Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing Types and Levels of Co-production: Concepts and Definitions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes

  • 873 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the intellectual roots of co-production, ranging from Elinor Ostrom’s original empirical work, through the literatures from political science, social work and public services and incorporating the contributions of policy and practice communities, including the disability movement and the civil rights movement and their influence on co-production principles. It highlights the inter-relationships between different forms of citizen engagement, from consultation and public participation to co-production. It distinguishes co-production which develops out of public service organisations from co-production which emerges from community self-help, showing the implications of ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’ pathways towards co-production. Finally, it develops a framework to assess the quality of co-production activities in terms of intensity of engagement, process coherence and results achieved.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aligica, P., & Tarko, V. (2013). Co-production, polycentricity, and value heterogeneity: The Ostroms’ public choice institutionalism revisited. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 726–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artuso, D., & Montini, A. (2016). CI.VI.VO. in Rimini: How volunteers make their neighbourhood a better place to live. Governance International Case Study. Birmingham: Governance International. http://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/civivo-in-rimini-how-volunteers-make-their-neighbourhood-a-better-place-to-live/. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2005). Communities, trust and organisational responses to local governance failure. In S. Watson & A. Moran (Eds.), Trust, risk and uncertainty (pp. 143–162). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2014). Bringing the power of the citizen into local public services—An evidence review. Briefing Note for Welsh Government. https://gweddill.gov.wales/docs/caecd/research/2014/141218-bringing-power-citizen-local-public-services-en.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2016a). What has co-production ever done for interactive governance? In J. Edelenbos & I. van Meerkerk (Eds.), Critical reflections on interactive governance: Self-organization and participation in public governance (pp. 254–277). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2016b). Quality management in public sector organisations. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 162–177). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2016c). Understanding public management and governance. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 3–13). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Quirk, B. (2017). Resilience in public administration: Moving from risk avoidance to assuring public policy outcomes. In T. R. Kassen, D. Cepiku, & T. J. Lah (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of global public policy and administration (pp. 258–270). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., Willis, M., & Briggs, I. (2014). Strategic commissioning for local public services: Service improvement cycle or just going round in circles? Local Government Studies, 40(4), 533–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. London: NEF and NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76, 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Trommel, W., & Verschuere, B. (2017). The state and the reconstruction of civil society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4), 676–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, E. S., & Cahn, J. C. (1964). The war on poverty: A civilian perspective. Yale Law Review, 73(8), 1317–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, E. S., & 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 (pp. 129–144). New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, E. S., & Gray, C. (2015). The time bank solution. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. (2012). Personalisation: A rough guide. SCIE Guide 47. London: SCIE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperative Party. (2019). Public services in our interests. https://party.coop/policy/policy-platform-2017/services/#neighbourhood_policing_participatory_budgeting_and_co-production. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.

  • Dhanda, J. S., & Wells, J. (2013). The Values Based Standard® of Macmillan Cancer Support: A quality framework for improving both patient and staff experience through co-production. Governance International Case Study. Birmingham: Governance International. http://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/the-values-based-standard-of-macmillan-cancer-support/change-management/. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.

  • Dickinson, H., & Sullivan, H. (2014). Imagining the 21st century public service workforce. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edson, M. (2012). A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 29(5), 499–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIPA. (2019). https://www.eipa.eu/portfolio/european-caf-resource-centre/. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  • Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European CAF Resource Centre. (2013). Improving public organisations through self-assessment. https://archive.eipa.eu/files/File/CAF/CAF_2013.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2013.

  • Fox, M. (2008). Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting at a crossroads. https://www.cetri.be/Porto-Alegre-s-Participatory?lang=fr.

  • Frederickson, H. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 42(6), 501–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garn, H., Flax, M., Springer, M., & Taylor, J. (1976). Models for indicator development: A framework for policy analysis (Urban Institute Paper 1206–17). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goan, M. (2014). How we grew timebanking in rural Scotland: The Argyll and Bute Timebanks. Governance International Blog. Birmingham: Governance International. http://www.govint.org/news/blog/tags/timebanks%20uk/?no_cache=1&cHash=9884fc9a4fa551bb7279697b2631f23d. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.

  • Grönroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2019). ISO 2002_2015: How to use it. Geneva: International Society for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100373.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  • Jackson, P. (2020). The political economy foundations of co-production. In E. Loeffler & T. Bovaird, T. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasker, J., Collom, E., Bealer, T., Niclaus, E., Young Keefe, J., Kratzer, Z., et al. (2011). Time banking and health: The role of a community currency organization in enhancing well-being. Health Promotion Practice, 12(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839909353022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, C., Commander, J., Findlay, P., Bennie, M., Corcoran Dunlop, E., & Van Der Meer, R. (2018). Collaborative innovation, new technologies and work redesign. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E. (2016a). Public governance in a network society. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 207–222). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E. (2016b). Co-production of public services and outcomes. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 319–336). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2017). From participation to co-production: Widening and deepening the contributions of citizens to public services and outcomes. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2019). Co-commissioning of public services and outcomes in the UK: Bringing co-production into the strategic commissioning cycle. Public Money and Management, 39(4), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2020). User and community co-production of public value. In E. Loeffler & T. Bovaird, T. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., & Martin, S. (2016). Citizen engagement. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 301–318). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E., & Schulze-Böing, M. (2020). Co-producing better futures in employment services: The Co-Production Labs of Offenbach Employment Agency. Governance International Case Study. Birmingham: Governance International. https://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/co-productionlabs-of-offenbach/. Accessed September 2020.

  • Löffler, E., Timm-Arnold, P., Bovaird, T., & Van Ryzin, G. (2015). Koproduktion in Deutschland. Studie zur aktuellen Lage und den Potenzialen einer partnerschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit zwischen Kommunen und Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (Eds.). (2006). The service dominant logic of marketing. New York: M E Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Co-Production Advisory Group. (2016). Ladder of co-production. https://www.thinklocalactpersonal.org.uk/Latest/Co-production-The-ladder-of-co-production/. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  • Nederhand, M. J., & Van Meerkerk, I. (2018). Activating citizens in Dutch care reforms: Framing new co-production roles and competences for citizens and professionals. Policy & Politics, 46(4), 533–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, C., & Carr, S. (2009). Co-production: An emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation (SCIE Research Briefing 31). London: Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing31/ Accessed 1 Apr 2019.

  • Neseli, A., & Herpich, C. (2020). Co-production n Offenbach Employment Agency Job seekers providing peer support for each other. Governance International Case Study. Birmingham: Governance International. https://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/co-production-in-the-offenbach-employment-agency-job-seekers-providing-peer-support-for-each-other/. Accessed August 2020.

  • Normann, R. (1984). Services management: Strategy and leadership in service business (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. J. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory of public service management: Towards a (public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioural approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. In E. Ostrom & V. Ostrom, Choice, rules and collective action: The Ostroms on the study of institutions and governance (F. Sabetti & P. D. Aligica, Ed.). Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks, R. B., Baker, P., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., 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 

  • Pestoff, V. (2018). Co-production and public service management: Citizenship, governance and public service management. New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabrenovic, A. (2011). Cleaning-up Serbia: Designing and Delivering a Public Campaign with over 200,000 volunteers. Governance International Case Study. Birmingham: Governance International. http://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/cleaning-up-serbia-designing-and-delivering-a-public-campaign-with-over-200000-volunteers/. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.

  • Rippon, S., & Hopkins, T. (2015). Head, hands and heart: Asset-based approaches in health care: A review of the conceptual evidence and case studies of asset-based approaches in health, care and wellbeing. London: The Health Foundation. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/HeadHandsAndHeartAssetBasedApproachesInHealthCare.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  • SCIE. (2013). Co-production in social care: What it is and how to do it (Guide). London: Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide51/what-is-coproduction/principles-of-coproduction.asp. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.

  • Snowden, D., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spice. (2018). Spending time credits 2018. http://www.justaddspice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Spending-Time-Credits-Report.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.

  • Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The dark side of co-creation and co-production. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and Co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 284–293). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, L. Slay, J. & Penny, J. (n.d.). Coproduction self-assessment framework: A working reflection tool for practitioners. London: New Economics Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management a new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thijssen, P., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). Who you are/where you live: Do neighbourhood characteristics explain co-production? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76, 156–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuurnas, S. (2015). Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2015-0073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2006). Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/preamble.html. Accessed 28 Mar 2019.

  • van Eijk, S., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Case study—Dutch and Belgian citizens’ motivations to engage in neighbourhood watch schemes. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 226–228). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Vanleene, D., Steen, T., & Brandsen, T. (2018). Democratic co-production: Concepts and determinants. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 243–251). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Government. (2014). Improving public services for people in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Government, https://gweddill.gov.wales/docs/dpsp/publications/140708-response-to-commission-en.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Elke Loeffler

Authors
  1. Elke Loeffler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elke Loeffler .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Loeffler, E. (2021). Distinguishing Types and Levels of Co-production: Concepts and Definitions. In: Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55509-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation