Co-production was vital to support public services provision during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, and one of the main challenges for service providers is to make co-production sustainable. There are few empirical studies on the sustainability of co-production from a long-term perspective. This study aims to contribute to this topic by exploring the micro-level foundations of co-production persistence through a longitudinal qualitative study in three public service organizations providing developmental services for youth with disabilities. Co-production is analyzed along the service provision process before, during and after the first COVID-19 lockdown, with specific attention on exploring how the conditions for sustainable co-production – mutual commitment, complementarities and institutional arrangements – occur and reinforce one another after an external shock. The findings suggest that the persistence of co-production is a result of a process in which experimentation with new complementarities can enhance previous co-production experiences and generate a context of mutual commitment that facilitates future co-production initiatives and their institutionalization.
Points for practitioners
This article suggests how service providers can activate a potential virtuous cycle of co-production by increasing the opportunities that foster and sustain users and families' self-efficacy and reciprocal trust, and the contributions from wider social support networks of the most vulnerable people.
AlfordJ (2014) The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review16(3): 299–316.
2.
BentenutoAMazzoniNGiannottiM, et al. (2021) Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in Italian families of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities109(103840): 1–11.
3.
BettencourtLAOstromALBrownSW, et al. (2002) Client co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review44(4): 100–128.
4.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860.
5.
BovairdTLoefflerE (2012) From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1119–1138.
6.
BrandsenT (2020) Vulnerable citizens: Will co-production make a difference? In: LoefflerEBovairdT (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-production of Public Services and Outcomes. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 527–539.
7.
BrysonJMCrosbyBCStoneMM (2006) The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review66(s1): 44–55.
8.
ChenB (2010) Antecedents or processes? Determinants of perceived effectiveness of interorganizational collaborations for public service delivery. International Public Management Journal13(4): 381–407.
9.
ConnerTWNowlinMCRabovskyT, et al. (2016) Cultural theory and managerial values: Examining trust as a motivation for collaboration. Public Administration94(4): 915–932.
10.
FarooqiSA (2016) Co-production: What makes co-production work? Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Public Sector Management29(4): 381–395.
11.
FledderusJ (2015) Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management28(7): 550–565.
12.
FledderusJHoninghM (2016) Why people co-produce within activation services: The necessity of motivation and trust: An investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 69–87.
13.
FledderusJBrandsenTHoninghM (2014) Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review16(3): 424–443.
14.
FotakiM (2011) Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden. Public Administration89(3): 933–955.
15.
HoninghMBondaroukEBrandsenT (2020) Co-production in primary schools: A systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(2): 222–239.
16.
JakobsenMAndersenSC (2013) Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review73(5): 704–713.
17.
JaspersSSteenT (2020) The sustainability of outcomes in temporary co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management33(1): 62–77.
18.
JoSNabatchiT (2016) Getting back to basics: Advancing the study and practice of coproduction. International Journal of Public Administration39(13): 1101–1108.
19.
KellensWTerpstraTDe MaeyerP (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal33(1): 24–49.
20.
KershawABridsonKParrisMA (2018) Encouraging writing on the white walls: Co-production in museums and the influence of professional bodies. Australian Journal of Public Administration77(1): 19–34.
21.
KorenPEDeChilloNFriesenBJ (1992) Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology37(4): 305.
22.
Le DeistFDWintertonJ (2005) What is competence?Human Resource Development International8(1): 27–46.
23.
McMurrayA (2004) A Commonsense Approach. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
24.
MadduxJEKleimanEM (2016) Self-efficacy: A foundational concept for positive clinical psychology. In: WoodAMJohnsonJ (eds) The Wiley Handbook of Positive Clinical Psychology. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.89–101.
25.
MarianiLCavenagoD (2013) Redesigning welfare services for policies effectiveness: The non-profit organizations (NPOs) perspective. Public Management Review15(7): 1011–1039.
26.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
27.
MishraA (1996) Organizational response to crisis. In: KramerRMTylerTR (eds) Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.261–287.
28.
NabatchiTSancinoASiciliaM (2017) Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of co-production. Public Administration Review77(5): 766–776.
29.
OstromE (1996) Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy, and development. World Development24(6): 1073–1087.
30.
OstromE (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American political science association, 1997. The American Political Science Review92(1): 1–22.
31.
PestoffV (2012) Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: Some concepts and evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1102–1118.
32.
PestoffV (2014) Collective action and the sustainability of co-production. Public Management Review16(3): 383–401.
33.
RobinsonSGrahamAFisherKR, et al. (2020) Understanding paid support relationships: Possibilities for mutual recognition between young people with disability and their support workers. Disability & Society36(9): 1423–1448.
34.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRS, et al. (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trustAcademy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
35.
ScottWR (2008) Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies29(2): 219–238.
36.
SiciliaMGuariniESancinoA, et al. (2016) Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 8–27.
37.
SteenTBrandsenT (2020) Co-production during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Will it last?Public Administration Review80(5): 851–855.
38.
SteenTTuurnasS (2018) The roles of the professional in co-production and co-creation processes. In: BrandsenTSteenTVerschuereB (eds) Co-production and Co-creation. New York: Routledge, pp.80–92.
39.
TummersLSteijnBBekkersV (2012) Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies: Content, context, and personality characteristics. Public Administration90(3): 716–736.
40.
TuurnasS (2015) Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management28(79): 583–598.
41.
Van EijkCSteenT (2016) Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 28–46.
42.
VoorbergWHBekkersVJTummersLG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review17(9): 1333–1357.
43.
WhitenerEMBrodtSEKorsgaardMA, et al. (1998) Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review23(3): 513–530.
44.
YamagishiTCookKS (1993) Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly56(4): 235–248.
45.
YinRK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.
