What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production

Abstract

Following a number of prominent concepts in urban planning, like participatory planning or self-help housing, co-production has started to gain momentum in the global South context. While it is has been long discussed as a means of service provision, the term is more and more often used in the broader sense of urban governance and policy planning. This understanding goes beyond the aspect of scaling-up successful co-productive infrastructure focused projects; rather, it indicates a different format of engagement for prompting urban stakeholders into planning citywide urban solutions. This article discusses the distinction between the different levels of co-production and their inter-linkages, and it investigates the relevance of positioning co-production as a factor framing urban governance. This includes a discussion on three main contradictions that can be identified within the current discussion on co-production. Finally, it identifies a set of arguments for elaborating the role of co-production in a policy and urban governance setting.

What can co-creation do for the citizens? Applying co-creation for the promotion of participation in cities

“…It is no surprise that co-creation with its embedded promise of citizen engagement and participation, has been adopted by public sector policymakers Galuszka, 2019) and now its consequences are becoming visible also in the research and practice of urban development (Duvernet and Kieling, 2013;Nevens et al, 2013). In the public sector, the terms co-creation and co-production are often used interchangeably (Tortzen, 2018: 112).…”

“…On the other, the heterogeneity, diverse social worlds, and varying resources of the participants require attention when putting co-creation to practice (Jakobsen, 2013;Wise et al, 2012). Accessibility of participation becomes an issue particularly if co-creative processes also aim to reach people living in somehow underprivileged, marginalized, stigmatised or vulnerable positions in society (also Castan Broto and Neves Alves, 2018;Galuszka, 2019). For instance, the co-creative process with young migrant adults required constant effort and in this, the roles of both the researcher and peer instructor as knowledge brokers were crucial.…”

Adapting to informality: multistorey housing driven by a co-productive process and the People’s Plans in Metro Manila, Philippines

“…Avoiding these kinds of risks depends, to a large degree, on the ability of community groups to maintain a degree of independence from their counterparts in public sector (Galuszka, 2019a). This is typically facilitated by social movement initiated co-production.…”

“…The research points out the importance of framing of informality and formality as a practices rather than spatial category (McFarlane, 2012a:105) and illustrates that the formulation of spatial form conventionally seen as formal may be driven by highly hybrid forms of organisation and governance. Simultaneously it reflects on the positioning of co-production as one of the approaches that may be structuring planning practice in the South (Watson, 2014) and providing an opening which allows for the leveraging of solutions developed within the spectrum of informal urbanisation (Galuszka, 2019a).…”

Co-production of urban knowledge: Context approach for effective and efficient governance of cities

“…Its decisions had to be tabled in the City Council for ratification to legitimize them. Galuszka [2018] notes that in this scenario there may be struggles. They may range from soft, discursive struggles, which can be managed via consensus-oriented means, to violent confrontations in which different authorities try to achieve their goals.…”