Coproduction and the third sector in France: Governmental traditions and the French conceptualization of participation

Abstract

Research on coproduction has tended to assume a coherence of conceptualizations of coproduction across borders, and little analysis of the framing and discourse of coproduction in different contexts has been undertaken. In the French language literature on citizen participation and the social and solidarity economy, the term coproduction is little used. This paper investigates the narratives of French academics, public, and third sector actors in order to identify what, if anything, is different about the French context that explains this gap. Drawing on semistructured interviews, I identify four key narratives that distinguish the French conceptualizations of coproduction and the third sector from the dominant English language coproduction literature: (a) a mainstreaming of coproduction as part of organizational purpose in the social and solidarity economy, (b) an emphasis on formalized involvement of citizens in organizational governance, (c) the motivation of citizen empowerment and democracy over cost and efficiency, and (d) the use of the term coconstruction rather than coproduction. I argue that these narratives are shaped by the governmental traditions of France, which emphasize formal rules, hierarchy, representative democracy, and a suspicion of particularistic interests. I conclude by questioning the universality of some of the axioms of coproduction theory in the English language literature.

Defining and Measuring Coproduction: Deriving Lessons from Practicing Local Government Managers

“…In addition, regional differences in coproduction attain statistical significance ( p < .05), which may suggest that factors at the regional level may systematically shape the implementation of coproduction. For example, future studies could examine whether the political culture of different areas affects the likelihood of implementation (McMullin 2019; Pestoff 2019; Uzochukwu and Thomas 2018). Administrative culture and social capital also tend to have a strong impact on coproduction, as these characteristics present strong regional variations (Alonso et al 2019; Thijssen and Van Dooren 2016).…”

“…In addition, regional differences in coproduction attain statistical significance (p < .05), which may suggest that factors at the regional level may systematically shape the implementation of coproduction. For example, future studies could examine whether the political culture of different areas affects the likelihood of implementation (McMullin 2019;Pestoff 2019;Uzochukwu and Thomas 2018).…”

Challenging the necessity of New Public Governance: Co‐production by third sector organizations under different models of public management

“…Second, Bovaird posits that co‐production involves collaboration in both the design and delivery of services, meaning that professionals and citizens collaborate in the ‘doing’, rather than just decision‐making. I employ this single definition of co‐production throughout the research in order to mitigate some of the challenges of cross‐cultural and cross‐linguistic research, particularly relating to different conceptualizations of the term ‘co‐production’ (McMullin 2019).…”

Individual, Group, and Collective Co-production: The Role of Public Value Conceptions in Shaping Co-production Practices

“…It is exercised through democratic principles and cooperation.” (Charte Monalisa, 2013). The notion of general interest is a particularity of the French tradition that contrasts with the literature on public value—it is conceived of as a theoretical construct over and above the combined individual interests and partisan preferences of citizens, which is protected by the state through public policy (McMullin, 2019). As a mobilization in the general interest, the focus of Monalisa must be for the betterment of French society, and thus focusing on the lower types of co-production (group and individual) would be incompatible.…”