User needs and the building blocks of regulation: Using participatory design to prototype social enterprise legal structures in Australia

Abstract

Although co-design is acknowledged as an emerging tool in public administration for use in program or service system design, it has not been widely applied to complex policy spheres, such as law and regulation. In the context of policy development for the field of social enterprise, we explored the use of co-design as a facilitation method to elicit end-users’ experience of regulation and to generate options for reform. Specifically, this involved the use of LEGO® Serious Play® to understand end-user views on legal structures following a push by policy advocates in Australia for a structure to serve the needs of social enterprise, similar to that available in the United Kingdom. The article makes two contributions to research on co-design in public policy. The first contribution is methodological. We offer insights into the application of co-design to a new area, law and regulation, finding that co-design is useful for generating bottom-up insights into the regulatory preferences of end-users but has certain limitations as a tool for research and policy development, notably in relation to the feasibility of the insights it may provide. The second contribution is uncovering empirical insights into end-user preferences regarding how regulatory reform might improve the policy environment for social enterprise development in Australia and beyond.

Keywords

Social enterprise not-for-profits co-design legal structures public policy regulation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Hess

(2001) Community in public policy: Fad or foundation? Australian Journal of Public Administration 60(2): 13–23.

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (2018) Not-for-profit Available at: http://acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Register_my_charity/Who_can_register/What_is_NFP/ACNC/Reg/NFP.aspx≥ (accessed 12 May 2019).

Australian Law Reform Commission (2019) The future of law reform: A suggested program of work 2020–25. Report, Australian Government, Canberra.

Ayres

Braithwaite

(1992) Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barraket

Mason

Blain

(2016) Finding Australia’s social enterprise sector 2016: Final report. Report, Social Traders and Centre for Social Impact Swinburne University of Technology.

Barraket

Yousefpour

(2013) Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprise: Process, purpose and value Australian Journal of Public Administration 72(4): 447–458.

Bason

(ed.) (2014) Design for Policy. London: Routledge.

Battilana

Lee

(2014) Advancing research in hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises The Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 397–441.

Blomkamp

(2018) The promise of co-design for public policy Australian Journal of Public Administration 77(4): 729–743. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8500.12310

10.

Brackertz

Meredyth

(2009) Community consultation in Victorian local government: A case of mixing metaphors? Australian Journal of Public Administration 68(2): 152–166.

11.

Brackertz

Moran

(2010) Barriers to innovation and investment in the social economy: Retrofitting for environmental sustainability in Australian community housing Third Sector Review 16(2): 49–72.

12.

Braithwaite J (2017) Types of responsiveness. In: Drahos P (ed) Regulatory Theory. Canberra: ANU Press, pp. 25–41.

13.

Brandsen

Honingh

(2016) Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions Public Administration Review 76(3): 427–435.

14.

Brandsen

Steen

Verschuere

(2018) (eds) Co-Production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge.

15.

Brudney

England

(1983) Toward a definition of the coproduction concept Public Administration Review 43(1): 59.

16.

Burkett

(2011) An Introduction to Co-design. Sydney: Centre for Social Impact.

17.

Butcher

(2015) Squaring the virtuous circle: Exploring the potential of the ‘five Cs’ Australian Journal of Public Administration 74 (2): 249–256.

18.

Colebatch

(2014) Making sense of governance. Policy and Society 33(4): 307–316.

19.

Colebatch

(2018) The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity. Public Policy and Administration 33(4): 365–383.

20.

Colin

(1950 [1947]) La Psychologie De L’intelligence London: Routledge.

21.

Davies

(1964) Australian Democracy. Melbourne: Longmans.

22.

Design Commission (2013) Restarting Britain 2. Design and Public Services. London: Policy Connect.

23.

Design Council (2013) Design for Public Good. Available at: www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/design-public-good (accessed 9 May 2018).

24.

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) (2017) Victorian Government social enterprise strategy. Report, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

25.

Department of Employment (2016) Social enterprise development & investment funds (SEDIF): Evaluation report. Australian Government, Canberra.

26.

Department of Human Services (2012) Co-design community engagement prototype outcomes report. Available at: www.humanservices.gov.au/organisations/about-us/publications-and-resources/co-design-community-engagement-prototype-outcomes-report (accessed 29 November 2019).

27.

Department of Treasury (2017) Social impact investing discussion paper. Report, Australian Government, Canberra.

28.

Drahos P (2017) (ed) Regulatory Theory Canberra: ANU Press. HM Revenue and Customs. 2016. Guidance: Social investment tax relief. London: United Kingdom Government. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-investment-tax-relief-factsheet/social-investment-tax-relief.

29.

Drahos

Krygier

(2017) Regulation, institutions and networks. In: Drahos

(ed.) Regulatory Theory Canberra: ANU Press, pp.1–22.

30.

Evans

Terrey

(2016) Co-design with citizens and stakeholders. In: Stoker

Evans

(eds) Evidence-based Policy Making in the Social Sciences. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.243–261.

31.

European Commission (2013) Implementing an Action Plan for Design-driven Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

32.

Fledderus

Brandsen

Honingh

(2015) User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration 30(2): 145–164.

33.

Frick

Tardini

Cantoni

(2013) White paper on LEGO®SERIOUS PLAY® a state of the art of its applications in Europe. Report, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano.

34.

Go Jefferies

Bishop

Hibbert

(2019) Service innovation through resource integration: An empirical examination of co-created value using telehealth services. Public Policy and Administration 0(0): 1–20 DOI: 10.1177/0952076718822715.

35.

Hadida

(2013) Let your hands do the thinking: Lego bricks, strategic thinking and ideas generation within organizations. Strategic Direction 29(2): 3–5.

36.

Haugh

Peredo

(2011) Critical narratives of the origins of the Community Interest Company. In: Hull

Gibbon

Branzei

, et al. (eds) The Third Sector. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.7–27.

37.

HM Revenue and Customs. 2016. Guidance: Social investment tax relief. London: United Kingdom Government. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-investment-tax-relief-factsheet/social-investment-tax-relief.

38.

Hood

(1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.

39.

Junginger

(2013) Design and innovation in the public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and policy-implementation. Annual Review of Policy Design 1(1): 1–11.

40.

Justice Connect (2017a) Submission in response to social impact investing discussion paper. Report, Justice Connect, Melbourne.

41.

Justice Connect (2017b) Social enterprise guide. Report, Justice Connect, Melbourne.

42.

Kensing

Blomberg

(1998) Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 7: 167–185.

43.

Kimbell

Bailey

(2017) Prototyping and the new spirit of policymaking. CoDesign 13(3): 214–226.

44.

Leff

(2018) The boundary between the not-for-profit and business sectors: Social enterprise and hybrid models. In: Harding

(ed.) Research Handbook on Not-for-profit Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.171–188.

45.

Legal Models Working Group (2016) Legal Models Working Group Final Report. Report, Employee Ownership Australia, Sydney.

46.

Martin

(2018) The major tax concessions granted to charities in Australia, New Zealand, England, the United States of America and Hong Kong: What lessons can we learn? In: Harding

(ed.) Research Handbook on Not-for-profit Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.463–483.

47.

Mintrom

Luetjens

(2016) Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75(3): 391–402.

48.

Morgan

(2018a) Legal models beyond the corporation in Australia: Plugging a gap or weaving a tapestry? Social Enterprise Journal 14(2): 180–193.

49.

Morgan

(2018b) Telling stories beautifully: Hybrid legal forms in the new economy. Journal of Law and Society 45(1): 64–83.

50.

Mortati M (2019) The Nexus between Design and Policy: Strong, Weak, and Non-Design Spaces in Policy Formulation. The Design Journal 22(6): 775–792.

51.

Mulgan

(2014) Design in Public and Social Innovation: What Works and What Could Work Better. London: NESTA.

52.

Nabatchi

Sancino

Sicilia

(2017) Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review 77(5): 766–776.

53.

Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies (2017) Frequently asked questions. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-interest-companies-introduction (accessed 19 May 2019).

54.

Osborne

(2006) The new public governance? Public Management Review 8(3): 377–387.

55.

Osborne

Radnor

Strokosch

(2016) Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review 18(5): 639–653.

56.

Parks

Baker

Kiser

, et al. (1981) Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations Policy Studies Journal 9(7): 1001–1011.

57.

Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership (2016). Minutes from impact investing and partnerships working group – Hybrid legal models expert roundtable. Report, Australian Government, Canberra (On file with authors).

58.

Rhodes

RAW

(1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. London: Open University Press.

59.

Richardson JJ and Jordan AG (1979) Governing under pressure. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

60.

Roos

Victor

(1999) Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal 17(4): 348–355.

61.

Roos

Victor

Statler

(2004) Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning 37(6): 549–568.

62.

Sanders

Stappers

(2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1): 5–18.

63.

Schulz

Geithner

Woelfel

, et al. (2015) Toolkit-based modelling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management 24(2): 323–340.

64.

Seibert

(2016) Navigating reform in contested spaces: Reflections on not-for-profit sector regulatory reform in Australia, 2010–2013. In: Butcher

Gilchrist

(eds) The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-profits and Business Canberra: ANU Press, pp.131–156.

65.

Teasdale, S (2012) What's in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration 27(2), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076711401466.

66.

Voorberg

Bekkers

VJJM

Tummers

(2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey Public Management Review 17(9): 1333–1357.

67.

Weinert

(2014) Is it a not-for-profit organisation or a for-profit organisation? The case for a CIC structure in Australia. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association 7(1&2): 9–17.