Co-production of public services and outcomes

What is it about?

‘Co-production’? Does a day go past in the public sector without us hearing about it? But what exactly does it mean? Current approaches now tend to focus specifically on the contributions made by citizens, whether individually as service users or collectively in communities, and therefore do not include as ‘co-production’ interorganizational collaboration. And we tend to focus not just on the co-production of ‘a good or service’, but also on the achievement of behaviour change and of the outcomes desired personally by citizens and organizationally by the public sector. However, co-production is not the only term for such ‘joint production’ with citizens— it can be found variously under the labels of ‘co-commissioning’, ‘co-governance’, ‘co-construction’, ‘co-design’, ‘co-delivery’, ‘co-management’ and ‘co-assessment’. Recent debate on co-creation of value has added further to the complexity. Interest in co-production has become more intense in many countries after the onset of the global financial crisis, especially where this has brought prolonged austerity and major cutbacks in the public sector. In the UK, for example, the Cabinet Office released a report on co-production in 2009 that has been followed up by many reports by governments, local authorities, academics, think tanks and consultants. Subsequently, many public agencies have signed up to the concept, proclaiming that making the most of co-production is ‘embedded’ within their policies and practices. However, is this all that it seems? Current workshops with practitioners in the UK reveal that they are unaware of the nature of intrinsic co-production within ‘actually existing’ public service delivery, and how to work with it, and that they believe that the service-enhancing potential of active co-production is not being fulfilled.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Unfortunately, the research base of co-production is thinner in public services than in private services, where the concept of co-production has played a core role for decades. Many case studies have been published in recent years, generally using qualitative methodologies. Some surveys have thrown light on the extent and intensity of co-production and the motivations behind it. However, the questions raised here have not yet been answered. Moreover, there has been a shortage of well-evidenced evaluations of the results achieved when either ‘intrinsic’ or ‘active’ co-production of public services is managed more systematically. The determinants of successful strategies to make the most of co-production are still unclear—moreover, the question of the dark side of co-production in public organizations is less recognized. Finally, co-production finds itself at the intersection of many different professional and academic disciplines, yet with little integration at a theoretical level. Consequently, Public Money & Management is committed to taking forward this debate with a theme issue in 2018 dedicated to co-production both empirically and theoretically. We are seeking contributions that address these questions and that provide rigorously demonstrated results (positive and negative) from initiatives and strategic approaches to engage more systematically with co-production in order to improve service outcomes. We welcome quantitative and qualitative analysis, as well as theoretical integration. The full details for submitting papers are given in this paper - we look forward to your response!

Perspectives