Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vulnerable Citizens: Will Co-production Make a Difference?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes

Abstract

One of the presumed benefits of introducing co-production is that it will lead to a greater inclusion of citizens and vulnerable people in particular. The chapter assesses how realistic that is, by discussing how co-production changes the conditions that discourage vulnerable people from engaging with more traditional types of participation. The chapter concludes that co-production has a better chance of involving vulnerable people than traditional types of participation, especially because its relevance is more directly apparent and because it relies less on personal skills. However, it is not a cure-for-all and will never be able to involve everyone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service delivery to co-production. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen, T. A. (2018). From democratic consultation to user-employment: Shifting institutional embedding of citizen involvement in health and social care. Journal of Social Policy, 47(1), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batalden, M., Batalden, P., Margolis, P., Seid, M., Armstrong, G., Opipari-Arrigan, L., & Hartung, H. (2016). Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Quality and Safety, 25(7), 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. (2019). Accuracy and fairness for juvenile justice risk assessments. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(1), 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, W. (1992). The problem of time in sociology: An overview of the literature on the state of theory and research on the Sociology of Time, 1900–82. Time & Society, 1(1), 81–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2013). We’re all in this together: Harnessing user and community co-production of public outcomes. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Institute of Local Government Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. Loeffler, E. (2014). The new commissioning model of services for young people in Surrey: Evaluation of achievements and implications. Birmingham: Governance International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of co-production: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. (2011). Vulnerability: Handle with care. Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(3), 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., & Van Den Broek, A. (2006). Is volunteering going down. In: P. Ester, M. Braun, P. Mohler (Eds.), Globalization, value change, and generations. A cross-national and intergenerational perspective (179–205). Leiden and Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fledderus, J. (2016). User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust. Nijmegen: Radboud University, Institute for Management Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, K. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., Tomkins, A. J., & Pytlik Zillig, L. M. (2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honingh, M., Bondarouk, E., Brandsen, T.(2018). Co-production in primary schools: A systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0020852318769143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering: A sociological modernization perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(2), 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjellström, S., Areskoug-Josefsson, K., Gäre, B. A., Andersson, A. C., Ockander, M., Käll, J., McGrath, J., Donetto, S., Robert, G. (2019). Exploring, measuring and enhancing the coproduction of health and well-being at the national, regional and local levels through comparative case studies in Sweden and England: The Samskapa research programme protocol. BMJ Open, 9(7), e029723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand, J. (2018). The strategy of equality: Redistribution and the social services. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeffler, E. (2021). The Co-production of public services and outcomes. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G. P. (2008). Ordinary people only: Knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I. (2016). Social media in the public sector. In: D. Bearfield & M. Dubnick (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public Administration and public policy (3018–3021). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the public back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. PublicAdministration Review, 77(5), 766–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neshkova, M. I., & Guo, H. (2011). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G., Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: Some concepts and evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1102–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranci, C., Brandsen, T., Sabatinelli, S. (2014). Social vulnerability in European cities in times of crisis and the role of local welfare. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133, 531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, T., & Tuurnas, S. (2018). The roles of the professional in co-production and co-creation processes. In: T. Brandsen, T. Steen, B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (80–92). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C. J., & Steen, T. P. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanleene, D. (2020) (Vulner)ability: Engaging with citizen co-producers in community development. Ghent: Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Vanleene, D., Steen, T., Brandsen, T. (2018). Democratic co-production: Concepts and determinants. In: T. Brandsen, T. Steen, B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (243–251). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Taco Brandsen

Authors
  1. Taco Brandsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taco Brandsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Elke Loeffler

  2. INLOGOV, School of Government, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Tony Bovaird

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brandsen, T. (2021). Vulnerable Citizens: Will Co-production Make a Difference?. In: Loeffler, E., Bovaird, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation