Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding, Analysing and Addressing Conflicts in Co-production

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

Abstract

Co-production is suited for problems where consensus is low, uncertainty high and joint action is needed. We focus on conflicts in decision co-production and argue that conflicts arise primarily from tensions between three intertwined elements: differences in values, knowledge and preferences of stakeholders; uneven distribution of resources, status and power; and, divergent expectations about outcomes. Managing conflicts constructively in co-production is far from simple. We identify critical issues that need to be taken into account to address conflicts, including understanding divergent and convergent stakeholder views; identifying power dynamics in problem and solution framing; translating different views into technical-policy options; and reaching compromise solutions. We also outline an evaluation framework with criteria to anticipate, surface and address conflicts and we conclude by suggesting pathways for future research.

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

References

  • Alford, J. (2014). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., … Wollenberg, E. K. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J., Schultz, L., Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & Bodin, Ö. (2019). Emergence of collaborative environmental governance: What are the causal mechanisms? Environmental Management, 63(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1105-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, C., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Schmid, E., Kriegler, E., & Edenhofer, O. (2015). Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nature Climate Change, 5, 235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2514https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2514#supplementary-information.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review, 44(4), 100–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, S. (2017). Associative judgment and vector space semantics. Psychological Review, 124(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.

  • Bremer, S., & Meisch, S. (2017). Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(6), e482. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bréthaut, C., Gallagher, L., Dalton, J., & Allouche, J. (2019). Power dynamics and integration in the water-energy-food nexus: Learning lessons for transdisciplinary research in Cambodia. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D., Jonhatan, B., & Anthony, P. (2006). Countering the ‘loading dock’ approach to linking science and decision making: A comparative analysis of ENSO forecasting systems. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 31(4), 465–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., … Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., & Gallopin, G. C. (2016). Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4570–4578. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B. (2003). Public participation and risk governance. Science and Public Policy, 30, 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 267–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00162-2.

  • Delavande, A., Giné, X., & McKenzie, D. (2011). Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: A critical review and new evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 94(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., Quétier, F., Cáceres, D. M., Trainor, S. F., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M. S., … Poorter, L. (2011). Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(3), 895–902. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017993108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, K. (2008). Agency and structure: Interpreting power relationships. Journal of Power, 1(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17540290801943380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (1997). Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fohlmeister, S., Tiebel, M., & Augenstein, I. (2019). Monitoring and evaluation scheme (Del 3.3. PHUSICOS project). Retrieved from www.phusicos.eu.

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1225-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., & Wellman, K. (2001). Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39(1), 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00214-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guivarch, C., Lempert, R., & Trutnevyte, E. (2017). Scenario techniques for energy and environmental research: An overview of recent developments to broaden the capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software, 97, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R., Kettunen, E., Marttunen, M., & Ehtamo, H. (2001). Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(4), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011207207809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601.

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society, 28(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, A. (2012). A transdisciplinary world model. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, C., & Monasterolo, I. (2017). Opportunities for knowledge co-production across the energy-food-water nexus: Making interdisciplinary approaches work for better climate decision making. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilieva, R., & McPherson, T. (2018). Social-media data for urban sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 1, 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Boher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Harrison, P. A., Omann, I., Dunford, R., Kammerlander, M., & Pataki, G. (2015). Assessing policy robustness of climate change adaptation measures across sectors and scenarios. Climatic Change, 128(3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1240-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkov, I. (2005). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1897/ieam_2004a-015.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, K., Bärlund, I., Flörke, M., Holman, I., Gramberger, M., Sendzimir, J., … Zellmer, K. (2015). European participatory scenario development: Strengthening the link between stories and models. Climatic Change, 128(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1143-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2010). Functional dynamic public participation in technological decision making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., … Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Scolobig, A., Ferlisi, S., Cascini, L., & Thompson, M. (2016). Expert engagement in participatory processes: Translating stakeholder discourses into policy options. Natural Hazards, 81(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1805-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. (1985). Consensus and conflict. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (2004). Power: A radical view. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malloy T. F., Zaunbrecher V. M., Batteate C. M., Blake, A., Carroll W. F., Corbett C. J., … Thayer K. A. (2017). Advancing alternative analysis: Integration of decision science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(6), 066001. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messner, F., Zwirner, O., & Karkuschke, M. (2006). Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree river basin. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Foss, N. (2009). Knowledge governance: Themes and questions. In N. Foss & S. Michailova (Eds.), Knowledge governance: Processes and perspectives (pp. 1–24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikolov, T. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781.

  • Miller, C. A., & Wyborn, C. (2018). Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination (40th anniversary ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2008). Social multi criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R. P., & Marttunen, M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling & Software, 19(6), 537–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ney, S., & Thompson, M. (1999). Cultural discourses in the global climate change debate. In J. Eberhard, J. Sathaye, & S. Bouille (Eds.), Society, behaviour and climate change mitigation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). Governing the commons, the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (2017). Wicked problems. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M.F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, & R.A. Marston (Eds.), International encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment and technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0048.

  • Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers, B., Nel, J. L., O’Farrell, P. J., Sitas, N., & Nel, D. C. (2015). Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7362–7368. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414374112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.

  • Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarasinghe, S., & Strickert, G. (2013). Mixed-method integration and advances in fuzzy cognitive maps for computational policy simulations for natural hazard mitigation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 39, 188–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.06.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P., & Lilliestam, J. (2015). Reducing or fostering public opposition? A critical reflection on the neutrality of pan-European cost–benefit analysis in electricity transmission planning. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scolobig, A., Broto, V. C., & Zabala, A. (2008). Integrating multiple perspectives in social multicriteria evaluation of flood-mitigation alternatives: The case of Malborghetto-Valbruna. Environment and planning C: Government and policy, 26(6), 1143–1161. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0765s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scolobig, A., & Lilliestam, J. (2016). Comparing approaches for the integration of stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision making. Resources, 5(4), 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scolobig, A., Thompson, M., & Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (2016). Compromise not consensus: Designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation. Natural Hazards, 81(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2078-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Späth, L., Amodeo, E., Luè, A., Muratori, S., Scolobig, A., & Patt, A. (2017). Stakeholder engagement and multi-criteria decision aiding in the electricity transmission grid reinforcement: Evidence from a role-playing game. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1395317.

  • Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 95–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, T., & Levin-Keitel, M. (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 292–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. (2008). Organizing and disorganizing: A dynamic and non-linear theory of institutional emergence and its implications. London: Triarchy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Hel, S. (2016). New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in future earth. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.

  • Verweij, M., & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics, and plural perceptions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov, A., Kolagani, N., McCall, M. K., Glynn, P. D., Kragt, M. E., Ostermann, F. O., … Ramu, P. (2016). Modelling with stakeholders—Next generation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 77, 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953990022019588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuppuluri, S., & Doria, F. (2018). The map and the territory: Exploring the foundations of science, thought and reality. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., … Kerkhoff, L. v. (2019). Co-producing sustainability: Reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44(1), null. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103.

  • Yatsalo, B. I., Kiker, G. A., Kim, J., Bridges, T. S., Seager, T. P., Gardner, K., … Linkov, I. (2007). Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1897/ieam_2006-036.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohlnhöfer, R., & Rüb, F. (2016). Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Anna Scolobig’s contribution was in part supported by the PHUSICOS project (EU H2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement No. 776681). The landslide risk mitigation casework was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the SafeLand Project, Grant agreement: 226479. The LIVES project casework was funded by the Nomis Foundation and the MAVA Foundation, and conducted in partnership with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Anna Scolobig & Louise Gallagher

Authors
  1. Anna Scolobig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Scolobig .

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

Scolobig, A., Gallagher, L. (2021). Understanding, Analysing and Addressing Conflicts in Co-production. 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_32

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation