Skip to main content
Log in

Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this introductory article to the thematic issue, our aim is to discuss the state of the art in research on co-production of public services. We define co-production, for the purpose of this article rather narrowly, as the involvement of individual citizens and groups in public service delivery. We discuss the concept along three main research lines that emerge from the literature: what are the motives for co-production? How can co-production be organized effectively? What are the effects of co-production? Secondly, we also critically assess the state of the art and discuss some conceptual and methodological issues that are still open to debate. Thirdly, we propose some directions for future research: greater methodological diversity and the need for empirical and comparative research with a specific attention for theoretical advancement in co-production research.

Résumé

Dans cet article d’introduction à la question thématique, notre objectif est de discuter le pointe de la dans la recherche sur la coproduction des services publics. Nous définissons la coproduction, dans le but de cet article plutôt étroite, comme la participation des citoyens et des groupes dans la prestation des services publics. Nous discutons du concept le long de trois lignes de recherche principales qui se dégagent de la littérature : quels sont les motifs de coproduction ? Comment pouvez coproduction être organisée efficacement ? Quels sont les effets de coproduction ? Deuxièmement, nous avons aussi critique évaluer l’état de l’art et discuter de certains problèmes conceptuels et méthodologiques qui sont encore ouverts au débat. Troisièmement, nous proposons quelques orientations pour la recherche future : une plus grande diversité méthodologique et la nécessité pour la recherche empirique et comparative avec une attention spécifique d’avancement théorique dans la recherche de la coproduction.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem einführenden Artikel zur thematischen Ausgabe ist unser Ziel, dem von der Stand in der Forschung auf Koproduktion der öffentlichen Dienstleistungen zu diskutieren. Wir definieren Koproduktion im Sinne dieses Artikels ziemlich eng, als die Beteiligung der einzelnen Bürger und Gruppen in öffentlichen Dienstleistungen. Wir diskutieren das Konzept entlang drei Forschungsschwerpunkte-Linien, die von der Literatur entstehen: Was sind die Motive für Koproduktion? Wie kann die Koproduktion effektiv werden organisiert? Was sind die Auswirkungen der Co-Produktion? Zweitens, wir auch kritisch bewerten den Stand der Technik und diskutieren einige konzeptionelle und methodische Probleme, die noch offen zu diskutieren sind. Drittens schlagen wir eine Wegbeschreibung für die künftige Forschung: größere methodische Vielfalt und die Notwendigkeit für die empirische und vergleichende Forschung mit einer besonderen Aufmerksamkeit für die theoretische Weiterentwicklung in Co-Produktion-Forschung

Resumen

En este artículo introductorio a la cuestión temática, nuestro objetivo es debatir el estado de la arte en investigación en coproducción de los servicios públicos. Definimos la coproducción, con el propósito de este artículo bastante restringida, como la participación de los ciudadanos individuales y grupos en la prestación de servicios públicos. Discutimos el concepto a lo largo de los tres principales líneas de investigación que surgen de la literatura: ¿Cuáles son los motivos para la coproducción? ¿Cómo puede coproducción organizarse eficazmente? ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la coproducción? En segundo lugar, que también críticamente evaluar el estado del arte y discutir algunos problemas conceptuales y metodológicos que siguen abren al debate. En tercer lugar, proponemos algunas direcciones para futuras investigaciones: mayor diversidad metodológica y la necesidad de una investigación empírica y comparativa con una atención específica para avance teórico en la investigación de coproducción.

摘要

介绍本文中的主题性的问题,我们的目的是讨论研究的国家耐心艺术联产的公共服务。我们联合制作,而这篇文章,而是狭义定义为公民个人和提供公共服务中的组的参与。我们讨论的概念从文学出现的三个主要研究线沿线: 联产的动机是什么?如何可以联产将有效地组织了?联产的影响是什么?第二,我们也会审慎评估艺术状态,并讨论一些概念和方法的问题,仍是打开进行辩论。第三,我们建议一些未来的研究方向: 更多的方法不同和实证研究和比较研究与理论研究进展联产研究具体注意事项需要。

ملخص

في هذه المقالة تمهيدية للقضية المواضيعية، هدفنا لمناقشة أحدث في الأبحاث حول الإنتاج المشترك للخدمات العامة. نحن تعريف الإنتاج المشترك، ولأغراض هذه المادة بدلاً من ذلك الضيق، كالمشاركة من المواطنين الأفراد والجماعات في تقديم الخدمات العامة. ونحن نناقش هذا المفهوم على ثلاثة محاور البحث الرئيسية التي تنبثق عن الأدب: ما هي الدوافع للإنتاج المشترك؟ كيف يمكن تنظيم الإنتاج المشترك الفعال؟ ما هي آثار الإنتاج المشترك؟ وثانيا، نحن أيضا حاسمة تقييم لحالة الفن، ومناقشة بعض القضايا المفاهيمية والمنهجية التي ما زالت مفتوحة المناقشة. ثالثا، نقترح بعض التوجيهات للبحوث المستقبلية: زيادة التنوع المنهجي، والحاجة إلى إجراء البحوث التجريبية والمقارنة مع إيلاء اهتمام محدد للنهوض النظرية في بحوث الإنتاج المشترك.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks. Adding value to public organisations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. (2002). Why do public sector clients co-produce? Towards a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34(1), 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients. From service delivery to co-production. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement & participation: User & community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Helderman, J. (2012). The conditions for successful co-production in housing: A case study of German housing cooperatives. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2009). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. In V. Pestoff & T. Brandsen (Eds.), Co-production. The third sector and the delivery of public services. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., Keast, R., Waterhouse, J., Murphy, G., & Mandell, M. (2012). Co-management to solve homelessness: Wicked solutions for wicked problems. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brudney, J., & England, R. (1983). Towards a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, E., & Gray, C. (2012). Co-production from a normative perspective. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabro, A. (2012). Co-production: An alternative to the partial privatization processes in Italy and Norway. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society—The information age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J. (1987). Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, N. (1989). The self service society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A. (2012). Co-production in an information age. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance. Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V. (1973). The intellectual crisis in American Public Administration (3rd ed. 2008). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

  • Ostrom, E. (1975). The delivery of urban services: Outcomes of change. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Crossing the great divide. Co-production, synergy & development, polycentric governance and development. In M. D. McGinnes (Ed.), Reading from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). Nobel Prize lecture. www.nobelprize.org.

  • Parks, R. B., et al. (1981). Consumers as co-producers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, R. B., et al. (1999). Consumers as co-producers of public services. Some institutional and economic considerations. Polycentric governance and development. In M. D. McGinnes (Ed.), Reading from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • Pestoff, V. (1998). Beyond the market and state. Civil democracy and social enterprises in a welfare society. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens as co-producers of welfare services: Preschool services in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2008). A democratic architecture for the welfare state: Promoting citizen participation, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe—Some crucial conceptual issues. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production (Chap. 2). London: Routledge.

  • Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, D. (2012). Coproduction and network structures in public education. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosentraub, M. S., & Sharp, E. B. (1981). Consumers and producers of social services: Co-production and the level of social services. Southern Review of Public Administration, 4(March), 502–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government—Nonprofit relations. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 213–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlappa, H. (2012). Co-management in urban regeneration: New perspectives on transferable collaborative practice. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R. (2002). Social services. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The state of the nonprofit sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R., & Grönbjerg, K. (2006). Scope and theory of government—Nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector—A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamstad, J. (2007). Governing welfare: The third sector and the challenges to the Swedish Welfare State. Doctoral dissertation, Mid Sweden University, Östersund.

  • Vamstad, J. (2012). Co-production and service quality: A new perspective for the Swedish welfare state. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R., Harlow, K. S., & Rosentraub, M. S. (1982). Citizen participation in services: Methodological and policy issues in co-production research. Southwestern Review of Management and Economics, 2, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram Verschuere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T. & Pestoff, V. Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas 23, 1083–1101 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8

Keywords

Navigation