This article was downloaded by: 84.79.65.5 [617400]

This article was downloaded by: [84.79.65.5]
On: 24 May 2014, At: 09:29
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Public Management Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upmj20
Correlates of Co-production: Evidence
From a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens
Salvador Parrado a , Gregg G. Van Ryzin b , Tony Bovaird c & Elke
Löffler d
a UNED (SPANISH UNIVERSITY OF DISTANCE LEARNING)
b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
d GOVERNANCE INTERNATIONAL
Published online: 10 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Salvador Parrado , Gregg G. Van Ryzin , Tony Bovaird & Elke L öffler (2013)
Correlates of Co-production: Evidence From a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens, International Public
Management Journal, 16:1, 85-112, DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.796260
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.796260
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents,
and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor
& Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select
articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are
without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including,
but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-
infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views
of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open
Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION: EVIDENCE FROM
A FIVE-NATION SURVEY OF CITIZENS
SALVADOR PARRADO
UNED (SPANISH UNIVERSITY OF DISTANCE LEARNING)
GREGG G. VAN RYZIN
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
TONY BOVAIRD
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
ELKE LO ¨FFLER
GOVERNANCE INTERNATIONAL
ABSTRACT: We employ data from an original survey of citizens in the UK, France,
Germany, Denmark, and the Czech Republic to examine correlates of citizenco-production of public services in three key policy areas: public safety, the environment,
and health. The correlates of co-production we consider include demographic factors
(age, gender, education, and employment status), community characteristics (urban,non-urban), performance perceptions (how good a job government is doing), govern-
ment outreach (providing information and seeking consultation), and self-efficacy
(how much of a difference citizens believe they can make). We also report on resultsfrom a series of focus groups on the topic of co-production held in each country.
Our results suggest that women and elderly citizens generally engage more often in
co-production and that self-efficacy —the belief that citizens can make a difference —is
an especially important determinant across sectors. Interestingly, good outcome perfor-mance (in the sense of a safe neighborhood, a clean environment, and good health)seems to discourage co-production somewhat. Thus citizens’ co-production appears to
depend in part on awareness of a shortfall in public performance on outcomes. Our
results also provide some evidence that co-production is enhanced when governmentsprovide information or engage citizens in consultation. The specific determinants vary,
however, not only by sector but across national contexts.International
PublicManagementJournal
International Public Management Journal, 16(1), pages 85–112 Copyright #2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.796260 ISSN: 1096-7494 print /1559-3169 online
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

INTRODUCTION
Citizen co-production of public services has become an important topic in the field
of public administration, especially in light of the fiscal pressures currently facingmany governments around the world. Although the topic has received theoreticalattention (E. Ostrom 1996; Alford 2002; 2009; Bovaird and Loeffler 2012) and hasbeen the subject of several case studies (E. Ostrom 1996; Bovaird 2007; Alford2009; Bifulco and Ladd 2006; Whelan and Dupont 1986), little prior research hasexamined citizen co-production behaviors for large samples representing broadnational populations. In this article, we use data from a unique, large-sample survey
to examine various correlates of citizen co-production in five countries: the UK,
France, Germany, Denmark, and the Czech Republic. The survey asked aboutco-production behaviors and attitudes in three policy areas in which such behaviorsare especially important: public safety, the local environment, and health. Buildingon individual and contextual factors identified in previous theory and research, as wellas hypotheses grounded in a series of exploratory focus groups, we have tried toaccount for variation in co-production in different sectors and in different countries.Alongside this micro-explanation based on individual predictors, focus groups with
service providers and stakeholders were also used to explore the role that macro expla-
nations could play in accounting for differences across countries and policy sectors.
The article begins with a discussion of co-production theory and research in public
administration and related fields. It then describes the data from the five-nation sur-vey and the resulting measures of co-production. Next, we present our statisticalanalysis and findings, including a summary of qualitative findings from the focusgroups. The article concludes with interpretations, methodological limitations, andpotential policy implications of our research.
BACKGROUND
Some Explanations of Co-production in the Literature
Most definitions of co-production stem from the seminal work by V. Ostrom and
E. Ostrom (1977). They typically refer to the contribution of resources by serviceusers and providers for the provision of a good or service, or for raising the leveland=or quality of their provision (Brudney 1983). For some authors (E. Ostrom
1996; Ramı ´rez 1999), co-production is seen in terms primarily of individual action;
for others (Joshi and Moore 2004), it implies long-term relationships (institutiona-lized arrangements) between state agencies and organized groups of citizens. And
for still others (Bovaird 2007) the concept of co-production includes professional ser-
vice providers and (organized) service users or other members of the community.
But as Alford (2002) usefully points out, individuals may play different roles in the
public sphere as users-clients, volunteers, and members of a community. Alford(2002, 33) considers clients as ‘‘those who deal with the agency at its ‘business end.’
…As clients, they receive private value from the service provided by the agency
(i.e., goods, services or other benefits that are individually consumed), rather than86 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

public value, which is ‘consumed’ jointly, as occurs with public goods.’’ Volunteers
differ from clients because they are actively engaged in the provision of public goodsor services for others, while at the same time they may also benefit. Clearly, the con-
cept of volunteering, particularly as it relates to community and the public sphere, is
an important component of co-production. However, this article focuses quitegenerally on the role of citizens and their contributions to making services moresuccessful in producing outcomes and the potential reasons for them to be moreor less active in co-production.
Despite recent theoretical interest in the topic of co-production, relatively few
empirical studies have been done over the years on citizens’ actual co-productionbehaviors and attitudes as captured in surveys. Although individual experiences of
co-production (e.g., self-service in petrol stations, health checks to prevent diseases,
electronic billing whereby procurers do the clerical work of state agencies, orlong-distance regular monitoring of a health conditions) have been given as exam-ples, systematic empirical work on the individual experience of co-production hasbeen scarce. Most research has focused on case studies (like, for example, E. Ostrom1996, Joshi and Moore 2004; Bovaird 2007; Alford 1998; 2009) in which the organi-zation and experiences of co-production are explored.
Other studies, using public choice theory, have focused, for example, on questions
such as how choice of a school helps parents to be active co-producers (Hoxby 1999;
Brandl 1998; Hill, Pierce, and Guthrie 1997; Schneider et al. 1997). A study byBifulco and Ladd (2006) examines how different institutional arrangements (charterschools vs. public schools) might explain distinct patterns of parents’ involvement. Intheir account, institutional arrangements are not enough to account for higherco-production and contextual factors are more useful in explanation. Contextual fac-tors are also used by Marschall (2004) in order to explain why residents who perceivesubstantial problems in neighborhood schools and crime are more likely to
co-produce.
This suggests that co-production may arise in part as a response to shortcomings
in government performance or public service provision. Performance of governmenthas been studied in connection with issues like trust in government or satisfactionwith public services (Van Ryzin 2007; 2011). In some empirical research, evidencesuggests that administrative performance may lead to trust in government, meaningthat the criticism that the New Public Management, focusing on users, would under-mine democracy is not sustained (Vigoda and Yuval 2004). A major longitudinal
study of local government reform in the UK (Cowell et al. 2009) also found that ser-
vice quality was seen as a driver of public trust by local councils and a vital cue influ-encing the public’s views about their council—this was especially true of thoseservices which are very visible to citizens (e.g., street cleaning) or which make every-day life more comfortable or convenient (e.g., refuse collection and street lighting).In this line of argument, then, underperformance might be seen as a driver of distrustin government and fosters the need for citizens to be active in co-producing a parti-cular service that they want. However, the casual link between trust in government
and better performance of public administrations was not substantiated in the study
of Vigoda and Yuval (2004).CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 87
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Claims on Active Co-production from Citizens
In many instances, studies have focused on the institutional arrangements that fos-
ter co-production on the side of state agencies and users (V. Ostrom and Ostrom1977; Parks et al. 1981). Unlike other studies, this article does not examine how apublic agency may create (or not) a co-productive environment (see, for instance,Alford 2009 and E. Ostrom 1996). It rather seeks to understand under what con-ditions user co-production is more likely to occur. We propose several claims regard-ing the dominant administrative tradition of a particular country, the specificities of
particular policy sectors, the engagement of government in consulting users when
providing services, and the role of intrinsic rewards, especially the expectedself-efficacy of users. Along with these claims, we also explore the role ofsocio-demographic characteristics as potential determinants of co-production.
Firstly, co-production is likely to depend on the cultural and administrative con-
text of a society. Peters (2008, 118) defines an administrative tradition as ‘‘a histori-cally based set of values, structures and relationships with other institutions thatdefines the nature of appropriate public administration within society.’’ The admin-
istrative tradition encompasses the relations between state and society. There are sev-
eral types of relations: pluralistic (where government is just one stakeholder,alongside those from civil society and business, and the ‘‘state’’ as such has no sep-arate legal basis—often labelled the ‘‘Anglo-Saxon’’ model), organicist (where thereis strong decentralization of power and groups from civil society are often embeddedwithin the decision-making process—exemplified by ‘‘Prussian’’ and ‘‘Scandinavian’’models), and antagonistic (where there is strong centralist decision making, whichexpects to dominate other stakeholders or interests in a unified system, often labelled
the ‘‘French’’ or ‘‘Napoleonic’’ model) (see Loughlin and Peters 1997, 46). These
relations refer to the role of state agencies in society. E. Ostrom (1996, 107) identifiesmonocentric systems (or highly centralized) and polycentric systems (with moreopportunities for citizens to organize more than one governing authority). Thepresent study includes five different countries from distinct administrative traditions:Anglo-Saxon (United Kingdom), Prussian (Germany), Scandinavian (Denmark),Napoleonic (France), as well as a former communist regime (Czech Republic). Morespecifically, we expect that in some administrative traditions, the state plays a more
central role, lessening the room for autonomy on the part of individuals or groups in
society, for example in France and Germany. Therefore, it could be expected thatco-production would be less fully practiced in these countries. In other administrat-ive traditions, the state plays a less direct role and there is more room for citizenautonomy and self-organization, such as in the United Kingdom. Further, in thosecountries in which citizens are more autonomous, such as Denmark, governmentpolicies and services are likely to provide more information to citizens and useconsultation to shape service delivery. The intensive use of consultation is likely to
elicit greater willingness to co-produce from service users as they see that the
government cares about their opinion on policy and service matters.
Secondly, different policy sectors are also likely to have a differentiated impact on
co-production. The study of the impact of policy sectors upon decision making and88 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

implementation has taken two different routes. One strand, headed by Lowi (1964)
and Wilson (1980), argues that particular types of policies (distributive, redistribu-tive, and regulatory in Lowi’s terminology, for instance) determine the way in which
decision making and implementation of those policies are made. Another strand,
based on networks of knowledge-based experts (or epistemic communities), high-lights the role of professionals in policymaking (Haas 1992; 2004). Haas (1992)claims that epistemic communities constitute a source of power in framing the col-lective debate on issues related to their profession. In some cases, this knowledgebase is able to cut across state boundaries and achieve policy coordination throughprofessional means and not diplomacy. Translated to service delivery, it implies thatpolicy areas in which service providers are highly professionalized, with very specia-
lized knowledge on the service (such as doctors), are likely to be less conducive to
co-production.
The services that are the focus of this study correspond more to Lowi’s category of
distributive policies that involve non–zero-sum distribution of concrete benefits:community safety, local environment, and public health. A common feature of thefirst two policy areas is that benefits can be experienced by citizens individuallyand also collectively. While in public health the benefits are mainly individually‘‘consumed,’’ policies such as immunization result in both private and social benefits.
However, both community safety and local environmental policy also have a regu-
latory role, in Lowi’s categorization, since they partly seek to control those behaviorswhich some citizens enjoy but which impose negative externalities on others.
Further, the types of professionals to be encountered in each policy area differ in
their degree of specialization. Health requires specialists with a university degree andconsiderable knowledge of human anatomy and cure strategies. However, the othertwo services involve fieldworkers with less specialized education (generally collegelevel in the case of European police agents, but few formal qualifications in the case
of staff devoted to street-cleaning services, for instance). No doubt the knowledge of
service providers is of relevance for service design. However, it is expected thathighly professionalized services (health) are likely to be less conducive toco-production than other services in which the level of professionalization is lower(according to Dunston et al. [2009] and Porter et al. [2010], the challenges arisingfrom transition of a traditional expert-based health system to a co-produced healthsystem are considerable).
Thirdly, individual attitudes, values, and motivations are also likely to explain
variation in co-production behaviors. Sharp (1978), quoted by Alford (2002), for
instance, distinguished among material incentives (money, goods, or services), soli-darity incentives (the sense of belonging to a group), or expressive incentives (intan-gible rewards or satisfaction with morally good actions). Alford (2002; 2009)expanded this list to five possible sets of motivators including sanctions (punishmentof deviating actions) and intrinsic motivation, which refers to the clients’ sense ofself-determination and competence. Alford (2002; 2009) concluded that materialrewards and sanctions would work, if at all, only in the simplest of tasks. Instead,
clients are more likely to be motivated by more complex rewards that include
expressive incentives, solidarity, and intrinsic rewards.CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 89
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Essential to such intrinsic rewards is the notion of self-efficacy, which refers to the
sense acquired by an individual that they can carry out actions which entail someexpected results. The term has been used in order to assess political self-efficacy.
For example, political self-efficacy is ‘‘the feeling that individual political action does
have, or can have, an impact upon the political process …the feeling that political
and social change is possible, and that the individual citizen can play a part in bring-ing about this change’’ (Campbell, Gurin, and Miller 1954, 187, quoted in Madsen1987, 572). Research on self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to perform a giventask (Bandura 1986; 1997), has generally supported positive relationships betweenself-efficacy and a range of performance measures and outcomes (see Gist andMitchell 1992 and Bandura 2001 for a summary). Subsequently, self-efficacy has
been expected to affect task effort, persistence, expressed interest, and the level of
goal difficulty selected for performance (Bandura 1997). According to Bandura(1986; 1997; 2001), one’s self-efficacy beliefs significantly determine performanceoutcomes, and are not necessarily determined by the underlying skills that one pos-sesses with regard to the task. Self-efficacy of citizens, therefore, might be an impor-tant factor in co-production. Previous laboratory research and field study byBandura (1977; 1982) showed that self-efficacy judgments mediate between knowl-edge and action. Individuals undertake judgment of self and also of the environment.
Finally, we expect co-production behavior to vary by demographic and
socio-economic factors, including age, gender, education, employment status, andurban context. In particular, there is evidence from studies of civic engagementand volunteering that women tend to engage and volunteer more than men (Einolf2010) and that older cohorts generally engage in civic activities more than youngercohorts (Putnam 2001). Studies also suggest that education level is positively relatedto various forms of civic participation (Egerton 2002; Hayghe 1991). Although itimposes constraints on free time, regular employment also facilitates networks and
other resources that increase capacity for volunteering and civic engagement (Wilson
and Musick 1997). Thus, we expect that the effects of these demographic andsocio-economic factors may be similar in the context of predicting co-productionbehaviors.
METHOD
The study employs mixed methods to examine determinants of and influences on
citizen co-production in five countries: the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, andthe Czech Republic. It focused on three key policy areas in which co-production
plays an important role: public safety, the environment, and health. The quantitative
data came from an original survey designed by three of the authors and conductedby TNS Sofres from April 16 to May 5, 2008, among a representative random sam-ple of 4,951 adults (18 years of age or older), with the following numbers of inter-views per country: 988 in the United Kingdom, 1,000 in Germany, 1,011 inDenmark, 988 in France, and 1,000 in the Czech Republic. These random sampleswere enhanced through quotas by gender, age, and region. The five countries were90 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

selected because they represented different administrative traditions, namely
Anglo-Saxon, Prussian, Scandinavian, Napoleonic, and ex-communist, because itwas expected that different administrative traditions would influence co-production.
In order to provide a more qualitative perspective on the issue of co-production
and on the differences among sectors and societies, 15 focus groups (with 98 parti-cipants) were conducted by three of the authors with key officials and stakeholderswho are involved in the three policy areas in each of the five countries. The focusgroups were convened in the capitals of the respective countries and invitations weresent to representatives (in each of the three policy areas) of central government, localpublic services, national professional associations, national service user organiza-tions, and third sector organizations (see Table 5). All invited participants had
long-standing experience in the sector concerned and all the managers invited had
senior or middle (supervisory) management positions. They were identified from con-tacts which the research team had in each sector and at least one of the co-authors waspresent in these sessions (all held in the local language, except for Denmark, whereEnglish was used). All sessions lasted around an hour and a half.
The study was commissioned by the French Ministry of the Treasury, Public
Accounts and Civil Service (Ministe `re du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la
Fonction Publique). The Ministry sought a scientific study of co-production levels
in Europe to be presented at the plenary of the 5th Quality Conference of the
European Union in 2008. While the report for the conference (Loeffler et al. 2008)presented descriptive findings and addressed practical issues around co-production,the aim of this article is to provide a more analytical focus on the correlates andpredictors of co-production.
Survey Data and Measures
Table 1 shows the analytical variables and descriptive statistics from the survey
data. In each of the three policy areas, the survey asked about five representativeco-production behaviors and whether respondents undertook these behaviors often,
sometimes ,o rnever .
.Forpublic safety , the five behaviors are: (1) asking advice from the police on how
to best protect your property, (2) taking care to lock all doors and windows whenyou go out, (3) asking your neighbor to keep an eye on your home when you areaway, (4) keeping an eye on your neighbor’s home when they are away, and (5)participating in a group or organization that works to improve safety in yourneighborhood.
.For the environment , the behaviors are: (1) telling other people not to drop rubbish
or let their dogs foul the street; (2) trying to recycle your household rubbish; (3)trying to save water and electricity in your home; (4) walking, cycling, or usingpublic transportation; and (5) participating in a group or organization that worksto improve the quality of the environment.
.Forhealth , the behaviors are: (1) changing to a more healthy diet, (2) trying to
exercise, (3) seeing a doctor for a health check and blood tests, (4) taking careCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 91
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Czech
Republic
n¼1,000Denmark
n¼1,011Germany
n¼1,000France
n¼952United
Kingdom
n¼988
Variables Min Max M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Co-production behaviors (index of 5 behaviors)
Public safety 0 ¼never does any 10 ¼does all 5 always 3.10 1.84 4.39 1.72 4.56 1.99 3.91 1.92 5.39 2.06
Environment 0 ¼never does any 10 ¼does all 5 always 6.66 1.59 5.63 1.73 6.15 1.67 6.22 1.71 6.08 1.72
Health 0 ¼never does any 10 ¼does all 5 always 5.71 1.85 4.60 1.78 5.30 1.92 5.10 1.91 5.37 1.92
Willingness to co-produce (volunteer)
Public safety 1 ¼no time at all 4 ¼few hrs =wk 2.38 0.98 2.63 1.07 2.30 1.00 2.23 1.05 2.32 1.11
Environment 1 ¼no time at all 4 ¼few hrs =wk 2.70 0.85 2.75 0.96 2.45 0.90 2.55 0.98 2.40 1.06
Health 1 ¼no time at all 4 ¼few hrs =wk 2.56 0.96 2.68 1.08 2.59 1.01 2.32 1.04 2.37 1.12
Efficacy of citizens (making a difference)
Public safety 1 ¼no difference 4 ¼big difference 2.75 0.90 3.12 0.89 2.99 0.98 2.97 0.91 3.16 0.90
Environment 1 ¼no difference 4 ¼big difference 3.25 0.76 3.54 0.72 3.08 0.94 3.35 0.78 3.41 0.80
Health 1 ¼no difference 4 ¼big difference 3.27 0.76 3.52 0.77 2.92 0.97 3.09 0.85 3.41 0.80
Government performance
Public safety 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.69 0.85 3.13 0.85 3.04 0.74 2.94 0.76 3.01 0.85
Environment 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.87 0.79 3.05 0.79 2.71 0.79 2.97 0.73 2.84 0.79
Health 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.89 0.83 3.07 0.86 2.90 0.78 2.87 0.80 3.24 0.77
92
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Government information
Public safety 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.56 0.89 3.08 0.79 2.78 0.79 2.75 0.81 2.95 0.85
Environment 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.60 0.84 3.03 0.78 2.74 0.78 2.77 0.74 2.91 0.79
Health 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.71 0.85 3.06 0.82 2.69 0.81 2.94 0.70 3.21 0.80
Government consultation
Public safety 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.41 0.90 2.84 0.89 2.56 0.82 2.51 0.92 2.70 0.89
Environment 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.38 0.86 2.69 0.86 2.39 0.80 2.39 0.84 2.57 0.86
Health 1 ¼very dissatisfied 4 ¼very satisfied 2.83 0.89 2.71 0.90 2.40 0.82 2.64 0.82 2.94 0.86
Conditions
Public safety 1 ¼not at all safe 4 ¼very safe 2.87 0.78 3.57 0.73 3.33 0.76 3.27 0.84 3.35 0.84
Environment 1 ¼not at all good 4 ¼very good 2.84 0.74 3.68 0.58 3.29 0.71 3.36 0.69 3.46 0.69
Health 1 ¼not at all good 4 ¼very good 3.03 0.77 3.46 0.74 3.10 0.78 3.20 0.73 3.34 0.81
Demographic
controls
Gender
(female)0¼male 1 ¼female 0.52 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.54 0.50
Age (in years) 18 96 44.85 16.10 48.03 16.41 48.09 17.08 48.00 17.71 48.77 17.07
University
educated0¼not univ.
educated1¼univ. educated 0.83 0.37 0.52 0.50 0.75 0.43 0.72 0.45 0.68 0.47
Urban
resident0¼not urban 1 ¼urban 0.16 0.37 0.34 0.47 0.23 0.42 0.41 0.49 0.45 0.50
Active in
labor force0¼not active 1 ¼active 0.66 0.48 0.67 0.47 0.59 0.49 0.53 0.50 0.59 0.49
93
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

of a sick family member or friend, and (5) participating in a group or organization
that deals with health issues.
The five behaviors in each policy area were summed to form an index, with each
behavior coded 0 ¼never, 1 ¼sometimes, and 2 ¼often. Thus each index has a poss-
ible range of 0 to 10. These indices of co-production behavior in each sector becomedependent variables in our regression analysis.
It is important to note several caveats about our measures of co-production. To
begin with, they are just a sampling of many relevant co-production behaviors ineach policy area. And the behaviors are diverse, reflecting a range of interests andsometimes complex motivations (for example, walking or cycling for transportationcould be motivated by health as well as environmental concerns). They were chosenfrom a wider set of potential measures after a series of focus group discussions (dis-cussed below) that were held in each country before running the survey. The indica-tors focus in particular on preventative and service delivery behaviors, rather than
the consultative behaviors which have more often been studied in the past, as the
focus group in each of the five countries emphasized how important such behaviorsare now seen to be from a policy perspective. The survey aimed to include a mix ofco-production behaviors that were likely to be motivated more by self-interest (suchas locking one’s own house) as well as behaviors that tend to be more cooperative oraltruistic in nature (keeping an eye on your neighbor’s house while they are away).Certainly, the measurement of co-production is complex and multi-dimensional andour operationalization of this construct is imperfect. Still, we would suggest that
our three indices, as the first ever attempt to build an activity-based co-production
index, do provide a reasonable proxy measurement, at least, of policy-relevantco-production behaviors in these three key policy areas.
In addition to these selected behaviors, the survey also asked respondents directly
about how much time they would be willing to volunteer to make improvements ineach policy area. This self-reported willingness to co-produce is more general, in thesense of not being tied to specific behaviors, and also taps into respondents’ overallbehavioral intentions with respect to a policy area. Responses categories were: a few
hours a week (or more), a few hours a month, a few hours a year, orno time at all
(coded from 1 ¼no time at all to 4¼a few hours a week or more) . In our regression
analysis, we use these self-reported measures of citizens’ willingness to co-produce asalternative dependent variables.
As can be seen in Table 1, the countries differ from each other in the level of
reported co-production behaviors. With respect to public safety, co-production ishighest in the UK, followed by Germany and Denmark, and lowest in the CzechRepublic. In the area of the environment, however, the Czech Republic has the
highest co-production level, followed by France and Germany. And in the area of
health, again the Czech Republic is highest in co-production, followed by the UKand Germany. With respect to reported willingness to volunteer in each of thesesectors, the countries appear much more similar to each other.
The remaining variables in Table 1 are our independent variables or, in other
words, hypothesized predictors or determinants of co-production behavior. To94 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

assess citizens’ sense of self-efficacy with respect to each policy domain, the survey
asked: ‘‘How much of a difference do you think ordinary citizens can make to(the safety of the neighborhood =the quality of the environment =the quality of their
own health and health care)?’’ Response categories were: a big difference, some dif-
ference, little difference, orno difference (coded from 1 ¼no difference to 4¼big dif-
ference ). This variable therefore explores ‘‘political self-efficacy,’’ as discussed above.
The survey asked respondents’ about their satisfaction with government perfor-
mance in each policy area, their satisfaction with information they get from govern-
ment, and their satisfaction with the extent to which government asks their opinionon issues ( consultation ). Response categories were: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied ,o rvery dissatisfied (coded from 1 ¼very dissatisfied to 4¼very
satisfied ).
As noted earlier, co-production is likely to be motivated to some extent by the con-
ditions experienced by citizens in a policy area. Thus, for public safety, the surveyasked: ‘‘How safe do you feel walking alone at night in the neighborhood whereyou live—very safe, somewhat safe, not that safe, or not safe at all?’’ For theenvironment, the survey asked: ‘‘Overall, how good is the environment where youlive—very good, somewhat good, not that good, or not good at all?’’ And for health,the survey asked: ‘‘How good would you say your health is in general these days—
very good, somewhat good, not that good, or not good at all?’’ Responses were
coded from 1 ¼not good (safe) at all to 4¼very good (safe) .
Finally, the survey measured various demographic factors that, as discussed ear-
lier, might be related to co-production behaviors, including gender, age, education,location of community (urban vs. non-urban), and participation in the labor force.
RESULTS
In this section, we present our quantitative (regression) results first, followed by a
summary of our qualitative (focus group) results.
Regression Results: Behavior and Attitudes on the Part of Citizens Towards
Co-production
Our multiple regression analyses examined the correlates or predictors of
co-production in each of three policy areas, using two alternative measures ofco-production. Table 2 shows the regression analysis of co-production behaviors(the index of five behaviors in each of the three policy area), and Table 3 showsthe regression analysis of the willingness to volunteer to co-produce. The significant
coefficients ( p<.05) are shown in bold and shaded. In both tables, the predictors
include efficacy of citizens, government performance, information and consultation,conditions, and demographic factors (age, education, urban, and active in the laborforce) (see Table 1 for details on these independent variables, which are alsodescribed in the section above). Because the survey includes relatively large samples(approximately n¼1,000) for each of the five countries, we are able to conduct the
regression analyses separately by country and thus compare correlates ofCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 95
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 2
Regression Analysis of Co-production Behaviors (Index of Five Behaviors)
Ind. Var.Czech Republic Denmark Germany France United Kingdom
Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health
Efficacy of citizens 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.18
Government
performance0.05 0.01 /C00.03 0.00 /C00.08/C00.06/C00.02/C00.01 0.08 0.01 /C00.09 0.00/C00.02/C00.04/C00.06
Government
information0.01 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.01 /C00.03 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.06
Government
consultation0.05 0.05 0.09/C00.05/C00.09/C00.09 0.05 0.01 /C00.05/C00.01/C00.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.12
Conditions /C00.23 0.00 /C00.03/C00.01/C00.02 0.03 /C00.13/C00.01/C00.02/C00.07/C00.02 0.00 /C00.07/C00.01/C00.05
Gender (female) /C00.03 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.18 /C00.02 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.18
Age (in years) 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.14 0.32 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.24 0.28 /C00.04/C00.01
University educated 0.04 0.05 0.08/C00.04 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.00 /C00.03/C00.09 0.02 0.05 0.02 /C00.06 0.04
Urban resident /C00.02 0.10 0.07/C00.04 0.03 0.03 /C00.01/C00.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 /C00.07 0.01 /C00.01
Active in labor force 0.00 0.03 /C00.05 0.06 /C00.08/C00.04 0.09/C00.03 0.02 0.02 /C00.03/C00.06 0.09/C00.06/C00.06
R20.08 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.09
Listwise n 811 905 905 947 947 947 711 858 779 701 849 770 850 901 877
Note : Standardized coefficients shown; significant coefficients ( p<.05) are shaded and in bold.
96
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 3
Regression Analysis of Willingness to Co-produce (Volunteering)
Ind. Var.Czech Republic Denmark Germany France United Kingdom
Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health
Efficacy of citizens 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.09 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.26 0.28 0.18
Government performance 0.04 /C00.07/C00.01 0.01 /C00.06/C00.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.01 /C00.07 0.02 /C00.06 0.01
Government information /C00.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 /C00.09/C00.09 0.07 /C00.03/C00.03/C00.01 0.04
Government consultation 0.06 0.05 0.02 /C00.09/C00.05/C00.05/C00.09/C00.07 0.03 0.04 /C00.12 0.09 /C00.01/C00.01/C00.01
Conditions /C00.05/C00.03 0.04 0.05 /C00.02/C00.06/C00.03/C00.02 0.00 /C00.03 0.05 0.00 /C00.10/C00.03/C00.07
Gender (female) 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.02/C00.05 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.05 /C00.05/C00.01 0.08/C00.03/C00.01 0.05
Age (in years) /C00.09/C00.09/C00.16/C00.08/C00.05/C00.06/C00.02/C00.10/C00.06/C00.01 0.00 0.00 /C00.12/C00.14/C00.15
University educated /C00.04/C00.10/C00.04/C00.03 0.03 0.01 /C00.15 0.01/C00.04/C00.07 0.00 /C00.07 0.01 0.01 0.02
Urban resident /C00.04/C00.03/C00.01/C00.05/C00.11/C00.06 0.00 /C00.09/C00.03 0.00 /C00.05 0.00 /C00.02/C00.01 0.02
Active in labor force /C00.01/C00.05/C00.08/C00.05/C00.06/C00.07/C00.01/C00.05/C00.06/C00.05/C00.02/C00.05 0.04 /C00.03/C00.07
R20.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.06
Listwise n 808 911 918 947 947 947 717 865 802 697 848 771 856 901 906
Note : Standardized coefficients shown; significant coefficients ( p<.05) are shaded and in bold.
97
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

co-production across national contexts. Most of the predictors proved to be statisti-
cally significant in multiple instances (far more than would be expected, given that atthe 0.05 confidence level 1 in 20 coefficients will show as significant simply by
chance). However, caution should be used when interpreting statistical significance
in these tables, given the number of hypotheses being tested simultaneously. Clearly,the relationships which are most likely to be robust are those which are significantacross policy areas within countries, or significant within a single policy area acrosscountries.
To begin with, it is evident that citizens’ sense of personal efficacy is the most con-
sistent and often the strongest predictor, both of co-production behaviors (Table 2)and willingness to co-produce (Table 3), across all three policy areas and all five
countries. Thus, those who believe that ordinary citizens can make a difference in
a policy area are more likely to be engaged in co-production behaviors themselvesand more willing to volunteer to co-produce. This citizen efficacy effect is by farthe most consistent finding across sectors and countries.
In contrast, satisfaction with government performance, although largely negative
(or near zero), is only statistically significant in a selective number of contexts (withrespect to the local environment in France and Denmark). Satisfaction with govern-ment information was largely positively correlated with co-production, although
only statistically significant in two of the 15 contexts (health in Denmark and
environment in France). Satisfaction with government consultation has rather incon-sistent relationships with co-production across countries—although the relationshipwas statistically significant in four of the 15 contexts, this was twice positive andtwice negative. In general, therefore, the pattern of the correlation between citizenswho co-produce and those who are satisfied with government performance, infor-mation, and consultation is weak and inconsistent.
A key driver of co-production in a policy area is the perceived conditions of that
area. And according to the data analysis, the perceived conditions generally seem to
have a negative association with co-production behaviors (Table 2). All the statisti-cally significant coefficients are negative in relation to conditions and almost allother coefficients are zero or negative. This is strongly the case with respect tosafety—that is, better safety appears to lead very strongly to less co-production, sug-gesting that citizen involvement in safety co-production behaviors are in part aresponse to low levels of perceived safety in their community. Moreover, a negativeassociation between conditions and co-production is also noticeable with respect to
the willingness to volunteer to co-produce (Table 3), although the relationships here
are weak and mostly insignificant statistically. This is particularly interesting from apolicy perspective, suggesting that those who have been most goaded intoco-production activities by dissatisfaction with local conditions may be alreadyundertaking as much as they are prepared to do.
We have explored the socio-demographic factors (gender, age, and education
level) in eliciting co-production from users. Women generally engage more oftenin co-production behaviors, particularly in the health sector (in all five countries)
and in other sectors in the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany (see Table 2).
Women appear only somewhat more willing to volunteer to co-produce (see98 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Table 3), again in the health sector, but the pattern is not as consistent across coun-
tries. Again, this is consistent with the hypothesis that the willingness of women toco-produce more than men has already been realized in their actual behavior, so that
they are no more likely than men to be seeking further opportunities.
Older citizens are more likely to engage in co-production behaviors related to
safety in all five countries, and age is more broadly related to co-production beha-viors in Germany and France. However, older people generally report less willing-ness to volunteer to co-produce more, especially in the Czech Republic and in theUK. This is plausible, given that a sizable proportion of this group is likely to bereaching physical limits on the time and energy which they have to devote toco-production. The rather higher willingness of younger people to co-produce more
may also be a reflection of the relative lack of practical opportunities for young
people to volunteer in ways which fit their lifestyle—this is consistent with commentsmade in the focus groups.
Education has a weak and inconsistent relationship with co-production beha-
viors across sectors and countries (Table 2), and university-educated people appearsomewhat less likely to volunteer to co-produce (Table 3), although again the pat-tern is inconsistent. This is highly at variance with international evidence that par-ticipation in general is strongly correlated with level of education. It may indicate
that the participation literature is highly focused on more consultative ‘‘partici-
pation,’’ rather than the preventative and service delivery behaviors on which wefocused.
There seems to be little relationship between living in an urban area and
co-production behavior (Table 2), although urban residence is occasionally inverselyrelated to the willingness to volunteer (specifically in environmental matters in Den-mark and Germany). Being active in the labor forces also has a generally weak andinconsistent relationship with co-production behavior, having a positive relationship
with safety co-production in Germany and the UK but a negative relationship with
environmental co-production in Denmark.
In sum, the most consistent and largest predictor of both co-production behavior
and willingness to volunteer across sectors and countries turned out to be citizens’sense of efficacy (which, given the question we asked in the survey, should be inter-preted as ‘‘political efficacy’’ in the sense discussed above). Because of this, we ran anadditional set of regression models to look at the extent to which the other inde-pendent variables might predict or explain efficacy. In other words, we wanted to
examine the extent to which these other variables might have effects on
co-production through efficacy—by considering efficacy as a possible mediator ofthe influence of these other variables.
The results are shown in Table 4. Again the pattern of predictors is complex across
sectors and countries, but there are some discernable patterns. Satisfaction withgovernment performance is positively related to efficacy, as is satisfaction withgovernment information (especially in Germany). The perceived conditions in a pol-icy area also relate positively to efficacy, indicating that more safety, a cleaner
environment, and better health may enhance citizens’ sense of efficacy. Thus, while
good conditions may directly dissuade citizens from co-production (as was evidentCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 99
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 4
Regression Analysis of Efficacy of Citizens
Ind. Var.Czech Republic Denmark Germany France United Kingdom
Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health Safety Environ Health
Government
performance0.04 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.06 /C00.01 0.12 0.12 0.08
Government information 0.07 0.01 0.01 /C00.01 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 /C00.06 0.05 0.01
Government
consultation0.01 0.06 0.09 0.01 /C00.04 0.02 0.03 /C00.09 0.02/C00.04/C00.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.04
Conditions 0.00 /C00.02 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.11 /C00.01 0.03 0.07 0.20 0.15 0.10
Gender (female) /C00.03 0.04 /C00.01 0.02 0.08 0.06/C00.03/C00.01 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.05
Age (in years) /C00.20/C00.20/C00.08/C00.05/C00.17/C00.19/C00.17/C00.24/C00.15 0.02 /C00.02 0.04 0.00 /C00.01/C00.04
University educated 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.09
Urban resident 0.04 /C00.01/C00.03 0.04 0.03 /C00.01/C00.06/C00.03 0.10/C00.04/C00.02/C00.04 0.03 0.03 /C00.03
Active in labor force 0.01 /C00.02/C00.01 0.11 0.05 /C00.03 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.06
R20.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05
Listwise n 816 916 920 947 947 947 730 874 815 704 853 777 860 908 911
Note : Standardized coefficients shown; significant coefficients ( p<.05) are shaded and in bold.
100
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

with respect to safety in Table 2), good conditions may indirectly encourage
co-production through enhancing citizens’ sense of efficacy. Women seem to havea somewhat heightened sense of efficacy, particularly with respect to the environ-
ment. Older citizens generally have a lower sense of efficacy (particularly in the
Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany). University-educated citizens sense moreefficacy in health matters. Efficacy does not seem to depend much on urban resi-dence, and being active in the labor force appears positively related to efficacy ina few sectors in some countries (Denmark and Germany).
Focus Group Results: The View from Service Providers and Organized
Stakeholders
As mentioned above, 15 focus groups were conducted with key officials and sta-
keholders (including representatives of user groups) in the three policy areas in each
of the five countries. Table 5 shows the location and general profiles of the parti-
cipants in of each of the focus groups. A common issue in many of these focusgroups (across sectors and countries) was that citizens, by and large, were expectedto be unwilling co-producers because they expect the state to provide the services. Itwas often suggested that citizens would be less willing to co-produce in services likesafety and local environmental improvement, which are seen to be ‘‘collectively’’provided, while they were seen as more likely to co-produce in health, where theysaw a role for their own action. Nevertheless, in each of the countries examples were
given of co-production initiatives in all three fields engaging citizens either collec-
tively or individually.
A second issue in some focus groups was the role of professionals—e.g., the con-
frontation in some policy areas (i.e., health) between ever better informed patientsand professionals or the dismissal of co-production by professionals on the groundsthat users were not knowledgeable about the services provided (especially in healthbut also in local environmental improvement). Doctors in focus groups could clearlysee the need for patients to co-produce their recovery by following their prescrip-
tions—an important if rather passive co-production role on the part of patients.
However, they were much less likely to welcome more active roles of patients (i.e.,seeking information in the internet and suggesting particular treatments). Moreover,even in a country like the UK, where at least annual consultation between generalpractitioners (GPs) and patients is mandatory, most GPs satisfy this requirementby just meeting a group of their patients to discuss the results of the annual patientsatisfaction survey—a relatively thin form of engagement. The focus groups sug-gested that GPs generally do not view it as useful to engage, even to this extent, with
patients. Further, it was suggested that local politicians in charge of health issues in
some of the surveyed countries were less supportive of user involvement than wasadvocated by official government initiatives. There was a feeling in the focus groupsessions in the UK that elected politicians were disengaged from the public, whose‘‘voice gets lost in the sausage machine of the democratic process.’’ Several parti-cipants suggested that even local authorities were far down Arnstein’s ladder of par-ticipation, although health agencies were seen as even lower (e.g., professionals fromCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 101
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 5
Profiles of the Focus Groups
Country Policy FieldTotal
ParticipantsBackground of
Participants
Czech Republic Community safety 7 Representatives from state police
(two), city police (two), Supreme
Court, a local Probation and
Mediation Service, Union ofPublic Sector Employers
Health 6 Representatives from Ministry of
Health, Association of GeneralPractitioners, Association ofCzech Consumers, Czech
Association of Social Workers,
plus a doctor working in anelderly person’s home and a
doctor researching in a
university
Local environment 8 Representatives from the Ministry
of Environment, Minstry of
Finance, the National Networkof Clean Cities, a town council,
the national Institute for
Structural Policy, plus twouniversity professors working onlocal environmental policy and
one representative from an
environmental services provider
Denmark Community safety 6 Representatives from the Prisons
Directorate (two), a regional
government, the corporatecenter of a municipal council, a
municipal Social Services
Department, a municipal YouthService
Health 8 Representatives from Ministry of
Health Care and Pensions (two),
health service agencies (three),hospital management (two), and
health department of a
municipal council
Local environment 7 Seven officials working on
environmental policy in
municipal councils, includingofficers responsible for
(Continued )102 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 5
Continued
Country Policy FieldTotal
ParticipantsBackground of
Participants
environmental planning, refuse
service, recycling, and Agenda
21 issues
France Community safety 6 Representatives from Ministry for
Youth and Sports, a municipal
police service, municipalCommunity Safety and CrimePrevention Partnership,
municipal Department of
Neighborhood Management, aDepartment of Neighbourhood
Management in a Paris District,
a Neighborhood Council in aParis District
Health 5 Two hospital doctors, one doctor
in PREPSY Network, onemember of Onco 94, one
member of ARCAT Association
Local environment 6 Representatives from municipal
council departments (includingDepartment of Parks and Open
Spaces and Department of
Neighborhood Management),local water agencies, a
Neighborhood Council, plus a
college lecturer
Germany Community safety 6 Representatives from Department
for Interior and Sports, Berlin
police service (two), anongovernmental organization
(NGO) in probation, and an
NGO for youth offenders (two)
Health 5 Representatives from a public
hospital, Berlin patients’
advocacy service, the health
visitor service, a care home forthe elderly, and a local social
care provider
Local environment 8 Representatives from Federal
Ministry of the Interior,
Department for Environment
(Continued )CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 103
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

TABLE 5
Continued
Country Policy FieldTotal
ParticipantsBackground of
Participants
and Nature in two Berlin
districts, German Society for
Waste Management,Independent Institute for
Environmental Issues, Federal
Agency for ConsumerProtection and Food Safety,plus two private sector
landscape architects providing
environmental consultancyservices
United Kingdom Community safety 6 Representatives from Association
of London Councils, CourtsService, IDeA (Local
Government Improvement and
Development Agency),Community Safety service in a
London Borough Council, UK
Neighbourhood Watch Trust(two)
Health 8 Representatives from a Local
Health Partnership, a Mental
Health Trust (one official, oneconsumer representative), a
council social services
departments (three, includingone customer relations
manager), Picker Institute
Europe (representing patients),National Consumer Council
Local environment 6 Representatives of IDeA (Local
Government Improvement andDevelopment Agency), aLondon Borough Waste and
Recycling Service, an Energy
Adviser from a municipalcouncil, ENCAMS (the Keep
Britain Tidy national NGO)
(two), Chartered Institution ofWaste Management104 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

the Primary Care Trusts (PCT) are mandated to consult and involve service users,
but are often perceived to do it ‘‘only because they have to’’). One focus group par-ticipant stressed that ‘‘PCT strategies are now more about health and illness preven-
tion, rather than illness treatment, which should increase the emphasis on user
involvement.’’ However, other participants perceived the British government’sagenda at the time to be about saving money in acute and primary care, where userstypically have a lesser role.
A third issue that arose often in the focus groups across countries was the lack of
skills on the part of civil servants on how to foster co-production. As one participantin the UK health sector put it, ‘‘[i]t’s not a lack of willingness; clinicians want toinvolve users but don’t know how. But being required to do it actually frightens
people and makes them less confident.’’ Another agreed that the issue now is not
whether to involve patients but how to do it.
A fourth issue was that little is known about the impact of co-production initia-
tives. This was a theme in many different focus groups across sectors and countries.Participants normally agreed that there has been no evaluation of the long-termeffects of co-production in the fields in which they were engaged. For instance, whilethey were aware of a lot of discussion about ‘‘prevention’’ in relation to health issues,it was unclear how much citizens actually did to take care of their health and what
effects might be produced by increased responsibility and pro-health activities on the
part of citizens. As one participant remarked, ‘‘[w]e have no data and information onwhether we now eat and drink better than before.’’
A fifth issue that focus groups suggested was very common in the environmental
sector of all countries was recycling. Many participants felt very strongly that achange towards more co-production (i.e., more involvement in recycling, less litter-ing, and the like) can only be brought about by market forces, not by the public sec-tor. In the words of one participant, ‘‘[w]hen people can save money by protecting
the environment, they will go for it.’’ One example is how supermarkets are moving
to ‘‘green’’ and ‘‘organic’’ brands, as they realize that the days of ‘‘cheapest is best’’are numbered. However, this was disputed in one of the focus groups in the UK, as itwas reported that ENCAMS (an environmental nongovernmental organization) waswary of purely monetary incentives as a means to improve the local environment—some of its experiments have indicated that teenagers would need to be given £20to pick up any litter at all! Another participant put a different gloss on this: ‘‘Givepeople a relevant incentive and they will co-produce a better environment.’’ The
challenge then is to find the relevant incentives for different groups.
The overall perspective of focus groups varied significantly between the five coun-
tries. For different reasons, many Czech and French officials and stakeholders gavethe impression that co-production was not appropriate for their fellow citizens.Indeed, many confessed it was the first time they had heard of the concept of‘‘co-production’’ in connection with public services. In some cases, there were feltto be specifically local factors behind this—e.g., the Czech focus group suggestedstrongly that citizens still distrusted the police because they were associated with
the former repressive communist regime, so citizens were reluctant to co-produce
with them. The police had also been distrusted in Germany in the past and onlyCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 105
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

recently have citizens become more willing to pass on important information to the
police. As one participant pointed out, this is a remarkable change of attitudes inGermany where ‘‘citizens used to be afraid of people in positions of power but
now have become much more self-confident.’’
The presence of the state in French society is also considerable. For instance, the
participants of one focus group in France expressed the view that the mayor is seento be—and to some extent is legally—responsible for every problem, even when itconcerns environmental issues which are actually beyond the responsibility of thelocal council. However, the mayor is the most visible and direct interface betweenthe public sector and citizens, which is why he =she has an important role in citizen
participation. Also, the French tradition since the revolution is to define the mayor
as the ‘‘premier magistrat,’’ the local representative of the ‘‘indivisible republican
state.’’ This naturally reduces the pressure on citizens to consider it their duty toco-produce outcomes.
The United Kingdom, at the time of the survey in 2008, had the highest level of
governmental effort to foster collective and individual co-production levels in differ-ent policy areas. For instance, the Local Government and Public Involvement inHealth Act 2007 introduced a general ‘‘duty to consult’’ service users on any plan-ning or operational decisions which would have a significant impact upon the range
of services available and how they are delivered. As a result of such initiatives, the
language around local authority services changed, giving a greater emphasis to userinvolvement, particularly in adult care services. The successful introduction of indi-vidual budgets for people with disabilities has gradually led to the wider spread ofself-directed services, along with individual budgets, to many users of social careservices.
Moreover, the underlying philosophy of co-production was deeply embedded in
community safety, where the UK had 160,000 Neighbourhood Watch groups in
2008, with about 10 million individual members (from about 6 million households).
However, in spite of this nationwide network of Neighbourhood Watch schemes, theUK focus groups suggested that people generally feel uneasy about getting involvedin specific issues around community safety. For example, a participant in one focusgroup drew attention to the difficulty of attracting volunteers to act as mentors tooffenders—in spite of interesting experiments in some parts of England, the coverageis still sporadic and the major effort involved often produces only small numbers ofqualified mentors (partly because of the rigor and bureaucracy involved in the police
checks involved). However, the UK community safety group believed that the gen-
eral reluctance of people to get involved in community safety issues changes oncecitizens have been personally affected by crime. Population churn and communityinstability were also seen as undermining the potential for higher co-production incommunity safety. Finally, the paradox of ‘‘problem-driven’’ co-production wasrevealed by one official: ‘‘If we are successful in crime prevention there will be fewervolunteers because everybody feels safe.’’
In the Danish focus groups it was often mentioned that citizens are likely not to be
willing co-producers in the service areas studied, because they consider their civic
duty finished when they have paid their taxes, with the state being responsible for106 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

provision of those services. Nevertheless, many Danes are members of associations
(especially sport clubs) (Schofer and Fourcade-Gourinchas 2001), in which theyundertake activities which in other countries would be state-provided—this suggests
real scope for co-production. On the other hand, focus group members suggested
that young people from deprived areas often perceive government to be the problemand not the solution, because they have been excluded from schools, the social wel-fare system, and other institutions and public officials have problems in reachingthem. As a result, disadvantaged communities have become self-organized and havetried to cope without the state—this is not co-production with the public sector butrather a substitute for it.
Finally, the discussions in the German focus groups highlighted many examples of
co-production, although participants often confessed that the label was also new to
them. There were some indications on how to better elicit co-production (by tryingto engage those who are personally affected by a problem) and not looking for thegeneric involvement of users (this point was also made in focus groups in Denmarkand UK). In many of the focus groups, practitioners suggested that ‘‘people only getengaged when they are concerned personally’’ (participant in community safetygroup in Germany). Further, discussions suggested that successful collectiveco-production is more likely around dealing with specific problems, rather than
around generic participatory activities. As one participant suggested, ‘‘[i]f prevention
includes specific actions in order to tackle a given problem, citizens are more inter-ested in participating than in abstract round tables.’’
DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Using data from an original survey of citizens in the UK, France, Germany,
Denmark, and the Czech Republic—combined with qualitative evidence from focusgroups with service providers and stakeholders—we have analyzed correlates of citi-zen co-production of public services in three key policy areas: public safety, the
environment, and health. We found that women and older citizens generally engage
more often in co-production. The finding that women are more likely to beco-producers than men is consistent with research that has identified a higher sup-port for the public sector among women than among men, partly because public sec-tor organizations employ more women and the public sector has taken over somecare responsibilities of women (Christensen and Laegreid 2005).
Likewise, the high engagement of elderly people in co-production compared to
younger people is also consistent with findings that older people trust more in govern-
ment, due to their more collective orientation and their firsthand experience of build-
ing up the welfare state (Christensen and Laegreid 2005). Although the link betweentrust in government and co-production has not been explored in this article, these find-ings highlight the fact that elderly people show higher willingness to cooperate with thepublic sector and to participate in voluntary work (see Erlinghagen and Hank 2006).
Besides exploring the association of several socio-demographic factors with
co-production, we have made three claims. Firstly, it was expected that pluralisticCORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 107
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

administrative traditions (like the UK) or traditions with more autonomous citi-
zens like Denmark would have higher levels of co-production. The results showthat the highest level of co-production is in the United Kingdom, providing at least
some preliminary evidence in support of this hypothesis. However, it turned out to
be lowest in Denmark—this may be connected with the finding that those mostsatisfied with public services are least likely to get involved in co-production, sinceDanes were the most satisfied of all five populations with conditions in all threeservices (Table 1).
Of course, with just five countries in the sample, it is difficult to ascertain whether
these differences are truly related to institutional variations in the administrativecontext or tradition, rather than any of the many other factors that differ across
national contexts. What has been established here is both that the levels of
self-reported co-production vary greatly between countries and that the drivers ofco-production also vary greatly. This gives a signal to researchers that there may wellindeed be important differences, worth researching, in co-production behavioracross countries and, perhaps, across administrative traditions.
Secondly, it was also expected that highly professionalized services like health would
trigger less co-production because health professionals are likely to be more reluctant tolet users take part in the co-production of services. Focus group discussions showed that
many professionals were not willing to give up power, particularly those who continue to
believe that they know best what is good for their users and that it is their job to provideservices for people who are dependent on them. In practice, the survey results showedless co-production activity in health in all five countries than local environmentalimprovement—but health actually scored better than community safety in four of thefive countries, a result which we hope to probe more fully in further work.
Thirdly, we claimed that the role of intrinsic rewards, especially the expected
self-efficacy of users, would have an impact on service co-production. We found that
political self-efficacy—the belief that citizens can make a difference—is an especially
important determinant across sectors. Further, self-efficacy seems to be linked alsoto (good) performance of governments in service delivery. However, it is importantto caution that self-efficacy could be endogenous, in the sense that existing copro-duction levels in society could influence citizens’ sense of self-efficacy, or an unmea-sured variable (such as community or personal values) could be influencing both thesense of self-efficacy and the willingness to engage in co-production behavior. Never-theless, our findings at least suggest that more attention should be paid to the role of
intrinsic rewards and self-efficacy in future co-production research.
Interestingly, we also found that good performance (in the sense of a safe
neighborhood, a clean environment, and good health) seems to have a negativedirect effect on co-production, suggesting that co-production may depend in parton awareness of a shortfall in public performance, in line with the results reportedby Marschall (2004). However, good performance may have a positive indirect effecton co-production, in turn, by enhancing citizens’ self-efficacy. Our results also pro-vide some evidence that co-production is enhanced when governments provide infor-
mation or engage citizens in consultation. The specific determinants vary, however,
not only by sector but across national contexts.108 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

In our survey, we did not ask specific questions on trust in government. From other
surveys and secondary studies, we know that the trust in government may vary acrosstime and, especially, across countries. A study by Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, and
Bouckaert (2008), reviewing different survey data, reveals that the level of trust in
government has not declined over the years, in spite of commonly made assertions.While the level of trust in the 1980s and 1990s increased in Denmark and in Germany,it remained stable in the United Kingdom and declined in France and in the CzechRepublic. From the data (Table 1), one can see that co-production levels are relativelyhigh in Germany and the UK, while low in France and Czech Republic. Therefore,higher co-production levels cannot be associated with relative distrust in government,although they are indeed associated with lower levels of satisfaction with services—this
is consistent with the findings of Cowell et al. (2009) that there is no consistent relation-
ship between citizen trust in government and citizen satisfaction with public services.
Finally, this research has thrown up a major challenge to the public sector—citizens
report a level of engagement in activities relevant to improving the outcomes of publicservices that is considerably in excess of that expected by local public officials andmembers of stakeholder groups. While we did not specifically collect survey evidencefrom these organizational respondents, the contrast between the evidence from thefocus groups and the survey responses suggests that public sector officials have only
a very limited understanding of the co-production activities that are going on in their
field and in their geographical area. This further suggests that user and communityco-production of public services is not properly understood, never mind systemati-cally managed, so that its potential benefits are not currently being maximized. Thissuggests the need for further research on why this is and what might be done to bringthe perceptions of public sector officials better into line with reality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the French Ministry of Bud-
get, Public Finance and Public Services for the empirical study reported in this article.Tony Bovaird would also like to acknowledge support from AHRC (Grant AH =
I50754X =1) for some of the analysis reported in this article.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. 1998. ‘‘A Public Management Road Less Travelled: Clients as Co-producers of
Public Services.’’ Australian Journal of Public Administration 57(4): 128–137.
Alford, J. 2002. ‘‘Why Do Public-Sector Clients Co-produce? Toward a Contingency Theory.’’
Administration & Society 34(1): 32–56.
Alford, J. 2009. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service Delivery to Co-production .
London: Palgrave.
Bandura, A. 1977. ‘‘Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.’’ Psycho-
logical Review 84: 191–215.
Bandura, A. 1982. ‘‘Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.’’ American Psychologist
37(2): 122–147.CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 109
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory .
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control . New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. 2001. ‘‘Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.’’ Annual Review of
Psychology 52: 1–26.
Bifulco, R. and H. F. Ladd. 2006. ‘‘Institutional Change and Coproduction of Public Services:
The Effect of Charter Schools on Parental Involvement.’’ Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 16(4): 553–576.
Bovaird, T. 2007. ‘‘Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduc-
tion of Public Services.’’ Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–860.
Bovaird, T. and E. Loeffler. 2012. ‘‘From Engagement to Co-production: How Users and
Communities Contribute to Public Services.’’ Pp. 35–60 in V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen andB. Verschuere, eds., New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-production . New
York: Routledge.
Brandl, J. E. 1998. ‘‘Civic Values in Public and Private Schools.’’ Pp. 55–82 in P. E. Peterson
and B. C. Hassel, eds., Learning from School Choice . Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Brudney, J. L. 1983. ‘‘The Evaluation of Coproductive Programs,’’ Policy Studies Journal
12(2): 376–385.
Christensen, T. and P. Laegreid. 2005. ‘‘Trust in Government: The Relative Importance of
Service Satisfaction, Political Factors, and Demography.’’ Public Performance & Manage-
ment Review 28(4): 487–511.
Cowell, R., R. Ashworth, J. Downe, C. Skelcher, T. Bovaird, and A. Chen. 2009. ‘‘The State
of Local Democracy: The Impact of Policy Changes on Accountability and Public
Confidence.’’ Report to CLG, Cardiff Business School.
Dunston, R. A., D. Lee, P. Boud, P. Brodie, and M. Chiarella. 2009. ‘‘Co-production and
Health System Reform—From Re-Imagining to Re-Making.’’ The Australian Journal
of Public Administration 68(1): 39–52.
Egerton, M. 2002. ‘‘Higher Education and Civic Engagement.’’ The British Journal of
Sociology 53(4): 603–620.
Einolf, C. J. 2010. ‘‘Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable
Giving.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(6): 1092–1112.
Erlinghagen, M. and K. Hank. 2006. ‘‘The Participation of Older Europeans in Volunteer
Work.’’ Ageing & Society 26: 567–584.
Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell. 1992. ‘‘Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determi-
nants and Malleability.’’ Academy of Management Review 17: 183–211.
Haas, P. M. 1992. ‘‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordi-
nation.’’ International Organization 46(1): 1–35.
Haas, P. M. 2004. ‘‘When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the
Policy Process.’’ Journal of European Public Policy 11(4): 569–592.
Hayghe, H. V. 1991. ‘‘Volunteers in the U.S.: Who Donates the Time.’’ Monthly Labor Review
114: 17–23.
Hill, P., L. C. Pierce, and J. W. Guthrie. 1997. Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting
Can Transform America’s Schools . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoxby, C. M. 1999. ‘‘The Effects of School Choice on Curriculum and Atmosphere.’’ Pp. 281–
316 in S. Mayer and P. E. Peterson, eds., Earning and Learning: How Schools Matter .
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.110 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Joshi, A. and M. Moore. 2004. ‘‘Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service
Delivery in Challenging Environments.’’ The Journal of Development Studies, 40(4): 31–49.
Loeffler, E., S. Parrado, T. Bovaird, and G. Van Ryzin. 2008. ‘‘If You Want to Go Fast, Walk
Alone. If You Want to Go Far, Walk Together’’: Citizens and the Co-production of Public
Services . Paris: French Ministry of the Treasury, Public Accounts and Civil Service, on
behalf of the Presidency of the EU.
Loughlin, J. and B. G. Peters. 1997. ‘‘State Traditions, Administrative Reform and Regiona-
lization.’’ Pp. 41–62 in M. Keating and J. Loughlin, eds., The Political Economy of
Regionalism . London: Frank Cass.
Lowi, T. 1964. ‘‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory.’’ World
Politics 16: 677–715.
Madsen, D. 1987. ‘‘Political Self-Efficacy Tested.’’ American Political Science Review 81(2): 571–582.
Marschall, M. J. 2004. ‘‘Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the
Coproduction of Local Public Goods.’’ Political Research Quarterly 57(2): 231–244.
Mishler, W. and R. Rose. 1997. ‘‘Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and
Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies.’’ The Journal of Politics 59: 418–451.
Ostrom, E. 1996. ‘‘Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.’’
World Development 24(6): 1073–1087.
Ostrom, V. and E. Ostrom. 1977. ‘‘Public Goods and Public Choices.’’ Pp. 7–49 in E. S. Savas,
ed.,Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance . Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Parks, R. B., P. C. Baker, L. L. Kiser, R. J. Oakerson, E. Ostrom, V. Ostrom, S. L. Percy, M.
Vandivort, G. P. Whitaker, and R. K. Wilson. 1981. ‘‘Consumers as Coproducers of
Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations.’’ Policy Studies
Journal 9(7): 1001–11.
Peters, B. G. 2008. ‘‘The Napoleonic Tradition.’’ The International Journal of Public Sector
Management 21(2): 118–132.
Porter, M. E., J. F. Baron, and M. Rejler. 2010. ‘‘Highland District County Hospital:
Gastroenterology Care in Sweden.’’ Case study, Harvard Business School Press.
Putnam, R. D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community .
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ramirez, R. 1999. ‘‘Value Co-production: Intellectual Origins and Implications for Practice
and Research.’’ Strategic Management Journal 20(1): 49–65.
Schneider, M., P. Teske, M. Marschall, M. Mintrom, and C. Roch. 1997. ‘‘Institutional
Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice.’’American Political Science Review 91(1): 82–93.
Schofer, E. and M. Fourcade-Gourinchas. 2001. ‘‘The Structural Contexts of Civic Engage-
ment: Voluntary Association Membership in Comparative Perspective.’’ American Socio-
logical Review 66(6): 806–828.
Sharp, E. 1978. ‘‘Citizen Organizations and Participation in Law Enforcement Advocacy and
Coproduction: The Role of Incentives.’’ PhD diss., University of North Carolina atChapel Hill.
Smith, D. H. 1994. ‘‘Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering:
A Literature Review.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23(3): 243–263.
Van de Walle, S., S. Van Roosbroek, and G. Bouckaert. 2008. ‘‘Trust in the Public Sector: Is
There Any Evidence for a Long-term Decline?’’ International Review of Administrative
Sciences 74(1): 45–62.
Van Ryzin, G. G. 2007. ‘‘Pieces of a Puzzle: Linking Government Performance, Citizen
Satisfaction, and Trust.’’ Public Performance & Management Review 30(4): 521–535.CORRELATES OF CO-PRODUCTION 111
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014

Van Ryzin, G. G. 2011. ‘‘Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants.’’ Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 745–760.
Van Ryzin, G., S. Grossman, L. DiPadova-Stocks, and E. Bergrud. 2009. ‘‘Portrait of the
Social Entrepreneur: Statistical Evidence from a US Panel.’’ Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 20(2): 129–140.
Vigoda, E. and F. Yuval. 2004. ‘‘Managerial Quality, Administrative Performance and Trust
in Governance: Can We Point to Causality?’’ Australian Journal of Public Administration
62(3): 12–25.
Wandersman, A., P. Florin, R. Friedmann, and R. Meier. 1987. ‘‘Who Participates, Who
Does Not, and Why? An Analysis of Voluntary Neighborhood Organizations in the
United States and Israel.’’ Sociological Forum 2: 534–555.
Whelan, R. and R. Dupont. 1986. ‘‘Some Political Costs of Coprovision: The Case of the New
Orleans Zoo.’’ Public Productivity Review 10(2): 69–75.
Wilson, J. and M. A. Musick. 1997. ‘‘Work and Volunteering: The Long Arm of the Job.’’
Social Forces 76: 251–271.
Wilson, J. Q. 1980. The Politics of Regulation . New York: Basic Books.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Salvador Parrado (sparrado@poli.uned.es) is Professor of Public Management at the
Distance Learning University (UNED), Madrid, and Director of Governance Inter-national. He earned his PhD in political science at the University Complutense inMadrid. His research interests include quality and performance management, citizen
engagement, partnership working, outcome assessment, decentralization, senior civil
service systems, and competency management in the public sector.
Gregg G. Van Ryzin is Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and
Administration, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey. He is an expert on surveysand methodology, and conducts empirical research on a range of topics, includinghousing and community development, citizen satisfaction with urban services, non-profit organizations, performance measurement and evaluation, and comparative
public opinion about government policy and institutions.
Tony Bovaird is Professor of Public Management and Policy in the Institute of Local
Government Studies at the University of Birmingham. His research covers strategicmanagement of public services, performance measurement in public agencies, evalu-ation of public management and governance reforms, and user and communityco-production of public services.
Elke Lo ¨ffler is Chief Executive of Governance International. Previously, she was
Research Fellow at Bristol Business School, UK, and for many years served asPolicy Analyst in the Public Management Department (now GOV) at the OECD.Her expertise is in public service improvement, in particular public serviceco-production (citizen involvement in the commissioning, design, delivery, andevaluation of public services), quality and performance management, outcomeassessment, open government, and local governance.112 International Public Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, 2013
Downloaded by [84.79.65.5] at 09:29 24 May 2014