The Co-production of Public Services

Management and Evaluation

Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783030607104
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Operations
• Index: Business

"This book provides an excellent guide to the current literature on co-production, with especially valuable attention to its management and evaluation. By highlightingthe lessons from co-production in the private sector, the authors givevery useful and timely new insights into how co-production can contribute topublic services and help to improve public value." — Tony Bovaird, Professor of Public Management and Policy (Emeritus), University of Birmingham, UK
?Coproduction covers the practice in which state actors (for example, government agents) and lay actors (for example, members of the public) work together in any phase of the public service cycle. In the past two decades, the literature of coproduction has grown swiftly, but in a fragmentedmanner. Thus, this booksystematizesthe literature on coproduction into a comprehensive framework that tacklesactivation, managementandevaluation, illustrated through empirical examples. It adopts a multi-disciplinaryapproach, analyzingliterature streams such as public administration and policy, public management, business management, and marketing, among others.

It will be invaluable reading for academics working on coproduction, public management, and business management.

© The Author(s) 2020

D. Cepiku et al.The Co-production of Public Serviceshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Denita Cepiku¹ , Marta Marsilio² , Mariafrancesca Sicilia³ and Milena Vainieri⁴

(1)

Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

(2)

Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano, Milan, Italy

(3)

Department of Management, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

(4)

Management and Health Laboratory, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

Denita Cepiku (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Marta Marsilio

Email: [email protected]

Mariafrancesca Sicilia

Email: [email protected]

Milena Vainieri

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This chapter presents the concept of co-production and the main classifications developed in the literature. It discusses the reasons for the resurgence of interest in co-production among scholars and practitioners. Finally, the main aims of the book and its contents are outlined.

Keywords

Co-production definitionsCo-production research gapsCo-production framework

End Abstract

1.1 Co-Production Definitions

Co-production has received attention from both academics and practitioners working in the public sector since the 1970s. The concept of co-production was originally developed in a workshop on ‘Political Theory and Policy Analysis’ at Indiana University in 1973. Co-production drew great interest among public administration scholars in the US in the 1970s and 1980s (Parks et al. 1981). It was also studied in the context of industrial and service markets and, in the 1990s, in consumer markets, where the emergence of the ‘customising consumer’ who takes an active role in the production process was witnessed (Abeysekera et al. 2015). More recently, the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2002, 2004a, b) and Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2006) on value co-creation and the service dominant logic of marketing has driven the idea of co-production.

According to Ostrom (1996), co-production is the process through which input—used to provide a good or a service—is contributed by individuals who are not in the same organisation. It has been used with a large variety of meanings and is considered a relatively heterogeneous concept (Verschuere et al. 2012).

With respect to the ‘co-’ side of co-production, Nabatchi et al. (2017) identified state actors (i.e., government agents serving in a professional capacity) and lay actors (i.e., members of the public, serving voluntarily as citizens or users) as working together in any phase of the public service cycle (i.e., commissioning, design, delivery, and assessment). In particular, they distinguish three levels of co-production: individual, group and collective. The main differences between these three levels of co-production are related to the role played by lay actors and the type of benefits they generate and receive through co-production (Nabatchi et al. 2017).

Individual co-production implies that a state actor and a lay actor (a client or a customer) work directly with each other. The benefits of the co-production activity tend to be personal for the lay actor (see also Brudney and England 1983) but there may also be social benefits for the wider community.

Group co-production is characterised by the presence of one or more state actors working directly and simultaneously with a specific cluster or category of lay actors who share common interests.

Collective co-production is defined as one or more state actors (within a single organisation or across multiple organisations) working directly and simultaneously with several lay actors to address one or more related issues. Differently from group co-production, where lay actors are defined as a specific segment of the population, which leads to personal benefits for the group members, collective co-production involves diverse members of the community such as citizens, volunteers, and non-governmental entities (see also Alford 2014; Bovaird 2007) and benefits are shared by the entire community (see also Brudney and England 1983).

Another classification based on the ‘co-actors’ side was proposed by Alford (2014). He distinguishes three kinds of co-producers: consumers, suppliers, and partners. Consumers stand at the end of the service delivery process and act as co-producers in their secondary role, whereas suppliers and partners do so as part of their primary role.

With respect to the ‘production’ side of co-production, it is possible to distinguish four types of co-production according to the specific phase of the service cycle in which state actors and lay actors work together.

Co-commissioning is defined as the identification and prioritisation of the necessary public services, outcomes, and users. It is thus prospective, such as in the identification of budget priorities in order to allocate specific amounts of resources in participatory budgeting experiences (Barbera et al. 2016; Bovaird 2007).

Co-design involves users and communities participating in the creation, planning or arrangement of public services (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012), similarly to an approach based on direct citizen participation (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014; Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). It can be prospective or concurrent, such as in the case of a professional social services unit working with elderly people to create opportunities for “interdependent” living (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Willis and Bovaird 2012). It includes user innovation (Bonomi Savignon and Cepiku 2018; De Rosis et al. 2020).

Co-delivery is related more to the traditional view of co-production and consists of joint activities between the government and lay actors, aimed at providing or improving public services (Alford and O’Flynn 2012; Thomas 2013), it is thus concurrent in nature. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Research Aim and Methods
• 3. Activation of Co-Production: General Context and Antecedents
• 4. Implementing and Managing Co-Production
• 5. Co-production Evaluation
• 6. Conclusions
• Correction to: Activation of Co-Production: General Context and Antecedents
• Back Matter