414
1 IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services Syracuse University – Greenberg House Washington, DC 6-7 June 2017

IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

1

IIASStudyGrouponCoproductionofPublicServices

SyracuseUniversity–GreenbergHouse

Washington,DC

6-7June2017

Page 2: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 3: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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?

Page 4: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 5: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 6: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 7: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 8: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 9: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

9

SUBMITTEDPAPERS

Page 10: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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 […].’

Page 11: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 12: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 13: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 14: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 15: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 16: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 17: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 18: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 19: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 20: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 21: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 22: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 23: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 24: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 25: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 26: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 27: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 28: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 29: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 30: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

30

Leadingco-production:Threeleadershipstyles

andhowtheyaffectthequalityandpublic

valueofco-productionprocesses(Anne

Tortzen)

Thispaperpresentsworkinprogress.Feedbackandsuggestionsarevery

welcome.

Pleasedonotquotewithoutpermissionfromtheauthor.

ByAnneTortzenPostdocDepartmentofSocialSciencesandBusinessUniversityofRoskilde,Denmark

[email protected]

Page 31: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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&

Page 32: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 33: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 34: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 35: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 36: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 37: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 38: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 39: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 40: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 41: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 42: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 43: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 44: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 45: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 46: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 47: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 48: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 49: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 50: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 51: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 52: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 53: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 54: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 55: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 56: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

56

Usingleadershiptheorytodefinevariablesfortheanalysisofco-productionmechanisms(Schlappa,Mason,andImani)

PaperpresentedtotheIIASStudyGroup

Co-productionofPublicServices

Washington6-7June2017

DrHansSchlappa

DrPhillipMason

DrYassamanImani

HertfordshireUniversity,UnitedKingdom

Page 57: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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:

Page 58: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 59: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 60: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 61: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 62: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 63: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 64: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 65: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 66: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 67: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 68: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 69: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 70: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 71: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

71

individuals,shapingandbeingshapedbycontextandhavingsharedsenseofpurposeand

respectfordesiredoutcomes.Suchalensfitswellwithcontemporarynotionsof‘public

leadership’wherebyauthorityandresponsibilityassociatedwithleadingcommunities,public

policyandorganisationsisdistributedhorizontallyacrossandverticallywithinorganisations

(BrookesandGrint2010).Henceleadershiptheorynotonlyallowsustoexploreandexplain

whathappenswithinpublicorganisations,butalsohowthewidersocio-economicandpolitical

contexttheyareembeddedinmightimpactonCP.However,moreworkisrequiredtofirmup

andtestthevariablesputforwardhere.

Page 72: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 73: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 74: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 75: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 76: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 77: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 78: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 79: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 80: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 81: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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;

Page 82: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 83: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 84: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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;

Page 85: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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-

Page 86: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 87: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 88: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 89: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 90: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 91: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 92: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 93: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 94: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 95: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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·

Page 96: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 97: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 98: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 99: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 100: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 101: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 102: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 103: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 104: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 105: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 106: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 107: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 108: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 109: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 110: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 111: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 112: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 113: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 114: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 115: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 116: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 117: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 118: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 119: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 120: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

120

DataSource:Summarizedbytheauthor

Page 121: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 122: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 123: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

123

Table2.MobikeCreditRewardingandSanctionInstitution

GainCreditEachride +1Reportbrokenbike +1Reportincorrectparking +1

Usinganotheruser’sinvitationcodewhenregistering +1

SuccessfullyinviteafriendtouseMobike +1LoseCreditParkinacompound -20Abandoningthebikewheninterceptedbypolice -50Forgettolock,buteventuallyretrievethebike Reduceto0Useaprivatelock Reduceto0Forgettolockandbikeislost Reduceto0Illegallytransportingthebike Reduceto0

DataSource:Mobike,n.d.

Page 124: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 125: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 126: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 127: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 128: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 129: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 130: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 131: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 132: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 133: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 134: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 135: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 136: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 137: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 138: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 139: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 140: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 141: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 142: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 143: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 144: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 145: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 146: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 147: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 148: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 149: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 150: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

150

Asystematicreviewofredtapeasabarrierforco-producingpublicservices(VanDijckand

Steen)

By

CharlotteVanDijckandTruiSteen

PublicGovernanceInstitute,KULeuven

[email protected]

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.

Page 151: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 152: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 153: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 154: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 155: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 156: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 157: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 158: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 159: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 160: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 161: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 162: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 163: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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-

Page 164: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 165: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 166: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 167: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 168: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 169: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 170: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 171: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 172: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 173: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 174: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 175: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 176: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 177: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 178: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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:

Page 179: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 180: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 181: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 182: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 183: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 184: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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:

Page 185: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 186: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 187: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 188: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 189: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 190: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 191: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 192: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 193: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 194: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 195: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 196: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 197: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 198: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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-

Page 199: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 200: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 201: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 202: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 203: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 204: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 205: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 206: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 207: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 208: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 209: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 210: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 211: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

211

WhoEngagesintheCoproductionofPublicServicesandWhy?(Uzochukwuand

Thomas)

TheCaseofAtlanta,Georgia

KelechiUzochukwu

UniversityofBaltimore

Email:[email protected]

And

JohnClaytonThomas

GeorgiaStateUniversity

Email:[email protected]

Page 212: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 213: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 214: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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”:

Page 215: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 216: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 217: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 218: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 219: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 220: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 221: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 222: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 223: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 224: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 225: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.”

Page 226: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 227: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 228: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 229: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 230: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 231: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 232: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 233: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 234: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 235: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 236: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 237: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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:

Page 238: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 239: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 240: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 241: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 242: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 243: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 244: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 245: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 246: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 247: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 248: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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 ---

Page 249: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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%

Page 250: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

250

Reportneighborswhentheyarenoisy,messy,orviolatingothercodes.

55%

FilecomplaintagainstserviceagentviaAtlantaCitizenReviewBoard.

6%

Sharefeelingsaboutapolicyorprojectconcerningthecommunity.

72%

Thankorsharepositivefeedbackwithpublicservicerepresentative.

51%

Attendedthecourthearingofsomeoneaccusedofcommittingacrimeinthecommunity(CourtWatchProgram).

26%

Page 251: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 252: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 253: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 254: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 255: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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***

Page 256: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 257: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 258: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

258

WhyCoproduce:TheCaseofVoluntaryCitizenPatrolsinSouthKorea(Kang)

SeongC.Kang

Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy

UniversityofGeorgia

[email protected]

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.\

Page 259: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 260: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 261: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 262: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 263: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 264: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 265: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 266: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 267: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 268: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 269: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 270: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 271: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 272: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 273: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 274: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 275: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 276: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 277: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 278: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 279: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 280: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 281: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 282: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 283: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 284: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 285: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 286: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 287: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 288: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 289: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 290: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 291: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 292: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 293: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 294: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 295: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 296: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

296

Table8.VictimofCrimeDuringPast2Years

Responsescale Percentage

Yes 12%

No 88%

Totalnumberofrespondents 450

*Responseswereroundedtoremovedecimals

Page 297: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

297

Table9.OrderedLogisticRegressionofFrequencyofParticipationinCitizenPatrols

VariablesCoefficient

(RobustSE)

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

Page 298: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 299: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 300: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 301: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 302: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 303: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 304: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 305: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 306: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 307: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 308: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 309: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 310: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 311: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 312: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 313: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 314: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 315: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 316: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 317: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 318: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 319: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 320: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 321: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

321

Valuedilemmasandcopingstrategiesintheco-productionofsocialcare:aqualitativestudy(JaspersandSteen)

By

SylkeJaspersandTruiSteenPublicGovernanceInstitute,KULeuven

[email protected]

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

Page 322: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 323: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 324: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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;

Page 325: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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;

Page 326: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 327: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 328: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 329: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 330: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 331: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 332: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 333: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 334: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 335: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 336: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 337: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 338: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 339: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 340: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 341: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 342: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 343: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 344: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 345: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 346: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 347: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 348: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

([email protected])

Samanta Lee Department of Social Science

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University

([email protected])

Tina Nabatchi Department of Public Administration and International Affairs

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University

([email protected])

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

Page 349: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 350: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 351: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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).

Page 352: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 353: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 354: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 355: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 356: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 357: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 358: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 359: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 360: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 361: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 362: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 363: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 364: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 365: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 366: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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%)

Page 367: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 368: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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%)

Page 369: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 370: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 371: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 372: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 373: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 374: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 375: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 376: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 377: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 378: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 379: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 380: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 381: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 382: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

382

TheImpactofCoproductiononPublicSpendingandEmployment:ALongitudinalStudyofMunicipalGovernmentsintheStateofGeorgia

(IvonchykandKang)

MikhailIvonchyk

Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy

UniversityofGeorgia

[email protected]

SeongC.Kang

Dept.ofPublicAdministrationandPolicy

UniversityofGeorgia

[email protected]

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

Page 383: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 384: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 385: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 386: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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,

Page 387: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 388: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 389: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 390: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 391: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 392: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 393: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 394: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 395: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 396: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 397: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 398: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 399: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 400: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 401: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 402: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 403: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 404: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 405: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 406: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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)

Page 407: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 408: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 409: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

409

R2Overall 0.04 0.02

F-Stat 3.70 3.30

Note:Yearfixedeffectomittedforbrevity.Significancelevel:*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<0.001.

Page 410: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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

Page 411: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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.

Page 412: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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?

Page 413: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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?

Page 414: IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services...The IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services is co-chaired by Trui Steen (KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse

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?