Defining and Measuring Coproduction: Deriving Lessons from Practicing Local Government Managers

• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Author: Jeffrey (Jeff) L. Brudney,Yuan (Daniel) Cheng,Lucas Meijs
• Date: 01 September 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13476

Research Article

Def‌ining and Measuring Coproduction: Deriving Lessons from Practicing Local Government Managers 795

Abstract: Following a lapse in scholarly attention, coproduction, the joint production of services by government

officials and citizens, has re-emerged as an important topic. However, the field lacks information on broad parameters

of coproduction implementation and how public managers view coproduction. To address the lacuna, this study

examines patterns of implementation of coproduction in a national sample of municipalities and counties in the

U.S. According to their chief administrators, nearly half these governments have implemented one or more stages of

coproduction, although co-delivery of services occurs least often. Empirical analysis suggests that the implementation

of coproduction, as perceived by local government managers, can be measured along a unidimensional scale and that

this measurement scale is robust across different subgroups. We also find that local governments that have a larger

population, provide more services, have more professional forms of administration, and are located in the western U.S.

more often implement elements of coproduction.

Evidence for Practice

• Coproduction can be considered as a series of stages or phases: co-planning, co-designing, co-delivering, and

co-assessing.

• From the perspective of public managers, local governments’ involvement of citizens in planning, designing,

delivering, and assessing services is interconnected. If local governments involve citizens in one type of

coproduction, they are more likely to involve citizens in other types of coproduction of the same public

service or somewhere else.

• Although the implementation of any stage or phase of coproduction can prove demanding, from the

perspectives of practicing local government managers, co-delivering services occurs least frequently and likely

presents the greatest challenges.

• Local governments with larger population, those providing more services, those with a more professionalized

form of administration, and those located in the western region of the United States are more likely to

engage in stages or phases of coproduction.

As with any definition, the issue is not

whether the interpretations of coproduction

found in the literature are valid, but whether

they are useful. That is, coproduction should

be defined in a way that is relevant both to

policymakers interested in implementing or

evaluating coproduction programs and to

academics concerned with operationalizing the

concept in actual service delivery situations.

(Brudney and England1983, 61, emphasis in

the original)

Nearly 40 years ago in 1981 Elinor Ostrom

and her colleagues in the Workshop in

Political Theory and Policy Analysis at

Indiana University introduced the concept of

“coproduction,” or the joint production of services

by government officials and lay citizens, to students

of political science and public administration

(Parks et al.1981). It did not take long before

scholars became concerned with appropriate

conceptualization. Indeed, even the pioneering work

of the Indiana Workshop members professed the

intention to “explore the concept of coproduction

in an effort to sharpen the definition of that

concept and add rigor to our understanding” (Parks

et al.1981, 1001). Writing shortly thereafter,

Brudney and England(1983)—from whose Public

Administration Review article the above quotation

emanates—sought to elucidate the coproduction

Jeffrey (Jeff) L. Brudney

Yuan (Daniel) Cheng

Lucas Meijs

Defining and Measuring Coproduction: Deriving Lessons

from Practicing Local Government Managers

University of North Carolina Wilmington

University of Minnesota

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Jeffrey (Jeff) L. Brudney: Deceased.

Jeffrey (Jeff) L. Brudney: In loving memory of our beloved friend,

coauthor, and mentor. This manuscript would not exist without

you. Thank you for paving the way, for pushing the f‌ield forward,

for setting an example of excellence and kindness, and for

cultivating generations of scholars. We deeply miss you.

Lucas Meijs is a Professor at Rotterdam

School of Management, Erasmus University

Rotterdam, Netherlands. His current

research focuses on issues related to

strategic philanthropy, volunteer/non-

profit management, corporate community

involvement, voluntary energy as a natural

resource and involved learning (life-long

development by volunteering).

Email: lmeys@rsm.nl

Yuan (Daniel) Cheng is an assistant

professor in the Humphrey School of Public

Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

His research focuses on government-

nonprofit relations, coproduction, and the

distributional and performance implications

of cross-sectoral collaboration.

Email: cheng838@umn.edu

Jeffrey (Jeff) L. Brudney was the Betty

and Dan Cameron Family Distinguished

Professor of Innovation in the Nonprofit

Sector, Department of Public and

International Affairs, University of North

Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC,

USA. His research focused on nonprofit

management, public service delivery,

research methods and statistics, and

volunteering and volunteer programs.

Email: brudneyj@uncw.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 82, Iss. 5, pp. 795–805. © 2022 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13476.