Co-creating Democratic Legitimacy: Potentials and Pitfalls

• Author: Asbjørn Røiseland
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211061740
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211061740

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(8) 1493 –1515

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211061740

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Co-creating Democratic

Legitimacy: Potentials

and Pitfalls

Asbjørn Røiseland1

Abstract

The aim of the article is to discuss how and to what extent co-creation

has the capacity to strengthen democratic legitimacy. By distinguishing

between output-based and input-based co-creation, and by discussing types

of legitimacy in relation to deliberative, participatory, and representative

conceptions of democracy, the article points to potentials and pitfalls

inherent in the idea of co-creation. Four examples from Denmark and

Norway are used to illustrate the argument. In conclusion, the article

points to main challenges associated with co-creation which deserves more

research—particularly inequality of individual resources and the clash with

the party-political system.

Keywords

co-creation, legitimacy, democracy

Introduction

With new perceptions about how democratic systems are legitimized, to an

increasing extent contemporary scholars tend to see policy making and par-

ticipation as two sides of the same coin. While input in the form of political

parties and elections used to be understood as the main source of legitimacy,

1Oslo Metropolitan University – OsloMet, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Asbjørn Røiseland, Oslo Metropolitan University – OsloMet, Box 4, St. Olavsplass, Oslo

0130, Norway.

Email: asbjor@oslomet.no

1061740AAS0010.1177/00953997211061740Administration & SocietyRøiseland

research-article2021

1494 Administration & Society 54(8)

scholars are now pointing to output in the form of service delivery and prob-

lem solving as an equally important dimension of legitimacy, arguing that

“input” and “output” are inter-related dimensions of democratic legitimacy

(Crozier, 2010; Peters, 2009; Pierre et al., 2017).

Such theoretical reflections on legitimacy are accompanied by many prac-

tical initiatives from public sector leaders in which participation and gover-

nance are linked together. Some have even argued that governance has

become a driver for democratization (Warren, 2009). Democratic innova-

tions, it is argued, are driven by administrators whose aim is to strengthen or

ease the governance process (Eckerd & Heidelberg, 2020). There are many

examples of such initiatives, for example public hearings, citizen budgeting,

deliberative stakeholder meetings, citizen juries and, we will argue, most

recently, co-creation.

There are multiple reasons why these arrangements can improve gover-

nance. For example, they can provide valuable input to the governance pro-

cess, they can lessen the burden on public budgets, and they can prevent

problems with the implementation of public policies. To what extent they

also improve participation and democracy and increase legitimacy is a more

open question that needs to be discussed and explored through empirical

analysis. So far, only a limited number of such studies exist (Hertting &

Kugelberg, 2018; Verschuere et al., 2018; Warren, 2009).

This article will be concerned with “co-creation,” which we see as one

good example of governance-driven democratization (Warren, 2009), and

which can potentially address both the input and output side of the policy

circle (Dye, 2017). Co-creation is a governance-driven reform idea that has

the potential to strengthen democracy and legitimacy, but it also involves

risks and pitfalls we need to be aware of.

Co-creation is a broad and weakly developed concept, which may be one

reason why leaders in the public sector find it attractive. In many countries,

the native words used to express co-creation were almost unknown until

recently. In a short space of time, however, these words have developed into

a much used and, among many, highly praised reform idea (Røiseland & Lo,

2019). Still, there is probably less agreement among public sector leaders and

staff about what co-creation means in practical terms (Horsbøl, 2019), and

even among public sector scholars, “co-creation” seemingly is in its concep-

tual infancy (Voorberg et al., 2015).

The aim of this article is to critically discuss the relationship between co-

creation and democratic legitimacy by linking together different strands of

literature dealing with co-creation, democracy, and legitimacy (Beetham,

1991; Crozier, 2010; Gilley, 2009; Scharpf, 1999). The article will highlight

two fundamentally different types of co-creation—output-based versus