Who Engages in the Coproduction of Local Public Services and Why? The Case of Atlanta, Georgia

• Author: John Clayton Thomas,Kelechi Uzochukwu
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12893

514 Public Administration Review • July | A ugus t 201 8

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 4, pp. 514–526. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12893.

Who Engages in the Coproduction of Local Public Services

and Why? The Case of Atlanta, Georgia

John Clayton Thomas is professor

in the Department of Public Management

and Policy in the Andrew Young School of

Policy Studies at Georgia State University.

He has written four books and more

than 60 articles on citizen-government

relationships, performance measurement

and management, and other aspects of

public management. Dr. Thomas also served

for 30 years as editor of the

American

Review of Public Administration

.

E-mail: jcthomas@gsu.edu

Kelechi Uzochukwu is assistant

professor at the School of Public and

International Affairs, College of Public

Affairs, University of Baltimore. Her

research focuses on enhancing the quality

of life for distressed populations, both

domestically and abroad. Her specific

research interests are situated in the fields

of planning, community development, and

citizen participation. Dr. Uzochukwu enjoys

teaching statistics, research methods,

urban policy, and community economic

development.

E-mail: kuzochukwu@ubalt.edu

Abstract: With the resurgent interest in coproduction, questions arise around who joins with government in

coproducing services and why. This article reports an exploratory study of these questions using data from Atlanta,

Georgia. To guide the research, the article first proposes a set of hypotheses on involvement in coproduction based on

theories of political participation, where psychological motivations and social factors dominate, and citizen-initiated

contacting, where perceived needs for public services are usually primary. The hypotheses are tested using survey data on

the engagement of 797 neighborhood organization participants in various forms of local coproduction in Atlanta. The

findings provide some support for both theories along with evidence for significant idiosyncratic variations suggested

by neither theory. A concluding section considers implications of the findings for future research and for public

management.

Evidence for Practice

• Many public services can be delivered effectively only if members of the public join in their production—if,

in other words, they partner in service coproduction.

• To maximize the potential of coproduction, public managers need to understand who engages in

coproduction and why.

• This research suggests that the public engages for a variety of reasons, some having to do with personal

psychological orientations (including public service motivation) and others having to do with personal

service needs.

• Practitioners may also find that African Americans and people with lower income and less education engage

more in coproductive activities, contrary to the traditional socioeconomic stratification that is customary

with political participation.

Coproduction refers to a phenomenon whereby

citizens partner with government to jointly

produce public services. Coproduction

has been around for as long as governments have

existed, but it was not explicitly recognized until the

pioneering work of Elinor Ostrom and a handful of

other U.S. scholars in the late 1970s (e.g., Brudney

and England 1983; Levine 1984; Ostrom et al.

1978; Parks et al. 1981; Percy, Kiser, and Parks

1980; Whitaker 1980). After virtually disappearing

from academic discourse for almost two decades, the

phenomenon has drawn new attention recently, first

overseas and then in the United States again.

With the renewed attention has come a variety of

questions about the nature of coproduction, including

who in the public joins in service coproduction and

why. This exploratory study seeks answers to that

question using survey data on the participation of

neighborhood activists in various forms of local

coproduction in Atlanta, Georgia.

The article proceeds as follows. We first review

the history of the coproduction concept, in

the process defining the meaning and types of

coproduction. Lacking prior theory on who engages

in coproduction, we next draw on theories of other

forms of citizen engagement to propose hypotheses

specific to coproduction. After an explanation of the

research methodology, a findings section details what

the data tell us about the hypotheses. We conclude

by discussing the limitations of the research and the

possible implications for theories of coproduction

and for public administrators who seek to engage the

public in coproduction.

The Signif‌icance and Meaning

of Coproduction

A new sense of the potential significance of

coproduction appears to explain the phenomenon’s

reemergence in both governmental and academic

circles. First, students of public services have

increasingly recognized that the effectiveness of

Kelechi Uzochukwu

University of Baltimore

John Clayton Thomas

Georgia State University

Research Article