Citizens Coproduction, Service Self-Provision and the State 2.0

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 24)

Abstract

Citizens’ engagement and citizens’ participation are rapidly becoming catch-all concepts, buzzwords continuously recurring in public policy discourses, also due to the widespread diffusion and use of social media that are claimed to have the potential to increase citizens’ participation in public sector processes, including policy development and policy implementation. By assuming the concept of co-production as the lens through which to look at citizen’s participation in civic life, the paper shows how, when supported by a real redistribution of power between government and citizens, citizens’ participation can determine a transformational impact on the same nature of government, up to the so called ‘Do It Yourself government’ and ‘user-generated state’. Based on a conceptual research approach and with reference to the relevant literature, the paper discusses what such transformation could amount to and what role ICTs (social media) can play in the government transformation processes.

Keywords

Co-production Participation User-generated public services Public value Social media Do it yourself government 

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill, R. (2009). The transformative impact of e-government on public governance in New Zealand. Public Management Review, 11(6), 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scholl, H. (2005). Organisational transformation through e-government: Myth or reality?. In M. A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), EGOV 2005, LNCS 3591, 1–11.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kraemer, K., & King, J. L. (2006). Information technology and administrative reform: Will e-government be different? International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foley, P., & Alfonso, X. (2009). eGovernment and the transformation agenda. Public Administration, 87(2), 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nograšek, J., & Vintar, M. (2014). E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited? Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meijer, A., Boersma, K., & Wagenaar, P. (Eds.). (2013). ICTs, citizens and governance: After the hype!. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gil-Garcia, J. R., Vivanco, L. F, Luna-Reyes, & L. F. (2014). Revisiting the problem of technological and social determinism: reflections for digital government scholars In M. Janssen, F. Bannister, O. Glassey, H. J. Scholl, E. Tambouris, M. Wimmer, A. Macintosh (Eds.), Electronic government and electronic participation (pp. 254–263). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 17(3), 211–226.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor, J. A., & Lips, A. M. B. (2008). The citizen in the information polity: Exposing the limits of the e-government paradigm. Information Polity, 13, 139–152.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston, E. W., & Hansen, D. L. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. American Governance, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scholl, H. J., & Scholl, M. C. (2014). Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. In iConference 2014 Proceedings (pp. 163–176).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quaterly, 22, 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunstelj, M., & Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the progress of e-government development: A critical analysis. Information Polity, 9, 131–148.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S., & Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do they want it? Do they use it? The ‘Demand-Side’ of e-Government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008, June 2 ). Key differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bertot, J., Jaeger, P., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Engaging the public in open government: Social media technology and policy for government transparency. Computer, 43(11), 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(5), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potts, J. (2009). The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure. Innovation: Management. Policy & Practice, 11, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation—User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to coproduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to coproduction: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meijer, A. (2012). Coproduction in an information age: Individual and community engagement supported by new media. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1156–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalized co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. The Journal of Development Studies, 40, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    NESTA. (2012). People powered health co-production catalogue. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17, 1333–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. E. (2015). User coproduction of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration. 1–20.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44(4), 100–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leadbeater, C., & Cottam, H. (2007). The user-generated state: public services 2.0. In P. Diamond (Ed.), Public matters: The renewal of the public realm. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morison, J. (2010). Gov 2.0: Towards a user generated state? The Modern Law Review, 73(4), 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Reilly, T. (2010). Government as a Platform. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. USA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., De Marez, L., & Mechant, P. (2012). Smart ideas for smart cities: Investigating crowdsourcing for generating and selecting ideas for ICT innovation in a city context. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2013). Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North American police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings, and practices. Community Development Journal, 43, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Timney, M. (2011). Models of citizen participation: Measuring engagement and collaboration. in King, C.S., Sharpe, M.E. (eds.), Government is us 2.0 (86–100). Armonk, NY.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roberts, N. C. (2008). The age of direct citizen participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & O’Neill Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang, K., & Pandey, K. S. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planner, 35, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2007). IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. Tornton, CO: International Association for Public Participation. http://iap2.affiniscape.com/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf.
  49. 49.
    Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bovaird T., & Loeffler, E. (2014). Bringing the power of the citizen into local public services—An evidence review (Research Report 110/2014). Cardiff: Welsh Government.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Needham, C., & Carr, S. (2009). Co-production: An emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A 371.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Needham, C. (2008). Citizens, consumers and co-producers. Kurswechsel, 2, 7–16.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mizrahi, S. (2011). Self-provision of public services: its evolution and impact. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gofen, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial exit response to dissatisfaction with public services. Public Administration, 90(4), 1088–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hartley, J. (2011). Public value through innovation and improvement. In J. Benington & M. Moore (Eds.), Public value: Theory and practice (pp. 171–184). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Benington, J. (2011). From private choice to public value? In J. Benington & M. Moore (Eds.), Public value—Theory and practice (pp. 31–51). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Punie, Y., Misuraca, G., Osimo, D., Huijboom, N., Broek, T. A., van den Frissen, V., & Kool, L. (2010). Public services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. Brussels, Be: European Commission.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lips, A. B. M., & Schuppan, T. (2011). Transforming e-government knowledge through public management research. Public Management Review, 11(6), 739–749.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mergel, I., Schweik, C., & Fountain, J. (2009). The transformational effect of web 2.0 technologies on government. Accessed 1 June 2009. Available on SSRN, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412796.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical and Applied SciencesUniversity of InsubriaVareseItaly

Personalised recommendations