Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-Production of Public Services

Abstract

User and community co-production of public services first became topical in the late 1970s, both in private and public sectors. Recent interest has been triggered by recognition that the outcomes for which public agencies strive rely on multiple stakeholders, particularly service users and the communities in which they live. Extra salience has been given to the potential of co-production due to fiscal pressures facing governments since 2008. However, there has been little quantitative empirical research on citizen co-production behaviours. The authors therefore undertook a large-sample survey in five European countries to fill this gap. This article examines an especially significant finding from this research -the major gulf between current levels of collective co-production and individual co-production. It explores the drivers of these large differences and examines what the social policy implications would be if, given the potential benefits, the government wishes to encourage greater collective co-production.

User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust

“…This research, in line with other recent work (Bovaird et al, 2015;Van Eijk and Steen, 2014), shows that users can have very PSO=Public Service Organization different reasons to participate in co-production. For PSOs involved with co-production, it can be quite important to understand the variety of motivations.…”

“…The same accounts for the mechanisms of perceived control and trust networks. For instance, according to other studies, self-efficacy is a predictor for the willingness to co-produce, rather than a result of co-production (Bovaird et al, 2015;Parrado et al, 2013;Van Eijk and Steen, 2014). Experiments or more advanced longitudinal designs could help to deal with the problem of causality.…”

“…Thus, Verschuere et al (2012) conclude that research on co-production would benefit from larger methodological diversity. The past few years, scholars have started answering this call by introducing a variety of methods to the field of co-production, such as Q-methodology (Van Eijk and Steen, 2014), natural experiments (Jakobsen, 2013) and large-N surveys (Bovaird et al, 2015;Clark et al, 2013). The research for this study, which took place during the upcoming of these new approaches, adds further diversity to the methods applied to the study of co-production.…”

“…Moreover, recent research has shown that self-efficacy, i.e. the belief citizens can make a difference, is an important determinant of co-productive efforts, especially of collective co-production (Bovaird et al, 2015;Parrado et al, 2013). As ability, willingness and self-efficacy might be lacking amongst the most vulnerable group of users, co-production could lead to marginalization (Fledderus and Honingh, forthcoming).…”

“…Particularly, there seems to be much attention for the initial phase, in terms of questions on motivation (Bovaird et al, 2015;Van Eijk and Steen, 2014) and distributional biases (Clark et al, 2013;Jakobsen and Andersen, 2013;John, 2009). Other research has focused on the process of co-production Cepiku and Giordano, 2013;Isett and Miranda, 2015;Meijer, 2011).…”