Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research on coproduction of public services has grown significantly within the politics and public administration field during the last decade. The existing literature mostly assumes that coproduction requires additional costs from the public. This article explores whether and how digital technologies, which arguably have the ability to reframe public participation, might influence coproduction between the government and the public. A revised theoretical framework for coproduction in the era of digital governance is illustrated through a case study of the “Visit Once” administrative service reform in Zhejiang Province, China. This study reveals a new possibility for coproduction through digital technologies, in which citizens are involved in service improvement when using public services without costing them extra time or effort. Thus, the assumption of the necessity of additional costs from the public could be relaxed in the digital governance era. These findings also suggest that the significance of facilitative leadership in leading to coproduction can be moderated by digital technologies.

This study investigated how social media is used by a municipal government agency for communication of citizen coproduction initiatives, through social media content analysis of the government's official Twitter account. This article identified that the dominant form of social media coproduction in the Bandung municipal government in Indonesia is government-to-citizen (G2C) interaction, focused primarily on informing and nudging (86.62%) citizens, as well as some limited elements of citizen-to-government (C2G) communication, such as citizen sourcing and citizen reporting (8.96%). The municipal government uses various visual tools on Twitter to disseminate G2C information and convey its messages. Regarding the phase of the service cycle, this study found that the majority of social media communications are related to co-assessment (52.26%) and co-designing (42.24%), with a limited number of tweets about co-delivery (3.25%). Based on these findings, this article discusses the shifting relationship between government and citizens brought on by the adoption of this social media platform in its service delivery arrangement.

Background Innovations in coproduction are shaping public service reform in diverse contexts around the world. Although many innovations are local, others have expanded and evolved over time. We know very little, however, about the process of implementation and evolution of coproduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the adoption, implementation and assimilation of three approaches to the coproduction of public services with structurally vulnerable groups. Methods We conducted a 4 year longitudinal multiple case study (2019–2023) of three coproduced public service innovations involving vulnerable populations: ESTHER in Jönköping Region, Sweden involving people with multiple complex needs (Case 1); Making Recovery Real in Dundee, Scotland with people who have serious mental illness (Case 2); and Learning Centres in Manitoba, Canada (Case 3), also involving people with serious mental illness. Data sources included 14 interviews with strategic decision-makers and a document analysis to understand the history and contextual factors relating to each case. Three frameworks informed the case study protocol, semi-structured interview guides, data extraction, deductive coding and analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Diffusion of Innovation model and Lozeau’s Compatibility Gaps to understand assimilation. Results The adoption of coproduction involving structurally vulnerable populations was a notable evolution of existing improvement efforts in Cases 1 and 3, while impetus by an external change agency, existing collaborative efforts among community organizations, and the opportunity to inform a new municipal mental health policy sparked adoption in Case 2. In all cases, coproduced innovation centred around a central philosophy that valued lived experience on an equal basis with professional knowledge in coproduction processes. This philosophical orientation offered flexibility and adaptability to local contexts, thereby facilitating implementation when compared with more defined programming. According to the informants, efforts to avoid co-optation risks were successful, resulting in the assimilation of new mindsets and coproduction processes, with examples of how this had led to transformative change. Conclusions In exploring innovations in coproduction with structurally vulnerable groups, our findings suggest several additional considerations when applying existing theoretical frameworks. These include the philosophical nature of the innovation, the need to study the evolution of the innovation itself as it emerges over time, greater attention to partnered processes as disruptors to existing power structures and an emphasis on driving transformational change in organizational cultures.

There is growing evidence that the problems, challenges and opportunities that our cities, city-regions and regions are facing cannot be tackled adequately by traditional spatial planning. One of the key challenges for planning in this respect is to analyse critically what type of planning is suited as an approach to deal – in an innovative/emancipatory and transformative way – with the problems and challenges developing and developed societies are facing. An expanding literature and an increasing number of practices all over the world seem to suggest that strategic spatial planning may be looked upon as a possible approach. But at the same time critical comments and reactions are raised on the theory and the practices of strategic spatial planning. This paper uses the theory and practices of coproduction to reframe strategic spatial planning. It first looks for a deeper understanding of the meaning(s) of coproduction as it emerged in different contexts and different intellectual traditions and then introduces coproduction as an immanent characteristic of a more radical type of strategic planning. Coproduction combines the provision of public goods/services needed with the building of a strong, resilient and mutually supportive community that could assure its members their needs would be met. This implies changing the perceptions and the approach of many professionals (public and private) about how plans, policies and public services are conceived and delivered, with the objective of enabling the (structural) change needed in an open and equitable way. The paper relies on a selective review of critical planning literature and the author's experience in practice.

Purpose Coproduction fundamentally changes the roles of citizens and governments. The purpose of this paper is to enhance the theoretical understanding of the transformative changes in the structural order of the public domain that result from the coproduction of public services. Design/methodology/approach This paper builds upon both the literature on coproduction of public services, new public governance and on social contracts between citizens and the state to identify the nature, drivers and implications of the transformation. The argument is illustrated with examples from crime control and healthcare. Findings The analysis identified an institutional misfit and highlights four key issues that are key to the understanding of the structural transformation of public services: compensation for time and knowledge resources, responses to new forms of (in)equality, risk of conflicts between citizens and re-organizing accountability. Research limitations/implications The analysis highlights the need for further research into the implications of coproduction for government legitimacy, transfer of power, financial implications, representativeness and consequences for non-coproducing citizens. Originality/value This paper links instrumental debates about the coproduction of public services to fundamental debates about the relations between government and citizens and identifies substantial issues that are raised by this structural transformation in the public domain and that require new responses.

PurposeTo analyze and discuss the research on the public healthcare services (PHCS) through the lenses of coproduction/creation by systematizing the antecedents, the process enablers and the outcomes of coproduction/creation in terms of organizational and individual/patients factors.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was performed based on 46 papers found in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases following the Prisma Protocol for the search.FindingsThe results show that antecedents of coproduction/creation are connected to organizational/institutional capabilities (e.g. codesign of services or trust development) or patient/individual factors (e.g. physical and mental capabilities). The process of coproduction/creation relates with enablers, such as interactive and dynamic relationships between public care service providers and users. Finally, outcomes have diverse nature, namely quality of life, compliance, behavioral intentions, among others.Research limitations/implicationsThis study addresses the overlooked topic of coproduction/creation of value within PHCS. It contributes to public healthcare services literature wherein concepts of coproduction and cocreation of value are still on debate. It contributes to the transformative service research (TSR) by underlining that healthcare factors, processes and approaches may have a positive or negative (value codestructing) influence on the well-being. It yields crucial implications for PHCS.Originality/valueIt is the first attempt to systematize scientific knowledge on this topic, therefore conferring some novelty potential.

Citizen participation has become a key part of promoting community regeneration and improving community governance. Coproduction, especially collective coproduction—a way in which residents can be deeply involved in community regeneration—is important to public service performance and social values. However, little research has empirically examined the patterns and determinants of collective coproduction. Against the backdrop of Chinese grassroots governance, this article employs social mobilization theory to explore the key factors contributing to collective coproduction and develops a theoretical framework that focuses on how the combination of top-down and bottom-up social mobilization shapes it. By comparing four urban cases of community regeneration coproduction in the P district of Shanghai, we conclude that when local governments perceive differentiated variations among governance objectives, they tend to come up with various social mobilization schemes accordingly. When local governments adopt all-around, point-to-point, targeted, or random mobilization schemes, this often results in four corresponding patterns of community collective coproduction: comprehensive, generalized, club, and formalistic. The contribution of this paper is in its provision of a comprehensive and dynamic viewpoint to explore the impact of social mobilization on community-based collective coproduction patterns, forming a new understanding of the collective coproduction formation mechanism.

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to show (1) how social innovations are created through co-production in social enterprises in Finland and (2) how enabling ecosystems for the creation of social innovations can be enhanced by the government.Design/methodology/approachThis study is a descriptive case study. The data comprises focus group interviews that were conducted during a research project in Finland in 2022. The interviewees represented different social enterprises, other non-profit organisations and national funding institutions.FindingsSocial enterprises create social innovations in Finland through co-production, where service innovation processes, activism and networking are central. Also, to build an enabling ecosystem, government must base the system upon certain elements: enabling characteristics of the stakeholders, co-production methods and tools and initiatives by the government.Originality/valueThe authors address an important challenge that social enterprises struggle with: The position of social enterprises in Finland is weak and entrepreneurs experience prejudice from both the direction of “traditional” businesses and the government which often does not recognise social enterprise as a potential partner for public service delivery. Nonetheless, social enterprises create public value by contributing to the co-production of public services. They work in interorganisational networks by nature and can succeed where the traditional public organisations and private businesses fail.

PurposeIn coproduction, citizens may be confronted with a conflict between creating user value and a more collective understanding of public value creation. In order to deal with conflicts experienced as trade-off situations, coproducers follow various coping strategies leading to different results. This study aims to gain insight into what drives the choices for coping strategies, which are valuable for understanding the role of citizen coproducers in public value creation.Design/methodology/approachThis article studies the effects of citizens' external efficacy and trust in public servants on citizen coproducers' preferences for coping strategies. The study presents a vignette experiment among n = 257 citizens involved in the temporary use of vacant spaces in Flanders, Belgium.FindingsNo statistically significant effects of external efficacy and trust in public servants on respondents' preferences for coping strategies are found. The results show that irrespective of the level of external efficacy or trust in public servants, citizen coproducers prefer to ask for help from the public servant involved in the project.Originality/valueThis result draws attention to the need for facilitation and guidance from public servants and the servants' organizations to help citizen coproducers balance out these otherwise paralyzing value conflicts. Moreover, the lack of statistically significant effects of trust and external efficacy is a valuable finding for literature. The result shows that, in the drivers of coproduction behavior, there is no consistent relationship between citizen trust in government or external efficacy and coproduction behavior.

Purpose Public sector institutional entrepreneurship efforts may contribute to addressing social challenges by creating an enabling regulatory environment that promotes social enterprise formation and fosters complementarity between the public sector and social enterprises. The outcomes of such public sector institutional entrepreneurship are explored in this study. To assess the outcomes of such public sector initiatives in South Korea, the perspectives of executives (n = 40) of government-certified social enterprises are assessed.Design/methodology/approach Several research methodologies were combined, including purposive sampling with an 11-point Likert scale, hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis. The literature on government–nonprofit relations as well as public sector institutional entrepreneurship was leveraged.Findings This research results indicate that the enabling regulatory environment with entrenched funding and incubation mechanisms produces mixed-to-positive outcomes if framed with reference to public sector–social enterprise complementarity. The authors identified three perspective-based ideal types that have differential views of isomorphic regulatory pressures, the efficacy of incubation and scaling programs, participation in policymaking and other aspects of public sector patronage.Originality/value This study contributes to relating the literature on public sector institutional entrepreneurship and government–third sector relations by empirically assessing how social enterprises attracted by government demand-side signaling to become certified as social enterprises encounter and perceive an ostensibly enabling regulatory ecosystem, with its derivative policies and mechanisms, crafted by the public sector.