Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions

Abstract

Coproduction of public services means that services are not only delivered by professional and managerial staff in public agencies but also coproduced by citizens and communities. Although recent research on this topic has advanced the debate considerably, there is still no consensus on precisely what coproduction means. Th is article argues that rather than trying to determine one encompassing defi nition of the concept, several diff erent types of coproduction can be distinguished. Starting from the classical defi nitions of Elinor Ostrom and Roger Parks, the article draws on the literature on professionalism, volunteering, and public management to identify the distinctive nature of coproduction and identify basic dimensions on which a typology of coproduction can be constructed. Recognizing diff erent types of coproduction more systematically is a critical step in making research on this phenomenon more comparable and more cumulative.

Reflexões conceituais em coprodução de políticas públicas e apontamentos para uma agenda de pesquisa

“…For Cepiku and Giordano (2014), the current state of development of co-production theory should already be able to analyze beyond the isolated effects of its variables. These notes reinforce the words of Alford (2014) and Brandsen and Honingh (2016) that there are still many theoretical and empirical development opportunities in co-production.…”

“…It has not been part of the authors' concerns to achieve a more integrated (or even cumulative) approach in co-production (VERSCHUERE, BRANDSEN and PESTOFF, 2012). In fact, the term "co-production" itself remains a disputed territory within the literature (VERSCHUERE, BRANDSEN and PESTOFF, 2012;VAN EIJK and STEEN, 2014;BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2016). However, the discussion on this issue does not contribute to the purposes of this study, thus it will not be presented here.…”

“…Verschuere, Brandsen and Pestoff (2012) emphasize the importance of theoretically understanding co-production in its various aspects. In the same direction, Brandsen and Honingh (2016) argue that the cumulative effect of past research on co-production was unsuccessful because it was not possible to relate the findings systematically. For Cepiku and Giordano (2014), the current state of development of co-production theory should already be able to analyze beyond the isolated effects of its variables.…”

“…O'Toole Junior (2000), Brandsen and Honingh (2016), Vanleene, Verschuere and Voets (2016) and Rantamaki (2017) argue that co-production is a promising approach to operationalize greater social participation in the implementation stage. Co-production is a cooperative relationship between professionals and users of public services in the production of public policy (PARKS, BAKER, KISER et al, 1981;DELEON and DELEON, 2002;OSTROM, 1996; BOVAIRD, VAN RYZIN, LOEFFLER et al, 2015;RANTAMAKI, 2017), in which active participation of users is crucial for public policy objectives to be effectively achieved (PARKS, BAKER, KISER et al, 1981;ALFORD, 1998;RYAN, 2012; BOVAIRD, VAN RYZIN, LOEFFLER et al, 2015).…”

“…Since the 1970s, academia has pointed to the active participation of citizens in the production of public services (CEPIKU and GIORDANO, 2014; BOVAIRD, VAN RYZIN, LOEFFLER et al, 2015), and the interest in the subject has increased in the last decades (BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2016;VANLEENE, VERSCHUERE and VOETS, 2016). Co-production has been considered as one of the tendencies of the 21st century in public administration (RYAN, 2012), and Verschuere, Brandsen and Pestoff (2012) and Jakobsen and Andersen (2013) argue that co-production has become the main subject between public managers and public policy researchers in the last decade because of the understanding that most public services rely on an active role of the individuals who consume them.…”