From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media

Citizen participation in the decisions that affect their lives is an imperative of contemporary society. For the first half of the 20th century, citizens relied on public officials and administrato...

/pdf/public-deliberation-in-an-age-of-direct-citizen-6al4ot1s42.pdf

Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation

We propose an important theoretical development for our understanding of the co-production of public services. It combines the insights from both public administration and services management theory to produce a novel typology of co-production. This clarifies its role at the operational and strategic levels, as well as its potential for transformational change in public services. Understanding co-production in this way provides a basis through which to explore a whole range of dimensions of co-production that were previously undifferentiated.

/pdf/it-takes-two-to-tango-understanding-the-co-production-of-1vhhjkvir8.pdf

It takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co-production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives

In developing countries in particular, services are often delivered through unorthodox organisational arrangements that cannot simply be dismissed as relics of ‘traditional’ institutions, or as incomplete modern organisations. Some have emerged recently, and represent institutional adaptations to specific political and logistical circumstances. We need to expand the range of organisational categories that are considered worthy of study and develop a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of unorthodox arrangements. The concept of institutionalised co-production provides a useful point of entry. Institutionalised co-production is defined as: the provision of public services (broadly defined, to include regulation) through a regular long-term relationship between state agencies and organised groups of citizens, where both make substantial resource contributions. We explain some varieties of institutionalised co-production arrangements; explore why they appear to be relatively so widespread in poor countries; and relate the concept to broader ideas about public organisation.

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/FutureState/Ressum18.pdf

Research Summary 18, Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments.

Despite an international resurgence of interest in coproduction, confusion about the concept remains. This article attempts to make sense of the disparate literature and clarify the concept of coproduction in public administration. Based on some definitional distinctions and considerations about who is involved in coproduction, when in the service cycle it occurs, and what is generated in the process, the article offers and develops a typology of coproduction that includes three levels (individual, group, collective) and four phases (commissioning, design, delivery, assessment). The levels, phases, and typology as a whole are illustrated with several examples. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for research and practice.

/pdf/varieties-of-participation-in-public-services-the-who-when-wb90lwoalt.pdf

Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

One of the latent functions of the great taxpayer's revolt of 1978 is that it taught and continues to teach students of public administration many lessons. California's Proposition 13, in particular, has had a sobering effect on the theory and practice of public administration. While many explanations have been offered for the passage of Proposition 13 and similar taxing and spending limits in other states and localities,' the rationale developed by Kirlin is one of most persuasive:2 During the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, the intricately complex political and administrative structure of the public sector became hopelessly beyond the reach of the average citizen through the traditional formal mechanisms of political participation-voting, parties, and interest groups. Taxing and spending referendums like Proposition 13 gave these alienated people an opportunity to express their frustration on a grand issue of public policy while also allowing them the opportunity to act on their disaffection by becoming "idiots" in the original Greek sense of the word, meaning someone indifferent to his duties as a citizen. If citizens could not understand or effect their government, then limiting it and ignoring it became a rational response. The linkage between citizens and their government has become strained over the past two decades. At a minimum, citizens function as legitimizers of government "to transform power relations into authority relations."3 In the United States, this legitimacy has eroded substantially under the strain of Vietnam, Watergate, and a host of factors like urbanization, governmental fragmentation, and rapid spatial mobility.4 While there is little indication that diffuse support for the values that underpin democratic institutions has eroded significantly, confidence in the institutions of our govern-

Glenn W. Fisher

Papers

Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Coproduction