After the initial start of co-production: A theoretical study on the development of necessary conditions in co-production processes

• In Event: Co-production, Citizen-led and Community-centric

Abstract

Collaboration with citizens is becoming a central aspect of solutions for societal issues. For instance, the goal of energy neutrality in 2050 consists of a trajectory that includes citizens’ participation in the complete process. This implies a long-term collaboration between citizens and the local government, which is, so far as we know, unchartered territory in theory. Co-production is an overarching concept that signifies the collaborative engagement between citizens and the local government.

The co-production process has garnered significant attention among scholars. Noteworthy concepts such as trust (Alford, 2002; Fledderus et al., 2013; Van Eijk & Steen, 2013; Voorberg et al., 2014), motivation (Meyer et al., 2014) and supportive culture (Igalla & Van Meerkerk, 2015; Van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2018) are often associated with co-production, either as dependent or independent variables. However, these elements primarily pertain to the initiation phase of co-production, whereas the collaborative relationship between the involved parties may endure for an extended period. Consequently, our understanding of the development of the necessary conditions in the broader context of the collaboration between co-producing citizens and the local government remains limited. Therefore, this article aims to explore the potential long-term development of co-production theoretically. This brings us to the following research question:

How do necessary conditions for the start of co-production settle over time and continue to affect co-production?

Elements such as trust, motivation, and supportive culture have been identified in the co-production literature as necessary conditions for initiating co-production. This article gathers all these elements that are noted as necessary conditions to start the co-production. We categorise them in ability, motivation and organization settings (Goldfinch et al., 2022). This model creates a comprehensive framework of all the necessary conditions.

It is important to acknowledge that these elements require time to solidify and may undergo changes over time. The development of co-production and the institutionalisation process can significantly impact these elements. Based on three theoretical ideal-typical outcomes, the state domain, market domain and community domain/civil society, we discuss the potential development of the necessary conditions and therefore the potential variation in the institutionalized co-productions (Brandsen et al., 2005). In practice, the hybridity of two or more domains might be in place, but the focus might shift from the original definition of co-production.

Finally, expectations about the development of the co-production process are formulated. The mechanisms that influence the developmental trajectory of co-production remain relatively obscure. Based on the four dimensions of the conceptualization of co-production, the phase of co-production, the outcome of co-production, the context of co-production and the actors involved in co-production, we could draw some expectations that steer the co-production in a certain direction. These expectations need to be tested empirically in future research.

References

Administration & Society, 34(1), 32-56.
Brandsen, T., Van den Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector. Intl. Journal of Public Administration 28(9-10), 749-765. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200067320
Fledderus, J., Honingh, M., & Brandsen, T. (2013). Restoring trust through the co-production of public service: a theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
Goldfinch, S., Yamamoto, K., & Aoyagi, S. (2022). Does process matter more for predicting trust in government? Participation, performance, and process, in local government in Japan. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221099395
Igalla, M., & Van Meerkerk, I. (2015). De duurzaamheid van burgerinitiatieven: een empirische verkenning. Bestuurswetenschappen, 69(3), 25-53. https://doi.org/10.5553/Bw/016571942015069003003
Meyer, R. E., Egger-Peitler, I., Höllerer, M. A., & Hammerschmid, G. (2014). Of Bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 861-885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02105.x
Van Eijk, C., & Steen, T. (2013). Why people co-produce: analyzing citizens' perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841458
Van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks. Public Management Review, 20(4), 503-524.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Authors

• Hessel Bos, Radboud University, Public Administration, Nijmegen School of Management

• Pieter Zwaan, Radboud University

• Taco Brandsen, Radboud University