Skip to main content

Co-production of Public Services: Institutional Barriers to the Involvement of Citizens in Policy Implementation

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant
  • 2001 Accesses

Abstract

Co-production refers to the involvement of citizens/service users in the direct implementation of policy. In practice, this means that public servants and citizens act jointly to deliver public services that would traditionally be the domain of the public servant alone. Co-production is increasingly posited as a desirable model of implementation for health and social policies, development and environment programs, and community safety, among other areas. However, while we have some understanding about the role of context in shaping approaches to policy implementation generally, comparatively less attention has been paid to the contextual contingency of co-production. This chapter employs an institutional logics framework to consider the different ways in which co-production plays a role – or not – in policy implementation. In particular, I discuss the way that a community logic, professional logic, market logic, and state logic in different sectors and different contexts shape public servants’ perceptions of their role vis-à-vis citizens in policy implementation and produce opportunities and barriers for co-production with citizens.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aderbach, J., and T. Christensen. 2005. Citizens and consumers: An NPM dilemma. Public Management Review 7 (2): 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. 2010. Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S. 2001. Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the community concept. Sociological Theory 19 (1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J.-L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gestel. 2015. Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration 93 (2): 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., and L.-E. Gadde. 2002. Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research 55 (7): 553–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., and R. Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., A.M. Díaz, S.X. Li, and J.C. Lorente. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science 21 (2): 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. 2007. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal 50 (2): 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V., and M. Roberts. 2013. Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political science. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, C. 2018. Coproduction and the third sector in France: Governmental traditions and the French conceptualization of participation. Social Policy and Administration 53 (20): 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, C., and C. Needham. 2018. Co-production and healthcare. In Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public service delivery, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere, 151–160. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, C., and C. Skelcher. 2018. The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 29 (5): 911–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, C. 2008. Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy and Society 7 (2): 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 2007. Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P.A. Sabatier, 2nd ed., 21–64. Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., and F. Santos. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal 56 (4): 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, S., G.G.V. Ryzin, T. Bovaird, and E. Löffler. 2013. Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal 16 (1): 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. 2008. A democratic architecture for the welfare state. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and co-production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80 (2): 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R., J. Birchall, and A. Prout. 2012. User involvement in public services: ‘Choice about Voice’. Public Policy and Administration 27 (1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C., and S.R. Smith. 2015. Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration 93 (2): 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzmueller, M.C. 2016. Negotiating competing institutional logics at the street level: An ethnography of a community mental health organization. Social Service Review 90 (1): 35–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, M.S., M.M. Manschot, and N.D. Koning. 2011. Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design 5 (2): 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P.H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P.H., and W. Ocasio. 2008. Institutional logics. In Handbook of organizational institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 99–129. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., and M. Lounsbury. 2012. Defining the Interinstitutional System. In The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process (pp. 46–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C., T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. 2017. Co-producing safety in the local community: A Q-methodology study on the incentives of Belgian and Dutch members of neighbourhood watch schemes. Local Government Studies 43 (3): 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanleene, D., J. Voets, and B. Verschuere. 2018. The co-production of a community: Engaging citizens in derelict neighbourhoods. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 29 (1): 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1083–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, I., F. Lyon, L. Sepulveda, and C. McMullin. 2017. Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy 46 (10): 1755–1768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W.H., V.J.J.M. Bekkers, and L.G. Tummers. 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitlin McMullin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

McMullin, C. (2021). Co-production of Public Services: Institutional Barriers to the Involvement of Citizens in Policy Implementation. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29980-4_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics