Coproduction of Public Services

Origins of the concept

In the 1970s, Ostrom and colleagues studying police services in Chicago and other US cities found that crime prevention depended heavily not only on police activity but on residents' reporting and cooperation. Parks and colleagues (1981) described citizens who consume services as also participating in production as 'coproducers'. Brudney and England (1983) classified coproduction into individual, group and collective types. This work parallels Ostrom's institutional research holding that the tragedy of the commons can be overcome through community self-governance.

Synergy between state and citizens

Ostrom (1996) compared participatory sewerage projects in Brazil with primary education in Nigeria, showing that great synergy arises when state and citizens complement each other. Coproduction works better where there is trust and social capital among residents and collective efficacy, the shared belief that problems can be solved together. Pestoff (2006) compared childcare in eight European countries and found parental participation and influence greatest in parent cooperative childcare.

Renewed interest and critiques

Since the 2000s, coproduction has gained renewed attention as an alternative to the customer-centered model of New Public Management. Bovaird (2007) outlined forms in which users and communities participate from planning to evaluation, and Osborne, Radnor and Strokosch (2016) argued from a service management perspective that value is co-created with users. Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers' (2015) systematic review noted that research focuses on conditions for participation, with little evidence on outcomes. Critics also argue that coproduction can shift government responsibility onto citizens or favor groups with more time and resources.

FAQ

What is coproduction in simple terms?

Public services are made not only by government but with citizens' participation, such as neighborhood watch or recycling.

What are the downsides of coproduction?

Critics say it can shift government responsibility onto citizens and widen inequality if only those with time and resources take part.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011. Early key article.
2. Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65. Defines types.
3. Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. Synergy and development.
4. Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–519. Childcare in Europe.
5. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. User and community coproduction.
6. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. Systematic review.
7. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. Service-management view.