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 sha** 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aderbach, J., and T. Christensen. 2005. Citizens and consumers: An NPM dilemma. Public Management Review 7 (2): 225–246.
Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.
Billis, D. 2010. Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review 67 (5): 846–860.
Brint, S. 2001. Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the community concept. Sociological Theory 19 (1): 1–23.
Denis, J.-L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gestel. 2015. Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration 93 (2): 273–289.
Dubois, A., and L.-E. Gadde. 2002. Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research 55 (7): 553–560.
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.
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.
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.
Lowndes, V., and M. Roberts. 2013. Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political science. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
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.
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.
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.
Needham, C. 2008. Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy and Society 7 (2): 221–231.
Osborne, S.P. 2006. The new public governance. Public Management Review 8 (3): 377–387.
———. 2010. The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
Pestoff, V. 2008. A democratic architecture for the welfare state. London: Routledge.
———. 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.
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.
Simmons, R., J. Birchall, and A. Prout. 2012. User involvement in public services: ‘Choice about Voice’. Public Policy and Administration 27 (1): 3–29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
———. 2004. Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
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.
Tuurnas, S. 2015. Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 583–598.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
McMullin, C. (2020). 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/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_26-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_26-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences