User and Community Co-Production of Publ

User and community co-production of public services
15.02.2014rev.
Chapter 7
USER AND COMMUNITY CO-PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES: WHAT

INFLUENCES CITIZENS TO CO-PRODUCE?
Tony Bovaird, Elke Loeffler, Gregg van Ryzin and Salvador Parrado
INTRODUCTION
The traditional concept of the state, as represented by Max Webers model of bureaucracy, is
characterized by hierarchical and rule-based decision making and by public service delivery
through government agencies. However, hierarchical authority is no longer the dominant element
of the state, as participatory structures and processes in public administration have emerged. Coproduction is a core element in the institutional order of the participatory state.
User and community co-production of public services has become an important topic in public
administration, especially in light of the fiscal pressures facing many governments. Theoretical
discussion (Ostrom 1996; Alford 2002, 2009; Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Pestoff 2012) and case
studies (Whelan and Dupont 1986; Ostrom 1996; Alford 1998, 2009; Bovaird 2007) have
highlighted the potential of co-production but there has been little empirical research on citizen
co-production behaviours for large samples at national populations or local government level.
The research reported here has addressed this gap.

Most definitions of co-production stem from the seminal work by Ostrom and Ostrom (1977).
They typically refer to the contribution of resources by service users and providers for the
provision of a good or service, or for raising the level and/or quality of their provision (Brudney,
1983). For the research in this chapter, we have used the definition from Governance
International that co-production is about Professionals and citizens making better use of each
others assets, resources and contributions to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency
(www.govint.org, accessed on 16 February 2014).
As examples of how important co-production may be to the creation of public value, in the UK
there are about 1.8m regular blood donors, 8m people signed up as potential organ donors, and
10m people within Neighborhood Watch schemes, all of which are essentially individual coproduction activities. More collectively, about 350,000 school governors help run schools and
may have a legal liability for the affairs of the school; about 5.6m people help to run sports
clubs; 750,000 people volunteer to assist teachers in schools; and 170,000 volunteer in the NHS.
Moreover, in 2008, there were over 109 active time banks across the UK, in which 600,000
hours of time had been mutually exchanged (Ryan-Collins, Stephens and Coote, 2008) and this is
growing. The Quirk Review (2007) estimated that there were well over 14,500 community
buildings in the UK in community ownership and management and that, in addition,
development trusts owned and managed at least 300m worth of social assets. In addition, about
90% of the care of people in need of social care in the UK is estimated to be given by unpaid
carers family, friends, neighbors, organized volunteers, etc. These make an enormous
contribution to the economy and to society it has been estimated that the value of unpaid social
care is around 89bn p.a., compared to the 19bn p.a. of social care public expenditure (Buckner
and Yeandle, 2007).
2

In this chapter, we explore co-production behaviours and attitudes, and how they correlate with
citizen characteristics, using data from a unique, large-sample survey in five countries (the UK,
France, Germany, Denmark and the Czech Republic).
DRIVERS AND CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION: THE LITERATURE
A number of studies have suggested that co-production may arise in part as a response to
shortcomings in government performance or public service provision. Studies using public
choice theory have focused, for example, on questions such as how choice of a school helps
parents to be active co-producers (Hill et al.1997; Brandl 1998). Bifulco and Ladd (2006) show
that contextual factors are more useful than institutional arrangements (charter schools vs. public
schools) in explaining higher co-production in education by some parents. Contextual factors are
also used by Marschall (2004) in order to explain why residents who perceive substantial
problems in neighbourhood schools and crime are more likely to co-produce.
Individual attitudes, values and motivations are also likely to explain variation in co-production
behaviours. Sharp (1978), for instance, distinguished among material incentives (money, goods
or services), solidarity incentives (the sense of belonging to a group), or expressive incentives
(intangible rewards or satisfaction with morally good actions). Alford (2002, 2009) expanded
this list to five possible sets of motivators including sanctions (punishment of deviating actions)
and intrinsic motivation, which refers to the clients sense of self-determination and competence.
Alford (2002, 2009) concluded that material rewards and sanctions would work, if at all, only in
the simplest of tasks. Instead, clients are more likely to be motivated by more complex rewards
that include expressive incentives, solidarity and intrinsic rewards.
3

Essential to such intrinsic rewards is the notion of self-efficacy, which refers to the sense
acquired by an individual that they can carry out actions which entail some expected results. For
example, political self-efficacy is "the feeling that political and social change is possible, and
that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change" (Campbell, Gurin, and
Miller 1954, 187, quoted in Madsen 1987, 572). Research on self-efficacy, the belief in ones
ability to perform a given task (Bandura, 1997 and 2001; Gist & Mitchell, 1992), has generally
supported positive relationships between self-efficacy and a range of performance measures and
outcomes including task effort, persistence, expressed interest, and the level of goal difficulty
selected for performance. According to Bandura (1997, 2001), ones self-efficacy beliefs
significantly determine performance outcomes, and are not necessarily determined by the
underlying skills that one possesses with regard to the task. Self-efficacy of citizens, therefore,
might be an important factor in co-production.
Finally, we expect co-production behaviour to vary by demographic and socio-economic factors,

including age, gender, education, employment status, and urban context. In particular, studies of
civic engagement and volunteering suggest that women tend to volunteer more than men (Einolf,
2011); that older people generally engage more than younger people (Putnam 2001); and that
education level is positively related to various forms of civic participation (Egerton 2002;
Hayghe, 1991). Although it imposes constraints on free time, regular employment also facilitates
networks and other resources that increase capacity for volunteering and civic engagement
(Wilson & Musick, 1997). Thus, it is likely that the effects of these demographic and socioeconomic factors may be similar in predicting co-production behaviors.

INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON CO-PRODUCTION
The literature suggests a number of potentially important institutional influences on coproduction, some (although not all) of which we have been able to explore in our study. Firstly,
the level and nature of co-production is likely to be shaped by the administrative and cultural
context of a society, including public attitutudes to the role of the state and the level of both
bonding and bridging social capital in civil society. The present study includes five different
countries from distinct administrative traditions: Anglo-Saxon (United Kingdom), Germanic
(Germany), Scandinavian (Denmark), Napoleonic (France), as well as a former communist
regime (Czech Republic). However, five countries provide an insufficient sample to uncover
statistically significant differences between contexts, and we need to bear this in mind when
interpreting the data.
Different policy sectors are also likely to have a differential impact on co-production. Haas
(1992) claims that the networks of knowledge-based experts (or epistemic communities)
constitute a source of power in framing the collective debate on issues related to the professions.
In service delivery, this implies that policy areas in which service providers are highly
professionalized with very specialized knowledge are likely to be less conducive to coproduction. The types of professionals who dominate in the services on which we focus in this
study (community safety, local environment, and public health) differ considerably in their
degree of specialization. Health requires specialists with a university degree, while the other two
services involve fieldworkers with less specialized education. It is therefore expected that the
challenges arising from transition of a traditional expert-based health system to a co-produced

health system will be considerable (Dunston et al. 2009; Porter et al. 2010), so that health will be
less conducive to co-production than the other two services.
METHODOLOGY OF THE EU FIVE-COUNTRY STUDY
The empirical investigation reported here compares the current state of user and community coproduction in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK in 2008. It is based
on a cross-national survey of users, a series of focus groups, and in-depth interviews conducted
by the authors with a range of officers of public service organisations (in public, private and third
sector organisations) and with representatives of users and community groups.
A citizen survey was conducted by telephone among a representative random sample of about
1,000 interviews in each of the five countries. The full study is reported in Loeffler et al (2008).
The results presented here are weighted according to each countrys representation in the EU.
Where figures are compared across countries or sectors, they are statistically significant at least
at the .05 level.
The study focused on three different sectors which reflect distinctly different types of
government functions. Co-production by citizens in community safety, local environment and
public health may involve a whole range of activities, from helping to identify the problems,
helping to prevent the problems, right through to solving the problems and dealing with the
damage done by the problems. In the survey, given the limited resources available and the short
time afforded by telephone interviews, we decided to survey all citizens, rather than survey
6

service users only (since it is much harder to achieve representative samples of the latter). The
survey focused particularly on preventative activities of citizens, asking them what they currently
do and what they would be prepared to do in the future - to help public agencies to prevent
problems from arising. However, in the community safety questions, citizens were also asked
about how they personally dealt with some problems, specifically how they react when they
come across crime and anti-social behavior?
FINDINGS FROM EU FIVE-COUNTRY STUDY

How important is the role of citizens in public service delivery?
When we asked this question of the focus groups in the five countries, the overall reaction of
professional service providers was we dont know but probably very little. Indeed,
participants often had to be challenged by the facilitators to come up with examples of citizen
involvement in service delivery. However, in the citizen survey, contrary to the assumptions of
focus group participants, the responses showed a significant level of co-production by citizens in
all five countries and in all three sectors.
We measured co-production in the different sectors by a 0-100 co-production index, which we

created for each sector, representing the sum of five specific questions in each sector about coproduction behaviour.1 As Graph 1 shows, citizens are particularly active in taking steps to look
after the local environment (index score 61), rather less active in health improvement initiatives
(index score 52) and considerably less active in prevention of crime (index score 45). The co-
The index is a min-max (0-100) scale, with 0 representing minimum co-production (answering
"never" to all the co-production questions) and 100 representing maximum (answering "often" to
all the co-production questions).
7

production index for reporting crime to the police and making personal interventions to stop
someone behaving in an anti-social way was much lower (33).
Graph 1: Total level of co-production in community safety, local environment and

health issues
Index of co-production
Environmental
improvement
61
Health
improvement
52
Safety (crime
prevention)
45
Safety (crime
reporting)
33
0
None
100
Maximum
Where co-production works well and less well

Graph 2 shows that in general citizens in these five countries show particularly high levels of
engagement when they can undertake activities which do not need much effort by themselves
and do not require getting in touch with third parties. This applies, for example, to locking doors
and windows in their home before going out, recycling household rubbish and saving water and
electricity, which about 80% of citizens indicate as doing often. All these activities do not
require interactions with other citizens or public sector organisations. When it comes to makes
changes to personal lifestyle, there is a sharp drop e.g. in the number of citizens who walk,

cycle or use public transport, change to a more healthy diet or try to exercise. Just about 50% of
citizens reported doing these often.
Graph 2: A ranking list of co-production: What citizens like doing best and least
Co-production indicators (in rank order)
Take care to lock doors, w indow s
Try to recycle household rubbish
Try to save w ate/electricity at hom e
Walk, cycle, or use public transport
Change to a m ore healthy diet
Try to exercise
Keep an eye on neighbor's hom e
Ask neighbors to w atch your hom e
See doctor for health check
Take care of sick fam ily or friends
Tell others not to drop rubbish
Intervene to stop anti-social behavior
Report crim e to police
Report com m unity safety problem
Participate in health group (often)
Participate in environm ental group (often)
Participate in public safety group (often)
Ask police for safety advice
0
10 20 30 40
50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent 'often' (or 'yes')
Interestingly, all the activities at the bottom of the ranking list, meaning that citizens are rather
less inclined to undertake them on a regular basis, involve getting involved with others be it a
neighbor, a doctor, the police or strangers. At the very bottom of the responses on prevention
activities is seeking advice from the police on safety issues. However, as Graph 2 shows, there
are quite a few other activities with similarly low rates of response. In particular, very few
respondents participate regularly in groups, whether the topic is community safety, local
9

environment or health. This clearly demonstrates that seeking to tackle these issues simply
through organised associations has major limitations. For a focus on organized associations as
creators of volunteer energy, see Brudney and An (2014) in this volume.
It is not surprising that only a very few citizens wish to get engaged in some organised form on a
regular basis. This is where the so-called usual suspects come in, even though some countries
seem to have more than others (see Graph 3).
Graph 3: Levels of regular participation in community safety, local environmental and
health organisations/groups across countries
How often do you participate in a group or organisation that

works to improve ...
16
Percent "Often"
14
12
10
Safety
Environment
Health
6
4
2
0
Total
France
Germany
UK
Czech
Denmark
Clearly, the level of regular participation of European citizens in groups and organisations is
highest in health (9.7%), followed by environment (7.9%) and then safety (5.9%). This is an
interesting finding since the index of overall co-production activities of European citizens is
highest in local environment and not in health (see Graph 1). The fact that more citizens coproduce in health by getting organised may indicate a lack of availability of individual forms of
10

co-production, which may partly be due to the attitudes of professionals working in health care,
as participants in several focus groups on health issues suggested.
The number of organised activists in community safety and environmental issues is lowest in
Denmark (2.4% in safety-related organisations and 3.5 % in environmental organisations),
whereas the UK has the highest proportion of citizens who often take part in organisations to
improve safety in their neighbourhood (12.2%). This is not surprising, given that over 10 million
people are members of UK neighbourhood watch groups (although admittedly not all are active).
The UK also has the highest number of citizens who often get involved in environmental groups
and organisations (9%), although a high proportion of Czech citizens also participate often in
groups or organisations to improve the local environment (8.4%). Looking at citizens who
frequently participate in groups and organisations dealing with health, the range of responses was
between 13.5% of Czech citizens and 6.5% of citizens in France.
It is interesting to see from Graph 2 how many people are prepared often to take steps to
encourage others to behave more appropriately, e.g. telling them not to drop rubbish (26%) and
intervening to stop anti-social behaviour (17%). Given that these are high effort actions, and not
to be undertaken lightly, this indicates that there is a significant group of the population who see
themselves as real activists, at least in those areas about which they genuinely care. It also
suggests that the deterrent to involvement in group activities is not inherently the effort involved.
In summary, the survey has shown that:
11

o there is already a lot more citizen involvement in public services than professionals in our
focus groups suggested (particularly in local environmental and health issues).
o involvement of citizens in public services clearly increases with age, so that the ageing
society is good news in terms of increasing levels of co-production (although also
potentially posing more demand on public services).
o citizens are most willing to contribute towards improving public services when it
involves them in relatively little effort and when they do not have to work closely with
other citizens or public sector staff.
Regression results of the Five Country study
Our multiple regression analyses examined the correlates or predictors of co-production in each
of three policy areas, using two alternative measures of co-production (Parrado et al 2013).
Table 2 shows the regression analysis of co-production behaviours (the index of five behaviours
in each of the three policy areas), and Table 3 shows the regression analysis of the willingness to
volunteer to co-produce. The significant coefficients (p < .05) are shown in bold and shaded. In
both tables, the predictors include efficacy of citizens, government performance, information and
consultation, conditions, and demographic factors (age, education, urban, and active in the labor
force). Most of the predictors proved to be statistically significant in multiple instances (far
more than would be expected, given that at the 0.05 confidence level, one in twenty coefficients
will show as significant simply by chance). However, the relationships which are most likely to
12

be robust are those which are significant across policy areas within countries, or significant
within a single policy area across countries.
It is clear that citizens sense of personal efficacy is by far the most consistent and strongest
predictor, both of co-production behaviours (Table 2) and willingness to co-produce (Table 3),
across all three policy areas and all five countries. Those who believe that ordinary citizens can
make a difference in a policy area are more likely to be engaged in co-production behaviours
themselves and more willing to volunteer to co-produce.
In general, the pattern of correlation between citizens who co-produce and those who are
satisfied with government performance, information and consultation is weak and inconsistent.
While satisfaction with government performance is largely negative (or near zero), as expected,
it is only statistically significant in two of the 15 contexts. Satisfaction with government
information was largely positively correlated with co-production, although again only
statistically significant in two of the 15 contexts. Satisfaction with government consultation has
rather inconsistent relationships with co-production although the relationship was statistically
significant in four of the 15 contexts, this was twice positive and twice negative.
As expected we found that the perceived conditions generally have a negative association with
co-production behaviours (Table 2). All the statistically significant coefficients are negative in
relation to conditions and almost all other coefficients are zero or negative. This is strongly the
case with respect to safety - that is, better safety appears to lead very strongly to less coproduction, suggesting that citizen involvement in safety co-production behaviours are in part a
response to low levels of perceived safety in their community.
13

While a negative association between conditions and co-production is also noticeable with
respect to the willingness to volunteer to co-produce (Table 3), the relationships here are weak
and mostly insignificant statistically. This is particularly interesting from a policy perspective,
suggesting that those who have been most goaded into co-production activities by dissatisfaction
with local conditions may be already undertaking as much as they are prepared to do.
Looking at the socio-demographic factors, women generally engage more often in co-production
behaviours, particularly in the health sector (in all five countries) and in other sectors in the
Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany (see Table 2). Women appear only somewhat more
willing to volunteer to co-produce more (see Table 3), again in the health sector. Again, this is
consistent with the hypothesis that the willingness of women to co-produce more than men has
already been realized in their actual behaviour, so that they are no more likely than men to be
seeking further opportunities.
Older citizens are more likely to engage in co-production behaviours related to safety in all five
countries, and age is more broadly related to co-production behaviours in Germany and France.
However, older people generally report less willingness to volunteer to co-produce more,
especially in the Czech Republic and in the UK. Again, this is plausible, given that many of this
group is likely to be reaching physical limits on their time and energy. The rather higher
willingness of younger people to co-produce more may also be a reflection of the relative lack of
practical opportunities for young people to volunteer in ways which fit their lifestyle this is
consistent with comments made in the focus groups.
Being active in the labour force has a generally weak and inconsistent relationship with coproduction behaviour, having a positive relationship with safety co-production in Germany and
14

the UK but a negative relationship with environmental co-production in Denmark. Education
also has a weak and inconsistent relationship with co-production behaviours across sectors and
countries (Table 2) this is highly at variance with international evidence that participation in
general is strongly correlated with level of education. It may indicate that the participation
literature is highly focused on more consultative participation, rather than the preventative and
service delivery behaviours on which we focused. Living in an urban area or rural areas appears
to make no difference to co-production behaviour (Table 2).
In sum, the most consistent and largest predictor of both co-production behaviour and
willingness to volunteer across sectors and countries turned out to be citizens sense of efficacy.
We therefore ran additional regressions on the extent to which the other independent variables
might predict or explain efficacy (Table 4). Satisfaction with government performance and with
government information tend to be positively related to efficacy, as are perceived conditions in a
policy area. This leads to the paradoxical situation that, while good conditions may directly
dissuade citizens from co-production, good conditions may indirectly encourage co-production
through enhancing citizens sense of efficacy. Women seem to have a somewhat heightened
sense of efficacy, particularly with respect to the environment. Older citizens generally have a
lower sense of efficacy (particularly in the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany). University
educated citizens sense more efficacy in health matters. Efficacy does not seem to depend much
on urban residence, and being active in the labour force appears positively related to efficacy in a
few sectors in some countries (Denmark and Germany).
DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
15

This analysis of correlates of citizen co-production of public services in three key policy areas public safety, the environment, and health - has found that women and older citizens generally
engage more often in co-production. The finding that women are more likely to be co-producers
than men is consistent with research that has identified a higher support for the public sector
among women than among men, partly because public sector organizations employ more women
and the public sector has taken over some care responsibilities of women (Christensen and
Laegreid 2005). Likewise, the high engagement of elderly people in co-production compared to
younger people is consistent with some findings that older people trust more in government as a
consequence of their more collective orientation and their first-hand experience of building up
the Welfare State (Christensen and Laegreid 2005).
We expected that pluralistic administrative traditions (like the UK) or traditions with more
autonomous citizens (like Denmark) would have higher levels of co-production. The results
show that the highest level of co-production is indeed in the UK. However, it turned out to be
lowest in Denmark this may be connected with the finding that those most satisfied with public
services are least likely to get involved in co-production, since Danes were the most satisfied of
all five populations with conditions in all three services. Of course, it is not possible to conclude
that differences in co-production across the five countries in the sample are caused by differences
in their administrative tradition, rather than the many other factors that differ across countries.
However, it is clear that both the levels and the drivers of self-reported co-production vary
greatly between countries, factors which are worth exploring in future research.
We also expected that highly professionalized services like health would trigger less coproduction because health professionals are likely to be more reluctant to let users co-produce
16

services. In practice, the survey results showed less co-production activity in health in all five
countries than local environmental improvement but health actually scored better than
community safety in four of the five countries, a result which we hope to probe more deeply in
further work. This may in part be explained by the high involvement of the protecting state in
community safety (and the ambivalence of many citizens about involvement with the police as
emphasized to us by the community safety focus group in the Czech Republic in particular).
We found, as expected, that self-efficacythe belief that citizens can make a differenceis an
especially important determinant across sectors. Further, self-efficacy seems to be linked also to
good performance of government in service delivery. It will be important in future research to
explore whether self-efficacy is endogenous, i.e. existing coproduction levels could influence
citizens sense of self-efficacy, or whether an unmeasured variable (such as community or
personal values) is influencing both self-efficacy and willingness to co-produce.
Interestingly, we also found that good performance (in the sense of a safe neighbourhood, a clean
environment, and good health) seems to have a negative direct effect on co-production,
suggesting that co-production may depend in part on awareness of a shortfall in public
performance, in line with the results reported by Marschall (2004). But good performance may
have a positive indirect effect on co-production, in turn, by enhancing citizens self-efficacy.
Finally, this research has thrown up a major challenge to the public sector citizens report a
level of engagement in activities relevant to improving the outcomes of public services which is
considerably in excess of that expected by local public officials and other stakeholders. The
contrast between the focus group and survey responses suggests that public sector officials have
only a very limited understanding of the co-production activities which are going on in their field
17

and in their area. This further suggests that user and community co-production of public services
is not properly understood, never mind systematically managed, so that its potential benefits are
not currently being maximized. Further research will explore on why this is and what might be
done to bring the perceptions of public sector officials better into line with reality.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. (2002) Why do Public-Sector Clients Co-produce? Toward a Contingency Theory.

Administration & Society, 34 (1):32-56.
Alford, J. (2009) Engaging Public Sector Clients. From Service Delivery to Co-production.
London, Palgrave.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY, USA: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001) Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52;126.
Bifulco, R. and Ladd, H. F. (2006) 'Institutional Change and Coproduction of Public Services:
The Effect of Charter Schools on Parental Involvement'. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 16 (4):553.
Bovaird, T. (2007) 'Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction
of Public Services'. Public Administration Review, 67 (5):846.
Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2012) From Engagement to Co-Production: How Users and
Communities Contribute to Public Services. In: Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and
Verschuere, B. eds. New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production. New
York: Routledge.
18

Brandl, J. E. (1998) Civic Values in Public and Private Schools. In: Peterson, P. E. and Hassel,
B. C. eds. Learning from School Choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Brudney, J. L. (1983) 'The Evaluation of Coproductive Programs'. Policy Studies Journal, 12 (2):
376.
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2005) Trust In Government: The Relative Importance Of
Service Satisfaction, Political Factors, And Demography. Public Performance &
Management Review, 28 ( 4): 487511.
Dunston, R. A., Lee, D., Boud, P, Brodie and M. Chiarella (2009) Co-Production and Health
System Reform From Re-Imagining To Re-Making. The Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 68 (1):39-52.
Einolf, C. J. (2011) Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable
Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (6):1092-1112.
Egerton, M. (2002) Higher Education and Civic Engagement. The British Journal of Sociology,
53(4): 603620.
Gist, M.E., and Mitchell, T.R. (1992) Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17:183211.
Haas, P. M. (1992) Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy
Coordination .International Organization, 46 (1):1-35.
Hayghe, H. V. (1991) Volunteers in the U.S.: Who Donates the Time. Monthly Labor Review,
114: 17-23.
Hill, P., Pierce, L.C. and Guthrie, J.W. (1997) Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting
Can Transform Americas Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19

Loeffler, E. Parrado, S., Bovaird, T. and Van Ryzin, G. (2008) If You Want to Go Fast, Walk
Alone. If You Want to Fo Far, Walk Together: Citizens and the Co-production of Public
Services. Paris: French Ministry of the Treasury, Public Accounts and Civil Service , on
behalf of the Presidency of the EU.
Madsen, D. (1987) Political Self-Efficacy Tested. American Political Science Review, 81
(2):571-582.
Marschall, M. J. (2004) Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the
Coproduction of Local Public Goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57 (2):231-244.
Ostrom, E.. (1996) Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.
World Development, 24 (6):1073-1087.
Ostrom, V., and OstromE. (1977) Public Goods and Public Choices. In: Savas, E.S. ed.
Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance,. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Parrado, S.P., van Ryzin, G., Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2013) Correlates of co-production:
Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management
Journal, 16 (1):85-112.
Pestoff, V. (2012) Co-Production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Crucial Conceptual Issues.
In: Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B. eds. New Public Governance, the Third
Sector and Co-Production. New York: Routledge.
Porter, M. E. Baron, J.F. and Rejler, M. (2010) Highland District County Hospital:
Gastroenterology Care in Sweden. Harvard Business School Case Study. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School.
Putnam, R. D. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
20

York: Simon and Schuster.
Sharp, E. (1978) Citizen Organizations and Participation in Law Enforcement Advocacy and
Coproduction: The Role of Incentives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Van Ryzin, G., Grossman, S., DiPadova-Stocks, L., and Bergrud, E. (2009) Portrait of the
Social Entrepreneur: Statistical Evidence from a US Panel. Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(2): 129-140.
Wilson, J., and Musick, M. A. (1997) Work and Volunteering: The Long Arm of the Job.
Social Forces, 76:251-271.
21
Table 1. Regression analysis of co-production behaviors (index of 5 behaviors)

Ind. Vars.
Efficacy of citizens
Government performance
Government information
Government consultation
Conditions
Gender (female)
Age (in years)
University educated
Urban resident
Active in labor force
R-square
Listwise n
Czech Republic
Safety Environ Health
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.01
-0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.09
-0.23
0.00
-0.03
-0.03
0.11
0.15
0.13
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.08
-0.02
0.10
0.07
0.00
0.03
-0.05
0.08
811
0.05
905
Denmark
0.16
0.18
0.15
0.00
-0.08
-0.06
0.00
0.06
0.09
-0.05
-0.09
-0.09
-0.01
-0.02
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.18
0.28
0.01
0.14
-0.04
0.07
0.05
-0.04
0.03
0.03
0.06
-0.08
-0.04
0.06
905
0.09
947
0.06
947
0.09
947
Germany
0.08
0.14
0.19
-0.02
-0.01
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
-0.05
-0.13
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.07
0.13
0.32
0.18
0.14
0.01
0.00
-0.03
-0.01
-0.02
0.01
0.09
-0.03
0.02
0.13
711
0.05
858
0.07
779
France
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.01
-0.09
0.00
-0.03
0.09
0.04
-0.01
-0.01
0.02
-0.07
-0.02
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.20
0.15
0.24
-0.09
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
-0.03
-0.06
0.10
701
0.07
849
0.12
770
United Kingdom
0.12
0.21
0.18
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.12
-0.07
-0.01
-0.05
0.05
0.05
0.18
0.28
-0.04
-0.01
0.02
-0.06
0.04
-0.07
0.01
-0.01
0.09
-0.06
-0.06
0.10
850
0.07
901
0.09
877
Note: Significant coefficients (p < .05) are shaded and in bold.
22
Table 2. Regression analysis of willingness to co-produce (volunteering)

Ind. Vars.
Efficacy of citizens
Conditions
Gender (female)
Age (in years)
University educated
Urban resident
R-square
Listwise n
Czech Republic
0.18
0.17
0.11
0.04
-0.07
-0.01
-0.03
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.02
-0.05
-0.03
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.13
-0.09
-0.09
-0.16
-0.04
-0.10
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
-0.05
-0.08
0.05
808
0.06
911
Denmark
0.28
0.25
0.21
0.01
-0.06
-0.04
0.03
0.00
0.02
-0.09
-0.05
-0.05
0.05
-0.02
-0.06
0.02
-0.05
0.06
-0.08
-0.05
-0.06
-0.03
0.03
0.01
-0.05
-0.11
-0.06
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
0.07
918
0.10
947
0.08
947
0.06
947
Germany
0.09
0.18
0.25
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.02
-0.09
-0.09
-0.07
0.03
-0.03
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.05
-0.02
-0.10
-0.06
-0.15
0.01
-0.04
0.00
-0.09
-0.03
-0.01
-0.05
-0.06
0.04
717
0.06
865
0.07
802
France
0.26
0.20
0.17
0.09
0.01
-0.07
-0.09
0.07
-0.03
0.04
-0.12
0.09
-0.03
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.01
0.08
-0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.07
0.00
-0.07
0.00
-0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.02
-0.05
0.08
697
0.06
848
0.05
771
United Kingdom
0.26
0.28
0.18
0.02
-0.06
0.01
-0.03
-0.01
0.04
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.10
-0.03
-0.07
-0.03
-0.01
0.05
-0.12
-0.14
-0.15
0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0.02
0.04
-0.03
-0.07
0.09
856
0.09
901
0.06
906
Table 3. Regression analysis of efficacy of citizens

Ind. Vars.
Conditions
Gender (female)
Age (in years)
University educated
Urban resident
R-square
Listwise n
Czech Republic
0.04
0.09
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.09
0.00
-0.02
0.14
-0.03
0.04
-0.01
-0.20
-0.20
-0.08
0.05
0.03
0.12
0.04
-0.01
-0.03
0.01
-0.02
-0.01
0.06
816
0.06
916
Denmark
0.06
0.08
0.12
-0.01
0.02
0.06
0.01
-0.04
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.06
-0.05
-0.17
-0.19
0.05
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.03
-0.01
0.11
0.05
-0.03
0.06
920
0.04
947
0.05
947
0.08
947
Germany
0.11
0.20
0.05
0.18
0.11
0.04
0.03
-0.09
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.11
-0.03
-0.01
0.04
-0.17
-0.24
-0.15
0.05
0.06
0.10
-0.06
-0.03
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.08
0.17
730
0.14
874
0.09
815
France
0.10
0.06
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
-0.04
-0.03
0.03
-0.01
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.02
-0.02
0.04
0.07
0.18
0.08
-0.04
-0.02
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
704
0.04
853
0.01
777
United Kingdom
0.12
0.12
0.08
-0.06
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.00
-0.01
-0.04
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.03
-0.03
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.08
860
0.08
908
0.05
911
23

User and Community Co-Production of Publ

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User and Community Co-Production of Publ

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User and community co-production of public services