The Benefits and Risks of Experimental Co‐production: The Case of Urban Redesign in Vienna

Bartenberger, Martin; Sześciło, Dawid

doi:10.1111/padm.12233

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our empirical evidence provides a unique contribution to the literature on the effects of citizen participation on policy outcomes (e.g., Fung and Wright ; Daley ; Wampler ; Hong a; Bua ; Touchton et al ). More broadly, this study contributes to the study of citizen coproduction on public service (Bovaird and Downe ; Yang and Pandey ; Jakobsen and Andersen ; Bartenberger and Széscilo ; Hong ; Zambrano‐Gutiérrez et al ). This study also provides information for debates related to the reconciliation of bureaucratic practices and democratic values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods

Hong

Cho

2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates whether citizen participation in public budgeting resulted in increased redistributive outcomes when compared with bureaucratic decision‐making. We focused on a specific budget item (i.e., the installation of surveillance cameras for crime prevention) and examined whether participatory budgeting yielded larger budget allocations to low‐income neighbourhoods. Results indicate that such participatory budgeting results in larger budget allocations for low‐income neighbourhoods when compared with allocations produced by bureaucratic budgeting practices. The results also indicate that budgets allocated through citizen participation may be no more or even less effective for advancing public goals. These findings suggest a potential trade‐off between equity and public service effectiveness. Citizen participation improves budget equity, but may be less effective for achieving public goals than bureaucratic decision‐making. To explain this, we offer the ‘social pressure hypothesis’, which posits that social pressure during public‐forum discussions can influence participating citizens to make redistributive decisions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods

Hong

Cho

2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These expectations have emerged also as a reflection to the recent shift of the academic interest and narrative from the tenets of New Public Management to the ideas of the New Public Service approach and New Public Governance. As such, the 'mantra' on effectiveness, if not replaced, has been complemented with the ideas of citizens' empowerment and ownership, as well as democratic renewal (Ryan 2012;Griffiths 2013;Cepiku and Giordano 2014;Fledderus et al 2014;Fledderus 2015;Bartenberger and Sześciło 2016;Osborne et al 2016;Vennik et al 2016;Howlett et al 2017;Kekez 2018;Nesti 2018).…”

Section: Definition(s) Conceptual Properties and Problems Of Co-promentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Jukić

Pevcin

Benčina

et al. 2019

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of the content analysis of 139 Web of Science papers focused on collaborative innovation with external stakeholders of public administration, specifically on co-production and co-creation. The analysis included papers published between 2009 and 2018 and was based on a coding scheme consisting of 12 parameters grouped into four groups: paper descriptors, financial support of the research, methodological framework, and co-creation characteristics. The results reveal a considerable increase in researchers’ interest in co-production and co-creation in the context of public administration in the last few years. This is particularly the case in Northern and Western Europe, where Anglo-Saxon and Nordic administrative traditions dominate. Furthermore, the results show that co-creation is most often placed in the contexts of social policy and welfare, as well as health care. Over the selected period, research seldom addressed companies as a target group in the co-creation of public services—in comparison to citizens and internal users. More than three quarters of the papers observed were empirical and less than 20% were quantitative. In general, a lack of conceptual clarity was often identified through the interchangeable usage of the terms co-creation and co-creation and the low level of international comparison—the majority of the papers focused on case descriptions at a national level, even though collaborative innovation is strongly related to administrative traditions dominating in specific regions.

show abstract

“…Co‐governance and co‐management therefore offer an alternative framework for thinking about the governance and delivery of employability interventions and other public services. Brandsen and Pestoff () are particularly interested in these processes as a means of tapping the contribution of the third sector, but other researchers have supported similar attempts to arrive at an ‘extended understanding of co‐production as practical dimension of collaborative governance’ (Bartenberger and Szescilo , p. 511) in order to connect the planning, design and management of services with street‐level practice.…”

Section: Background To the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐production as a route to employability: Lessons from services with lone parents

Lindsay

Pearson

Batty

et al. 2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy‐makers claim to support personalized approaches to improving the employability of disadvantaged groups. Yet, in liberal welfare states, mainstream activation programmes targeting these groups often deliver standardized, low‐quality services. Such failures may be related to a governance and management regime that uses tightly defined contracting and performance targets to incentivize (mainly for‐profit) service providers to move people into any job as quickly as possible. This article draws on evidence from third sector/public sector‐led services in Scotland to discuss an alternative approach. These services co‐produced personalized support in partnership with disadvantaged service users (in this case vulnerable lone parents). We suggest that, in this case, street‐level co‐production and personalization were facilitated by co‐governance and co‐management in the design and organization of provision. We conclude by identifying lessons for future employability services.

show abstract

The Benefits and Risks of Experimental Co‐production: The Case of Urban Redesign in Vienna

Cited by 24 publications

References 54 publications

Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods

Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Co‐production as a route to employability: Lessons from services with lone parents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About