User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach

Abstract

Engaging public service users as co-producers is expected to lead to more efficient services and better outcomes. What has been missing so far, however, is a solid theoretical basis to explain what compels actors to pursue co-production, or not, and what strategies they adopt in this pursuit. Building on established theories, it is argued that although co-production of public service delivery decreases uncertainty for users, it seems to increase uncertainty for organizations. The main conclusion is that the need of organizations to reduce this uncertainty might diminish the possibilities for users to coproduce. The consequences of this conclusion for future research are discussed in this article.

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

“…O'Toole Junior (2010) argues that if each party's involvement is essential to successful implementation, then shared efforts will be made to produce results. As noted, the success of co-production depends on the users' interest in cooperating (FLEDDERUS, BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2015).…”

“…For DeLeon and DeLeon (2002) and Fledderus, Brandsen and Honingh (2015), obtaining some degree of consent from the users brings legitimacy to the process. Bovaird (2007) recommends that the relationship between professionals and users for co-production activities should imply that both parties "take risks".…”

“…For Brandsen and Honingh (2016, p. 430), "it is not a question of one person having the supreme knowledge and applying it to the other". Moreover, when government plays a major role in the activities, less co-productive efforts are created by users (FLEDDERUS, BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2015). In order for there to be fairness between the parties, Jakobsen and Andersen (2013) propose that users must be well prepared, either in terms of knowledge or other necessary resources.…”

“…The rules need to define the competencies of the professionals, the available resources and the possible forms of interaction with the users (VERSCHUERE, BRANDSEN and PESTOFF, 2012). In addition, the rules simplify processes, establish routines and decrease uncertainty in relationships (FLEDDERUS, BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2015). However, Parks, Baker, Kiser et al (1981) argue that institutional arrangements can negatively or positively (item 4) affect the probability of co-production when: (1) they bar or limit the use of particular inputs; (2) fail to provide sufficient incentives for the employment of particular inputs; (3) mandate the employment of particular inputs; (4) call forth co-productive behavior where co-production is economically undesirable.…”

“…According to Van Eijk and Steen (2014) and Fledderus, Brandsen and Honingh (2015), participants should not only be able to contribute with resources, but also need to be motivated to engage. Therefore, the issue of motivation plays a central role in the dynamics of co-production, because it allows understanding circumstances in which participants are willing to put effort (VERSCHUERE, BRANDSEN and HONINGH, 2012;RANTAMAKI, 2017).…”