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.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

From a normative stance, co-production has been recommended at all stages of the public service cycle. However, previous empirical studies on co-production have neglected the question of how to make this happen. Moreover, little attention has been paid to how co-production might occur in multi-level governance settings. The aim of this article is to fill these gaps, identifying triggers and organizational and managerial issues that could support the adoption of co-production in multi-level governance settings. The empirical analysis is based on a case study of services for autistic children. The findings highlight that co-production was prompted by inter-organizational arrangements and that trust-building among the actors played a pivotal role in nurturing a coproduction approach. Points for practitionersFrom an organizational perspective, our case study shows that, in order to foster coproduction in multi-level governance settings, all stages of the public service cycle should be aligned and inspired by the same logic. From a managerial perspective itCorresponding author: Enrico Guarini, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Business Administration, Finance, Management and Law, Via R. Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, 20126 Milan, Italy. Email: enrico.guarini@unimib.it highlights that the implementation of co-production requires new managerial skills and tools. Public managers are asked to listen to community groups and individuals, to mobilize collective resources and knowledge, and exercise a meta-governance role. Finally, in order to have co-produced services, our findings point to the need to start thinking differently about the roles of civil society and government in satisfying the common good.

This paper examines the leadership of placescities, regions, communitiesin Australia, Finland, Germany, Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom and explores the capacity of vignettes to generate new, theoretical and empirical insights. It uses vignettes to identify the features of place leadership evident in 12 case studies across six nations. The research finds significant commonalities in place leadership with respect to the importance attached to boundary spanning, the role of government officials in responding to the prospect of regional decline or growth and how the nature of the challenge confronting a locality determines the adequacy of the response.

PurposeThe paper aims to offer a viewpoint on how governmental budgeting needs to be reconsidered after the COVID-19 outbreak.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on extant research, and drawing on the Italian context, the paper provides reflections on four interrelated aspects: (1) how budgeting and reporting processes and formats are being modified; (2) how budgeting may enhance governments' financial resilience; (3) how citizens are involved in the budgeting cycles and (4) how emergency responses may produce opportunities for corruption.FindingsTo tackle COVID-19 related challenges, budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting processes and formats need to be reconsidered and supported by the development of new competencies. Governments will need to put stronger emphasis on the anticipatory and coping roles of budgeting to reduce public organizations' exposure to shocks and support governmental resilience. The involvement of citizens has proven critical to face the pandemic and will become increasingly relevant due to the financial impacts of COVID-19 on future public service provision. Greater attention to the risks of increased corruption is also needed.Originality/valueDrawing lessons from one of the countries most hit by COVID-19, the paper offers a viewpoint on a timely topic of international relevance by looking in an integrated way at interrelated topics such as budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting, financial resilience, coproduction and corruption.

Both leadership and public value are increasingly seen as concepts highly relevant to public administration, not only because of complex societal challenges but also as ways to address pluralistic interests in society. This article explores in detail the varied conceptualizations of public value and of public leadership. Furthermore, we argue that political astuteness provides an important conceptual linkage between leadership and public value, enabling actors to read, understand and foster coalitions around diverse and sometimes competing interests. In this introduction to the symposium, we analyse the different conceptualizations of public value, of leadership, and also show how the six articles explicitly or implicitly draw on the linking concept of political astuteness. The article assesses how the six articles of the symposium contribute to each of these three concepts.

Drawing on the results of a systematic literature review of empirical studies, this paper sheds light on six broad factors that facilitate the initiation and implementation of coproduction in public services. The factors are classified into two overarching categories: (1) organizational factors, including organizational arrangements, professional roles, and managerial tools, and (2) procedural factors, including participant recruitment, participant preparation, and process design. For each set of factors, the paper provides a series of management implications. It concludes with additional observations for practice.

Purpose This paper aims to analyse stakeholder sentiment about the corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions implemented by Italian companies between February 20, 2020 and April 20, 2020, which was the first peak in the outbreak of the COVID-19 health emergency in Italy. Design/methodology/approach Using sentiment analysis, the impact of COVID-19 on CSR actions is analysed through reactions to the news published on Twitter by a sample of Italian news agencies. Findings The analysis indicates that the actions most appreciated are those that are more radical, e.g. where the company has converted part of its production to make goods that are useful in dealing with the COVID-19 emergency. The study identifies a new category of actions definable as “crisis-shaped CSR.” Practical implications This is one of the first studies concerning the effects of the pandemic on both CSR actions and organizational legitimacy. Originality/value This work explains which strategic approach to CSR is the most effective in supporting corporate reputation in times of crisis, this study identified which of the CSR initiatives adopted by companies in Italy were more effective in stimulating positive interactions and sentiment among the general public.