Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

Abstract

Despite an international resurgence of interest in coproduction, confusion about the concept remains. This article attempts to make sense of the disparate literature and clarify the concept of coproduction in public administration. Based on some definitional distinctions and considerations about who is involved in coproduction, when in the service cycle it occurs, and what is generated in the process, the article offers and develops a typology of coproduction that includes three levels (individual, group, collective) and four phases (commissioning, design, delivery, assessment). The levels, phases, and typology as a whole are illustrated with several examples. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for research and practice. Practitioner Points• Reflecting on the who, when, and what of coproduction can help address the conceptual confusion and ambiguity surrounding coproduction. • The typology developed in this article provides terminological clarity by offering vocabulary for describing and defining variations of coproduction. • The typology of coproduction enables practitioners to identify different forms of coproduction and to select the type that is best aligned with their goals and purposes. • Describing and explaining the variations in coproduction may facilitate the examination and comparison of cases and experiences and contribute to improvements in evaluation, transparency, and communication.

Helping Dutch Neighborhood Watch Schemes to Survive the Rainy Season: Studying Mutual Perceptions on Citizens’ and Professionals’ Engagement in the Co-Production of Community Safety

“…'Regardless of which citizens participate in the service delivery process, the benefits accrue to the city [or neighborhood] as a collectivity' (Brudney and England 1983: 64). This contrasts with individual forms of co-production, where the co-producers often are the direct service users who solely benefit from the co-production activities and it is only the spillover that may generate social benefits (Nabatchi et al 2017).…”

Co‐production as a route to employability: Lessons from services with lone parents

“…Following previous work in this field of public administration research, particularly in the tradition of Ostrom (), Verschuere et al (, p. 1085) define co‐production as ‘the mix of activities that both public service agents and citizens contribute to the provision of public services’. For Nabatchi et al (, p. 766) co‐production is similarly ‘the involvement of both users and public sector professionals in the delivery of public services’. But if we are to explore the presence, potential benefits and challenges of co‐production, we need to do more to define (our understanding of) the concept.…”

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

“…Two concepts are seen as centered in living lab methodology, namely participation and co-creation. The concept of participation has developed in policy making, urban planning, and design and delivery of public services [13,50,51]. Simply stated, each individual or group affected by an intervention has a voice in the decision making concerned.…”

“…Today, urban living labs are blossoming more than ever before, being driven by calls for acceleration of sustainability improvement e.g., in energy, transport and health systems [6][7][8][9][10], and fitting into two broader societal trends. These trends are decentralization of (some) public tasks and increased decision-power (participation) of citizens on urban services and enabling users (consumers) to play an important role in innovation (co-creation) [11][12][13][14].…”