Co-production of Public Services and Conceptions of Public Value

• In Event: Co-Production and Collaborative Governance

Abstract

In this paper, I explore the ways that different conceptualizations of ‘public value’ influence the way that co-production, or the collaboration of professionals and citizens in the delivery of public services (Bovaird, 2007), is undertaken in two contexts. Co-production is often posited as a way to better reflect the will of the people and produce valued outcomes. However, relatively limited attention has been paid to the differences in co-production between countries with different political, governmental and public service traditions, and rising populist sentiments in many countries, such as England and France, have created new challenges for public service providers striving to provide innovative and effective public services.

The notion of ‘public value’, or the public sector’s response to satisfying a collective need, jointly defined by government and citizens (Moore, 1995) can help us go some way in understanding co-production practices, but the question of the type of benefits, who benefits and who is really involved in defining what should be deemed of public value is imprecise. Understanding the role of public value in shaping co-production becomes particularly complex in the case of France, where public service provision is informed by the notion of the ‘general interest’, which is a construct that is promoted and protected solely by the State (Bacqué and Gauthier, 2011).

My analysis addresses this gap by considering the research question: How do different conceptualizations of public value shape types of co-production? I examine two projects that aim to reduce loneliness of older people in England and in France, employing a framework that consists of two primary concepts: types of co-production (individual, group and collective) (Brudney and England, 1983; Nabatchi et al., 2017) and types of public value, or user value, value to groups, social value and political value (Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012). Through an analysis of government policies, organizational documents and interviews, I examine a) how public value is defined in each context and types of public value pursued, and b) the approach of individual, group and/or collective co-production that are emphasized in each case.

The research demonstrates evidence of individual and group co-production in England motivated by user, group and social value, whereas the French case emphasizes collective co-production for social and political value. An antipathy towards individual co-production and user value in France is informed by the French conception of ‘general interest’, which proves difficult to reconcile with public value. The study provides an important contribution by interrogating the universality of ‘public value’, and the role of cultural and political context in shaping co-production. Furthermore, the research contributes to the co-production literature by demonstrating how types of co-production are prioritized to a different extent to address the same social problem.

References
Bacqué, M.-H., & Gauthier, M. (2011). Participation, urbanisme et études urbaines. Participations, (1), 36–66.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas, 23(4), 1119–1138.
Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776.

Author

• Caitlin McMullin, Concordia University