This article concerns the growing interest in ‘co-production’ in spatial planning, focusing on its relationship with planning systems. The article refers to Italy and England – two institutional contexts with different planning systems – and concludes that co-production can operate outside or inside the planning system. Both models have pros and cons. However, the critical factor determining co-production regarding the planning system appears to be related to how land use rights are allocated. While prior allocation through prescriptive plans keeps co-production out of the system, only allocation as a final case-by-case decision allows co-production to be part of it.
AggerA (2012) Towards tailor-made participation: how to involve different types of citizens in participatory governance. Town planning review, 83(1): 29–46.
2.
AlbrechtsL (2013) Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a co-production perspective. Planning theory, 12(1): 46–63.
3.
AlfordJ (2014) The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3), 299–316.
4.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1): 89–103.
5.
ArenaGCoturriG (2010) Il valore aggiunto. Come la sussidiarietà può salvare l’Italia. Roma: Carocci Editori.
6.
BalducciA (2012) Planning for the crisis. disP – The Planning Review, 48(3): 4–5.
7.
BartolettiRFaccioliF (2013) (eds) Comunicazione e civic engagement. Media, spazi pubblici e nuovi processi di partecipazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
8.
BeitoD TGordonPTabarrokAGordonD (eds) (2002) The voluntary city: choice, community, and civil society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
BellavitiP (ed) (1994) La costruzione sociale del piano, special issue. Urbanistica, 103, 92-135.
10.
BerishaECotellaGJanin RivolinUSollyA (2021) Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. European Planning Studies, 29(1): 181–200.
11.
BevirMNeedhamCWaringJ (2019) Inside co-production: Ruling, resistance, and practice. Social policy & administration, 53(2): 197–202.
12.
BianchiI (2018) The post-political meaning of the concept of commons: the regulation of the urban commons in Bologna. Space and Polity, 22(3): 287–306.
13.
BlairT (1998) Leading the way: A new vision for local government. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
14.
BoonstraBRauwsW (2021) Ontological diversity in urban self-organization: Complexity, critical realism and post-structuralism. Planning Theory, 20(4): 303–324.
15.
BoothP (2007) The control of discretion: Planning and the common-law tradition. Planning Theory, 6(2), 127-145.
16.
BovairdTFlemigSLoefflerEOsborneS P (2019) How far have we come with co-production—and what’s next?Public Money & Management, 39(4): 229–232.
17.
BoyleDHarrisM (2009) The Challenge of Co-Production: How Equal Partnerships Between Professionals and the Public are Crucial to Improving Public Services.London: NESTA.
18.
BradleyQ (2017) Neighbourhood planning and the impact of place identity on housing development in England. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(2): 233–248.
19.
BradleyQSparlingW (2017) The impact of neighbourhood planning and localism on house-building in England. Housing, Theory and Society, 34(1): 106–118.
20.
BragagliaF (2021) Social innovation as a ‘magic concept’ for policy-makers and its implications for urban governance. Planning Theory, 20(2): 102–120.
21.
BrandsenTPestoffVVerschuereB (2012) Co-production as a maturing concept. In: PestoffVBrandsenTVerschuereB (eds) New public governance, the third sector and co-production.New York: Routledge, 1–9.
22.
BretonAFraschiniA (2016) Is Italy a Federal or even a Quasi-Federal State?POLIS Working Papers, 234: 1–26.
23.
BrownillS (2017) Neighbourhood planning and the purposes and practices of localism. In: BrownillSBradleyQ (eds) Localism and Neighbourhood Planning: Power to the people. Bristol: Policy Press,19–38.
24.
BrunettaG (2018) In Search of New Urban Welfare Policies: The Design of the Commons for Spatial Planning. In: CaldariceO (ed) Reconsidering Welfare Policies in Times of Crisis: Perspectives for European Cities. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 81–84.
25.
BrunettaGMoroniS (2012) Contractual communities in the self-organising city: freedom, creativity, subsidiarity. London: Springer.
26.
CaldariceO (2018) Reconsidering Welfare Policies in Times of Crisis: Perspectives for European Cities. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
27.
CaldariceOCozzolinoS (2019) Institutional contradictions and attempts at innovation. Evidence from the Italian urban facility planning. European Planning Studies, 27(1): 68–85.
ChirulliPIaioneC (eds) (2018) La co-città: diritto urbano e politiche pubbliche per i beni comuni e la rigenerazione urbana. Napoli: Jovene.
33.
CEC – Commission of the European Communities (1997) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development Studies, 28. Luxembourg: European Communities.
34.
CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000a) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Italy, Regional Development Studies, 28I. Luxembourg: European Communities.
35.
CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000b) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. United Kingdom, Regional Development Studies, 28P. Luxembourg: European Communities.
CotellaGJanin RivolinU (2011) Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy. disP - The Planning Review, 47(186): 42–53.
38.
CowiePDavoudiS (2015) Is small really beautiful? The legitimacy of neighbourhood planning. In: DavoudiSMadanipourA (eds) Reconsidering Localism, London, New York: Routledge, 168–189.
39.
CullingworthBNadinVHartT (2015) Town and Country Planning in the UK, 15th edition, London and New York: Routledge.
40.
DaviesHWEEdwardsDHooperAJPunterJV (1989) Comparative study. In: DaviesHWE (ed), Planning control in Western Europe, London: HMSO, 409–442.
41.
DuroseCPerryBRichardsonL (2022) Is co-production a ‘good’concept? Three responses. Futures, 142: 1–11.
42.
FalcoL (1987) I ‘nuovi’ standard urbanistici. Roma: Edizioni delle Autonomie.
43.
FosterS RIaioneC (2022) Co-cities: Innovative Transitions Toward Just and Self-sustaining Communities. MIT Press.
44.
ForesterJ (1999) The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Mit Press: Cambridge.
45.
FungAWrightE O (2003) Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (Vol. 4). Verso: London and New York.
46.
GallentN (2013) Re-connecting ‘people and planning’: parish plans and the English localism agenda. Town Planning Review, 84(3): 371–397.
GaluszkaJ (2019) What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production. Planning Theory, 18(1): 143–160.
49.
HabermehlVPerryB (2021) The Risk Of Austerity Co‐Production In City‐Regional Governance In England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 45(3), 555– 571.
InchA (2015) Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning: In search of the subject of a new democratic ethos. Planning Theory, 14(4): 404–424.
53.
InnesJE (1998) Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1): 52 – 63.
54.
Janin RivolinU (2008) Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An unbearable cohabitation. Planning, Practice & Research, 23(2): 167–186.
55.
Janin RivolinU (2012) Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: A Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning, Practice & Research, 27(1): 63-85.
56.
Janin RivolinU (2017) Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison. European Planning Studies, 25(6): 994–1012.
57.
JordanG (2007) Policy Without Learning: Double Devolution and Abuse of the Deliberative Idea. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1): 48–73.
MacCallumD (2019) Social innovation and community development: a personal reflection. In: Van den BroeckPMehmoodAPaidakakiAParraC (eds) Social Innovation as Political Transformation. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 68–73.
60.
MazzaL (2010) Strategic planning and republicanism. Spatium, 22:1–10.
MitlinD (2008) With and beyond the state—co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2): 339–360.
64.
MizrahiS (2012) Self‐provision of public services: its evolution and impact. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 285–291.
65.
MoroniS (2023) Distinguishing ‘planning’ from the ‘plan’. Institutional and professional implications of taking urban complexity seriously. European Planning Studies, 1-15.
66.
MoroniS (2004) Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning Theory, 3(2): 151–171.
67.
MoroniSChiffiD (2021) Complexity and uncertainty: implications for urban planning. In: PortugaliJ (ed) Handbook on Cities and Complexity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
68.
NadinVSteadD (2013) Opening up the compendium: An evaluation of international comparative planning research methodologies. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1542–1561.
69.
NadinVSteadD (2014) Spatial planning in the United Kingdom, 1990–2013. In: ReimerMGemitisPBlotevogelH H (eds) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective on continuity and changes, London and New York: Routledge, 189–214.
70.
NadinVSteadDDąbrowskiMFernandez-MaldonadoAM (2020) Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 1–13.
71.
NewmanPThornleyA (1996) Urban planning in Europe. International competition, national systems and planning projects, London: Routledge.
72.
NorthD C (1990) A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of theoretical politics, 2(4), 355–367.
73.
OECD (2017) Land-use Planning Systems in the OECD: Country Fact Sheets, Paris: OECD Publishing, OECD Regional Development Studies.
74.
OECD (2011) Government at a Glance 2011, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
75.
OsborneS PStrokoschK (2013) It takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co‐production of Publ ic Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24: S31–S47.
76.
OstromEWhitakerG (1973) Does local community control of police make a difference? Some preliminary findings. American journal of political science, 48–76.
77.
OstromE (1996) Crossing the great divide: co-production, synergy, and development. World development, 24(6): 1073–1087.
PalermoFWilsonA (2013) The dynamics of decentralization in Italy: towards a federal solution?European Diversity and Autonomy Papers-EDAP, 2013(04).
80.
ParkerGLynnTWargentM (2015) Sticking to the script? The co-production of neighbourhood planning in England. Town Planning Review, 86(5): 519–537.
81.
ParkerGDobsonMLynnTSalterK (2020) Entangling voluntarism, leisure time and political work: the governmentalities of neighbourhood planning in England. Leisure Studies, 39(5): 644–658.
82.
ParkerGWargentMSalterKYuilleA (2023) Neighbourhood planning in England: A decade of institutional learning. Progress in Planning, 1–23.
83.
ParkerGStreetE (2018) Enabling participatory planning: planning aid and advocacy in neoliberal times. Bristol: Policy Press.
84.
ParksR BBakerPCKiserL, (1981) Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy studies journal, 9(7): 1001–1011.
85.
PembertonSPeelDLloydG (2015) The ‘filling in’ of community‐based planning in the devolved UK?The Geographical Journal, 181(1): 6–15.
PillM (2022) Neighbourhood collaboration in co-production: state-resourced responsiveness or state-retrenched responsibilisation?Policy Studies, 43(5): 984–1000.
88.
PortugaliJ (ed) (2021) Handbook on Cities and Complexity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
89.
PonziniD (2016) Introduction: crisis and renewal of contemporary urban planning. European Planning Studies, 24(7): 1237–1245.
90.
PycockG (2020) London governance and the politics of neighbourhood planning: a case for investigation. Town Planning Review, 91(1): 1–21.
91.
ReynoldsJ P (1969) Public participation in planning. The Town Planning Review, 40(2): 131– 148.
92.
RobinsonJTanseyJ (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Science and public policy, 33(2): 151–160.
93.
RoseN (1996) The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3): 327–356.
94.
RosenJPainterG (2019) From Citizen Control to Co-Production. Moving Beyond a Linear Conception of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3): 335–347.
95.
RosolM (2012) Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin. Antipode44(1): 239–257.
96.
ScattoniPFalcoE (2011) Why Italian planning is worth studying. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 1(1), 4–32.
97.
SecchiB (2009) Building the welfare. Urbanistica, 139: 92–94.
98.
SiameGWatsonV (2022) Co-production and the issue of urban up-scaling and governance change in the global south: The case of Uganda. Planning Theory.
99.
SorrentinoMSiciliaM FHowlettM (2018) Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy and Society, 37(3): 277–293
100.
SturzakerJ (2011) Can community empowerment reduce opposition to housing? Evidence from rural England. Planning Practice and Research, 26(5): 555–570.
101.
SturzakerJShawD (2015) Localism in practice: lessons from a pioneer neighbourhood plan in England. Town Planning Review, 86(5): 587–610.
102.
TitscherSBryanJ (eds) (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis: In Search of Meaning. London: Sage.
VoorbergW HBekkersV JTummersL G (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
105.
VettorettoL (2009) Planning cultures in Italy – reformism, laissez-faire and contemporary trends. In: KnielingJOthengrafenF (eds) Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham: Ashgate, 189–204.
106.
VerschuereBBrandsenTPestoffV (2012) Coproduction: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4): 1083–1101.
107.
WargentM (2020) Localism, governmentality and failing technologies: the case of Neighbourhood Planning in England. Territory, Politics, Governance: 1–21.
108.
WargentMParkerG (2018) Re-imagining neighbourhood governance: the future of neighbourhood planning in England. Town Planning Review, 89(4): 379–402.
109.
WatsonV (2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning–The difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(1): 62–76.
110.
WilliamsAGoodwinMClokeP (2014) Neoliberalism, big society, and progressive localism. Environment and Planning A, 46(12): 2798–2815.
111.
WilliamsOSarreSPapouliasSCKnowlesSRobertGBeresfordPPalmerVJ (2020) Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health research policy and systems, 18: 1–10.
