Elke Loeffler

Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-Production of Public Services

User and community co-production of public services first became topical in the late 1970s, both in private and public sectors. Recent interest has been triggered by recognition that the outcomes for which public agencies strive rely on multiple stakeholders, particularly service users and the communities in which they live. Extra salience has been given to the potential of co-production due to fiscal pressures facing governments since 2008. However, there has been little quantitative empirical research on citizen co-production behaviours. The authors therefore undertook a large-sample survey in five European countries to fill this gap. This article examines an especially significant finding from this research – the major gulf between current levels of collective co-production and individual co-production. It explores the drivers of these large differences and examines what the social policy implications would be if, given the potential benefits, the government wishes to encourage greater collective co-production.

Assessing the Quality of Local Governance: A Case Study of Public Services

This article reports the results of an intensive study of the quality of local governance in a town in the UK, demonstrating how the concept of local governance can be operationalized, presenting key findings on the quality of local governance in the case study and suggesting that more limited, service-oriented, performance assessment systems may be misleading.

Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK

Previous research has suggested that citizen co-production of public services is more likely when the actions involved are easy and can be carried out individually rather than in groups. This article explores whether this holds in local areas of England and Wales. It asks which people are most likely to engage in individual and collective co-production and how people can be influenced to extend their co-production efforts by participating in more collective activities. Data were collected in five areas, using citizen panels organized by local authorities. The findings demonstrate that individual and collective co-production have rather different characteristics and correlates and highlight the importance of distinguishing between them for policy purposes. In particular, collective co-production is likely to be high in relation to any given issue when citizens have a strong sense that people can make a difference (‘political self-efficacy’). ‘Nudges’ to encourage increased co-production had only a weak effect. Points for practitioners Much of the potential pay-off from co-production is likely to arise from group-based activities, so activating citizens to move from individual to collective co-production may be an important issue for policy. This article shows that there is major scope for activating more collective co-production, since the level of collective co-production in which people engage is not strongly predicted by their background and can be influenced by public policy variables. ‘Nudges’ may help to encourage more collective co-production but they may need to be quite strong to succeed.

User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?

ABSTRACT Much of the current discussion of user and community co-production makes strong claims for its potential to improve outcomes. How much is actually known about the level, drivers, and potential effects of co-production? In this article, some of the key claims made for co-production are examined and an assessment is made of how they stack up against the empirical evidence. In particular, some areas are identified in which practice must be cautious about the potential contribution of co-production, and where further research is needed.

From Corporate Governance to Local Governance: Stakeholder‐Driven Community Score‐Cards for UK Local Agencies?

Abstract This paper compares the methodology of the “comprehensive performance assessment”, recently proposed by the Audit Commission for all UK local authorities, with the “community score‐card” approach which has been used in the United States of America for a number of years. It suggests that the Audit Commission approach should be altered to take on board some of the more imaginative aspects of the community score‐card, particularly in relation to the inclusion of those quality of life measures, which local people regard as important, and measures of the quality of local governance.

Communities, Trust and Organisational Responses to Local Governance Failure

Trust is a key element in all social relationships. In this chapter we look at how the level of trust affects the relationship between citizens, service users and the public sector, understood as both elected politicians and the professional bureaucracies which are engaged to carry out the wishes of dominant political groups.

Applying a Dynamic Performance Management Framework to Wicked Issues: How Coproduction Helps to Transform Young People’s Services in Surrey County Council, UK

ABSTRACT This article explores how a dynamic performance management (DPM) approach can give policy makers a more integrated, time-related understanding of how to address wicked problems successfully. The article highlights how an outcome-based approach to solving wicked policy problems has to balance three very contrasting objectives of stakeholders in the policy making process – improving service quality, improving quality of life outcomes and improving conformity to the principles of public governance. Simultaneous achievement of these three objectives may not be feasible, as they may form an interactive dynamic system. However the balancing act between them may be achieved by the use of DPM. Policy insights from this novel approach are illustrated through a case study of a highly successful co-production intervention to help young people with multiple disadvantages in Surrey, UK. The implications of DPM are that policy development needs to accept the important roles of emergent strategy and learning mechanisms, rather than attempting ‘blueprint’ strategic planning and control mechanisms. Some expectations about the results may indeed be justifiable in particular policy systems, as clustering of quality of life outcomes and outcomes in the achievement of governance principles is likely, because behaviours are strongly inter-related. However, this clustering can never be taken for granted but must be tested in each specific policy context. Undertaking simulations with the model and recalibrating it through time, as experience builds up, may allow learning in relation to overcoming barriers to achieving outcomes in the system.

From Participation to Co-production: Widening and Deepening the Contributions of Citizens to Public Services and Outcomes

In recent decades, governments have increasingly accepted the need to engage citizens in public decision-making and public services. This chapter traces the sources of this increased interest in public participation and user and community co-production. Our research suggests that they are important but still under-appreciated by policymakers. While public participation can be effective, even in countries where democracy is still not strong, it is not always positive. Similarly, recent research demonstrates that public services are already partly co-produced, as this is not sufficiently recognised by public services, co-production is not being harnessed systematically. More empirical research is needed into what kind of co-production is actually occurring (where, by whom and how?), how it could be further incentivised, and what are its benefits and limitations.

User and Community Coproduction of Public Services: What Influences Citizens to Coproduce?

The traditional concept of the state, as represented by Max Weber’s model of bureaucracy, is characterized by hierarchical and rule-based decision making and by public service delivery through government agencies. However, hierarchical authority is no longer the dominant element of the state, as participatory structures and processes in public administration have emerged. Coproduction is a core element in the institutional order of the participatory state.