No 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.

Leaders in public affairs identify tools and instruments for the new governance through networks of public, private, and nonprofit organizations. We argue the new governance also involves peoplethe tool makers and tool users-and the processes through which they participate in the work of government. Practitioners are using new quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial governance processes, including deliberative democracy, e-democracy, public conversations, participatory budgeting, citizen juries, study circles, collaborative policy making, and alternative dispute resolution, to permit citizens and stakeholders to actively participate in the work of government. We assess the existing legal infrastructure authorizing public managers to use new governance processes and discuss a selection of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial new governance processes in international, federal, state, and local public institutions. We conclude that public administration needs to address these processes in teaching and research to help the public sector develop and use informed best practices.Leaders in public affairs education say that the watchword for the next millennium is governance. They identify horizontal networks of public, private, and nonprofit organizations as the new structures of governance as opposed to hierarchical organizational decision making. We argue here that there is another face of the new governance, one that involves the citizenry-the tool makers and tool users-and the processes through which they participate in the work of government.Practice is leading theory in developing processes for the new governance. As they meet their obligations to execute our public laws, public agencies engage in activities that range from the legislative or quasi-legislative to the judicial or quasi-judicial. Quasi-legislative processes in the new governance include deliberative democracy, e-democracy, public conversations, participatory budgeting, citizen juries, study circles, collaborative policy making, and other forms of deliberation and dialogue among groups of

No abstract