Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

• Author: Alessandro Sancino,Mariafrancesca Sicilia,Tina Nabatchi
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017

766 Public Administration Review • September | October 2017

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 5, pp. 766–776. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12765.

Mariafrancesca Sicilia is associate

professor at the University of Bergamo, Italy,

and visiting fellow in the Department of

Public Leadership and Social Enterprise at

The Open University, United Kingdom. Her

research covers public sector accounting

and accountability and models of public

service delivery.

E-mail: mariafrancesca.sicilia@unibg.it

Alessandro Sancino is a lecturer in

management in the Department of Public

Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open

University, United Kingdom. His research

focuses on citizen participation and

stakeholder engagement across the public

policy cycle and how public outcomes are

co-created within a place.

E-mail: alessandro.sancino@open.ac.uk

Tina Nabatchi is associate professor

of public administration and international

affairs and a Tenth Decade Scholar in

the Maxwell School of Citizenship and

Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Her

research focuses on citizen participation,

collaborative governance, and dispute

resolution in public administration.

E-mail: tnabatch@syr.edu

Abstract : Despite an international resurgence of interest in coproduction, confusion about the concept remains.

This article attempts to make sense of the disparate literature and clarify the concept of coproduction in public

administration. Based on some definitional distinctions and considerations about who is involved in coproduction,

when in the service cycle it occurs, and what is generated in the process, the article offers and develops a typology of

coproduction that includes three levels (individual, group, collective) and four phases (commissioning, design, delivery,

assessment). The levels, phases, and typology as a whole are illustrated with several examples. The article concludes

with a discussion of implications for research and practice.

Practitioner Points

• Reflecting on the who, when, and what of coproduction can help address the conceptual confusion and

ambiguity surrounding coproduction.

• The typology developed in this article provides terminological clarity by offering vocabulary for describing

and defining variations of coproduction.

• The typology of coproduction enables practitioners to identify different forms of coproduction and to select

the type that is best aligned with their goals and purposes.

• Describing and explaining the variations in coproduction may facilitate the examination and comparison of

cases and experiences and contribute to improvements in evaluation, transparency, and communication.

Tina Nabatchi

Syracuse University

Alessandro Sancino

The Open University, United Kingdom

Mariafrancesca Sicilia

University of Bergamo, Italy

Varieties of Participation in Public Services:

The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

I nterest in coproduction has waxed and waned

since the concept was first introduced in the 1970s

and early 1980s to explain and give theoretical

foundation to practices that involved members of

the public in the delivery of public services. In recent

years, the concept has seen a global resurgence of

interest among scholars and practitioners, evidenced

by the growing number of international study groups,

special journal issues, and scholarly and practitioner

publications, as well as by the growing number

of coproduction programs and activities in public

organizations. Despite the volume of scholarly and

practitioner work in public administration, confusion

about coproduction remains (Brandsen and Honingh

2016 ; Jo and Nabatchi 2016 ). This confusion stems

from several definitional and conceptual problems, as

well as from empirical issues, with the latter arguably

being a function, at least in part, of the former.

First, although it is perhaps better defined and

understood in the business sector (Agarwal 2013 ), no

clear and consistently used definition of coproduction

appears in the public administration literature. In

public administration, coproduction is generally

understood to mean “the involvement of both users

and public sector professionals in the delivery of

public services” (Nabatchi et al. 2016 ); however, “this

definition is neither used consistently nor applied

in ways that make clear what does (and does not)

constitute coproduction” (Jo and Nabatchi 2016 ,

1104; cf. Brandsen and Honingh 2016 ; Van Kleef and

Van Eijk 2016). This definitional ambiguity, along

with the growing bandwagon effect, has led scholars

and practitioners to apply the term “coproduction” to

a wide range of areas and activities that involve a wide

range of actors.

Second, given definitional and conceptual confusion

and the breadth of applications, the evidence base for

coproduction is relatively weak (Bovaird and Loeffler

2016 ; Brandsen and Honingh 2016 ). Coproduction

is often the subject of exploratory, single case study

research, seldom the subject of explanatory research, and

rarely, if ever, the subject of comparative research

and meta-analysis (Brandsen and Honingh 2016 ; Jo

and Nabatchi 2016 ; Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers

2015 ). Moreover, the normative appeal and orthodoxy

surrounding coproduction may be hindering needed

empirical scrutiny. Thus, different studies use different

interpretations of coproduction, calling into question