Correlates of Co-production: Evidence From a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens

ABSTRACT We employ data from an original survey of citizens in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, and the Czech Republic to examine correlates of citizen co-production of public services in three key policy areas: public safety, the environment, and health. The correlates of co-production we consider include demographic factors (age, gender, education, and employment status), community characteristics (urban, non-urban), performance perceptions (how good a job government is doing), government outreach (providing information and seeking consultation), and self-efficacy (how much of a difference citizens believe they can make). We also report on results from a series of focus groups on the topic of co-production held in each country. Our results suggest that women and elderly citizens generally engage more often in co-production and that self-efficacy—the belief that citizens can make a difference—is an especially important determinant across sectors. Interestingly, good outcome performance (in the sense of a safe neighborhood, a clean environment, and good health) seems to discourage co-production somewhat. Thus citizens' co-production appears to depend in part on awareness of a shortfall in public performance on outcomes. Our results also provide some evidence that co-production is enhanced when governments provide information or engage citizens in consultation. The specific determinants vary, however, not only by sector but across national contexts.

[1]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for a long-term decline? , 2008 .

[2]  Theodore J. Lowi,et al.  American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory , 1964 .

[3]  G. G. Ryzin,et al.  Portrait of the Social Entrepreneur: Statistical Evidence from a US Panel , 2009 .

[4]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. , 1982 .

[5]  T. Bovaird.  Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services , 2007 .

[6]  John Wilson,et al.  Work and Volunteering: The Long Arm of the Job , 1997 .

[7]  Christopher J. Einolf,et al.  Quarterly Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable Giving on Behalf Of: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and , 2022 .

[8]  D. Smith.  Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: A Literature Review , 1994 .

[9]  Richard Rose,et al.  Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies , 1997, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  P. Haas.  When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process , 2004 .

[11]  Marilyn E. Gist,et al.  Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability , 1992 .

[12]  E. Ostrom,et al.  CONSUMERS AS COPRODUCERS OF PUBLIC SERVICES: SOME ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS , 1981 .

[13]  Fany Yuval,et al.  Managerial Quality, Administrative Performance and Trust in Governance: Can We Point to Causality? , 2003 .

[14]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[15]  Keith William Fairchild,et al.  The Politics of Regulation , 2012 .

[16]  Gregg G. Van Ryzin,et al.  Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants , 2011 .

[17]  Melissa Marschall,et al.  Institutional Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[18]  B. Guy Peters,et al.  The Napoleonic Tradition , 2008, Administrative Traditions.

[19]  Gregg G. Van Ryzin,et al.  Pieces of a Puzzle: Linking Government Performance, Citizen Satisfaction, and Trust , 2007 .

[20]  A. Bandura.  Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[21]  Douglas Madsen,et al.  Political Self-Efficacy Tested , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[22]  Helen F. Ladd,et al.  Institutional Change and Coproduction of Public Services: The Effect of Charter Schools on Parental Involvement , 2006 .

[23]  Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas,et al.  The Structural Contexts of Civic Engagement: Voluntary Association Membership in Comparative Perspective , 2001, American Sociological Review.

[24]  E. Ostrom.  Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development , 1996 .

[25]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[26]  Tom Christensen,et al.  TRUST IN GOVERNMENT: The Relative Importance of Service Satisfaction, Political Factors, and Demography , 2005 .

[27]  Tony Bovaird,et al.  From Engagement to Co-Production: How Users and Communities Contribute to Public Services , 2013 .

[28]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting Can Transform America's Schools. A Rand Research Study. , 1997 .

[29]  H. Hayghe,et al.  Volunteers in the U.S.: who donates the time? , 1991, Monthly labor review.

[30]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[31]  Anuradha Joshi,et al.  Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments , 2004 .

[32]  J. Alford,et al.  A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services , 1998 .

[33]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[34]  R. Inglehart.  Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies , 1997 .

[35]  R. Ramírez.  Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research , 1999 .

[36]  Melissa Marschall,et al.  Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the Coproduction of Local Public Goods , 2004 .

[37]  M. Egerton.  Higher education and civic engagement. , 2002, The British journal of sociology.

[38]  J. Alford,et al.  Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce? , 2002 .

[39]  David Boud,et al.  Co‐Production and Health System Reform – From Re‐Imagining To Re‐Making , 2009 .

[40]  J. Alford,et al.  Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production , 2009 .

[41]  Abraham Wandersman,et al.  Who participates, who does not, and why? An analysis of voluntary neighborhood organizations in the United States and Israel , 1987 .

[42]  Karsten Hank,et al.  The participation of older Europeans in volunteer work , 2006, Ageing and Society.

[43]  J. Brudney.  THE EVALUATION OF COPRODUCTION PROGRAMS , 1983 .

[44]  Robert D. Putnam,et al.  Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community , 2000, CSCW '00.