenaanhetwoordoverhunverbondenheidmetdebuurt.TijdschriftvoorSociologie,2011(1),59-87.
Butler,C.,&Greenhalgh,T.(2011).Whatisalreafyknownaboutinvolvingusersinservicetransformation.InT.Greenhalgh,C.Humphrey,&F.Woodard,Userinvolvementin
healthcare(pp.10-27).Chichester,UK:Wiley-Blackwell.
deGraaf,G.,&Paanakker,H.(2014).GoodGovernance:PerformanceValuesandProceduralValuesinConflict.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,1-18.
deGraaf,G.,&VanderWal,Z.(2010).Managingconflictingpublicvalues:Governingwithintegrityandeffectiveness.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,40,623-630.
deGraaf,G.,Huberts,L.,&Smulders,R.(2016).CopingWithPublicValueConflicts.Administration&Society,1101-1127.
Dunston,R.,&e.a.(2009).Co-productionandhealthsystem-fromre-imagingingtore-making.PublicAdministration(68),39-52.
Echeverri,P.,&Skalen,P.(2011).Co-CreationandCo-Destruction:APractice-TheoryBasedStudyofInteractiveValueFormation.MarketingTheory,11(3),351-373.
Edvardsson,B.,Tronvoll,B.,&Gruber,T.(2011).Expandingunderstandingofserviceexchangeandvalueco-creation:asocialconstructionapproach.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,39(2),327-339.
Eisenheardt,K.,&Graebner,M.(2007).AcademyofManagementJournal.TheoryBuildingFromCases:OpportunitiesAndChallenges,50(1),25-32.
Fledderus,J.(2015).Userco-productionofPublicServiceDelivery.Nijmegen:RadboudUniversity.
Farr,M.(2016).Co-ProductionandValueCo-CreationinOutcome-BasedContractinginPublicServices.PublicManagementReview,18(5),654-672.
Grönroos,C.(2008).Servicelogicrevisited:whocreatedvalue.Andwhoco-creates?EuropeanBusinessReview,20(4),298-314.
Grönroos,C.(2011).Aserviceperspectiveonbusinessrelationships:Thevaluecreation,interactionandmarketinginterface.IndustrialMarketingManagement,40(2),240-247.
Hampshire,S.(1983).Moralityandconflict.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Hood,C.(1991).APublicManagementforallSeasons?PublicAdministration,69,3-19.
Maynard-Moody,S.,&Musheno,M.(2000).StateAgentorCitizenAgent:TwoNarrativesofDiscretion.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,10(2),329-358.
Maynard-Moody,S.,&Musheno,M.(2003).Cops,Teachers,Counselors:Storiesfromthe
FrontLinesofPublicService.AnnArbor:MI:UniversityofMichiganPress.
Meijer,A.(2014).Newmediaandthecoproductionofsafety:anempiricalanalysisofDutchpractices.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,44(1),17-34.
Meijer,A.(2016).Coproductionasastructuraltransformationofthepublicsector.InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement,29(6),596-611.
345
Needham,C.,&Carr,S.(2009).SCIEResearchbriefing31:co-production:anemerging
evidencebaseforadultsocialcaretransformation.London:SocialCareInstituteforExcellence.Retrievedfromwww.scie.org.uk
Nieuwenburg,P.(2004).Theagonyofchoice:IsaiahBerlinandthephenomenologyofconflict.Administration&Society,35,683-700.
O'Kelly,C.,&Dubnick,M.(2006).Takingtoughchoicesseriously:PublicAdministrationandindividualmoralagency.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,16,393-415.
Osborne,S.P.,Radnor,Z.,&Strokosch,K.(2016).Co-productionandtheCo-creationofValueinPublicServices:Asuitablecasefortreatment?PublicManagementReview,
18(5),pp.639-653.
Osborne,S.P.,Radnor,Z.,&Strokosch,K.(2016).Co-ProductionandtheCo-CreationofValueinPublicServices:Asuitablecasefortreatment?PublicManagementReview,
18(5),639-653.
Plé,L.,&ChumpitasCáceres,R.(2010).NotAlwaysCo-Creation:IntroducingInteractionalCo-DestructionofValueinService-DominantLogic.JournalofServicesMarketing,
24(6),430-437.
Payne,A.,Storbacka,K.,&Frow,P.(2007).Managingtheco-creationofvalue.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,36(1),83-96.
Pestoff,V.(2006).Citizensandco-productionofwelfareservice:childcareineightEuropeancountries.PublicManagementReview,8(4),503-519.
Pestoff,V.,Brandsen,T.,&Verschuere,B.(2013).NewPublicGovernance,theThirdSectorandCo-Production.NewYork:Routledge.
Provan,K.G.,&Milward,B.H.(2001).Donetworksreallywork?Aframeworkforevaluatingpublic-sectororganizationalnetworks.Publicadministrationreview,61(4),414-423.
Ross,P.,Needham,C.,&Carr,S.(2013).Co-productioninsocial:Whatitisandhowtodoit.SCIEguide51.
Rutgers,M.(2008).SortingOutPublicValues?OntheContingencyofValueClassificationinPublicAdministration.AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,30(1),92-113.
SCIE.(2013).Whatisco-production-Definingco-production.RetrievedAugust16,2016,fromhttp://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide51/what-is-coproduction/defining-£coproduction.asp
Schott,C.(2015).Playingarole-butwhichone?Howpublicservicemotivationand
professionalismaffectdecision-makingindilemmasituations.LeidenUnivesity:PhDdissertation.
Schott,C.,VanKleef,D.,&Steen,T.(2015).WhatdoesitMeanandImplytobePublicServiceMotivated?AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,45(6),689-707.
Spicer,M.(2001).ValuepluralismanditsimplicationsforAmericanpublicadministration.AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,23,507-528.
Spicer,M.W.(2009).ValueConflictandLegalReasoninginPublicAdministration.AdministrativeTheory&Praxis,31(4),537-555.
346
Steenhuisen,B.(2009).CompetingPublicValues:Copingstrategiesinheavilyregulated
utilityindustries.Delft:TechnischeUniversiteitDelft.
Stewart,J.(2006).Valueconflictandpolicychange.ReviewofPolicyResearch,23(1),147-152.
Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(2008).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:groundedtheoryproceduresandtechniques(2nded.).ThousandOaks:CA:Sage.
Thacher,D.,&Rein,R.(2004).Managingvalueconflictinpublicpolicy.Governance(17),457-486.
Thomsen,M.,&Jakobsen,M.(2015).Influencingcitizencoproductionbysendingencouragementandadvice:afieldexperiment.InternationalPublicManagement
Journal,18(2),286-303.
Vanleene,D.,Verschuere,B.,&Voets,J.(2015).Co-producinganicerneighbourhood:whydopeopleparticipateincommunitydevelopmentprojects?.PaperfortheIIASConferenceonco-productionofpublicservices,Nijmegen,June2015,(p.22).
Vanleene,D.,Voets,J.,&Verschuere,B.(2017).Co-producingaNicerNeighbourhood:WhydoPeopleParticipateinLocalCommunityDevelopmentProjects?LexLocalis,15(1),111-132.
vanderWal,Z.,deGraaf,G.,&Lawton,A.(2011).CompetingValuesinPublicManagement.PublicManagementReview,13(3),pp.331-341.
vanGestel,I.,Koppenjan,J.,Schrijver,I.,vandeVen,A.,&Veeneman,W.(2008).ManagingPubilcValuesinPublic-PrivateNetworks:AComparativeStudyofInnovativePublicInfrastructureProjects.PublicMoneyandManagement,28(3),139-145.
Vargo,S.,&Lusch,R.(2008).Service-DominantLogic:Continuingtheevolution.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,36(1),1-10.
Verschuere,B.,Brandsen,T.,&Pestoff,V.(2012).Co-production:TheStateoftheArtinResearchandtheFutureAgenda.InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,23(4),1083-1101.
Verté,D.,DeWitte,N.,&DeDonder,L.(2007).Schaakmatofaanzet?Monitorvoorlokaal
ouderenbeleidinVlaanderen.Brugge:VandenBroele.
Wagenaar,H.(1999).Valuepluralisminpublicadministration.AdministrativeTheory&
Praxis,21,441-449.
WorldHealthOrganisation.(2015).WHOglobalstrategyonpeople-centredandintegrated
healthservices.WorldHealthOrganization.
AppendixTableA.Respondents
347
Respondents Sex Co-producer Coordinatingcommittee
1 Female Citizenco-producer No
2 Male Citizenco-producer No
3 Male Citizenco-producer No
4 Female Citizenco-producer Yes
5 Female Citizenco-producer No
6 Female Citizenco-producer No
7 Male Citizenco-producer Yes
8 Female Citizenco-producer Yes
9 Female Publicprofessional Yes
10 Female Volunteer Yes
11 Female Citizenco-producer Yes
12 Male Citizenco-producer No
13 Female Citizenco-producer No
14 Female Citizenco-producer No
15 Female Citizenco-producer No
16 Female Citizenco-producer No
17 Female Citizenco-producer No
348
Service Provider Perspectives on Coproduction and its Outputs (Jo, Lee, and Nabatchi) 20
Suyeon Jo Department of Public Administration and International Affairs
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University
Samanta Lee Department of Social Science
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University
Tina Nabatchi Department of Public Administration and International Affairs
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University
20 This study was made possible by grant number R21HS023562-01 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality/DHHS. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of AHRQ
349
Introduction Coproduction, an umbrella term that captures a wide variety of activities that engage
state and lay actors in commissioning, designing, delivering, and/or assessing public services
(Nabatchi, Sancino, and Scilia 2017), is often lauded for its potential to generate benefits for
users, providers, and services (Bovaird 2007; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2014).
Despite such claims, however, empirical evidence of such benefits is rare (Bovaird and
Loeffler 2016; Brandsen and Honingh 2015; Jo and Nabatchi 2016). Among the many gaps
in research are studies that examine service provider perspectives on coproduction – we know
very little about whether they believe in its potential and how they assess the quality of its
outputs.
This paper begins to fill those gaps by addressing three research questions: (1) Do
providers believe in the potential of coproduction? (2) How do providers assess the quality of
coproduction outputs? (3) Do providers and lay actors differ in their assessments of the
quality of coproduction outputs? To address these questions, this paper reports on some of the
results from a larger research project funded by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ) about patient engagement and diagnostic error. To answer the first question,
we assess providers’ beliefs and attitudes about user empowerment and activation in the
diagnostic process. We also examine their willingness to utilize outputs coproduced by
service users in their own medical practices. To answer the second and third questions, we
examine providers’ assessments of the quality of the recommendations for reducing
diagnostic error (coproduction outputs), in terms of understandability, likelihood and ease of
use, and potential impact on diagnostic quality, and compare their responses to those of
healthcare consumers. By addressing these questions, this study contributes to both the
theoretical and empirical literature on coproduction, particularly in terms of understanding
provider perspectives on coproduction and its outputs.
350
The paper proceeds as follows. First, we explain the theory of coproduction, using
the logic model approach implicit in the concept, and demonstrate the need for more studies
on service provider perspectives on coproduction and its outputs. Second, we develop our
research hypotheses based on the literature on coproduction and public participation. Third,
we briefly introduce our overall research project and the sessions conducted for this paper.
Fourth, we explain our data, measures, and methods for hypothesis testing. Fifth, we present
and discuss the results. We conclude with a discussion of the limitations and contributions of
this study.
The Theory of Coproduction Used in a variety of settings from education to healthcare to waste management,
coproduction has become an important reality in public management. Although coproduction
is defined in diverse ways, most highlight the involvement of both service users (the public or
lay actors) and service providers (public service professionals) who act as partners in the
delivery of services (Alford 2014; Bovaird 2007; Bovaird et al. 2015; Sharp 1980; Thomas
2013). This idea is well captured by Bovaird’s (2007: 847) definition of coproduction: “the
provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized
service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community, where
all parties make substantial contributions.”
To understand the state of theory with regard to coproduction, it is useful to examine
the logic model implicit in most definitions: the actors (i.e., service users and providers) work
together to provide inputs (e.g., articulations of interests and needs; information; resources)
about the service under consideration, which generates outputs (e.g., a list of priorities or
recommendations; a plan or a protocol) that in turn create outcomes (e.g., individual level
impacts on actors; service changes). Of course, the nature of the inputs, outputs, and the
351
outcomes varies depending on the type of coproduction process being used, for example
whether it is used at the individual, group, or collective level and whether it occurs at the
commissioning, design, delivery, or assessment phase of the public service cycle (e.g.,
Nabatchi, Sicilia, Sancino 2016; see also Brudney and England 1983).
This logic model approach is not only a generalized description of what happens in
coproduction, but also is the basis on which the theory of coproduction has been developed
thus far. On the user side, for example, the general theory is that through active involvement
in the process of coproduction, lay actors provide inputs on services, such as expressions of
their needs and interests, which enable the production of services that better meet their
desires and demands (Sharp 1980; Whitaker 1980; Brudney and England 1983; Levine and
Fisher 1984; Pestoff 2006; Thomas 2013). This not only improves service-related outcomes
such as user satisfaction and perceptions of quality, but also has individual-level outcomes
such as increased user knowledge, confidence, self-esteem (Rich 1981; Percy 1984; Bovaird
2007; Van Ryzin 2011; Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers 2015; Bovaird, et al. 2015).
Unfortunately, the general theory on the provider side is simply an echo of the theory
on the user side: the voluntary participation of service users gives providers inputs that
otherwise would not have been available (Sharp 1980; Bovaird 2007). These inputs allow for
the provision of services that better meet user needs and that generate service-related
outcomes such as efficiency, effectiveness, and cost savings (Brudney 1984, 1985; Percy
1983; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015; Whitaker 1980). Following this logic, and
given calls over the last several decades to do more with less, coproduction has gained
traction as an alternative to the traditional model of service provision (Brudney and England
1983: 59; Levine and Fisher 1984: 179), particularly when governments face resource
constraints (Brudney and England 1983; Ferris 1984; Levine and Fisher 1984).
352
The problems with this fairly weak theory development are at least twofold. First,
there is virtually no distinction in the theories behind user participation and provider
participation. While scholars do recognize that the public and service professionals tend to
have different interests and perspectives on the issues of public importance (Miller 2004;
Moon and Welch 2005), provider views on engaging users in the service processes have been
underdeveloped. Rather most theories on coproduction focus on users’ inputs and roles, given
the explicit focus of coproduction theory that regards lay actors as a co-producer (see
Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015), which distinguishes the concept from the traditional
model of provider-centric service delivery (Bovaird 2007). As a results of poor theoretical
base on this matter, we have few empirical research on service providers’ views on
coproduction.
Second, the theory of coproduction pays more attention to the objectives or desired
outcome of coproduction, with less focus on outputs. A systematic review on coproduction
reveal that previous studies have addressed definitions, types, objectives, drivers, and
outcomes of coproduction (Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummer 2015); no study has identified
outputs generated through coproduction. This is unfortunate because the output is an
important part of the production function of coproduction that should differ from other types
of service production models (Kiser and Percy 1980). It links participants’ inputs with
potential benefits of coproduction that otherwise could not be achieved, thereby making
significant impacts on service outcomes.
To help address these gaps in theory development, and ultimately in empirical
testing, this paper investigates service provider views on coproduction and the quality of its
outputs. Specifically, this paper explores three research questions: (1) Do providers believe in
the potential of coproduction? (2) How do providers assess the quality of coproduction
outputs? (3) Do providers and lay actors differ in their assessments of the quality of
353
coproduction outputs? In the following section, we develop hypotheses about the answers to
these questions.
Service Providers’ Perspectives on Coproduction and Its Outputs The hypotheses explored in the paper center around two important constructs: (1)
provider support for coproduction, and (2) provider assessments about the quality of
coproduction outputs. First, in developing a theory of coproduction, it not necessarily useful
to assume that providers will have a positive, or even a neutral, view on coproduction. In fact,
there are reasons to believe that despite any potential benefits, providers might not hold
favorable opinions on coproduction (Wilson 2001; Morris and O’Neill 2006). A study of
coproduction in five European countries reveal that some providers do not even understand
coproduction and regard the role of citizens in public service delivery as irrelevant (Loeffler
et al 2008). This indicate that many professionals may be reluctant to accept coproduction as
a standard practice. Second, by virtue of their education and/or professional training and
experiences, some professionals believe that they have superior knowledge and expertise, and
do not value the inputs of lay people (see Checkoway 1981). Participating in the process of
service production and delivery often requires technical knowledge, which make lay actors’
participation less ideal (Irvin and Stansbury 2004: 62). Some scholars further argue that
providers are less welcoming to user coproduction as they are reluctant to delegate power to
the users (e.g. Moynihan, 2003; Wilson et al. 2006), in which case professionals safeguard
their power by discouraging citizen engagement. Finally, providers may doubt that lay actors
have the breadth and depth of knowledge needed to provide meaningful input, and thus doubt
the potential of users to be resourceful assets (Alford 2002; Percy 1984). Moynihan (2003:
165) points out that there is a view that engaging citizens is considered “onerous requirement
with little clear benefits.” In short, coproduction is often not well accepted or understood by
354
service providers, and even when they become aware of the concept, they are often reluctant
to believe in users’ capabilities to participate in meaningful ways (Bovaird 2007).
As illustrated thus far, providers’ skepticism about engaging users might be
predicated on the belief that users are incapable of contributing to improving the quality of
services and that users do not have expertise to be involved in service processes. Having that
said, professionals’ might change their opinions and recognize the potential of coproduction
when they see the evidence that service users can create outputs of good quality. Fortunately,
previous research has considered coproduction and the idea of engaging lay actors as
potentially advantageous, especially when users make inputs that complements providers’
inputs (Chaebo and Medeiros 2016) and when professionals can learn from citizen-experts
(see Irvin and Stansbury 2004). Furthermore, some studies show that citizen inputs have
improved the quality of public services (Boyle and Harris 2009; Meijer 2012; Percy 1983;
Vamstad 2012). Hence, we offer our first two hypotheses:
H1: Professionals will be skeptical about the potential of coproduction. H2: Professionals’ skepticism about the potential of coproduction will
decrease after they see the outputs of coproduction (i.e., the recommendations).
It is also important to determine how service providers assess coproduction outputs.
Following the similar logic of providers’ skepticism on the potential of coproduction, we
would hypothesize that providers are likely to give low ratings on the outputs generated by
lay people. This is mainly due to the professionals’ assumption about users’ lack of
knowledge and expertise (Moynihan 2003). To illustrate, they might perceive coproduction
outputs as the product created by those who do not have professional training and
experiences and who do not have appropriate knowledge about rules and procedures of
355
professionalized service delivery. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that providers would
have negative presumption about the quality of coproduction outputs.
In opposition to the providers’ views, lay citizens are likely to possess a positive
prepositions towards coproduction outputs. Loeffler and her colleagues (2008) reported that
citizens of five EU countries strongly believed their abilities in generating positive outputs
through coproduction, while public managers had doubts on the role of citizens. Moreover,
research suggests that lay actors not only want to contribute to public problem solving (e.g.,
Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015), but also that they can offer valuable input based on their
specific knowledge, experiences, and pragmatic appreciation (Fung 2003; Gutmann and
Thompson 2004; Young 2000). The quality of this input can be even stronger when offered
through cooperative efforts that seek out aggregated knowledge, experiences, and diverse
viewpoints, as is the case in collective coproduction. In the context of coproduction, Bovaird
(2007) emphasizes that the ability of service users to provide inputs is greater than what
public administers might assume. Taken together, we offer a second set of hypotheses:
H3: Professionals will give low evaluations to the outputs of coproduction. H4: Professional assessments of the outputs of coproduction will be lower
than lay actor assessments. In other words, there will be a gap between service user and service provider perspectives on coproduction outputs.
The Research Project To test the hypotheses presented in the previous section and address our research
questions, this paper uses data from a larger research project, Using Public Deliberation to
Define Patient Roles in Reducing Diagnostic Error, which was funded by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The primary goal of the project was to engage
healthcare consumers (i.e., patients or service users) in a collective coproduction process
356
during which they developed informed and practical patient-focused recommendations for
reducing diagnostic error (see Appendix 1 for the recommendations).
In addition to several other empirical examinations, the team sought to determine
how others – including both providers and users – would perceive the quality of the
coproduction output. Such an examination is particularly important within the context of
collective coproduction – just because one group of service users developed and agreed upon
a set of recommendations (the coproduction output) does not mean that providers and other
users will find those recommendations to be valuable. In this project specifically, the team
wanted to determine whether healthcare providers and consumers believed the
recommendations for reducing diagnostic error were understandable, usable, and potentially
impactful on health outcomes.
To do so, the team convened two groups of healthcare professionals. The first group
met in November 2016 at the Diagnostic Error in Medicine (DEM) Conference in Los
Angeles, California. A total of 18 professionals participated in the DEM group.21 The second
group met in February 2017 at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, New York. A total of 17
professionals participated in the Crouse group.22 Both events used a participatory focus group
format, during which the professionals discussed diagnostic error and the recommendations
developed by consumers.
Professionals completed three surveys during the events: (1) a pre-event survey, (2) a
survey about the recommendations, and (3) a post-event survey. Pre- and post- event surveys
21 Participants for the DEM group were recruited through an invitation distributed by the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM) to DEM attendees and by Kaiser Permanente to its Los Angeles staff. Attendees received a complimentary breakfast and some took advantage of an offer for complimentary registration to a professional development session at the DEM conference. 22 Participants for the Crouse group were recruited through an invitation distributed by Crouse Hospital to medical staff. Attendees received 3 continuing medical education credits (CMEs) and a complimentary dinner.
357
include questions that measure professionals’ beliefs and attitudes toward diverse issues of
patient engagement and diagnostic error, and the recommendation assessment survey include
questions that ask professionals of their opinions on various aspects of the recommendations
from our consumer collective coproduction and two other sources. We did so to examine the
efficacy of coproduced outputs, especially when compared with the one developed by
professionals, and another one developed by lay actors without collective coproduction.
Specifically, the first additional recommendation set was developed by a professional
healthcare organization; it was adapted from the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM)
Recommendations for Improving Diagnosis in Health, which were released in September
2015.23 The second set was created from the written responses of a different group of project
participants who only received education about diagnostic error. Specifically, in their post-
intervention survey, the participants in this education-only group were asked, “What ideas do
you have for how patients can help improve the diagnostic process?” The research team
compiled all of the responses, sorted them, and created a representative set of
recommendations. The three recommendation sets (Set A: Coproduction Recommendations;
Set B: IOM Recommendations; Set C: Education Recommendations) are presented in
Appendix 2.
The team also convened a participatory feedback session with 95 healthcare
consumers, none of who participated in the coproduction process, on February 6, 2016. These
consumers engaged in table discussions of 6-8 people and completed a short survey about the
quality of the recommendations. We aimed to compare the consumer feedback group’s
23 To create the IOM recommendations, the research team adapted the points under Goal 1: Facilitate more effective teamwork in the diagnostic process among health care professionals, patients, and their families. The full set of IOM recommendations can be found at http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2015/Improving-Diagnosis/Diagnosis_Recommendations.pdf.
358
responses with professionals’ responses, thereby observing the gap between professionals’
and lay actors’ perspectives on coproduced outputs.
We use survey data from the two participatory focus groups with healthcare
professionals and the consumer participatory feedback session to test our hypotheses and
investigate our research questions. The follow sections provide information on our data and
measures.
Data and Measures We draw on data from four surveys to test our hypotheses, including three surveys
completed by healthcare professionals and one survey completed by healthcare consumers.
Specifically, the healthcare professionals completed a pre- and post-event survey, both of
which had a variety of questions capturing their support for coproduction (H1 and H2). Both
the healthcare professionals and the healthcare consumers completed surveys that assessed
their perceptions about quality of the coproduction output (i.e., the recommendations) (H3
and H4). We discuss each of these constructs – support for coproduction and quality of the
coproduction output below. Table XX provides the data source, measures, and description of
each construct. We also provide more detailed explanations for our measures below.
Table 1: Description of Measures
Construct Measure (Description) Data Source
Provider Support for Coproduction
Views on User Empowerment : 13-item index that assesses clinician support for patient activation and empowerment
Views on User Engagement : 4-item index that assesses provider support for engaging patients as coproducers in the diagnostic process
Willingness to Use Outputs : 2 items that assess provider’s inclinations to use and encourage other providers to use the recommendations
Pre- and Post-Event Surveys administered to healthcare professionals
359
Quality of Coproduction Outputs (i.e., the Recommendations)
Consumer Views of Output Quality : 4 items that assess consumer views of the recommendations in terms of understandability, likelihood of use, ease of use, and potential impact on diagnostic quality
Consumer Participatory Feedback Group Recommendation Assessment Survey
Provider Views of Output Quality : 4 items that assess provider views of the recommendations in terms of their understandability, likelihood of use, ease of use, and potential impact on diagnostic quality from a patient perspective) Comparative Assessment of Three Recommendation Sets (based on specific criterion) : 4 items that assess provider views of the recommendations as a whole set in terms of user-friendliness, appropriateness, likelihood to reduce diagnostic error, and likelihood to improve diagnostic quality Comparative Assessment of Three Recommendation Sets (overall assessment) : A choice of the “best” set
Professional Focus Group Recommendation Assessment Survey
Provider Support for Coproduction To measure the degree to which professionals support coproduction (to test H1 and
H2), we use three measures from the pre- and post-surveys of providers. First, we use the
Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM),24 licensed by Insignia Health,
to capture providers’ views on user empowerment. This measure assesses “clinicians’ beliefs
in the importance of patient activation in self-management behaviors and competencies”
(Hibbard et al 2010), and thus is a good proxy of support for coproduction. Specifically, the
13-item measure (see Appendix 3) places individuals on a 0-100 scale, where higher scores
indicate greater support for patient activation and empowerment. The scores can be further
24 Patient Activation Measure (PAM) assesses patients’ knowledge, skills and confidence for managing their own health. This measure is also licensed by Insignia Health.
360
segmented into three levels – low, medium, and high – which conceptualizes clinicians’
beliefs about patient activation as a hierarchically structured development process.
Second, we created an additive index that captures providers’ views on patient
engagement. Specifically, the index measures the degree to which providers believe patients
should be engaged as coproducers in the diagnostic process. The additive index (α=0.84)
consists of four 5-point Likert scale items, where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree:
1. Patients can play a critical role in the diagnostic process.
2. Patients can play a critical role in improving diagnostic quality.
3. Patients can provide valuable inputs in addressing the problem of diagnostic error.
4. Patients can take actions that reduce diagnostic error.
Finally, we separately use two 5-point Likert scale items (where 1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree) to measure whether and to what extent professionals are willing to
use, and encourage others to use, the coproduced outputs (i.e., the recommendations):
1. I am willing to use the recommendations produced by patients in my own medical
practice.
2. I am willing to encourage fellow healthcare professionals to use the recommendations
produced by patients.
Quality of Coproduction Outputs To measure perceptions about the quality of the coproduced output (to test H3 and
H4), we use data from the recommendation assessment surveys administered to the two
groups of healthcare providers and the consumer participatory feedback group. The
recommendations (see Appendix 1) are grouped into five broad categories, and we asked
respondents to evaluate the quality of each category along a number of dimensions, including
361
whether they were understandable, likely to be used, easy to use, and likely to improve
diagnostic quality.
Specifically, to assess consumer views of output quality, the healthcare consumers
were asked the following four questions about each of the recommendation categories:
1. Do you understand this recommendation? (Yes or No)
2. How likely is it that you would use this recommendation in your own healthcare?
(5-point scale: Extremely Unlikely, Unlikely, Neutral, Likely, Extremely Likely)
3. How difficult would it be for you to use this recommendation in your own
healthcare? (5-point scale: Very Difficult, Difficult, Neutral, Easy, Very Easy)
4. If patients followed through on this recommendation, how much would it
improve diagnostic quality? (5-point scale: No Improvement, Minor
Improvement, Neutral, Moderate Improvement, Major Improvement)
Similarly, to assess provider views of output quality, the healthcare professionals were
asked the following four questions about each of the recommendation categories:
1. Will patients understand this recommendation? (Yes or No)
2. How likely is it that patients will use this recommendation? (5-point scale:
Extremely Unlikely, Unlikely, Neutral, Likely, Extremely Likely)
3. How difficult would it be for patients to use this recommendation? (5-point scale:
Very Difficult, Difficult, Neutral, Easy, Very Easy)
4. If used, how much would this recommendation improve diagnostic quality? (5-
point scale: No Improvement, Minor Improvement, Neutral, Moderate
Improvement, Major Improvement)
362
In addition to these questions, we also asked the professionals to engage in a
comparative assessment of three recommendation sets. Specifically, we asked the
professionals to rate the coproduced recommendations as a whole (rather than in their
individual categories), as well as to rate two additional sets of recommendations. The
providers were not informed about the source of any recommendation set. They were asked
to answer the following questions for each recommendation set:
1. How user-friendly is the recommendation set as a whole? (1 = Least User-
Friendly to 10 = Most User-Friendly)
2. How appropriate for guiding behaviors and activities is the recommendation set
as a whole? (1 = Most Inappropriate to 10 = Most Appropriate)
3. If utilized, how likely is it that the recommendation set as a whole would reduce
diagnostic errors? (1 = Least Likely to 10 = Most Likely)
4. If utilized, how likely is it that the recommendation set as a whole would improve
diagnostic quality? (1 = Least Likely to 10 = Most Likely)
At the conclusion of the survey, the providers were also asked: “Taken together, which set of
recommendations do you think is the best?”
Methods We use both descriptive analyses and t-tests to test our hypotheses. First, to examine
professionals’ beliefs about the potential of coproduction (for H1 and H2), we conduct t-tests
to see the differences between professionals’ responses on our three measures of Provider
Support for Coproduction (Views on user empowerment, Views on user engagement, and
Willingness to use coproduced outputs). Second, we report on some descriptive statistics to
observe Provider views of output quality (for H3). These include frequency and percent of
363
people in each of the rating category for each recommendations, as well as the overall sets of
the recommendations (coproduced recommendation set by coproduction group, IOM
recommendation set, and education group’s recommendation set) for Comparative
assessment of three recommendation sets. Lastly, we also employ t-test to investigate the
differences between Provider views of output quality and Consumer views of output quality
on coproduced recommendations (for H4).
The following section presents the results. It should be noted that the results on two
groups of professionals (DEM and Crouse) are reported separately, given the different
characteristics of the two groups; DEM group is more favorable of the idea of patient
engagement in the diagnostic process than the Crouse group.
Results Provider Support for Coproduction
Table 2 shows how service providers view the idea of service user empowerment.
The mean score for CSPAM (Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure) were 66.69
and 66.06, respectively for the DEM and Crouse groups. After the healthcare professionals
participated in our sessions and saw the coproduced recommendations, the scores increased
by 2.08 and 5.92, respectively; however, neither difference is statistically significant. It is
worth noting that all of these scores are regarded as high levels of CS-PAM, according to
three segments of the measure (low, medium, and high). That being said, professionals
already had a higher level of support for patient empowerment, and this did not change after
their participation in our sessions.
Table 2: Clinician Support for Patient Activation (CSPAM)
DEM Crouse
N 17 17
Before 66.69 66.06
364
After 68.78 71.98
Difference 2.08 5.92
Note: *p<.10, **p.<.05, ***p<.01; two-tailed test of significance
The results on professionals’ views on user (patient) engagement revealed the similar
findings (see Table 3). The mean scores for DEM and Crouse groups were 4.66 and 4.22,
which saw minimal and statistically insignificant increases of 0.06 and 0.09 after being
exposed to the patients’ coproduced recommendations. Again, the participants assessed
highly of the potential roles of patients in the diagnostic processes and regarded the idea of
patient engagement as important, given that our measure is on five-point scale; and these
perceptions merely changed after attending our sessions.
Table 3: Views on Patient Engagement
DEM Crouse
N 17 17
Before 4.66 4.22
After 4.72 4.31
Difference 0.06 0.09
Note: *p<.10, **p.<.05, ***p<.01; two-tailed test of significance
The results on health service providers’ willingness to use coproduced outputs
(recommendations), presented in Table 4, yielded some interesting findings. To begin with,
mean perceptions of both groups on this matter were not very high, compared to the scores
for their views on user empowerment and user engagement. The scores for the respondents’
willingness to use the coproduced recommendations in their own medical practice are 3.75
and 3.81, and the scores for their willingness to encourage fellow service providers to use the
recommendations were 4.00 and 3.76. This indicates that health service providers did not
have strong confidence about users’ abilities to produce quality recommendations. However,
after they were presented to the recommendation set produced by service users, DEM group’s
365
perceptions were substantially improved. Their scores moved closer to “strongly agreeing”
with the willingness to utilize the coproduced recommendations in their medical practices
and to encourage fellow professionals to use the recommendations, and these increases are
statistically significant. Yet, the Crouse group did not change their opinions even after being
exposed to the coproduced recommendations. The differences between the groups may be a
function of participant characteristics (e.g., recall that the DEM group had greater interest in
patient empowerment than the Crouse group).
Table 4: Willingness to Use the Coproduced Outputs (Recommendations)
DEM Crouse
I am willing to use the recommendations produced by patients in my own medical practice.
N 16 16
Before 3.75 3.81
After 4.5 3.84
Difference 0.75*** 0.03
I am willing to encourage fellow healthcare professionals to use recommendations produced by patients.
N 17 17
Before 4.00 3.76
After 4.41 3.84
Difference 0.41* 0.08
Note: *p<.10, **p.<.05, ***p<.01; two-tailed test of significance
Taken together, we found mixed support to hypotheses 1 and 2, depending on
different measures. Professionals have favorable propositions about the idea of empowering
and engaging users, whereas they still have doubts about users’ abilities to produce quality
outputs. The following section further investigate how service providers evaluate the quality
and efficacy of the actual coproduction outputs.
Professionals’ Views on Quality of Coproduction Outputs As illustrated in the previous section, professionals in both the DEM and Crouse
groups were presented with the recommendations produced by our coproduction group and
asked to complete a survey that assessed various facets of their quality. The results of this
366
assessment activity are presented in Table 5, which shows the responses to each question
about the recommendations, including frequencies and percentages. Unlike the previous
sections, we do not present the results separately for the DEM and Crouse groups. Instead,
we report the cumulative results (N=35).
Table 5: Professionals’ Assessment on the Quality of Coproduction Outputs
Rec 1 Rec 2 Rec 3 Rec 4 Rec 5
Will patients understand this recommendation?
Yes 24 (73%)
25 (74%)
31 (91%)
32 (91%)
32 (94%)
No 9 (27%) 9 (26%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%) 2 (6%)
How likely is it that patients will use this recommendation?
Extremely Unlikely 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (11%) 1 (3%)
Unlikely 7 (20%) 10 (29%)
13 (37%)
15 (43%)
11 (31%)
Neutral 14 (40%)
14 (40%)
12 (34%)
10 (29%)
15 (43%)
Likely 14 (40%)
11 (31%) 8 (23%) 6 (17%) 7 (20%)
Extremely Likely 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%)
How difficult would it be for patients to use this recommendation?
Very Difficult 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 4 (11%) 8 (23%) 2 (6%)
Difficult 18 (51%)
14 (40%)
21 (60%)
14 (40%)
11 (31%)
Neutral 9 (26%) 14 (40%) 7 (20%) 10
(29%) 15
(43%)
Easy 7 (20%) 5 (14%) 2 (6%) 3 (9%) 7 (20%)
Very Easy 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
If used, how much would this recommendation improve diagnostic quality?
No Improvement 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%)
Minor Improvement 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 4 (11%) 0 (0%)
Neutral 1 (3%) 3 (9%) 1 (3%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%)
Moderate Improvement
22 (63%)
22 (63%)
18 (51%)
18 (51%)
24 (68%)
Major Improvement 9 (26%) 9 (26%) 14 (40%) 8 (23%) 8 (23%)
367
In general, professionals’ assessments on coproduction outputs are not very positive,
especially in terms of ease of use and patients’ likelihood to use the recommendation;
between 17% and 40% of respondents said that users are likely to use the recommendations,
and from 9% to 23% of professionals judged the recommendations as being easy for users to
follow through. Yet, professionals believed that the five recommendations developed by
coproduction group would make impacts in improving diagnostic quality, and that the
recommendations are appropriate for patients to follow through; between 74% and 91% of
professionals reported that the recommendations would make moderate or major
improvement on diagnostic quality. Considering that professionals’ assessments differ
according to four different criteria, we found mixed support to hypothesis 3.
Table 6: Comparative Assessment of Three Recommendation Sets Coproduction
Rec Set IOM
Rec Set
Edu-only
Rec Set
User-friendly 5.88 5.26 7.52
Appropriate for guiding behaviors and activities 6.67 6.64 7.24
Likely to reduce diagnostic errors 7.58 7.00 6.69
Likely to improve diagnostic quality 7.85 7.39 6.88
The Best Set 10 (31%) 8 (25%) 14 (44%)
We also conducted comparative assessments on the quality of coproduction outputs
(recommendations) in comparison to two other sets of recommendations: Edu-only
recommendation set (the recommendations developed by the other group consumers who
received only a short period of education) and IOM recommendation set (the
recommendations developed by a professional health organization). As shown in Table 6,
Edu-only set was seen as being the most user-friendly (7.52) and appropriate for guiding
368
patient behaviors and activities (7.24). The Coproduction group’s recommendations were
ranked second on both items (5.88 and 6.67 respectively), and the IOM recommendations
ranked third (5.26 and 6.64 respectively). However, the Coproduction group’s
recommendation scored the highest in terms of being likely to reduce diagnostic errors (7.58)
and improve diagnostic quality (7.85). The IOM recommendations ranked second on these
items (7.00 and 7.39 respectively) and the Education group’s recommendations ranked third
(6.69 and 6.88 respectively). In terms of their overall quality (i.e., the “best” set), the
Education group’s recommendation received the most votes (14 people, 44%), followed by
the Coproduction group’s recommendations (10 people, 31%), and the IOM
recommendations (8 people, 25%). In short, professionals gave higher ratings to two
recommendation sets developed by consumers than to a recommendation set developed by
peer professionals. Furthermore, coproduction outputs scored highest in terms of potential
impacts on reducing diagnostic errors and improving diagnostic quality. These results might
indicate that laypeople have the ability to produce quality outputs through collective
coproduction and/or by themselves. Given these mixed results between evaluations on each
set of coproduced recommendations (Table 5) and assessments in comparison with other two
sets of recommendations (Table 6), we found partial support to hypothesis 3.
Differences between Professionals’ and Users’ Assessments on Coproduction Outputs Table 7: Service Users’ Assessments of Coproduced Recommendations
Rec 1 Rec 2 Rec 3 Rec 4 Rec 5
Do you understand this recommendation?
Yes 89 (98%)
91 (100%)
90 (99%)
90 (100%)
90 (100%)
No 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
How likely is it that you would use this recommendation
Extremely Unlikely 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%)
Unlikely 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 6 (7%) 5 (6%) 2 (2%)
Neutral 6 (7%) 4 (4%) 16 (18%) 9 (10%) 6 (7%)
369
in your own healthcare? Likely 36
(40%) 43
(47%) 35
(39%) 37
(41%) 39
(43%)
Extremely Likely 47 (52%)
43 (47%)
32 (36%)
36 (40%)
43 (48%)
How difficult would it be for you to use this recommendation in your own healthcare?
Very Difficult 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 4 (4%) 0 (0%)
Difficult 8 (9%) 10 (11%) 6 (7%) 12
(13%) 5 (6%)
Neutral 11 (12%)
11 (12%)
22 (24%)
17 (19%)
14 (16%)
Easy 43 (47%)
34 (37%)
33 (36%)
28 (31%)
38 (42%)
Very Easy 29 (32%)
35 (39%)
26 (29%)
29 (32%)
33 (37%)
If patients followed through on this recommendation, how much would it improve diagnostic quality?
No Improvement 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%)
Minor Improvement 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)
Neutral 5 (6%) 6 (7%) 10 (11%) 8 (9%) 7 (8%)
Moderate Improvement
36 (40%)
33 (36%)
30 (33%)
26 (29%)
32 (36%)
Major Improvement 49 (54%)
51 (56%)
49 (54%)
52 (58%)
50 (56%)
To examine differences between professionals’ and service users’ assessments on
coproduced outputs, we first present user participatory feedback group’s responses for the
evaluation for each set of recommendation, based on the same set of questions as the ones
answered by the professionals. As seen in Table 7, service users’ assessments were more
positive. For instance, almost all respondents reported that they understand the
recommendations (between 98% and 100%). This differs from professionals’ responses with
regard to patients’ understandability of the recommendation. Furthermore, between 75% and
94% of healthcare service users stated that they are likely to use the recommendation for their
own healthcare, and between 63% and 79% of them responded that it is easy or very easy to
370
use the recommendation. These answers were also different from professionals’ perspectives
in terms of patients’ ease and likelihood of using the recommendation.
In addition to the descriptive analysis, we conducted t-tests to see whether the
differences between professionals’ and citizens’ assessments are statistically significant. We
use mean score across five recommendations, with regard to each criterion, in conducting t-
tests. The results, presented in Table 8, show significant differences between the two groups’
assessments for all of the four criteria. Professionals gave significantly lower ratings to
coproduced recommendations, in terms of understandability, likelihood of patients to use for
their own healthcare, and the ease of using the recommendations. Moreover, although
professionals thought highly of the potential impact of coproduced recommendations in
improving diagnostic quality, there is still a gap between professionals’ and service users’
assessments. Therefore, we found strong support for hypothesis 4.
Table 8: Professionals’ and Users’ Assessments on Coproduction Outputs
Professionals (N=35)
Service Users (N=89) Difference
Understandability (1=understand, 0=do not understand)
0.88 1.00 0.12***
Likelihood of use (5-point scale) 2.93 4.26 1.33***
Ease of use (5-point scale) 2.54 3.93 1.39***
Impact on improving diagnostic quality (5-point scale) 4.05 4.42 0.37***
Note: *p<.10, **p.<.05, ***p<.01; two-tailed test of significance
Discussion Taken together, we found mixed results for our hypotheses, which are worth discussing in
detail. First, professionals’ views user empowerment and engagement were generally
positive, which does not strongly support our first hypothesis; albeit minimal differences in
scores, both groups of professionals had high levels of support to patient activation and
371
strongly agreed with that patients can play a key role in the diagnostic processes. This
indicates that service providers do acknowledge the importance and potential of the idea of
coproduction, which resonates with the researchers’ and practitioners’ significant attention to
the concept in the recent decades.
Second, despite the importance, service providers still have doubts about the quality
of coproduction outputs. Given that the mean scores for the survey questions about their
willingness to use the recommendations produced by patients and to encourage fellow
professionals to use the recommendation were lower than 4, they did not seem to be fully
convinced about patients’ abilities to produce good outputs through coproduction. This
finding is further supported by the professionals’ low ratings on the recommendations,
specifically in terms of understandability, and patients’ likelihood and ease of using those for
their own healthcare. That said, we found support for our third hypothesis, although the
recommendation set developed by lay people got better scores when compared with the set
created by professional organization. This suggests that more efforts to build collective
capacity of lay people and to provide evidence for citizens’ abilities in producing outputs are
necessary for enhancing service providers’ beliefs on the potential of utilizing coproduction.
Third, after being exposed to the coproduction outputs in our sessions, professionals’
skepticism changed, at least for one group of professionals (DEM group). This provides a
partial support to our second hypothesis. This finding implies that one of the ways to improve
professionals’ perceptions on coproduction and the abilities of service users is to show them
the evidences of (good) coproduction that lay people developed quality outputs through their
collective efforts. In turn, this might mitigate the difference between the service providers’
and users’ perspectives on coproduction, thereby contributing to the efforts to make
coproduction work better.
372
Lastly, the finding on the difference between service users’ and providers’
perceptions on the quality of coproduction outputs further corroborates the need for
strengthening professionals’ beliefs on citizens’ abilities in coproduction. Across all of the
criteria for recommendation assessments, health professionals and consumer participatory
feedback group exhibited significantly different perspectives, which support our fourth
hypothesis. Almost all users said that they understand the recommendation, while some of
professionals said that patients will not understand the recommendation. Similarly,
professionals were skeptical about patients’ likelihood and ease of using the
recommendation, but service users were positive about the recommendation with regard to
these two criteria. The incongruence between the views of two main actors of coproduction
(providers and users) should be addressed, to better utilize coproduction and obtain benefits
from such endeavors.
Conclusion This study, which is based on a larger project about patient roles in reducing
diagnostic errors and improving diagnostic quality, provide some insights on service
providers’ perspectives on coproduction. Our analyses of survey data from the project
suggest that healthcare service providers had greater support to coproduction, specifically in
terms of empowering service users and engaging them in the service delivery. Nevertheless,
they were skeptical about the abilities of lay people when it comes to the production of
outputs; professionals’ ratings on coproduced recommendations were significantly lower than
those of consumer feedback group. Given that one group of professionals’ willingness to use
patients’ coproduced recommendations got increased after our sessions, informing service
providers about the capacity of service users in producing outputs is critical to improve
service providers’ views on coproduction. Ultimately, this can help obtain benefits from
373
coproduction, as professionals are more likely to invest efforts to initiate and manage
coproduction when they are confident about users’ abilities.
While the issue of diagnostic error may not be central to theories on coproduction
and to broader public administration, the study is nonetheless important to the field. This
study is one of a few attempts to examine service professionals’ perspectives on coproduction
and engaging citizens in service production and delivery. Not only we present their views on
coproduction, but we also provide evidences on how professionals evaluate the quality of
coproduction outputs, which were then compared to the citizens’ assessments. In the future,
we plan to test the efficacy of the recommendations in a clinical setting. Together, these
attributes make the study critical to understanding the potential of coproduction in numerous
policy settings beyond healthcare.
374
References
Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public administration review, 62(3), 337-346.
Alford, J. (2014). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor
Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3): 299-316.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community
coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5): 846-860.
Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production. London: New Economics Foundation.
Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2016). User and Community Co-Production of Public Services:
What Does the Evidence Tell Us?. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1006-1019.
Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G. G., Loeffler, E., & Parrado, S. (2015). Activating citizens to
participate in collective co-production of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1): 1-23.
Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1): 59-65.
Brandsen, T. & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A
Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3): 427-435.
Brudney, J. L. (1984). Local coproduction of services and the analysis of municipal productivity. Urban Affairs Review, 19(4): 465-484.
Brudney, J. L. (1985). Coproduction Issues in Implementation. Administration &
Society, 17(3): 243-256.
Chaebo, G., & Medeiros, J. J. (2016). Conditions for policy implementation via co-production: the control of dengue fever in Brazil. Public Management Review, 1-18.
375
Checkoway, B. (1981). The politics of public hearings. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 566-582.
Cohen, N. (1995). Technical assistance for citizen participation: a case study of New York
City's environmental planning process. The American Review of Public Administration, 25(2), 119-135
Ferris, J. M. (1984). Coprovision: Citizen time and money donations in public service
provision. Public Administration Review, 324-333.
Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Review.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338-367.
Griffiths, S., Foley, B., & Prendergrast, J. (2009). Assertive Citizens. London: Social Market
Foundation.
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the
effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
J.H. Hibbard, et al. (2004). Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): Conceptualizing and Measuring Activation in Patients and Consumers, Health Service Research, 39(4): 1005–1026.
Jo, S., & Nabatchi, T. (2016). Getting Back to Basics: Advancing the Study and Practice of Coproduction. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1101-1108.
Kiser, L. L., & Percy, S. L. (1980, April). The concept of coproduction and its implications
for public service delivery. In Workshop in political theory and policy analysis (pp. 13-16).
Levine, C. H., & Fisher, G. (1984). Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of
coproduction. Public Administration Review, 44, 178-189.
Löffler, E., Parrado, S., Bovaird, T., & Van Ryzin, G. (2008). If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, walk together. Citizens and the co-production of public
376
services. Report to the EU Presidency. Ministry of Finance, Budget and Public Services, Paris.
Meijer, A. (2012). Co-production in an information age: Individual and community
engagement supported by new media. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, p.1156-1172.
Miller, L. L. (2004). Rethinking bureaucrats in the policy process: Criminal justice agents
and the national crime agenda. Policy Studies Journal, 32(4), 569-588.
Moon, M. J., & Welch, E. W. (2005). Same bed, different dreams? A comparative analysis of citizen and bureaucrat perspectives on e-government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(3), 243-264.
Morris, P. & O’Neill, F. (2006). Preparing for patient-centered practice: developing the patient voice in health professional learning, in Paper Presented at: Professional Lifelong Learning: Beyond Reflective Practice Conference (University of Leeds 2006)
Moynihan, D. (2003). Normative and Instrumental Perspectives on Public Participation. American Review of Public Administration, 33, 164-188.
Nabatchi, T. & Farrar, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between the public and public officials:
what do public officials want and need to know about public deliberation? Washington D.C.: Deliberative Democracy Consortium
Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy.
John Wiley & Sons.
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review.
O'Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager: New ideas
for the twenty-first century. Georgetown University Press.
Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2010). Aligning the work of government to strengthen the work of citizens: A study of public administrators in local and regional government. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Report.
Percy, S. L. (1983). Citizen coproduction: Prospects for improving service delivery. Journal of Urban Affairs, 5(3), 203-210.
377
Percy, S. L. (1984). Citizen participation in the coproduction of urban services. Urban Affairs
Review, 19(4), 431-446.
Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503-519.
Rich, R. C. (1981). Interaction of the voluntary and governmental sectors toward an
understanding of the coproduction of municipal services. Administration & Society, 13(1), 59-76.
Sharp, E. B. (1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation:
The coproduction concept. The American Review of Public Administration, 14(2), 105-118.
Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public
management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786-796.
Whitaker, G. P. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240-246.
Wilson, P. M. (2001). A policy analysis of the Expert Patient in the United Kingdom: self-care as an expression of pastoral power?. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9(3), 134-142.
Wilson, P.M., Kendall, S. & Brooks, F. (2006). Nurses’ responses to expert patients: The rhetoric and reality of self-management in long-term conditions: A grounded theory study. International. Journal of Nursing Studies. 43(7), 803–818.
Vamstad, J. (2012). Co-production and service quality: The case of Cooperative Childcare in
Sweden. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, p.297-316.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745-760.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-
creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
378
Appendix 1: Recommendations for Reducing Diagnostic Error and Improving Diagnostic Quality
Recommendation 1 – Present symptoms clearly and completely
• Be truthful about your symptoms and other behaviors when telling your doctor about your history to ensure information is accurate.
• Be prepared to discuss your symptoms. For example, 8 characteristics of symptoms are quantity, quality, aggravating factors, alleviating factors, setting, associated symptoms, location, and timing.
Recommendation 2 – Assert yourself in the relationship
• Be clear, concise, and persistent in communicating your symptoms and concerns. • Ask detailed questions of your doctor, including a plan to arrive at a diagnosis so the doctor remains
engaged and focused on your concerns. For example, “could these symptoms indicate something else or an additional issue?”
• Notify your healthcare provider if your condition worsens, does or doesn’t improve, or if new symptoms develop.
o The treatment plan could change based on new information and potentially a new diagnosis. o Potential new urgency could affect the healthcare provider’s level of attention.
• If you’re concerned about the accuracy of the diagnosis, seek a second opinion.
Recommendation 3 – Coordinate your care
• Find a primary care provider/family doctor so that they can better coordinate and manage your healthcare.
• Enlist a patient advocate, as needed, to assist you in coordinating care. • Have your primary care provider manage all your records to ensure they are accessible to other
providers. • Seek out a health system where different doctors work together frequently, share consistent information,
and coordinate services effectively.
Recommendation 4 – Ensure accurate records and tests • Maintain and update your own medical record, which includes test results, doctor notes, images,
communication with providers, and other information pertinent to your medical history. • If you have access to your electronic medical records or a patient portal, use that. If you don’t have
access, ask for a physical copy of your records and/or any recent updates. • If you notice a factual inaccuracy with your medical record, advocate and insist to have the error
corrected.
Recommendation 5 – Manage your care • Ensure communications and expectations are clear between you and your healthcare provider.
• Throughout the relationship, follow through on your health care provider’s recommendations regarding the course of action to reach an accurate diagnosis. For example, completing lab tests, going to appointments with specialists, taking medications as prescribed.
• Follow up with your healthcare provider after appointments to obtain test results to ensure proper testing was conducted. Thus, both patient and healthcare provider are accountable.
379
Appendix 2: Three Sets of Recommendations in Assessment Survey
SET A: Recommendations by Coproduction group
Recommendation 1 – Present symptoms clearly and completely • Be truthful about your symptoms and other behaviors when telling your doctor about your history to
ensure information is accurate. • Be prepared to discuss your symptoms. For example, 8 characteristics of symptoms are quantity,
quality, aggravating factors, alleviating factors, setting, associated symptoms, location, and timing. Recommendation 2 – Assert yourself in the relationship
• Be clear, concise, and persistent in communicating your symptoms and concerns. • Ask detailed questions of your doctor, including a plan to arrive at a diagnosis so the doctor remains
engaged and focused on your concerns. For example, “could these symptoms indicate something else or an additional issue?”
• Notify your health care provider if your condition worsens, does or doesn’t improve, or if new symptoms develop.
o The treatment plan could change based on new information and potentially a new diagnosis. o Potential new urgency could affect the health care provider’s level of attention.
• If you’re concerned about the accuracy of the diagnosis, seek a second opinion. Recommendation 3 – Coordinate your care
• Find a primary care provider/family doctor so that they can better coordinate and manage your health care.
• Enlist a patient advocate, as needed, to assist you in coordinating care. • Have your primary care provider manage all your records to ensure they are accessible to other
providers. • Seek out a health system where different doctors work together frequently, share consistent
information, and coordinate services effectively.
Recommendation 4 – Ensure accurate records and tests • Maintain and update your own medical record, which includes test results, doctor notes, images,
communication with providers, and other information pertinent to your medical history. • If you have access to your electronic medical records or a patient portal, use that. If you don’t have
access, ask for a physical copy of your records and/or any recent updates. • If you notice a factual inaccuracy with your medical record, advocate and insist to have the error
corrected. Recommendation 5 – Manage your care
• Ensure communications and expectations are clear between you and your health care provider. • Throughout the relationship, follow through on your health care provider’s recommendations
regarding the course of action to reach an accurate diagnosis. For example, completing lab tests, going to appointments with specialists, taking medications as prescribed.
• Follow up with your health care provider after appointments to obtain test results to ensure proper testing was conducted. Thus, both patient and health care provider are accountable.
380
SET B: Recommendations by Professionals (Institute of Medicine) Recommendation 1 – Facilitate more effective teamwork in the diagnostic process among health care professionals, patients, and their families
• Health care organizations should recognize that the diagnostic process is a dynamic team-based activity.
• Health care organizations should ensure that health care professionals have the appropriate knowledge, skills, resources, and support to engage in teamwork in the diagnostic process.
Recommendation 2 – To improve the diagnostic process, health care organizations should facilitate and support:
• Inter-professional and intra-professional teamwork in the diagnostic process.
• Collaboration among pathologists, radiologists, other diagnosticians, and treating health care professionals to improve diagnostic testing processes.
Recommendation 3 – Health care professionals and organizations should partner with patients and their families as diagnostic team members and facilitate patient and family engagement in the diagnostic process, aligned with their needs, values, and preferences. To accomplish this, they should:
• Provide patients with opportunities to learn about the diagnostic process.
• Create environments in which patients and their families are comfort- able engaging in the diagnostic process and sharing feedback and concerns about diagnostic errors and near misses.
• Ensure patient access to electronic health records (EHRs), including clinical notes and diagnostic testing results, to facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and patient review of health records for accuracy.
• Identify opportunities to include patients and their families in efforts to improve the diagnostic process by learning from diagnostic errors and near misses.
SET C (Recommendations by Education-only Participants) Recommendation 1 – Communicate clearly and efficiently
• Listen carefully to your health care providers and present your symptoms clearly. • Be honest and give full information to your health care providers.
• Come prepared to the visit. Bring a list of questions, concerns, or issues to share with your health care provider.
Recommendation 2 – Advocate for yourself actively • Be confident about your rights in the relationship with health care providers.
• If you disagree with your diagnosis, seek a second opinion. • Get support from your advocates (family members or friends) during the visits.
Recommendation 3 – Be informed about your health, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. • Know your family history about health-related problems.
• Do your own research on your symptoms and the diagnoses you have received. • Have information about each medicine you take and its possible side effects.
• Keep records of your own health and behaviors.
381
Appendix 3: Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM)
Clinicians have different views and expectations about their patients. Please respond to the statements below as they apply to you and your practice. If the statement does not apply, select N/A. As a Clinician, how important is it to you that your patients with chronic conditions:
a. Are able to take actions that will help prevent or minimize symptoms associated with their health condition(s)?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
b. Are able to make and maintain lifestyle changes needed to manage their chronic condition?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
c. Can follow through on medical treatments you have told them they need to do at home?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
d. Understand which of their behaviors make their chronic condition better and which ones make it worse?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
e. Know what each of their prescribed medications is for?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
f. Are able to figure out solutions when new situations or problems arise with their health condition(s)?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
g. Are able to determine when they need to go to a medical professional for care and when they can handle the problem on their own?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
h. Want to be involved as a full partner with you in making decisions about their care?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
i. Tell you the concerns they have about their health even when you do not ask?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
j. Want to know what procedures or treatments they will receive and why before the treatments or procedure are performed?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
k. Understand the different medical treatment options available for their chronic condition(s)?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
l. Look for trustworthy sources of information about their health and health choices, such as on the web, news stories, or books?
Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
m. Bring a list of questions to their office visit? Not Important
Somewhat Important Important Extremely
Important N/A
382
TheImpactofCoproductiononPublicSpendingandEmployment:ALongitudinalStudyofMunicipalGovernmentsintheStateofGeorgia
(IvonchykandKang)
MikhailIvonchyk
Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy
UniversityofGeorgia
SeongC.Kang
Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy
UniversityofGeorgia
Abstract:Coproductionentailsthejointproductionofpublicservicesbygovernmentofficialsandcitizens.Theorysuggeststhatamajoradvantageofcitizencoproductionisrelatedtothesubsequentcostsavingsforgovernment.However,thelackoflongitudinaldatahasrendereditdifficulttotestthisproposition.Weseektofillthislacunaandanalyzetheeffectsofoneformofcollectivecoproduction,volunteeringinpublicservices,ongovernmentspendinglevelsandthenumberofpaidemployeespercapitaacrosstime.ExaminingapaneldatasetonmunicipalgovernmentsinthestateofGeorgiaover10years,wefindthatcoproductionsignificantlyreducesthenumberofpaidemployeespercapitaandhasalaggedeffectonthelevelofspending.Additionally,theempiricalresultsindicatethataninitiationofcoproductionprogramsrequiressignificantinvestmentwhichdrivesuptheadministrativecostsandthereforemaydistractresourcesfromotherfunctions.
IIASStudyGroupon‘CoproductionofPublicServices’
Washington,DC,6-7June2017
Introduction
Theefficientandeffectivedeliveryofpublicservicesconstitutesacorepurposeofpublicadministration(Neshkova&Guo,2012).Whilebureaucraticexpertiseisanimportantelementforsuccessfulpolicyimplementation,citizeninputduringvariousphasesofthepolicycycleisincreasinglyseenasawaytoenhancebureaucraticdecision-makingandaccountability(Jakobsen,James,Moynihan,&Nabatchi,2016;Nabatchi&Leighninger,2015).Coproductiondenotesadeparturefromthetraditionalnotionofcitizensaspassiverecipients,andadvocatesthejointproductionofpublicservicesbypublicofficialsandcitizens(Sharp,1980).Theensuingbenefitscantaketheformofimprovementsin
383
efficiencythroughcostsavings,higherlevelsofcitizensatisfaction,andcontributionstodemocraticgoalssuchasgreatercitizenparticipationandaccountability(Brudney,1993;Brudney&England,1983;Needham,2008;Verschuere,Brandsen,&Pestoff,2012).
Focusingontheoutcomesderivedfromincreasedcitizeninput,oneissuethathasyettobeaddressedindetailconcernstheextenttowhichthesebenefitsareattained.Morespecifically,ifgovernmentsarefacedwithdecreasingfiscalcapability,doescitizeninvolvementinservicedeliveryleadtocostsavings?Ifpublicagenciesdecidetoinvestincoproductionprograms,dothebenefitsexceedthecosts?Amajorpropositionisthatcoproductionprogramscaneithergeneratecostsavingsorenhanceservicelevelswithagivenamountofresources(Parksetal.,1981;Percy,1984).However,asidefromthelimitednumberofworksthatexaminecostspertainingtotheuseofvolunteersinpublicservices(Brudney&Duncombe,1992;Brunet,DeBoer,&McNamara,2001;Handy&Srinivasan,2004;Hilke,1986),systematicresearchexploringtheeffectsofcitizeninvolvementoncostsavingshasbeenlimitedlargelyduetoapaucityofdata.
Toaddressthisshortcoming,thispaperseekstoexploretheeffectsofcoproductiononcostsavings.WedrawempiricaldatafromtheuseofvolunteersinpubliclyfundedservicesatthecitylevelwithinthestateofGeorgiafortheperiod2006to2015.Whilecoproductionactivitiescanassumemanyforms,thisstudyfocusesoncollectivecoproduction.Thisinvolvescitizensinformalandinstitutionalizedcapacitiessuchasvolunteeringinpublicorganizationswherecitizensmayassumerolessimilartotheregularworkforce(Brudney&England,1983).Whilecitizensinthiscapacityarenotalwaysthedirectusersorbeneficiariesofservices,scholarshavenotedhowvolunteeringconstitutesaformofcoproductioninwhichcitizensdeliverservicesonbehalfofothers(Bovaird&Loeffler,2013).Fromapolicyperspective,thejointproductionbypublicemployeesandvolunteershasbeenconsideredastrategyforreducingcostsduringperiodsoffiscalcrisesforlocalgovernments(Brudney&Warren,1990).
Toexploretherelationshipbetweenvolunteerinvolvementandcostsavings,weexaminethefollowingtwohypotheses.First,weexpectthattheuseofvolunteersshouldgeneratecostsavingsinpublicservices.Second,weexpectthatvolunteerengagementshouldreducethenumberofpaidstaffpercapita.Duetothelongitudinalnatureofthedata,afixed-effectswithinestimatormodelisusedtoexplaintemporalvariancewithincitiesandtoaccountfortime-invariantunobservedheterogeneity.Initially,theresultsfailtorefutethenullhypothesisofnocoproductioneffectonthelevelofspendingpercapitawhencontrollingforimportantdemographiccharacteristics,paidemployees,localfiscalcapacity,andthenumberofprovidedservicesandfacilities.However,thefindingsrevealthatthereisasignificantnegativelaggedeffectonthelevelofspending.Also,coproductionsignificantlyaffectsthenumberofemployeespercapita.Aonepercentincreaseinthevolunteer-to-employeeratioonaverageleadstoa0.03percentreductioninthenumberofpaidemployeespercapitaoverthisperiod,demonstratingasubstitutioneffect.Additionally,wefindthatvolunteerengagementsignificantlyincreasestheshareofresourcesdevotedtothecityadministrativefunction.Thus,whereaspotentialcostsavingsarepossibleinthefirstyearduetosignificantreductionsinthenumberofpaidemployees,itislikelythattheyareeatenupbytheneedtotrainandmanagethe
384
volunteers,whichultimatelyleadstozeronetsavings.Oncetrained,itseemsthatinthefollowingyearvolunteersdohelptosignificantlyreducethelevelofcityexpenditures.
Themaincontributionofthispapertocoproductiontheorybuildingistheempiricaltestingofamajortheoreticalexpectationsaboutthefiscalconsequencesofcitizeninvolvementinpublicservicedelivery.Moreover,byutilizingalarge-Ndataset,thelongitudinalanalysisallowsustoaddressmethodologicalproblemsofendogeneity.Thiswasdifficulttocoverinpriorcross-sectionalstudiesorthosewithshortertimeperiods.
Thispaperisorganizedasfollows.Thenextsectionprovidesanoverviewofcoproductionanddiscussesthelinkbetweenpublicsectorvolunteeringandcoproduction.Thepaperthendiscussesaframeworkforexploringtheeffectsofcoproductionanddevelopstheresearchhypotheses.Thesubsequentsectionspresentthedataandmethods,followedbytheanalysisandresults.Weconcludewithadiscussionofthefindings.
LiteratureReview
Coproduction
Withinpublicadministration,coproductiondenotesthejointproductionofpublicservicesbyserviceagenciesandcitizens,andthisnotionhasgarneredmuchinterestinrecentyearsduetotheneedtoaddressfiscalpressures,diversifyingsocietaldemands,andchangingpoliticalpriorities(Bovaird,2007;Boyle&Harris,2009;Brandsen&Honingh,2015;Pestoff,2014).Coproductiondenotesadeparturefromthetraditionalmodeofservicedeliverywheregovernmentisconsideredthesoleproviderofgoodsandservicesandinwhichcitizensareviewedaspassiverecipients(Sharp,1980).Rather,citizensbecomeacriticalcomponentofservicedeliveryastheirexperiencesandknowledgebecomeincreasinglynecessaryformoreeffectivepublicservicedesignanddelivery(Osborne&Strokosch,2013).
Scholarshaveofferedseveraldifferentdefinitionsofcoproduction.Someholdanarrowviewwhichlimitscoproductiontotherelationshipbetweenpublicemployeesandcitizensasserviceusers(Joshi&Moore,2004;Pestoff,2010).Othersaremoreinclusivebyconsideringvolunteersandcommunitymembersascoproducers(Bovaird,2007;Löffler,2009).Intermsofdistinguishingbetweendifferenttypesofactivities,scholarshaveoffereddifferenttypologiesorcategorizationsthatdifferentiatebetweencoproductionactivitiesandarrangements.Bovaird(2007)offersaframeworkfordelineatingtherelationshipsbetweenprofessionalsandusersandcommunitiesbasedonasetofscenariosthatexaminewhetherprofessionalsactaloneortogetherwithusersandcommunitiestoplananddeliverpublicservices.BrandsenandHoningh(2015)categorizeactivitiesaccordingtotheextenttowhichcitizensparticipateineithercoreorcomplementaryactivities,andinwhichtheyareinvolvedineitherthedesignorimplementationstagesorboth.BrudneyandEngland(1983)identifythreetypesof
385
coproductionactivitiesbasedontherelativehierarchyofeachtype,thenatureofthebenefitsattained,andthedegreeofoverlapbetweentheactivitiesofregularproducersandcitizens.Onanindividuallevel,examplesofcommonactivitiesincludeinstallingsecurityalarmsorpickingupgarbageonthestreets.Groupactivitiesinvolveconfigurationssuchasneighborhoodorganizationsthataresomewhatformallyorganizedandmayentailsomelevelofcoordinationbypublicagencies.Collectiveactivitiesareevenbroaderinscopeandmoreinstitutionalizedthangroupactivities.
Thispaperfocusesonvolunteersascitizenswhodeliverservicesonbehalfofothers(Bovaird&Loeffler,2013).Inaddition,weexplorecollectivecoproductionactivitiesinwhichvolunteersareinvolvedinamoreorganizedorinstitutionalizedcapacity.Whilecitizensdonotnecessarilyhavetojoinanorganization,scholarshavenotedhowparticipatinginanorganizationalcapacityhasthepotentialtoenhancethelevelsofcoproductionandbetterfacilitatecoordinationbetweenpublicorganizationsandthebroadercitizenry(Rich,1981).
VolunteeringandCoproduction
Whilevolunteersaregenerallyassociatedwithnonprofitorganizations,anumberofpublicmanagementstudiesexploreissuespertainingtowhovolunteersinthepublicsectorandwhy(Coursey,Yang,&Pandey,2012;Sundeen,1990),theutilizationofvolunteersinlocalgovernment(Brudney&Kellough,2000;Gazley&Brudney,2005),andissuesconcerningmanagementofvolunteersinpublicagencies(Brudney,1990c,2005;Dover,2010).BasedonananalysisoftheInternationalCityManagementAssociation(ICMA)AlternativeServiceDeliverySurvey(ASD),NesbitandBrudney(2013)findthat27%oflocalgovernmentsusevolunteerstoprovidesometypeofserviceswiththegreatestuseofvolunteersinthecultureandtheartsarea..Theyalsofindthatsmallerjurisdictionsaremorelikelytousevolunteersinpublicsafety,whereaslargerjurisdictionsusevolunteersinhealthandhumanservicesandculturalandartsprograms.
Whilerecentstudieshavenotexploredpublicsectorvolunteeringindetail,earlycoproductionscholarshiptreatsvolunteeringasanimportantformofcitizeninvolvementinpublicservicedelivery(Brudney&Warren,1990;Ferris,1988;Levine&Fisher,1984;Sundeen,1990;Warren,1987).Inrecentyears,thereissomedebateastowhethervolunteerscanbeconsideredcoproducers(Pestoff,2013).Sincetheultimatebeneficiariesarenotthevolunteersthemselvesbuttheclientswhoareservedthroughgovernmentsservices,sometreatthisasabasistoarguehowvolunteersaredifferentfromclientsasserviceusers.However,theproblemisdecidingwhichstandardtoadoptindeterminingwhetheranindividualisacoproducerornot.Forinstance,clientorganizationsmayinvolvecommunityresidentstovolunteerinassistingtheiroperations.Anindividualmayinitiallybeaclientbecauseshehasapersonalinterestinaservice,butlaterdecidetovolunteerinapublicorclientorganizationtobettercoproduce.Inshort,duetothevarietyofwaysofdefiningtheconceptualboundariesorthemyriadscenarioswhere
386
citizensarenotalwaysdirectserviceusers,itseemsmoreusefultoviewthesevariationsbasedonacontinuumofcoproductionactivitiesratherthandrawingastrictlinebetweenvolunteersandcoproducers.
Brudney(1990a)definesvolunteersinthepublicsectorascitizensinvolvedinservicesprovidedbygovernmentagenciesanddepartmentswhoparticipateonanunpaidbasis,andcommitaregularamountoftimeandenergytodeliveringpublicservices.Fromatraditionalmanagementstandpoint,studieshaveappliedhierarchically-orientedapproachestomanagingvolunteers(Farr,1983;Navaratnam,1986).However,becausevolunteersarenotformallyunderanagency’sregularpersonnelsystem,themanagementofvolunteersrequiresadifferentapproachrelatingtoissuesofintegration,motivations,andcoordination(Brudney,1990c).Inaddition,becauseofthedisparatevaluesandgoalsthatcitizenvolunteersbringtothedeliveryofservices,thishasthepotentialtogenerateconflictsbetweentheactionsandperspectivesofvolunteerswiththevaluesandprioritiesofformalserviceagents(Kettl,1988).Therefore,therelevanceofcoproductiontheoryisthatitallowspublicmanagerstomovebeyondsimplyincorporatingcitizenvolunteersintoexistingorganizationalhierarchiesandvaluestructures,andtobestowonthemamoreactiveroleintermsofdesignandimplementationofservices(Brudney&Warren,1990).Forinstance,WeschlerandMushkatel(1987)distinguishbetweenthetermsascoproduction,coprovision,andcofinancingtodelineatedifferentwaysthatcitizenvolunteerscanassumeamoreprominentroleindesigningandimplementingpublicservices.
Meanwhile,justascitizensandclientscancoproduceservicesinamyriadofways,BrudneyandWarren(1990)discussseveralstructuraldimensionsofvolunteeringrangingfrombeinginvolvedinaunitwithintheagencyhierarchytoparticipatinginanorganizationthatisindependentofthepublicagencyandwhichinteractsonlyonanadhocbasis.Examplesofindividualvolunteeringincludeengaginginregularclericalworksimilartothoseofpaidstaff.Organizedactivitiesmayconsistofvolunteersbeingintegratedintowell-definedstructuralunitsthatareestablishedforthepurposeofbeingstaffedspecificallybyvolunteers.Examplesofthisarepolicereserve/auxiliarydepartments.Meanwhile,organizationssuchasvolunteerfiredepartmentsoremergencymedicalresponsegroupsmaynotbesituatedwithinanexistingbureaucracyandthereforenothierarchicallysubordinatetopublicorganizations.Basedonmutualorthird-partyagreements,interactionsbetweenvoluntaryandpublicagenciescanbeprojectspecificandoflimitedduration,orrecurirregularlywheneverdemandoccurs.Finally,theremaybetieredarrangementsinwhichvolunteerorclientgroupsarelinkedthroughanothercitizengroupratherthandirectlywiththeserviceagency.
CoproductionandCostSavings
Volunteerinvolvementisassociatedwithanumberofbenefitssuchaslowerbudgetarycostsofserviceproduction,expansionofgovernmentcapacitybyaugmentingpaidstaff,
387
enhancementofservicequality,andsocialbenefitssuchasbetterincorporationofcitizenpreferences(Brudney,1990b,1993).Focusingoncostsavings,theunderlyingbasisisthattheadditionofcitizeninputseitherdecreasesthecostsdevotedtoproducingservicesorincreasesservicelevelswithagivenbudget,ultimatelyresultinginanetdecreaseinserviceexpenditures(Brudney,1993;Gazley&Brudney,2005).Amongpriorstudiesexploringtheeconomicconsequencesofvolunteerusage,Hilke(1986)findsthattheuseofvolunteerfirefightingunitsreducesoverallexpendituresonfirefightingactivities,andthuslowerspendingandtaxesforlocalgovernmentingeneral.BrudneyandDuncombe(1992)developamethodologyforcomparingthecostsofusingpaid,volunteer,andmixedstaffingtoexaminedifferentlevelsofcost-effectivenessinmunicipalfiredepartmentsandwhichstaffingarrangementsworkbetterthanothers.Brunetetal.(2001)findthatprofessionalfiredepartmentsaremorecost-effectiveathighlevelsoffireprotection,whereasvolunteerfiredepartmentsaremorecost-effectiveatlowlevelsoffireprotection.HandyandSrinivasan(2004)explorethecostsandbenefitsofvolunteeringwithinthecontextofhospitalsandfindthattheuseofvolunteersprovidesanetreturnofanaverageof$6.84invaluefromvolunteersforeverydollarspent.Whilesuchstudiesprovidevaluableinsightintoexamininghowvolunteersareassociatedwithcostsavings,theyarelimitedtosinglepolicyrealms,andthedataarecross-sectionalinnatureanddonotallowustodeterminetheeffectsofvolunteersoncostssavingsovertime.Thequestionoftheextenttowhichcostreductionsoccuroremploymentlevelschangeovertimerequiresfurtherinvestigation.
Hypothesis
Toaddressthisshortcoming,weconductalongitudinalanalysisoftheimpactofusingvolunteersongovernmentexpendituresusingthesurveyandanalyseselaboratedinthelatterpartofthepaper.Inadditiontocostsavings,weexaminetheoverallextenttowhichchangesinpaidemploymentoccursthroughoutlocalgovernments.
Withinthepublicmanagementliterature,Klingner(1983)discussesthreecriteriawithrespecttotheuseofalternativeservicedeliveryarrangementsforevaluatingmunicipalproductivity,whichincludethedimensionsofefficiencyandeffectiveness.Costefficiencyfocusesontheunitcostsofserviceproductioninwhichthelowerthecostperunitofservice,themoreefficientthemethodofprovidingthatservice.Costeffectivenessevaluatesprogramsintermsoftheattainmentofobjectivesbyexaminingwhetherthebenefitsexceedthecostsofusingalternativearrangementstoachievethesameobjective.Finally,programworthinessfocusesontheprocessbywhichservicesaredeliveredandevaluatesthevalueofprogramsaccordingto“political,socialormoral”standards(298).
Brudney(1984)examinethecriterionofcostefficiencywithrespecttoevaluatingtheproductivityofcoproductionprograms.Intheory,sincevolunteersconsistofunpaidlabor,coproductionprogramsshouldhavetheeffectofalteringthecostsofserviceinputsand
388
thequalityorquantityofoutputsascitizensassumeagreaterroleintheproductionofservices.Forthistooccur,however,anumberofconditionshavetobemet(Parksetal.,1981).Forinstance,technologymustbeavailabletocombinetheactivitiesofserviceagentsandcitizensintheimplementationofservices.Also,citizensmustpossessthecapacitytoassumeanumberofdutiesthatareperformedbyserviceagentsorbeabletoassistthem.Ifthesetwoconditionsaremet,thenaslongasthecostofserviceinputsareheldconstant,coproductionprogramshavethepotentialtomaintaincurrentlevelsofserviceswithfewerresourcesorincreasethelevelofserviceoutputsbyasetamount.Inmanycases,publicsectorvolunteeringusuallyinvolvescitizenswhoare“matchedwithasetofworkactivitiesinserviceagenciesforwhichtheyaretrainedorotherwisejudgedcompetent”(Brudney,1984,p.475),andwhoprovideacertaindegreeoftechnicalcapacitytoengageinservicedelivery.Thus,weexpectthattheuseofvolunteersshouldallowgovernmentstosaveonlaborcosts,leadingtoadecreaseinthelevelofgovernmentspendingpercapita.
Hypothesis1:Thereshouldbeanegativerelationshipbetweentheuseofcitizenvolunteersandtheoveralllevelofspendingpercapita.
Inaddition,forgovernmentstosaveonlaborcosts,weexpectthattheuseofvolunteersshouldleadtoadecreaseinthenumberofpaidemployeespercapita.
Hypothesis2:Thereshouldbeanegativerelationshipbetweentheuseofcitizenvolunteersandthenumberofpaidemployeespercapita.
However,wemustnoteseverallimitationspertainingtocostsavingsanddecreaseinpaidstaff.Eventhoughcoproductionmaygenerateanetdecreaseinserviceexpenditures,suchprogramsarenotentirely“free”becausetheseactivitiesconsumethetimeandresourcesofcitizens(Kiser&Percy,1980),andoftentimessuchcitizeninputsarenotreadilyquantifiable.Also,programsrequirefull-timepaidemployeestosuperviseandcoordinatevolunteers(Brudney&Kellough,2000).Thosethatinvolvecitizensinmoreinstitutionalizedcapacitiescanimposeadditionalcostsforrecruiting,trainingandprovidingliabilityinsurance.Whilesomeservicecostsmaybemoretangiblethanothers,studiesnotehowvolunteeraccountingandrecordkeepingarenotoriouslypoor(Brudney&Duncombe,1992),renderingitdifficulttoassessthefullsetofadministrativecostsinvolvevolunteermanagement.
Meanwhile,thereductioninpaidstaffcouldgeneratepoliticalandlabortensions,assomelawsprohibitthesubstitutionofpaidstaffwithvolunteers.Forinstance,theDepartmentofAgriculturedoesnotallowtheuseofvolunteerstodisplaceemployees(U.S.Code7,Section2272).Thesetensionscanleadtoweakenedsupportforvolunteerprogramsonthepartofofficials.However,theextenttowhichgovernmentsandagenciesadheretosuchpoliciesisuncertain,andtheseissuesmaybeoverlookedinthelongrunifgovernmentsareundergoingaprocessofreorganizationorifgovernmentsarefacedwithrisingservicedemands(Brudney,1993).
ResearchDesign
389
Data
Themainobjectivesofthisanalysisaretoassesstheeffectofcoproductionofpublicservicesonthelevelofspendingandpaidemployees,andtoexpandtheextanttheoryandincreaseitsusefulnessinunderstatingtheconsequencesofcitizeninvolvementinpublicservicesprovision.Thecostsofpublicserviceshavealwaysbeenamatterofhighsalienceandalthoughcoproductionmaybeoneoftheimportantdeterminants,thisissuehasnotbeenaddressesinalongitudinalstudythusfarleavingpublicadministratorswithlimitedknowledgeontheconsequencesoftheirdecisionstocoproduce.
WetesttheeffectofcoproductionusingpaneldataonmunicipalgovernmentsintheStateofGeorgiacovering10yearsfrom2006through2015.Therearecurrently524citiesandtownsinGeorgia(GeorgiaStateGovernment,2017),whichpossessacharterofmunicipalincorporationapprovedbytheGeneralAssembly.Thereisnolegaldistinctionamongcities,townsormunicipalitiesinthisstate.
ThemainsourceofdataistheGeorgiaDepartmentofCommunityAffairs(DCA),whichcollectsinformationonthenumberofpaidemployeesandvolunteersinvolvedingovernmentoperationswithintheannualLocalGovernmentWage&Salarysurvey.AllfinancialdataalsocomefromtheDepartment.Thedataonservices,facilitiesandmanagerialfunctionsperformedbyeachcitywereextractedfromtheGovernment
ManagementIndicatorsSurvey(GOMI)alsoconductedbytheDepartment.TheGOMIsurveyalsoreportsdataonmunicipalpoliticalinstitutions,suchasthenumberofseatsontheboard,whethertheCEOisappointedbythecommission,andhowboardmembersareelected,bydistrict,atlarge,orbysomecombinationofthetwo.ThedataontotalcitypopulationandpopulationinlaborforcewereprovidedbytheBureauofLaborStatistics.DataonthepovertylevelwereextractedfromtheSmallAreaIncome&PovertyEstimates(SAIPE)bytheU.S.CensusBureau.Netpropertytaxable(NPV)andmeanresidentialpropertyvalue(MRPV)datawereobtainedfromtheGeorgiaDepartmentofRevenue.Finally,presidentialelectionturnoutandresultswereobtainedfromtheGeorgiaSecretaryofStatewebsite.
Sincesomecitieslackcompletedataforallyearsofthestudy,ourpaneldateisunbalancedand“havemissingyearsforatleastsomecross-sectionalunitsinthesample”(Wooldridge,2013,p.491).However,unlikepreviousstudiesthatreliedoncross-sectionalanalysis,ourdataallowlongitudinalanalysisandprovidenewinsightsintocausalrelationships.ConsideringthatChattahoocheeHillswasincorporatedin2007,DunwoodyinDecemberof2008,PeachtreeCornersin2012andMcRae-Helenain2015,anddependingonwhethercityofficialsweresurveyedduringtheyearofincorporation,acompletedatasetwouldincludeabout5,221observations.OurstudyexcludesMcRae-Helena,formedasaresultofmergingoftwocitiesduringthelastyearofthestudy,andPeachtreeCornersasdataforthesetwocitieswereavailableforoneyearonly.Thus,thestudyincludes522outof524citiesinthestate.Theanalysisofmissingdatarevealedthat
390
76percentoftheobservations(n=3,955)hadcompletedataforallyears.Themostcommonmissingdatapattern,about14percentofobservations(n=734),missedinformationonthenumberofemployeesandvolunteers,andtherestoftheobservationsweremissingsomedatapointsondifferentvariables.Eachyear,89percentofrespondersrespondedinthenextyearandhadonly11percentchancebecomingnon-respondersineachyear.Meanwhile,non-respondershada45percentchanceofbecomingresponders.WeregressedanindicatorforwhetheracityrespondedtotheWage&Salarysurvey(Yes=1)ontheobservablecitycharacteristicstoestimatepotentialbiasfromself-selection.Themodelclassifiedcorrectlyzerononresponsessuggestingthatthesampleweuseinouranalysisisrepresentativeofthepopulationintermsoftheobservedcharacteristics.Testsofequalityofmeansofpopulationindicatedthatthereisnostatisticaldifferenceintermsoftotalpopulation(p-value>10)betweenthesampleusedintheanalysisandthepopulation.Overall,thesampleincludescitieswithpopulationrangingfrom23to537,958residents.ThedescriptivestatisticsforallthevariablesusedinthestudyarepresentedinTable1.
DependentVariables
Weestimatetheeffectofcoproductiononseveraloutcomes.Themaindependentvariablesofinterestaretheleveloftotalcityexpenditurespercapitaandthenumberofpaidemployeespercapita,part-timeandfull-timecombined.Basedontheextanttheorydiscussedintheprevioussections,wehypothesizethatcoproductionshouldhaveasignificantimpactontheleveloftotalexpendituresandthenumberofpaidemployees.Weusethenaturallogofbothoutcomesinthisstudy.Beforetakingnaturallog,dollaramountshavebeenadjustedforinflationusingConsumerPriceIndexfromBureauofLaborStatistics.
Additionally,weanalyzehowcitizenengagementingovernmentoperationsmightaffectdistributionofpublicresourcesbetweenmajorspendingcategories.Theoretically,coproductionprogramsmayleadtoincreasedadministrativecostsrequiredtorecruit,train,andmanagevolunteers.Thismaynotonlypreventpotentialcostsavings,butleadtoincreasednetspending.Asanalternative,managementmayopttodivertresourcesfromsomefunctionstoaccommodateincreasingdemandsinadministrativecosts.Yetanotheralternativeisthatcoproductionmightbeabletofreeupsomespendingfromonefunctiontoanotherwithtotallevelofspendingnotaffected.Hence,anadditionalsetofeightdependentvariablesrepresenttheratiooftotalspendingoneachofthecentralfunctionsascategoriesbyDCA,namelygeneralgovernment,judiciary,publicsafety,publicworks,healthandwelfare,cultureandrecreation,housinganddevelopment,anddebtservice,totheleveloftotalexpenditures.Combined,thesecategoriesrepresent100%ofcityexpenditures.
IndependentVariables
391
Themainpredictorofinterestinthisstudyistheextentofcitizeninvolvementincoproductionofpublicservices.ThesedatacomefromthequestioninLocalGovernmentWage&Salarysurveyaskingtheresponderstoenterthetotalnumberof“volunteerornon-paidworkersservingasemployees”.Weoperationalizecoproductionasaratioofcitizenvolunteerstothesumoffull-timeandparttimepaidemployees.Fiveofthesmallercitieswithpopulationfrom191to432residentsinsomeyearsreportedtohaveupto20volunteers,whilehavingonlyoneortwopaidemployeesgivingintwocasesaratioof15.Hence,tolimittheextremevaluesandtoreducepotentialeffectofoutliers,weuseadditionalmeasureofcoproductionwhichiswinsorizedat1,sothatallobservationwithratiosabove1arerecodedas1.About4percentofthecitesreportedhavingmorevolunteersthanpaidemployees,andabout9percenthadhalfasmanyvolunteersaspaidemployees.Itisimportanttonotethatsuchhighratiosunequivocallyindicatethatinanumberofcasesvolunteerengagementinourstudymostlikelywasassociatedwithmajorundertakings,wherevolunteersplayedasubstantialroleingovernmentoperationsratherthanassistingwithtriflinghousekeepingroutine.Yetanothermeasureisanindicatorvariablecoded1forallcity-yearsthatinvolvedatleast1volunteerandzeroforthosethathadzerovolunteers.About93percentofcitiesthatdidnotengageincoproductioninthefirstyear,didnothaveanyvolunteersnextyear.Meanwhileabout57percentofcitieswithvolunteersinthefirstyearcontinuedtocoproduceinthenextyear.
Controls
Thestudyutilizesseveralclustersofcontrolscapturingessentialcitycharacteristicsthattheoreticallymightaffecttheoutcomesinourstudy.Budgetaryoutcomesareoftencharacterizedbyincrementalannualchanges,whichmakespreviousfiscalyearbehavioroneofthestrongestpredictorsofthefuture.Henceourmodelsincludelaggeddependentvariables.Citiesalsovarybythenumberoffacilitiestheymaintain,thenumberofservicesprovidedandthemanagerialfunctionsperformed.Allofthesecanaffectthelevelofspendingandemployees.Henceourmodelsincludethreecountvariablesindicatingthetotalnumberofservices,facilitiesandmanagerialfunctionsundertakenbythecity.Table2listsalltypesoffunctions,servicesandfacilities.Wealsoaccountforthetotalnumberofpaidemployeespercapitaintheexpendituremodels.Thisvariablehelpstoteaseoutcoproductioneffectsholdingthenumberofpaidemployeesconstant.
Localgovernmentinstitutionsareknowninurbanaffairsliteraturetoaffectvariousaspectsoflocalpolicymaking(Carr&Karuppusamy,2010;Feiock,Jeong,&Kim,2003;Frederickson&Johnson,2001;Karuppusamy&Carr,2012;Svara,2005).Hence,asetofindicatorvariablescontrolsforvariationinmunicipalpoliticalinstitutions.Weaccountforwhetherornotthechiefexecutiveiselectedbythecommission,whethertheboardmembersareelectedbythedistrict,atlarge,orsomecombinationofthetwo.About97percentoftheCEO’sareelectedbypopularvoteandin72percentofthecitiesboard
392
membersareelectedat-large.Thesetwogroupsserveasomittedcomparisoncategories.WealsoaccountforthetotalnumberofseatsontheboardexcludingtheCEO.
Wecontrolfortheproportionoflocalrevenuethatisreceivedfromintergovernmentalaid(IGR)andfromchargesforservices.PreviousstudiesfindthatlocalofficialswithahigherproportionoftheirbudgetsfundedfromlocaltaxesratherthanIGRtendtobemoreparsimonious,holdingallelseequal(Duncombe&Yinger,1997).Wedifferentiatebetweendifferentcitysizesintermsofpopulationusingthreedummyvariableseachindicatingwhetherornotthecityfallsintothebottom,second,orthirdquartile,withthetopquartileofthepopulationdistributionbeingtheomittedcomparisoncategory.Populationgrowthismeasuredasapercentchangerelativetothepreviousyear,andpopulationdensityisexpressedasthetotalnumberofresidentspersquaremileofthecityareainagivenyear.
Additionally,weimplementseveralcontrolsforcitywealthandideologicalleaning.Wealthiercommunitieswithhigherfiscalcapacitymaybemoretolerantofinefficientgovernmentoperations(Eom&Rubenstein,2006;Grosskopf,Hayes,Taylor,&Weber,2001;Hayes,Razzolini,&Ross,1998;Leibenstein,1966,1978).Thesedataarenotavailableatthecitylevelacrosstime,soweproxythembycountyleveldata.Thus,weusetotalnettaxablepropertywithinthecounty,meanresidentialpropertyvalue(assessedat40%ofthefairmarketvalueinGeorgia)andpercentpopulationinpoverty.Theoretically,citieslocatedinwealthiercountiesasmeasuredbytheseindicatorsshouldalsohaveawiderpropertytaxbaseandahigherrevenueraisingcapacity.UsingdatafromtheU.S.Censusavailableforallcitiesforoneyearweestimatedcorrelationcoefficientsbetweenthesevariablesatthecountyandcitylevel.Thecorrelationmatricesindicatedthatmeanresidentialpropertyvalueinthecountyissignificantlycorrelatedwithcitymedianhousingvalue(0.65)andmedianhouseholdincome(0.63).Thecountylevelofpovertyisalsosignificantlyandpositivelycorrelatedwithcitypoverty(0.60),andnegativelycorrelatedwithincome(0.62)andhousingvalue(0.59).Hence,webelievethesecountylevelvariablesarereasonablygoodcontrolsforthepurposesofthisstudy.
Anothervariablecontrolsforthepercentofpopulationinthelaborforce.Ahigherproportionofpopulationinthelaborforcemayindicatelessdemandforsocialservicesandhealthcare,whichoftencomprisealargeproportionoflocalbudgets.Asforideologicalleaning,weusethepercentofvotesforademocraticpresidentialcandidateinthemostrecentelections.Thus,thedatafrom2004areusedfor2006and2007,from2008electionsfor2008-2011,andfrom2012for2012-2015.Thereisasubstantialvariationinideologicalpreferences,from18to73percentofvotersleaningtowardademocraticpresidentialcandidate.Wealsocontrolforvoterturnoutattheseelectionsasaproxyforcivicengagement.
Inadditiontothesecontrols,weaccountforanytimetrendsinthedatabyincludingineachmodelnineyeardummyvariableswith2006beingtheomittedcomparisoncategory.
EstimationMethodology
393
Giventhecontinuousnatureofourdependentvariables,weestimatelinearmodels.TheHausmanspecificationtestspointedtoapotentialunobservedheterogeneitybiasindicatingthatthedatadonotsupportarandomeffectsmodel.Therefore,weuseafixed-effectswithinestimatormodelwhichseekstoexplaintemporalvariancewithcitiesandaccountsfortime-invariantunobservedheterogeneity,whichmaybiastherandomeffectsestimators(Halaby,2004).Additionaltestingindicatedthepotentialpresenceofheteroskedasticityandautocorrelation.Hence,allourmodelsareestimatedusingstandarderrorsclusteredbycity.TheVarianceInflationFactor(VIF)checkformulticollinearityindicatedthatthedummyvariableforthebottompopulationquartilewasthevariablewiththehighestVIF(4.26),suggestingthatmulticollinearitypresentsnoseriousconcerns(Gujarati,2007).
Results
ThemainfindingsofthestudyaresummarizedinTables3,4and5.First,weestimatetheimpactofcoproductiononthenaturallogofthetotallevelofexpenditurespercapita.
(InsertTable3abouthere)
Controllingforthelevelofspendinginthepreviousyearandimportantcitycharacteristics,suchasthenumberoffunctionsperformed,numberofemployees,revenuestructure,politicalinstitutions,populationdensityandgrowth,fiscalcapacity,andideologicalleaning,wefindnoevidencethatcitiesengagingincoproductionobtainsignificantcostsavings(Model1).Thesignisintheexpecteddirection,buttheeffectisinsignificant(p-value=0.34)Itappearsthatcitieswithahigherratioofvolunteersrelativetopaidemployeesmaintainthesamelevelofspendingpercapita.Theresultsarethesamewiththeothertwomeasuresofcoproduction,namelytruncatedratioanddummyindicator.25Noneoftheyearfixedeffectswassignificantinanymodel.Asexpected,oneofthestrongestpredictorsislastyearspending(p-value<0.001)andpaidemployeespercapita(p-value<0.001).Additionally,revenuestructure,citysizeandpopulationgrowthalsoappeartobeimportantdeterminantsofmunicipalfiscalbehavior.
Next,weestimatetheexpendituremodelswiththecoproductionmeasureslaggedbyoneyear.Alaggedeffectispossiblebecausevolunteersareunlikelytotakeonsubstantialrolesandthereforefreeupresourcesinthefirstyear.Onceproperlytrained,however,volunteersinvolvedinthecoproductionprogramsmayhelptogeneratecostsavings.Becausethedataareavailableform2006only,weloseoneyearofobservationsinthesemodels(Models2,3,4).Usingaoneyearlagofcoproductionmeasures,wefindsupportforthishypothesisasitappearsthatvolunteersdoproducesignificantcostsavingsduring
25Becausetheresultsarethesame,theyarenotreportedforbrevity,butareavailablefromtheauthorsuponrequest.
394
thefollowingyear.Accordingtotheuntruncatedmeasureofcoproduction,aonepercentagepointincreaseinthevolunteerstoemployeesratiogeneratesaround0.02percentdecreaseintotalgovernmentspending(Model2).Amodelwiththetruncatedmeasureindicatesthatsavingscanbeupto0.08percentwithaonepercentincreaseinthevolunteerstoemployeesratio(Model3).Onaverage,citiesengagingincoproductionmanagetoreducetheirspendingby0.05percentinthefollowingyearcomparedtotheircounterpartsnotengaginginsuchprograms.Thus,wefindasignificantreductionintotalspendinginthefollowingyearusingallthreemeasures.Theeffectisstatisticallysignificant(p-value<0.01and0.001)inourfixedeffectsmodelseveninthepresenceofalaggeddependentvariable,numberofpaidemployees,numberofservices,facilities,managerialfunctionsandotherimportantfactors.
(InsertTable4abouthere)
Thenextoutcomeofinterestthatmightbeaffectedbythelevelofcoproductionisthenumberofpaidemployees(logged).Herewealsoestimatethecurrentandlaggedeffectsofeachofthethreemeasuresofcoproduction.Theempiricalfindingsfromthesemodelssuggestthatthelevelofemployeesisalsosignificantlyaffectedbyvolunteerinvolvement,butinadifferentway.AccordingtoModel5,aonepercentagepointincreaseinthevolunteerstoemployeesratioleadsto0.03percentreductioninthenumberofemployeespercapita(p-value<0.001).However,themodelswithtwoothermeasuresshownosignificantimpact.Althoughinsignificant,thesefindingsareimportant.Itappearsthatthelevelofvolunteerengagementiscrucialforwhetherornotcitiescansignificantlyreducetheirpaidpersonnel.Thenullfindingsfromthemodelwiththedummyindicatorforvolunteersshowthatonaverageitdoesnotmatterwhethercitizenvolunteersareinvolvedingovernmentoperations.Whatdoesmatter,however,asModel5indicates,istheextentofvolunteerengagement,asmeasuredbytheratioofvolunteerstoemployees.
Additionalestimationswithlaggedcoproduction(Model6)similarlyfindnoevidenceofsignificantreductionsinemployeespercapitainthefollowingyear.26Asfortheotherfactorsthatinfluencethelevelofpaidemployees,wefindthatinadditiontothesizetermsofpopulationanditsgrowth,municipalitieswithgreaterfiscalcapacity,asproxiedbynettaxablepropertyvalue,tendtohavemoreemployeespercapita.CitieswithmorecitizensleaningtowardDemocraticpresidentialcandidatesalsoemploysignificantlymorepublicservants.Yearfixedeffects(nottabulated)indicatethatcomparedto2006citiesemployedsignificantlymorestaffin2007,andsignificantlyfeweremployeesin2010and2011,whilethelevelofemployeesdidnotdifferinotheryears.
Itshouldbenotedthatsome125smallcitiesreportedinsomeyearszeropaidemployees,whichmayormaynothavebeenanerror.Asaresult,thenumberforemployeespercapitaforthesecitiesiszero,andbecausewehadtotakenaturallogoftheratiotogeta
26Wereportonlyonemodelwithlagged(untruncated)coproductionmeasureasthemodelswiththetwootheralternativemeasuresprovidethesameresults.Allmodelsareavailablefromtheauthorsuponrequest.
395
normallydistributeddependentvariable,thesecitieswereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Asrobustnesscheck,wererunthemodelswithunloggedemployeespercapitaandthereforeallcitiesinthesample,andalthoughthemodelsperformsubstantiallyworse,thefindingsarethesame,i.e.aonepercentagepointincreaseinthevolunteerstoemployeesratioisassociatedwith-0.0002reductioninemployeespercapita(p-value<0.05)andthereisnolaggedeffectwithanyofthecoproductionmeasures.Anotherclarificationshouldbemadewithrespecttothelaggeddependentvariableintheemploymentmodels.Weusedlaggedexpenditurepercapitainsteadoflaggedemploymentfortworeasons.First,itgivesusmoreobservationsaslaggedemploymentisnotavailableforsomeobservationsinsomeyearsandforallobservationpriorto2006,whereaslaggedexpendituresareavailablebeyondthetimeperiodofthestudy.Second,majorbudgetarychoiceswithrespecttorevenue,spendingandemployeesaremadesimultaneously,andalowerlevelofspendingwillmeanlessemployeesinmostcases.Hence,thelevelofspendingpercapitainthepreviousyearisarobustproxyforthelevelofemployees.Sincepreviousspendingpatternsmayalsodeterminehowmuchcoproductioncitiesengagein,voluntarilyorinvoluntarilyduetoshortageofresources,itisanimportantfactortocontrolfor.Asarobustnesscheckwererantheemploymentmodelswithlaggedemploymentpercapita,andthenwithlaggedemploymentandlaggedexpendituressimultaneously,andtheresultsarethesame(β=0.02,p-value<0.05).
Thusfar,theempiricalresultsindicatethatvolunteerinvolvementmostlikelyreducesthenumberofpaidemployees,whereasthelevelofspendingremainsthesame.Inthefollowingyear,weseesignificantcostsavingswithoutfurtherreductioninemployees.Inordertobetterunderstandtheeffectsofcoproductionongovernmentoperations,weestimateitsimpactonthedistributionofpublicresourcesbetweenthemaincityspendingcategories.Wemeasurethedistributionofresourcesasaratioofgeneralgovernment,judiciary,publicsafety,publicworks,healthandwelfare,cultureandrecreation,housinganddevelopment,anddebtservicetotheleveloftotalexpenditures.
(InsertTable5abouthere)
Usingourthreemeasuresofcoproductionweestimatedatotaloftwenty-fourmodels.Theuntruncatedcoproductionvariablewascloseinsome,butdidnotreachtheconventionallevelsofsignificanceinanyofthemodels(p-value>0.10).Ontheotherhand,themodelwiththetruncatedcoproductionvariableindicatesasignificantpositiveimpactontheproportionofresourcesdevotedtothegeneralgovernment(Model7)andanegativeimpactontheamountofresourcesdevotedtocultureandrecreation(Model8,p-value=0.059).Similarly,adummyindicatorforvolunteerinvolvementsuggestssignificantincreasesinthepercentofresourcesspentongeneralgovernment(Model9,p-value=0.051)andareducedratiooffundsdevotedtotheJudiciary(Model10).Otherspendingcategoriesarenotaffected.Coproductionincreasesthepercentofexpendituresallocatedtogeneralgovernmentfrom0.01to0.02percent.
Thesefindingsshowthatalthoughthetotallevelofspendingmayremainthesame,thedecisiontocoproduceaffectshowtheavailableresourcesaredistributed.Oneoftheconsistentfindingswithatleasttwocoproductionmeasuresisthatvolunteerinvolvement
396
leadstomoreresourcesdedicatedtothegeneralgovernment.Onaverage,citiesengagingincoproductionallocatedabout0.01percent(p-value=0.05)moretothegeneralgovernmentspendingcategory,which,accordingtotheDCA,comprisescityadministrationexpenses.Thesefindingsseemtosupportthenotionofincreasedadministrativecostsassociatedwithincreasedlevelsofcoproduction.Inourcase,thefindingssuggestthatresourcesmaybedivertedfromotherfunctions,suchascultureandrecreation,orperhapsthejudiciaryfunctions.Meanwhile,asthepreviousmodelsindicate,thetotallevelofspendingremainsunaffected.
Ahigherproportionoffundsallocatedforgeneralgovernmentmayalsosuggestthatthegovernmentisgoingthroughtheprocessofreorganization,asaresultofwhichweseeareductioninemployeesandsubsequentreductionsinspending.Thisraisesaninterestingquestionofwhethervolunteersareusedtocoverthegradualreductionofpaidemployeesasaresultofsomedownsizingprocess.Ifthisisthecase,thesubsequentreductionintotalspendingpercapitawouldsimplybeduetoreducedworkloadratherthancostsavings.Althoughourmodelscontrolforthenumberofservices,facilitiesandfunctionsperformedbythecities,weestimateadditionalmodelstocheckwhethercoproductionisassociatedwithareductioninanyofthesethree.Thesearecountvariables,soweranPoissonregressionmodelswithyearandcityfixedeffects,and,asarobustnesscheck,weestimatednegativebinomialandlinearregressionmodelswithfixedeffectsandstandarderrorsclusteredbytheissuer.Usingthesamesetofcontrolsandoneyearlagoftotalspendingpercapita,wefindnoevidencethatanyofthethreemeasuresofcoproduction,laggedornotlagged,hasanyeffectonthenumberoffacilities,servicesormanagerialfunctionsperformedbythecity.Hence,thecostsavingsinthefollowingyearthatwefindinmodels(Models3,4,5)arehighlylikelytobeduetoefficiencyimprovements.
Conclusion
Theextanttheorypredictsthatcitizenengagementincoproductionofpublicservicesamongotherthingshasthepotentialtogeneratecostssavings.Thisworkrepresentsoneofthefirstattemptstotestthesepredictionsinalongitudinalanalysisofgeneralpurposelocalgovernmentsengagedinvariouslevelsofcoproduction.Themainconclusionofourstudyisthatcoproductionprogramsdohavesignificantandextendedimpactongovernmentfiscalbehavior.Itappearsthathigherlevelsofcoproduction,asmeasuredbyavolunteertoemployeeratio,donotimmediatelygeneratecost-savings.Indeed,coproductionmaysignificantlyincreaseadministrativecostsnecessarytotrainandmanagethevolunteersanddivertresourcesfromotherspendingcategories,suchascultureandrecreationorevenjudiciary.Thisdoesnotresult,accordingtoourfindings,inanetincreaseintotalspending.Meanwhile,volunteerengagementdoeshelpthecitiesreducethetotalnumberofemployeespercapita.Thereductions,however,aremorelikelywithhigherratiosofvolunteerstoemployees.
397
Anotherimportantfindingisthatcoproductionhasasignificantlaggedeffectonthetotallevelofcityexpenditures.Ourempiricalresultssuggestthesavingsinthenextyearcanbefrom0.02to0.08percentintotalspendingpercapita,whilethenumberofservices,facilitiesandmanagerialfunctionsremainsthesame.Thesefindingsprovideempiricalsupporttooneofthemainpredictionsofthecoproductiontheorypostulatingthatcitizenengagementmayhelpimprovegovernmentefficiency.
Whiletheresultsofthisstudyarebasedoncitieswithinasinglestate,thereisreasontobelievethatthefindingsaregeneralizablebeyondthestateofGeorgia.Theextentofgeneralizabilitydependsonwhetherthecitiesinotherstatesaresimilartothoseincludedinthisstudy.Thestatusandpowersoflocalgovernmentsaredeterminedbystateinstitutions,whichjointlyestablishstatesystemsoflocalgovernments.Thesesystemsdifferfromstatetostate(Krane,Rigos,&Hill,2001),whichinpractice,meansthatcityofficialsintwodifferentstatespossessdifferentlevelofauthorityandautonomy.However,therearecommonalitiesamongstatesinthewaytheyorganizetheirlocalunits.Forinstance,StephensandWikstrom(2000)distinguishfivereasonablydiscretesystemsoflocalgovernment,whereGeorgiafallsintothesamegroupasAlabama,Florida,Kentucky,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nevada,SouthCarolina,UtahandWestVirginia.Inpart,thecommonaltiesareexplainedbyhistoricaltrends,whichrevealadaptationofstatesystemsoflocalgovernmentmovingwestwardassettlementproceededfromtheseventeenthcenturyon,fromNewEnglandandtheSouthtoWesternstates(Stephens&Wikstrom,2000,pp.10-11).Citieswithinonegroupofstateshavesimilarresponsibilitiesandcapacities,theyinteractandcooperatewithsimilartypesofotherlocalgovernments.Thus,webelieveourfindingsshouldholdatleastwithinthisgroupofstates.
398
References
Bovaird,T.(2007).BeyondEngagementandParticipation:UserandCommunityCoproductionofPublicServices.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5),846-860.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
Bovaird,T.,&Loeffler,E.(2013).We’reallinthistogether:harnessinguserandcommunityco-productionofpublicoutcomes.Birmingham:InstituteofLocalGovernment
Studies:UniversityofBirmingham,1,15.
Boyle,D.,&Harris,M.(2009).Thechallengeofco-production.London:NewEconomics
Foundation.
Brandsen,T.,&Honingh,M.(2015).DistinguishingDifferentTypesofCoproduction:AConceptualAnalysisBasedontheClassicalDefinitions.PublicAdministrationReview,n/a-n/a.doi:10.1111/puar.12465
Brudney,J.L.(1984).Localcoproductionofservicesandtheanalysisofmunicipalproductivity.UrbanAffairsReview,19(4),465-484.
Brudney,J.L.(1990a).TheAvailabilityofVolunteersImplicationsforLocalGovernments.Administration&Society,21(4),413-424.
Brudney,J.L.(1990b).Expandingthegovernment-by-proxyconstruct:Volunteersinthedeliveryofpublicservices.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,19(4),315-328.
Brudney,J.L.(1990c).Fosteringvolunteerprogramsinthepublicsector:Jossey-Bass.
Brudney,J.L.(1993).Volunteerinvolvementinthedeliveryofpublicservices:Advantagesanddisadvantages.PublicProductivity&ManagementReview,283-297.
Brudney,J.L.(2005).Designingandmanagingvolunteerprograms.TheJossey-Basshandbookofnonprofitleadershipandmanagement,310-344.
Brudney,J.L.,&Duncombe,W.D.(1992).Aneconomicevaluationofpaid,volunteer,andmixedstaffingoptionsforpublicservices.PublicAdministrationReview,474-481.
Brudney,J.L.,&England,R.E.(1983).Towardadefinitionofthecoproductionconcept.PublicAdministrationReview,59-65.
Brudney,J.L.,&Kellough,J.E.(2000).Volunteersinstategovernment:Involvement,management,andbenefits.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,29(1),111-130.
Brudney,J.L.,&Warren,R.(1990).Multipleformsofvolunteeractivityinthepublicsector:Functional,structural,andpolicydimensions.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,19(1),47-58.
Brunet,A.,DeBoer,L.,&McNamara,K.T.(2001).CommunityChoicebetweenVolunteerandProfessionalFireDepartments.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,30(1),26-50.doi:10.1177/0899764001301002
399
Carr,J.B.,&Karuppusamy,S.(2010).ReassessingtheLinkBetweenCityStructureandFiscalPolicy:IstheProblemPoorMeasuresofGovernmentalStructure?TheAmerican
ReviewofPublicAdministration,40(2),209-228.doi:10.1177/0275074009334641
Coursey,D.,Yang,K.,&Pandey,S.K.(2012).PublicServiceMotivation(PSM)andSupportforCitizenParticipation:ATestofPerryandVandenabeele’sReformulationofPSMTheory.PublicAdministrationReview,72(4),572-582.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02581.x
Dover,G.J.(2010).Publicsectorvolunteering:Committedstaff,multiplelogics,andcontradictorystrategies.ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration,30(2),235-256.
Duncombe,W.,&Yinger,J.(1997).Whyisitsohardtohelpcentralcityschools?JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,16(1),85-113.
Eom,T.H.,&Rubenstein,R.(2006).DoState-FundedPropertyTaxExemptionsIncreaseLocalGovernmentInefficiency?AnAnalysisofNewYorkState'sSTARProgram.PublicBudgeting&Finance,26(1),66-87.
Farr,C.A.(1983).Volunteers:Managingvolunteerpersonnelinlocalgovernment:InternationalCityManagementAssociation.
Feiock,R.C.,Jeong,M.-G.,&Kim,J.(2003).CredibleCommitmentandCouncil-ManagerGovernment:ImplicationsforPolicyInstrumentChoices.PublicAdministrationReview,
63(5),616-625.doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00324
Ferris,J.M.(1988).Theuseofvolunteersinpublicserviceproduction:Somedemandandsupplyconsiderations.SocialScienceQuarterly,69(1),3.
Frederickson,H.G.,&Johnson,G.A.(2001).TheAdaptedAmericanCity:AStudyofInstitutionalDynamics.UrbanAffairsReview,36(6),872-884.doi:10.1177/10780870122185127
Gazley,B.,&Brudney,J.L.(2005).VolunteerInvolvementinLocalGovernmentafterSeptember11:TheContinuingQuestionofCapacity.PublicAdministrationReview,65(2),131-142.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00439.x
GeorgiaStateGovernment.(2017).Cities&CountiesintheStateofGeorgia.AnofficialwebsiteoftheStateofGeorgia.Retrievedfromhttps://georgia.gov/municipality-list
Grosskopf,S.,Hayes,K.J.,Taylor,L.L.,&Weber,W.L.(2001).OntheDeterminantsofSchoolDistrictEfficiency:CompetitionandMonitoring.JournalofUrbanEconomics,49(3),453-478.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/juec.2000.2201
Gujarati,D.(2007).BasicEconometrics(4ed.).NewYork,NY:McGraw-HillEducation.
Halaby,C.N.(2004).Panelmodelsinsociologicalresearch:Theoryintopractice.Annu.Rev.Sociol.,30,507-544.
Handy,F.,&Srinivasan,N.(2004).Valuingvolunteers:Aneconomicevaluationofthenetbenefitsofhospitalvolunteers.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,33(1),28-54.
400
Hayes,K.,Razzolini,L.,&Ross,L.(1998).Bureaucraticchoiceandnonoptimalprovisionofpublicgoods:Theoryandevidence.PublicChoice,94(1/2),1-20.
Hilke,J.(1986).Theimpactofvolunteerfirefightersonlocalgovernmentspendingandtaxation.MunicipalFinanceJournal,7(1),33-44.
Jakobsen,M.,James,O.,Moynihan,D.,&Nabatchi,T.(2016).JPARTVirtualIssueonCitizen-StateInteractionsinPublicAdministrationResearch.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,muw031.
Joshi,A.,&Moore,M.(2004).Institutionalisedco-production:unorthodoxpublicservicedeliveryinchallengingenvironments.JournalofDevelopmentStudies,40(4),31-49.
Karuppusamy,S.,&Carr,J.B.(2012).InterjurisdictionalCompetitionandLocalPublicFinance:AssessingtheModifyingEffectsofInstitutionalIncentivesandFiscalConstraints.UrbanStudies,49(7),1549-1569.doi:10.1177/0042098011415435
Kettl,D.F.(1988).Performanceandaccountability:Thechallengeofgovernmentbyproxyforpublicadministration.TheAmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,18(1),9-28.
Kiser,L.L.,&Percy,S.L.(1980).Theconceptofcoproductionanditsimplicationsforpublic
servicedelivery.PaperpresentedattheWorkshopinpoliticaltheoryandpolicyanalysis.
Klingner,D.E.(1983).Publicadministration:amanagementapproach:HoughtonMifflinSchool.
Krane,D.,Rigos,P.N.,&Hill,M.B.(2001).HomeRuleInAmerica:AFifty-StateHandbook:CQPress.
Löffler,E.(2009).Whyco-productionisanimportanttopicforlocalgovernment.GovernanceInternational.
Leibenstein,H.(1966).AllocativeEfficiencyvs."X-Efficiency".TheAmericanEconomic
Review,56(3),392-415.doi:10.2307/1823775
Leibenstein,H.(1978).OntheBasicPropositionofX-EfficiencyTheory.TheAmerican
EconomicReview,68(2),328-332.doi:10.2307/1816715
Levine,C.H.,&Fisher,G.(1984).Citizenshipandservicedelivery:Thepromiseofcoproduction.PublicAdministrationReview,44,178-189.
Nabatchi,T.,&Leighninger,M.(2015).Publicparticipationfor21stcenturydemocracy:JohnWiley&Sons.
Navaratnam,K.K.(1986).VolunteerstrainingVolunteers:Amodelforhumanserviceorganizations.JournalofVolunteerAdministration,5(1),19-25.
Needham,C.(2008).Realisingthepotentialofco-production:negotiatingimprovementsinpublicservices.SocialPolicyandSociety,7(02),221-231.
Nesbit,R.,&Brudney,J.L.(2013).ProjectionsandPoliciesforVolunteerPrograms:TheImplicationsoftheServeAmericaActforVolunteerDiversityandManagement.NonprofitManagementandLeadership,24(1),3-21.
401
Neshkova,M.I.,&Guo,H.(2012).PublicParticipationandOrganizationalPerformance:EvidencefromStateAgencies.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,
22(2),267-288.doi:10.1093/jopart/mur038
Osborne,S.P.,&Strokosch,K.(2013).Ittakestwototango?understandingtheCo-productionofpublicservicesbyintegratingtheservicesmanagementandpublicadministrationperspectives.BritishJournalofManagement,24(S1),S31-S47.
Parks,R.B.,Baker,P.C.,Kiser,L.,Oakerson,R.,Ostrom,E.,Ostrom,V.,...Wilson,R.(1981).Consumersascoproducersofpublicservices:Someeconomicandinstitutionalconsiderations.PolicyStudiesJournal,9(7),1001-1011.
Percy,S.L.(1984).Citizenparticipationinthecoproductionofurbanservices.UrbanAffairsReview,19(4),431-446.
Pestoff,V.(2010).Relationshipbetweenvolunteerinandco-productioninEurope.Abstract,InternationalSocietyforThird-SectorResearch,Istanbul,Turkey.
Pestoff,V.(2013).CollectiveActionandtheSustainabilityofCo-Production.PublicManagementReview,16(3),383-401.doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841460
Pestoff,V.(2014).Collectiveactionandthesustainabilityofco-production.PublicManagementReview,16(3),383-401.
Rich,R.C.(1981).Interactionofthevoluntaryandgovernmentalsectors:Towardanunderstandingofthecoproductionofmunicipalservices.Administration&Society,13(1),59-76.
Sharp,E.B.(1980).Towardanewunderstandingofurbanservicesandcitizenparticipation:Thecoproductionconcept.MidwestReviewofPublicAdministration,14(2),105-118.
Stephens,R.,&Wikstrom,N.(2000).MetropolitanGovernmentandGovernance:
TheoreticalPerspectives,EmpiricalAnalysis,andtheFuture.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sundeen,R.A.(1990).Citizensservinggovernment:Theextentanddistinctivenessofvolunteerparticipationinlocalpublicagencies.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,19(4),329-344.
Svara,J.H.(2005).ExploringStructuresandInstitutionsinCityGovernment.PublicAdministrationReview,65(4),500-506.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00475.x
Verschuere,B.,Brandsen,T.,&Pestoff,V.(2012).Co-production:Thestateoftheartinresearchandthefutureagenda.Voluntas:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,23(4),1083-1101.
Warren,R.(1987).Coproduction,volunteerism,privatization,andthepublicinterest.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,16(3),5-10.
402
Weschler,L.F.,&Mushkatel,A.H.(1987).Thedeveloper'sroleincoprovision,cofinancing,andcoproductionofurbaninfrastructureandservices.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,16(3),62-69.
Wooldridge,J.(2013).IntroductoryEconometrics:AModernApproach(5ed.).Mason,OH:South-Western,CengageLearning.
403
Tables
Table1.DescriptiveStatistics.N=3,955.T=10(from2006to2015).
Variable Mean SD Min Max
Dependentvariables
Expenditurespercapita(Ln) 6.91 0.79 3.18 9.91
Employmentpercapita(Ln) -4.56 0.63 -7.54 -1.60
GeneralGovernment,percentoftotalspending 0.23 0.18 0.01 1.00
Judicial,percentoftotalspending 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.25
PublicSafety,percentoftotalspending 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.71
PublicWorks,percentoftotalspending 0.47 0.20 0.00 0.94
Health&Welfare,percentoftotalspending 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.39
Culture&Recreation,percentoftotalspending 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.45
Housing&Development,percentoftotalspending 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.49
DebtService,percentoftotalspending 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.89
Coproductionmeasures
Ratio 0.18 0.83 0.00 15.00
Ratiotruncated 0.09 0.27 0.00 1.00
Dummy 0.15 0.36 0.00 1.00
Workload
ManagerialFunctionsprovided 11.35 2.08 2.00 13.00
Servicesprovided 15.96 3.03 4.00 19.00
Facilitiesprovided 10.03 4.47 0.00 17.00
Revenuestructure
IGRaspercentoftotalrevenue 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.94
Chargesforservicesaspercentoftotalrevenue 0.36 0.23 0.00 0.97
Political
Institutions
NumberofseatsontheboardexcludingCEO 4.95 1.11 2.00 16.00
CEOelectedbyvoteofcommission 0.03 0.17 0.00 1.00
CEOelectedbypopularvote 0.97 0.17 0.00 1.00
Boardmemberselectedat-large 0.72 0.45 0.00 1.00
Boardmemberselectedbydistrict/at-large 0.07 0.25 0.00 1.00
Boardmembersselectedbydistrict 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.00
Boardmembers’electionnotapplicable 0.01 0.09 0.00 1.00
Population 1stquartile 0.22 0.42 0.00 1.00
404
2ndquartile 0.25 0.43 0.00 1.00
3rdquartile 0.24 0.43 0.00 1.00
4thquartile 0.28 0.45 0.00 1.00
PopulationGrowth 0.01 0.05 -0.47 1.18
PopulationDensity 797.80 806.12 19.26 7,429.90
PercentinLaborForce 0.45 0.06 0.22 0.64
Populationinpoverty,percent 20.76 7.08 4.50 48.10
WealthNetPropertyTaxableValuespercapita(in$1,000s) 2,106.39 5,964.72 24.91 90,007.43
MeanResidentialPropertyvalue(in$1,000s) 16.07 11.28 3.67 53.77
IdeologyVoterTurnout,percent 74.24 4.44 54.82 86.65
VotesforDemocrat,percent 0.38 0.15 0.12 0.84
YearDummies
2007 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
2008 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
2009 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
2010 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
2011 0.11 0.31 0.00 1.00
2012 0.11 0.31 0.00 1.00
2013 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
2014 0.09 0.29 0.00 1.00
2015 0.09 0.28 0.00 1.00
405
Table2.TypeofManagerialFunctions,ServicesandFacilitiesprovidedbytheCities.
Managementfunctions Typesofservices Typesofpublicfacilities
AccountsPayable/Receivable AnimalControl Airport
Archiving&HistoricalData BuildingInspectionBicycle,hiking,and/orjogging
trails
Collecting&MaintainingLandUse
DataBuildingPermits Cemeteries
GeographicInformationSystemConstructionandCode
EnforcementCiviccenter
IssuingOccupationTaxCertificates EmergencyMedicalServices Correctionalinstitute
LawEnforcementRecords Emergency911 Golfcourses
MaintainingCourtRecords FireProtection Healthclinic
PayrollPreparation HealthScreeningServices Libraries
TaxAssessment JailMulti-purpose
center/Communitycenter
TaxBilling LawEnforcement
Neighborhood
playgrounds/Playground
equipment
TaxDigest PlanningOutdoorcourts(basketball,
tennis,volleyball,etc)
UtilityBillPreparation PublicHospitalOutdoorfields(baseball,
football,soccer,etc.)
VoterRegistration PublicTransit Parks
SeniorCitizenProgram Recreationcenterand/orgym
WastewaterCollection Seniorcitizenscenter
WastewaterTreatment Stadium
WaterDistribution Swimmingpools
WaterSupply
WaterTreatment
406
Table3.CoproductioneffectonthelevelofPublicSpending
Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4
Coproductionmeasures Ratio Ratio(t-1) Truncated(t-1) Dummy(t-1)
β t-score β t-score β t-score β t-score
Coproduction -0.01 (-0.97) -0.02** (-2.84) -0.08*** (-3.53) -0.05*** (-3.76)
LaggedDV 0.26*** (7.96) 0.20*** (5.52) 0.20*** (5.53) 0.20*** (5.54)
PaidEmployeespercapita 2.63** (2.84) 2.30* (2.32) 2.34* (2.33) 2.32* (2.33)
ManagerialFunctionsprovided -0.01 (-0.97) -0.01 (-1.43) -0.01 (-1.27) -0.01 (-1.28)
Servicesprovided -0.01 (-1.00) -0.00 (-0.45) -0.00 (-0.49) -0.00 (-0.55)
Facilitiesprovided 0.002 (0.41) 0.00 (-0.03) 0.00 (0.02) 0.00 0.00
IGR 0.25*** (4.40) 0.26*** (4.29) 0.26*** (4.33) 0.26*** (4.36)
Chargesforservices 0.30** (2.76) 0.28* (2.46) 0.28* (2.46) 0.28* (2.48)
Numberofseatsontheboard 0.06 (1.70) 0.06* (2.18) 0.06* (2.26) 0.06* (2.22)
CEOelectedbycommission -0.08 (-0.92) -0.01 (-0.07) -0.00 (-0.04) -0.00 (-0.02)
Boardelectedbydistrict/at-
large-0.01 (-0.17) -0.01 (-0.20) -0.02 (-0.29) -0.01 (-0.22)
Boardelectedbydistrict 0.02 (0.75) 0.02 (0.34) 0.01 (0.28) 0.01 (0.34)
Boardelectionsnotapplicable -0.08 (-1.90) -0.05 (-1.69) -0.04 (-1.08) -0.04 (-1.06)
Population,1stquartile 0.25*** (3.60) 0.281*** (3.91) 0.28*** (3.98) 0.29*** (4.17)
Population,2ndquartile 0.18** (3.14) 0.144* (2.25) 0.15* (2.31) 0.15* (2.40)
Population,3rdquartile 0.12*** (3.58) 0.145** (3.00) 0.15** (3.04) 0.15** (3.08)
Populationgrowth -0.51*** (-5.91) -0.41*** (-4.59) -0.40*** (-4.53) -0.40*** (-4.47)
PopulationDensity 0.00 (-1.55) 0.00 (-1.17) 0.00=0 (-1.20) 0.00 (-1.24)
PercentinLaborForce -0.31 (-1.82) -0.33 (-1.64) -0.34 (-1.66) -0.33 (-1.66)
Populationinpoverty,percent 0.00 (0.62) 0.00 (0.46) 0.00 (0.45) 0.00 (0.49)
NPV 0.00 (1.31) 0.00 (1.47) 0.00 (1.43) 0.00 (1.44)
MRPV 0.00 (0.78) -0.00 (-0.42) -0.00 (-0.40) -0.00 (-0.43)
VotesforDemocrat,percent -0.02 (-0.11) 0.05 (0.21) 0.01 (0.05) 0.03 (0.13)
VoterTurnout,percent 0.00 (0.21) 0.00 (0.56) 0.00 (0.54) 0.00 (0.54)
407
Constant 4.81*** (13.48) 5.20*** (14.27) 5.20*** (14.33) 5.20*** (14.33)
N 3,955 3,192 3,192 3,192
R2Within 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09
R2Between 0.54 0.26 0.29 0.26
R2Overall 0.52 0.26 0.28 0.26
F-Stat 9.26 7.42 7.70 7.90
Note:Yearfixedeffectomittedforbrevity.Significancelevel:*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<0.001.
408
Table4.CoproductioneffectonthenumberofPaidEmployeesPerCapita
Variables Model5 Model6
Coproductionmeasures Ratio Ratio(t-1)
β t-score β t-score
Coproduction -0.03*** (-3.48) -0.01 (-1.07)
LaggedExpenditures 0.16*** (5.28) 0.12*** (4.55)
ManagerialFunctionsprovided 0.01 (0.53) 0.01 (0.42)
Servicesprovided 0.00 (0.30) -0.01 (-0.79)
Facilitiesprovided 0.00 (0.52) 0.00 (0.13)
IGR -0.08 (-1.26) -0.13 (-1.80)
Chargesforservices -0.19* (-2.12) -0.20* (-2.33)
Numberofseatsontheboard -0.03 (-0.75) 0.03 (0.56)
CEOelectedbyvoteofcommission -0.09 (-0.77) -0.06 (-0.73)
Boardelectedbydistrict/at-large 0.11 (1.46) 0.04 (0.61)
Boardelectedbydistrict -0.04 (-0.48) -0.03 (-0.26)
Boardelectionnotapplicable 0.15 (1.36) 0.19 (1.70)
Population,1stquartile 0.26* (2.23) 0.22 (1.56)
Population,2ndquartile 0.25*** (3.54) 0.28*** (3.55)
Population,3rdquartile 0.18*** (3.81) 0.19** (3.13)
Populationgrowth -0.39** (-2.78) -0.46** (-2.66)
PopulationDensity 0.00 (-1.30) 0.00 (-0.66)
PercentinLaborForce -0.12 (-0.39) -0.07 (-0.23)
Populationinpoverty,percent 0.00 (0.02) 0.00 (-0.53)
NTV 0.00* (2.56) 0.00 (1.75)
MRPV 0.00 (-0.46) 0.00 (-1.02)
VotesforDemocrat,percent 0.63* (2.49) 0.53 (1.78)
VoterTurnout,percent 0.00 (-1.31) 0.00 (-0.85)
Constant -5.71*** (-12.57) -5.55*** (-10.06)
N 3,830 3,090
R2Within 0.06 0.05
R2Between 0.03 0.01
409
R2Overall 0.04 0.02
F-Stat 3.70 3.30
Note:Yearfixedeffectomittedforbrevity.Significancelevel:*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<0.001.
410
Table5.CoproductioneffectontheDistributionofPublicResources
Variables Model7 Model8 Model9 Model10
Coproductionmeasure Ratio(truncated) Ratio(truncated) Dummy Dummy
β t-score β t-score β t-score β t-score
DependentVariable,shareoftotalspendingallocatedto
GeneralGovernment
Culture&Recreation
GeneralGovernment
Judiciary
Coproduction 0.02** (2.66) -0.003 (-1.89)× 0.01 (1.95)× -0.002** (-2.77)
LaggedDV 0.15*** (3.36) 0.21* (2.03) 0.16*** (3.37) 0.27*** (3.81)
Employmentpercapita -0.15 (-0.61) -0.04 (-0.65) -0.17 (-0.73) 0.05 (1.42)
ManagerialFunctions 0.00 (0.51) -0.01 (-1.15) 0.00 (0.50) 0.00 (0.46)
Servicesprovided 0.00 (0.14) -0.01 (-0.88) 0.00 (0.19) 0.00 (1.35)
Facilitiesprovided 0.00 (-1.73) 0.00 (0.31) 0.00 (-1.70) 0.00 (-0.44)
IGR -0.03 (-1.58) -0.01 (-1.94) -0.03 (-1.56) 0.00 (-1.40)
Chargesforservices -0.05* (-2.02) -0.04* (-2.52) -0.05* (-1.98) 0.00 (-1.01)
Numberofseatsontheboard 0.01 (1.65) 0.01 (0.91) 0.01 (1.70) 0.00 (-1.06)
CEOelectedbycommission 0.02 (0.98) 0.01 (1.40) 0.02 (1.01) 0.00 (-1.83)
Boardbydistrict/at-large -0.01 (-0.25) 0.00 (0.80) -0.01 (-0.27) 0.00 (-0.50)
Boardelectedbydistrict -0.01 (-0.53) 0.00 (-0.64) -0.01 (-0.55) 0.00 (0.15)
Boardelectionnotapplicable 0.01 (0.57) 0.00 (-0.94) 0.02 (0.73) 0.01** (2.64)
Population,1stquartile 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 (0.68) 0.00 (-0.01) 0.00 (0.21)
Population,2ndquartile -0.01 (-1.08) 0.00 (1.34) -0.01 (-1.14) 0.00 (0.37)
Population,3rdquartile 0.01 (1.64) 0.00 (1.22) 0.01 (1.54) 0.00 (-0.60)
Populationgrowth 0.01 (0.67) 0.00 (-0.53) 0.01 (0.69) 0.00 (-1.30)
PopulationDensity 0.00 (-0.14) 0.00 (1.31) 0.00 (-0.18) 0.00 (-0.45)
PercentinLaborForce -0.02 (-0.34) 0.05** (2.64) -0.02 (-0.32) 0.02 (1.91)
Populationinpoverty,percent 0.00 (0.24) 0.00 (-0.55) 0.00 (0.22) 0.00 (-0.68)
NTV 0.00 (1.86) 0.00 (-0.76) 0.00 (1.86) 0.00 (1.26)
MRPV -0.002* (-2.50) 0.00 (0.95) -0.00* (-2.52) 0.00 (0.32)
VotesforDemocrat,percent 0.14** (2.63) -0.05** (-2.80) 0.14* (2.56) -0.01 (-0.55)
VoterTurnout,percent 0.00 (-0.08) 0.00 (-0.12) 0.00 (-0.09) 0.00 (0.88)
Constant 0.118 -1.59 0.03 (0.72) 0.12 (1.58) -0.01 (-0.75)
N 3,955 3,955 3,955 3,955
411
R2Within 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.09
R2Between 0.38 0.15 0.37 0.71
R2Overall 0.34 0.14 0.33 0.61
F-stat 2.44 1.7 2.37 2.44
Note:Yearfixedeffectomittedforbrevity.Significancelevel:×p<0.1;*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<0.001.
412
RoundtableDiscussion
Attheconclusionoftheevent,theparticipantsengagedinaseveralsmallroundtablediscussionscentredonfivethemes.ThegoaloftheirdiscussionswastoidentifypressingquestionsthatshouldbeaddressedinfutureworkoftheStudyGroup.Thegroupthemesandquestionsarepresentedbelow.
CoproductioninDifferentContents
1. Whatkindofcomparisonscanwelearnmostfrom?(Whatisthecontext?Whatvariablesshouldbestudied,e.g.,typesofpolicysectors,cultureissues,geographicalcontexts…?)
2. Whatscopeofthecoproductionmodelandconceptscanweapplyinresearch?
3. Methodology:howcanwesetupcross-national/cross-sectoralcomparativeresearch?Whatresearchdesignsareneeded?
4. Whatarethemostextremecontextsforcoproductionandhowcanwelearnfromthem(e.g.,mentaldisabilities,NorthKorea)?
5. Arethereanycontextsthatwearecompletelymissingincoproductionresearchnow(e.g.,military)?
6. Whatperspectivedowetakeasresearchers(e.g.,enduser,publicserviceorganization,publicserviceprofessional)?
ProfessionalsinCoproduction
1. Whoinitiatescoproduction?
2. Howdoesthestatusofprofessionalknowledgeandexperienceevolvethroughcoproduction?
3. Howdoesaccountabilityandperformancechangeasaconsequenceofthefocusonoutcomes(throughcoproduction)?
4. Howdoescoproductionaffectperceptionsofworksecurityandriskfromtheperspectivesofbothprofessionalandthepublic?Thisalsoneedstobeexaminedfromtheperspectiveofindividualleveloffront-linemanagersandworkers,particularlyintermsofthepressuresonfrontlineworksandbetweenmanagementandclients.
DesigningCoproduction
1. Howdoesinformationtechnologystructuredeepcoproduction?Mighttheprocesstranscendtheconventionaldistinctionbetweentheindividualandthecollective?
413
2. Howarecitizens’rolesaffectedbytheincreasingautomatizationoffeedbackandinformationthroughIT?
3. Whichpolicytools,institutions,andorganizationalformssupporteffectivecoproduction?
4. Whatfactorsshapeeffectivecoproductionactivities?Whattoolsandtechniquescanbedesignedtobolsterpublicmanagers’capabilitytoimplementcoproduction?
5. Whatincentiveswillbroadentheengagementofunconventionalgroups?
MethodsandMeasures
1. Doescoproductionyieldindividual,organizational,andsocietalbenefits?Doescoproductionyieldunequalbenefitstoleadersversus“ordinary”citizens?Whataretheimplicationsofcoproductionforequity?Whatarethedifferentialeffectsofcoproductionforequity?
2. Whatarethebenefitsofcoproductionformamulti-stakeholderperspective?Howdoesonemeasurecoproductionfromalternative,multipleperspectives?Howcanweoperationalizepublicvaluetobeintegratedintoevaluationsofcoproduction?Doescoproductionyieldindividual,organizational,andsocietalbenefits?Whatarethebenefitsatdifferentlevels?
3. Whatarethevariousdimensionsofcoproductionandhowcanwemeasurethem?Aretheretensionsamongthesedimensions,includingsocialcapital,personalresults,orenvironmentalresults?Howmightwemeasurethesetensions?
4. Canwepresentexamplesofcoproductionthatwemightmeasureandevaluate?Canwereinterpretstudies/historiesofcoproductionforevaluation?Canweapplyappreciativeinquiry(withafocusonwhatworks)tocoproduction?Whatarethebesttools/techniquestoanalyzecoproduction,includingethnographic,sowedonotjustfocusonoutputsandimpacts?Howcanwemixandmatchmethodsforourcoproductionstudiestofindtherighttool?Canweimplementexperimentalresearch?
5. Whatarethecostsofcoproduction,includingthoseforagenciesandindividuals?Whatistherelationshipbetweentheserviceeconomyandcoproduction?Howcanwemeasurethesocial,environmental,andeconomiccostsofcoproduction?
6. Howcanwemeasurecitizenperceptionsofcoproduction?Docitizensandagencyconceptionsandmeasurementsofcoproductiondiffer?Shouldwecomparethepossiblydifferentconceptionsandmeasurementsofstakeholders?Whatarethevalueconflictsincoproductionamongthedifferentstakeholders?
7. Whatdefinesthequalityofcoproduction?Howcanwemeasurethequalityofcollaborativeprocessesincoproduction?Howshouldweevaluatecollaborationprocesses?
414
ConceptualIssuesinImplementation
1. Thereisdifficultyinconvincingpoliticiansthatcitizensknowenoughandcanbetrustedtoprovidemoreelementsofkeyservices–socialcare,environmentalimprovement,communitysafety,etc.Howcanthisbarrierbebetteraddressed?
2. Therearedifficultiesincapacitybuilding.Howdoweempowercitizenstoparticipatemeaningfullyinco-production?(E.g.byfieldexperimentsorbysimulations?)
3. Therearedifficultiesinproducingmodels/prototypes/templatesforco-production–andtheninusingthem,appropriatingthem,andhelpingthemtoevolve.Whatcanwedotoamelioratethesechallenges?
4. Thereisaneedtomapbothpositiveimplicationsanddysfunctionsconcerningco-productionandcitizenparticipation(e.g.,throughaquestionnairetoeachsideofco-productionandbyfocusgroupinterviewswithinterestgroups).
5. Whatistheroleof‘redtape’and‘greentape’(rulesandprocedures)?Howcanwe‘redtape’,anddecidewhattokeepandwhattothrowout?
6. Howcanwebestassessthedifferingattitudes,cultures,andexpectationsofco-producers?
7. Thereisdifficultyinmakingactorsawardofdifferentwaysofdealingwithconflictsinco-producing.Howcanthesedifficultiesbeaddress?
8. Whatarethelimitationstovalueco-creationwhicharisefromthecontextofco-production?