How to systematically analyze co‐production to inform future policies? Introducing 5Ws of co‐production

• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Author: Artur Steiner,Jane Farmer,Sophie Yates,Michael Moran,Karen Carlisle
• Date: 01 May 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13571

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How to systematically analyze co-production to inform future

policies?

Introducing 5Ws of co-production

Artur Steiner

1

| Jane Farmer

2

| Sophie Yates

3

| Michael Moran

4

| Karen Carlisle

5

1

Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health/

Glasgow School for Business and Society,

Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

2

Social Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne

University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

3

Public Service Research Group, School of

Business, UNSW Canberra, Northcott Drive,

Campbell, Australia

4

Centre for Social Impact, School of Business,

Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne

University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

5

College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook

University, James Cook Drive, Townsville,

Australia

Correspondence

Artur Steiner, Yunus Centre for Social Business

and Health/Glasgow School for Business and

Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, M201

George Moore Building, Cowcaddens Road,

Glasgow G4 0BA, UK

Email: artur.steiner@gcu.ac.uk

Abstract

The “woolliness”and “methodological hurdles”of co-production make it chal-

lenging to compare and contrast different co-production policy initiatives and

their outcomes, and distil “what works”, for whom and in what circumstances.

Inspired by Nabatchi et al. (2017) 3Ws typology of the Who,When, and What of co-

production, we draw on co-production theory deriving from a narrative literature

review and empirical research of co-production cases in Scotland and Australia.

We propose a new “5Ws”co-production framework of Who, When, What, Why,

and Where, arguing that the context (where) should be an integral part of

co-production analyses as socio-political, geographical conditions, and service

settings influence the processes and outcomes of co-production, and that the rea-

sons (why) behind co-production determine who is involved in co-production. The

paper suggests that the 5Ws of co-production can offer a useful theoretical lens

for analyzing a variety of international co-production cases to inform future poli-

cies and practice.

Evidence for practice

•The 5Ws framework including the Who, When, What, Why, and Where of co-

production provides a tool that enables comparison of a variety of international

co-production cases and verification of specific co-production characteristics

that can determine whether co-production works or not.

•The context (where) and the reasons (why) behind co-production should be an

integral part of co-production analyses as socio-political, geographical condi-

tions, and service settings influence co-production processes and outcomes, and

they determine who is involved in co-production.

•Without considering the where and why of co-production, co-production

attempts may fail, leading to a costly public administration exercise that can

jeopardize future engagement and the buy-in of co-production stakeholders.

•The 5Ws typology enables a more nuanced approach to understanding features

of successful co-production that considers tangible aspects of public administra-

tion policies, governance structures, geographical issues, service delivery set-

tings and networks, as well as those less tangible aspects of citizens’

experiences and their motivations that make co-production effective.

•Our study provides evidence that a comparison of cases that are different in

many respects is possible and informative. If implemented longitudinally, the

5Ws of co-production could help to identify changes in features of co-

production over time and between different societies and different spaces.

Received: 12 April 2022 Revised: 19 October 2022 Accepted: 21 October 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13571

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribu tion and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

© 2022 The Authors. Public Administration Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Public Administration.

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:503–521. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar 503

In recent years, interest in citizen involvement in aspects

of public service delivery has “soared”(Brandsen & Hon-

ingh, 2016, p. 427), with a growing number of policies

presenting citizens as an untapped co-productive asset

(Jakobsen et al., 2019). Co-production of public services

implies that different actors, including public employees

and citizens, contribute to the service production process

(Ostrom, 1996). When the input and involvement of citizens

increase, the influence and role of government decrease

(Markantoni et al., 2019), and this can have diverse conse-

quences. In one way, decentralization of governing institu-

tions and increased participation of intended beneficiaries

in the co-production of services is associated with enhanced

quality of public services (Thomsen & Jensen, 2020). While

some argue that this interest in co-production is “one of the

unintended consequences of public service reforms”

(Nabatchi et al., 2017,p.767),othersseeitasadeliberate

direction for neoliberal policies to devolve responsibility for

meeting local needs to communities (Parker & Street, 2015),

allowing “governments [to] retreat from the direct provision

of public goods, services, and welfare”(Steiner & Farmer,

2018,p.119).Indeed,asinvolvingcitizensasproducerscan

lead to “considerable gains in public service provision effi-

ciency”(Jensen et al., 2019, p. 472), co-production is fre-

quently perceived by critics as a cheap form of service

delivery (Markantoni et al., 2018). Regardless of intentional-

ity, a noticeable collaborative turn in public service policies

and delivery is associated with greater responsiveness to

consumers, efficiency, and accountability, resulting in new

models of working (Jakobsen et al., 2019; Verschuere

et al., 2012). Here, we explore those new ways of collaborat-

ing and question: How can we systematically analyze co-

production cases?

Importantly, the term co-production is not new; it was

coined in the 1970s to describe the involvement of multiple

public and private actors, including citizens and clients, in

shaping service production (Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977). Citizen

and user involvement in designing and delivering goods

and services has since become an accepted option in

provider–consumer relationships. Co-production rose in

popularity in the 1980s (Brudney & England, 1983)before

moving into a “public management”paradigm (Alford &

Freijser, 2018, p. 40). Growing critiques of managerialism

and a rigid focus on performance led to a move toward

New Public Governance (Osborne, 2006), with co-production

being promoted as a cornerstone of 21st century service

delivery (Alford, 2015;Jakobsenetal.,2019), challenging tra-

ditional and frequently inefficient, bureaucratic and undem-

ocratic public management and administration (Alford &

Freijser, 2018). Indeed, “as public management began to

search for new ways of understanding the increasing com-

plexity of relations involved in producing public services, co-

production as a theoretical lens for public management

research began to re-emerge and gain attention”

(Sowa, 2016,p.585).

This ongoing yet still growing interest in co-

production led to a significant number of articles being

published under the broad umbrella-term of “co-produc-

tion”. As a popular concept that, arguably, can assist in

enhancing local democracy and citizenship, creating col-

laborations and understanding between service users and

service providers (Brudney et al., 2022), increasing social

capital, and achieving desired outcomes and developing

more efficient services (Uzochukwu & Thomas, 2018), co-

production has been embraced in a variety of studies

describing different contexts and co-production activities

(Hall & Paul Battaglio, 2018). In addition to the wealth of

studies commenting on co-production in different geo-

graphical, socio-political and economic contexts (Steen &

Brandsen, 2020), many academic articles describe differ-

ent forms of collaboration between citizens and the pub-

lic sector without referring to co-production, making it a

complex field to analyze.

Although positive, this richness in the field is somewhat

overwhelming. As a result, critiques of co-production

describe it as a “woolly”concept(Osborneetal.,2016)that

“lacks conceptual and definitional clarity”(Sorrentino

et al., 2018, p. 277). There is also a lack of commonly agreed

typologies and frameworks that can assist in analyzing co-

production cases (Jakobsen et al., 2019) to inform public

organization decision-making when co-production is a legiti-

mate solution to shortcomings in public administration

(Jensen et al., 2019). “Methodological hurdles”in the field

(Jakobsen, 2012, p. 28) and ad hoc analyses of co-

production make it difficult to compare and contrast differ-

ent initiatives and their outcomes, and distil “what works”,

for who and in what circumstances (Pawson, 2006). The lat-

ter represents a challenge, making it difficult to identify pat-

terns in existing and emerging studies, and draw

implications informing future policy and practice. This lack

of commonly used co-production frameworks and typolo-

gies is surprising considering that the theme is widespread

in political discourse and in practice. As such, to assist future

policy and practice, we answer calls for more systematized

ways to monitor, analyze and understand co-production

(Jakobsen, 2012;Osborneetal.,2016; Sorrentino et al., 20 18)

and we ask: How can we systematically analyze co-production

cases? As co-production cannot lead to better “governance,

resilience, or public value”in every instance (Quick & Feld-

man, 2014, p. 690), in writing this article we hope to make it

easier for public managers and public administration

scholars to identify success factors or otherwise of co-

production initiatives. We also draw policy implications

deriving from findings of this article.

Exploration of the above question came about

through pursuing our interests in the role of citizens in

public administration as well as multiple studies of co-

production with a variety of service-user groups in differ-

ent international contexts (Cal

o et al., 2019; Henderson

et al., 2019; Kelly et al., 2021). The latter stimulated a

desire for the systematic approach taken here. Through

our work, we have observed the twists and turns that co-

production can take (Steiner & Farmer, 2017), witnessing

extraordinary energy and enthusiasm from communities

504 HOW TO SYSTEMATICALLY ANALYZE CO-PRODUCTION TO INFORM FUTURE POLICIES?

INTRODUCING 5Ws OF CO-PRODUCTION