Editorial: Co-production – key ideas

Responding to COVID-19: Community volunteerism and coproduction in China

“…This reflects a top-down version of coproduction that Li and colleagues termed “state-led coproduction” (2019, 250) in which the state retains control over critical components, setting priorities, and providing legitimacy. This approach contrasts sharply with the instances of bottom-up coproduction frequently found in the global South ( Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018 ). Nevertheless, the provision of pandemic-related services has become more participatory in China, extending citizen involvement to areas previously reserved primarily for the government, due to necessity as well as policies encouraging volunteerism.…”

“…While coproduction is a voluntary effort on the part of individuals and organizations, a top-down approach led by the state ( Li et al, 2019 ) has agenda-setting power to focus attention during a crisis, attracting and coordinating voluntary coproduction efforts in the public interest. Successful coproduction can also leverage long-term relationships among existing volunteers and local community groups ( Joshi & Moore, 2004 , Mitlin and Bartlett, 2018 ), who can rapidly redeploy from one issue to another while utilizing local knowledge and previous expertise in the face of a public crisis.…”

“…Despite the positive results, citizen volunteerism should not be considered a panacea for meeting public needs ( Bovaird, 2007 ), or an opportunity for states to abrogate responsibility ( McLennan et al, 2016 ), engage in cost-shifting, or divert additional burden to vulnerable groups ( Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018 ). Such efforts are unlikely to result in sustained development or citizen engagement.…”

Community water governance for urban water security in the Global South: Status, lessons, and prospects

“…CWG approaches are believed to be participatory, efficient, transparent, accountable, inclusive and enhancing of social justice, and pro‐poor, and therefore empowering to communities (Blaikie, 2006; Chambers, 1997). Such approaches are also expected to enhance communities' sense of citizenship and their bargaining power to demand improvements in urban water and sanitation delivery, improve intracommunity social capital and trust, and provide employment and funds for local development (Adams & Boateng, 2018; Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018; Mitlin & Walnycki, 2020). However, critics note elite capture, differential power relations, limited scope for scaling up, the so‐called local trap, vague notions of community, unrealistic and unsustainable dependence on voluntarism, romanticization, and persistent gaps between rhetoric and performance of CWG approaches (Bakker, 2008; McMillan, Spronk, & Caswell, 2014; Zulu, 2008).…”

Necropolítica de vivienda: 40 años desmantelando la “informalidad” en Madrid (1979-2019)

“…No obstante, décadas de investigaciones demuestran que las iniciativas con capacidad de producir cambios estructurales han sido aquellas en las que las diferentes prácticas de autoproducción del espacio han logrado el reconocimiento y el apoyo de las instituciones locales y de la sociedad en su conjunto (Batley & Mcloughlin, 2010;Devas et al, 2001;Nickson & Franceys, 2003;Roy, 2011;Wild, Chambers, King, & Harris, 2012). La coproducción se considera cada vez más como la forma más eficiente y sostenible de asegurar el acceso a bienes y servicios, en tanto que constituye el fruto de las contribuciones tanto de residentes como de agentes públicos o privados (Albrechts, 2013;Batley & Mcloughlin, 2010;Mitlin, 2008;Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018;Satterthwaite & Mitlin, 2014;Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012). No obstante, Roy y AlSayyad (2004) advierten del peligro de que este enfoque sirva para que los Estados y las administraciones locales se desresponsabilicen y dejen por ello de cumplir su función en tanto garantes de los derechos del conjunto de la sociedad y, en particular, de los grupos más desfavorecidos.…”