Why are some individuals more willing to coproduce public services than others? Although bureaucratic encounters are widely recognized as critical determinants of individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in citizen–state interactions, their influence on decisions to engage in public service coproduction has received limited academic attention. We propose that unfair bureaucratic encounters reduce individuals’ willingness to coproduce public services and that this relationship is moderated by perceived organizational performance. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a national survey in China in 2019, focusing on grassroots co-planning as an exemplar of coproduction. The results confirm our hypotheses and highlight the pivotal role that prior experiences with unfair bureaucratic encounters play in shaping citizen engagement in public service delivery.
Points for practitioners
1. Negative prior experiences with bureaucratic unfairness decrease individuals’ willingness to coproduce public services.
2. When people view organizational performance as above average, unfair encounters further reduce their willingness to participate in coproduction.
3. Effective coproduction initiatives require more than resources and structure—they must ensure that all interactions are perceived as fair and just by participants.
BarnesCYHenlyJR (2018) “They are underpaid and understaffed”: how clients interpret encounters with street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28(2): 165–181.
2.
BartelsKPR (2013) Public encounters: the history and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration91(2): 469–483.
3.
BifulcoRLaddHF (2006) Institutional change and coproduction of public services: the effect of charter schools on parental involvement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(4): 553–576.
4.
BladerSLTylerTR (2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology94(2): 445–464.
5.
BovairdTStokerGJonesT, et al. (2016) Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 47–68.
6.
BrandsenTHoninghM (2016) Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review76(3): 427–435.
7.
CepikuDMarsilioMSiciliaM, et al. (2020) Activation of co-production: general context and antecedents. In: CepikuDMarsilioMSiciliaMVainieriM (eds) The Co-production of Public Services: Management and Evaluation. Cham: Springer International, pp.21–50.
8.
CinelliCHazlettC (2020) Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology82(1): 39–67.
9.
De NeveJE (2015) Personality, childhood experience, and political ideology. Political Psychology36(1): 55–73.
10.
DolanPEdlinRTsuchiyaA, et al. (2007) It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it: characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization64(1): 157–170.
11.
FerrisJM (1984) Coprovision: citizen time and money donations in public service provision. Public Administration Review44(4): 324–333.
12.
FledderusJ (2015) Does user co-production of public service delivery increase satisfaction and trust? Evidence from a vignette experiment. International Journal of Public Administration38(9): 642–653.
13.
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.
14.
GalbreathDJRoseR (2008) Fair treatment in a divided society: a bottom-up assessment of bureaucratic encounters in Latvia. Governance21(1): 53–73.
15.
GoerresA (2007) Why are older people more likely to vote? The impact of ageing on electoral turnout in Europe. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations9(1): 90–121.
16.
GuoSGaoNLiangP (2024) Winter is coming: early-life experiences and politicians’ decisions. The Economic Journal134(657): 295–321.
17.
GuyME (2021) Expanding the toolbox: why the citizen–state encounter demands it. Public Performance & Management Review44(5): 1100–1117.
18.
HasenfeldYRaffertyJAZaldMN (1987) The welfare state, citizenship, and bureaucratic encounters. Annual Review of Sociology13(1): 387–415.
19.
HollerRTarshishN (2024) Administrative burden in citizen–state encounters: the role of waiting, communication breakdowns and administrative errors. Social Policy and Society23(3): 593–610.
20.
HoninghMBondaroukEBrandsenT (2020) Co-production in primary schools: a systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(2): 222–239.
21.
JakobsenMAndersenSC (2013) Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review73(5): 704–713.
22.
JordanN (1965) The “asymmetry” of “liking” and “disliking”: a phenomenon meriting further reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly29(2): 315–322.
23.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–292.
24.
KrishnarajanSDoucetteJAndersenD (2023) Early-adulthood economic experiences and the formation of democratic support. British Journal of Political Science53(2): 387–406.
25.
LarsenEG (2019) Policy feedback effects on mass publics: a quantitative review. Policy Studies Journal47(2): 372–394.
26.
LeeSY (2024) Procedure matters: the distinct attitudinal feedback effects of immigration policy. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09911-9.
27.
LermanAEMcCabeKT (2017) Personal experience and public opinion: a theory and test of conditional policy feedback. The Journal of Politics79(2): 624–641.
28.
MarschallMJ (2004) Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: a new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly57(2): 231–244.
29.
MbitiIM (2016) The need for accountability in education in developing countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives30(3): 109–132.
30.
MeijerAJ (2011) Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: from a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review71(4): 598–607.
31.
MoralesMCCurryTR (2021) Citizenship profiling and diminishing procedural justice: local immigration enforcement and the reduction of police legitimacy among individuals and in Latina/o neighbourhoods. Ethnic and Racial Studies44(1): 134–153.
32.
MoynihanDPSossJ (2014) Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review74(3): 320–332.
33.
NabatchiTSancinoASiciliaM (2017) Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review77(5): 766–776.
34.
NielsenVLNielsenHØBisgaardM (2021) Citizen reactions to bureaucratic encounters: different ways of coping with public authorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(2): 381–398.
35.
OsborneSPStrokoschK (2013) It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management24: S31–S47.
36.
OstromVOstromE (1977) Public goods and public choices. In: SavasES (ed) Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.7–49.
37.
ParradoSVan RyzinGGBovairdT, et al. (2013) Correlates of co-production: evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal16(1): 85–112.
38.
PeetersR (2023) Digital administrative burdens: an agenda for analyzing the citizen experience of digital bureaucratic encounters. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance6(1): 7–13.
39.
RaaphorstNVan de WalleS (2018) A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: how public officials interpret signals and cues. Social Policy & Administration52(7): 1367–1378.
40.
RozinPRoyzmanEB (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review5(4): 296–320.
41.
ShanahanMJ (2000) Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology26(1): 667–692.
42.
SiciliaMGuariniESancinoA, et al. (2016) Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 8–27.
43.
SteenTNabatchiTBrandD (2016) Introduction: special issue on the coproduction of public services. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 3–7.
44.
TylerTRWakslakCJ (2004) Profiling and police legitimacy: procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal42(2): 253–282.
45.
Van De WalleSKampenJKBouckaertG (2005) Deep impact for high-impact agencies? Assessing the role of bureaucratic encounters in evaluations of government. Public Performance & Management Review28(4): 532–549.
46.
Van EijkCSteenT (2016) Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 28–46.
47.
Van EijkCJASteenTPS (2014) Why people co-produce: analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review16(3): 358–382.
48.
VoorbergWHBekkersVJJMTummersLG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review17(9): 1333–1357.
49.
WeaverRK (1986) The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy6(4): 371–398.
50.
ZhangYLiuXVedlitzA (2020) Issue-specific knowledge and willingness to coproduce: the case of public security services. Public Management Review22(10): 1464–1488.
