Why Do the Public Participate in Community Regeneration Co-production? The Case of He Ping,Tianjin

Abstract

The public’s co-production behaviors are influenced by individual and organizational factors. This article analyzes these factors using 2110 questionnaire data from He Ping, Tianjin. Results show that self-efficacy, solidarity incentives, spiritual incentives and inclusive administrative culture have a statistically significant positive correlation with public coproduction behaviors, while the impact of material incentives is limited. In addition to the nonlinear effect of age, middle-aged women, homeowners, middle-income people, and the public with bachelor’s degree are more likely to participate in community regeneration coproduction. The findings provide theoretical and practical implications for the existing co-production theory and public administration practitioners.

Keywords

co-production community regeneration self-efficacy solidarity incentives inclusive administrative culture

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alford

(2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34(1), 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702034001004

Alford

(2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Palgrave Macmillan.

Alford

Yates

(2016). Co-production of public services in Australia: The roles of government organisations and co-producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12157

Alonso

J. M.

Rhys

Judith

Daniel

Z. F.

(2019). Factors influencing citizens’ co-production of environmental outcomes: A multi-level analysis. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1620–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619806

Bovaird

(2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566009

Bovaird

Flemig

Loeffler

Osborne

S. P.

(2019). How far have we come with co-production— and what’s next? Public Money & Management, 39(4), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592903

Bovaird

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Loeffler

Parrado

(2014). Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000567

Bryer

T. A.

(2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul010

Chen

Zhang

(2020). Why do citizen participate in co-production of public services? An empirical study based on public security service. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute, 3, 90–103.

10.

Clark

P. B.

Wilson

J. Q.

(1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), 129–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390752

11.

Coursey

Yang

Pandey

S. K.

(2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02581.x

12.

Ding

Zeng

(2021). Co-creation of community public service value from the perspective of complex adaptive system: Analysis framework. Public Administration and Policy Review, 10(6), 124–138.

13.

Estelle

(1986). The private nonprofit provision of education: A theoretical model and application to Japan. Journal of Comparative Economics, 10(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-5967(86)90098-3

14.

Galuszka

(2019). What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production. Planning Theory, 18(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218780535

15.

Gofen

(2012). Entrepreneurial exit response to dissatisfaction with public services. Public Administration, 90(4), 1088–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02021.x

16.

Zhang

(2019). Sharing bike service governance from the perspective of coproduction: A hybrid method study on the case of Shanghai. Journal of Public Management, 16(1), 89–173. https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.20181114.001

17.

Handley

D. M.

Howell-Moroney

(2010). Ordering stakeholder relationships and citizen participation: Evidence from the community development block grant program. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 601–609.

18.

(2012). Two waves of gentrification and emerging rights issues in Guangzhou, China. Environment and Planning A, 44(12), 2817–2833. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44254

19.

(2005). Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00222.x

20.

Huang

Feng

(2007). A study of urban community heterogeneity and neighborhood Social Capital. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences Edition), 5, 67–73.

21.

Liu

Zhang

Xue

(2022). How is it possible to renew urban communities from the inside out? Taking X community regeneration Governance as an Example. Journal of Public Management, 19(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.16149/j.cnki.23-1523.20211009.003

22.

Maiello

Viegas

C. V.

Frey

Ribeiro

J. L.

(2013). Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007

23.

Marschall

M. J.

(2004). Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: A new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700205

24.

Meijer

(2012). Co-production in an information age: Individual and community engagement supported by new media. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1156–1172. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41683099

25.

Muriel

(2002). Higher education and civic engagement. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(4), 603–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131022000021506

26.

Nabatchi

Sancino

Sicilia

(2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765

27.

O’Sullivan

Rassel

G. R.

Berner

(2014). Research methods for public administrators. Pearson Education Asia Ltd., China Renmin University Press.

28.

Parrado

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Bovaird

Löffler

(2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.796260

29.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887673

30.

Pestoff

(2009). Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and coproduction of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x

31.

Putnam

R. D.

(2009). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Peking University Press.

32.

Rosenbloom

D. H.

Kravchuk

R. S.

Rosenbloom

D. G.

(2002). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

33.

Rosentraub

M. S.

Elaine

(1981). Consumers as producers of social services: Coproduction and the level of social services. Southern Review of Public Administration, 4(4), 502–539. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40860006

34.

Shan

Q. R.

(2017). Research on potential use of public space in the community micro regeneration perspective: A case study of Berlin urban gardening implement. Shanghai Urban Planning Review, 5, 77–82.

35.

Sharp

E. B.

(1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The coproduction concept. The American Review of Public Administration, 14(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507408001400203

36.

Shen

Yao

Wen

(2021). The urban regeneration engine model: An analytical framework and case study of the renewal of old communities. Land Use Policy, 108, 105571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105571

37.

Sicilia

(2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566008

38.

Steen

(2006). Public sector motivation: Is there something to learn from the study of volunteerism? Public Policy and Administration, 21(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670602100104

39.

Stephen

C. C.

Richard

G. N.

Silver

G. E.

(1990). Political efficiency and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314. https://www.jstor.org/stable/586303

40.

Surva

Tõnurist

Lember.

. (2016). Co-production in a network setting: Providing an alternative to the national probation service. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1031–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1193752

41.

Tang

Hou

(2020). Mathematical basis of artificial intelligence. Peking University Press.

42.

Thijssen

Dooren

W. V.

(2016). Who you are/where you live: Do neighbourhood characteristics explain co-production? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315570554

43.

Uzochukwu

Thomas

J. C.

(2018). Who engages in the coproduction of local public services and why? The case of Atlanta, Georgia. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12893

44.

Van Eijk

C. J. A.

Steen

T. P. S

. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.

45.

Van Eijk

C. J. A.

Steen

T. P. S

. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566007

46.

Vanleene

Voets

Verschuere

(2018). The co-production of a community: Engaging citizens in derelict neighbourhoods. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(1), 201–221.

47.

Voorberg

Bekkers

Flemig

Timeus

(2017). Does co-creation impact public service delivery? The importance of state and governance traditions. Public Money & Management, 37(5), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1328798

48.

Voorberg

Jilke

Tummers

Bekkers

(2018). Financial rewards do not stimulate coproduction: Evidence from two experiments. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 864–873.

49.

Wang

Zhang

(2022). Governing urban redevelopment: A case study of Yongqingfang in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 120, 103420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103420

50.

Wang

Aoki

(2018). Paradox between neoliberal urban redevelopment, heritage conservation, and community needs: Case study of a historic neighbourhood in Tianjin, China. Cities, 85, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.09.004

51.

Weinberger

(2001). Women’s participation in local organizations: Conditions and constraints. World Development, 29(8), 1391–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00049-3

52.

Zhang

Chen

Tochen

R. M.

(2016). Shifts in governance modes in urban redevelopment: A case study of Beijing’s Jiuxianqiao Area. Cities, 53(2016), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.001