Is Government Welfare Able to Change? Analysing Efforts to Co-create an Improved Social Welfare System through Taking Advantage of a Collaborative Economy

Welfare sectors across the world are facing the need to balance the contrast between economic pressures due to demographic changes and peoples’ rising expectations of receiving services that are transparent; timely and tailored to citizens’ habits and needs. This means that governments are pressured to look for new ways to deliver public services. This article looks at two cocreated peer-to-peer platforms that are engaged in delivering public services in the welfare sector, Helpific and Caremate, and their development and role in the Estonian welfare sector. These platforms appear to hold substantial potential for changing the current system of delivering public services, however they have not yet managed to acquire the anticipated level of success. By examining these two cases, it is proposed that the room and support for developing new solutions, using experience in the field and overcoming the digital divide must be assured in order to make changes in government welfare possible.

[1]  V. Schmidt.  Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse , 2008 .

[2]  Edoardo Ongaro,et al.  Explaining contextual influences on the dynamics of public management reforms: Reflections on some ways forward , 2013 .

[3]  K. Kala.  The Social Origins of the Estonian Non-Profit Sector , 2008 .

[4]  Gary Goertz,et al.  A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research , 2006, Political Analysis.

[5]  Robert Krimmer,et al.  Integrating Digital Migrants: Solutions for Cross-Border Identification from E-Residency to eIDAS. A Case Study from Estonia , 2016, EGOV.

[6]  Stephen P. Osborne,et al.  Delivering Public Services: Time for a new theory? , 2010 .

[7]  Craig Standing,et al.  An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: A content, context, process framework , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Taco Brandsen,et al.  Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions , 2016 .

[9]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[10]  Richard Heeks.  e-Government as a Carrier of Context , 2005, Journal of Public Policy.

[11]  Richard Simmons,et al.  A Joined-up Approach to User Participation in Public Services: Strengthening the "Participation Chain" , 2005 .

[12]  R. Kattel,et al.  Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia , 2018 .

[13]  Sandra Särav.  Uberi reguleerimine areneva jagamismajanduse valguses. Regulating Uber in the Light of the Emerging Sharing Economy , 2017 .

[14]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[15]  Catherine Needham,et al.  Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation , 2012 .

[16]  V. Pestoff,et al.  Patterns of co-production in public services , 2006 .

[17]  Dennis Linders,et al.  From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[18]  M. Honingh,et al.  Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public Services: A theoretical elaboration , 2014 .

[19]  Achilles A. Armenakis,et al.  Organizational Change Content, Process, and Context: A Simultaneous Analysis of Employee Reactions , 2007 .

[20]  S. Osborne,et al.  It Takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co‐Production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives , 2013 .

[21]  Robert Krimmer,et al.  Co-creating an Open Government Data Driven Public Service: The Case of Chicago's Food Inspection Forecasting Model , 2018, HICSS.

[22]  Marc Buelens,et al.  Contribution of Content, Context, and Process to Understanding Openness to Organizational Change: Two Experimental Simulation Studies , 2007, The Journal of social psychology.