Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Public Services Client-Accordance Through Coproduction and Digitalization Cover

Public Services Client-Accordance Through Coproduction and Digitalization

By: Romans Putans and  Zane Zeibote  
Open Access
|Apr 2023

References

  1. ALFORD, J. Co-production, interdependence and publicness: Extending public service-dominant logic. Public Management Review, 2015, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 673–691.
  2. ALFORD, J. Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Public lecture at the Copenhagen University, Denmark. 24.04.2014. Copenhagen, Denmark.
  3. ALFORD, J. Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2009, p. 28, 272.
  4. ALFORD, J. Towards a new Public Management Model: Beyond ‘Managerialism’ and its critics. Australian Journal of Public administration, 1993, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 135–148. < https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.1993.tb00263.x>
  5. ANDREWS, C. Integrating Public Services Motivation and Self-Determination Theory: A Framework. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2016. vol. 29, no. 3, p. 12, 1–34.
  6. BARTENBERGER, M., SZCESCILO, D. The Benefits And Risks Of Experimental Co-Production: The Case Of Urban Redesign In Vienna. Public Administration. 2015, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 509–525. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12233
  7. BERNARDI, M., DIAMANTINI, D. Shaping the sharing city: An exploratory study on Seoul and Milan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, no. 203, pp-30–42. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.132>
  8. BOVAIRD, T, STOKER, G, JONES, T, LOEFFLER, E AND PINILLA, R. Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2016, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 47–68.
  9. BRANDSEN, T., HONINGH, M. Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review, 2015, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 427–435. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465>
  10. BRIGGS, L. Citizens, Customers, Clients or Unwilling Clients? Different and effective strategies for citizen-centric delivery. In: LINDQUIST, E. A.,VINCENT, S., WANNA, H. (eds) Putting Citizens First. Engagement in Policy and Service Delivery for the 21st Century. Canberra: The Australian National University, 2013, pp.83–94, 220.
  11. BRUDNEY, JL. AND ENGLAND, RE. Toward a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 1983, no. 43, pp. 59–65-CHESBROUGH, HW. Open Innovation, the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston (USA): Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003.
  12. CITADEL project has been implemented under the “Horizon-2020” programme, Grant Agreement No 726755.
  13. DAGLIO, M., GERSON, D., KITCHEN, H. Building Organisational Capacity for Public Sector Innovation. Background Paper, OECD Conference „Innovating the Public Sector: from Ideas to Impact”. Paris: 12–13 November 2015, p. 40.
  14. EU Project 3LoE “Three-level centres of professional excellence: Qualification, entrepreneurship and innovation in the Green Economy”. Pilot project selected for funding under ERASMUS+ Support for Policy Reform 2020 Call. [online] < https://3-loe.eu/>
  15. European Commission 2015, “European Fund for Strategic Investments”. Official Journal of the European Union, L 169/1 Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2015.
  16. European Commission 2015, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM/2015/0192 final.
  17. European Commission 2017, Europe’s Digital Progress Report 2017, European Commission.
  18. European Commission 2018, Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU. Strengthening the foundations for Europe’s future, European Commission, pp. 431–433.
  19. European Commission. (2015). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 1305/2013, COM(2015) 701 final, 2015/0263 (COD), Brussels, 26. 11. 2015.
  20. European Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) 2014, Briefing, 25 March, 2014, pp. 2–4. Eurostat 2017, Digital Economy and Society Statistics-Households and Individuals, Eurostat.
  21. FOTAKI, M. Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden. Public Administration, 2011, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 933–955. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01879.x>
  22. GALLI, F., BRUNORI, G., DI IACOVO, F., INNOCENTI, S. Co-Producing Sustainability: Involving Parents and Civil Society in the Governance of School Meal Services. A Case Study from Pisa, Italy. Sustainability, 2014, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1643–1666. DOI: 10.3390/su6041643
  23. GROOTAERT, CH., Van BASTELAEER, T. Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis and Findings from the Social Capital Initiative, 2001, Working Paper 24, Washington DC, World Bank.
  24. HEMERIJCK, A., VANDENBROUCKE, F. Social Investment and the Euro Crisis: The Necessity of a Unifying Social Policy Concept”. Intereconomics, 2012, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 200–206.
  25. HERTOG, Den P., AA, Van Der W., JONG, De M.W. Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management, 2010, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 490–514.
  26. HUNG, SY, CHANG, CM and KUO, SR. User acceptance of mobile e-government services: An empirical study. Government Information Quarterly, 2013, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 33–44.
  27. JUKIĆ, T., PEVCIN, P., BENČINA, J., DECMAN, M., VRBEK, S. Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation. Administrative Sciences, 2019, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 90. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040090>
  28. LEMBER, V., BRANDSEN, T. TÕNURIST, P. The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 2019, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1665–1686, DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807>
  29. MCNEIl, J. Enabling social innovation assemblages: Strengthening public sector involvement. Doctoral Thesis at Institute for Culture & Society, Western Sydney University, 2017, p. 306.
  30. MONRAD, M. Self-Reflexivity as a form of Client Participation: Clients as Citizens, Consumers, Partners or Self-Entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Policy., 2019, pp. 1–18. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279419000655>
  31. MURAVSKA, T., STACENKO S., ZEIBOTE, Z. Digitalization in the Regional Context: The Case of E-Government Services in Latvia. Studies in European Affairs, 2018, no. 4., pp. 251–267.
  32. OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, < https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en>
  33. OECD (2019), Digital Government Review of Sweden: Towards a Data-driven Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, < https://doi.org/10.1787/4daf932b-en>
  34. OECD 2001, “Understanding the Digital Divide”, OECD, Paris.
  35. OECD 2016, “Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas,” OECD Publishing, Paris.
  36. OSBORNE, S. P., RADNOR, Z., KINDER, T., VIDAL, I. The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services. British Journal of Management, 2015, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 424–438. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12094>
  37. OSBORNE, SP., RADNOR, Z., NASI, G. A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. American Review of Public Administration, 2012, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 135–158.
  38. OSBORNE, SP., RADNOR, Z. AND STROKOSCH, K. Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 2016. vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 639–653.
  39. OSTROM, E., PARKS, RB., WHITAKER, GP. AND PERCY, SL. The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services”, Policy Studies Journal, 1978, vol. 7, pp. 381–381.
  40. PARKS, RB., BAKER, PC., KISER, R., OAKERSON, R., OSTROM, E., OSTROM, V., PERCY, SL., VANDIVORT, MB., WHITAKER, GP., WILSON, R. Consumers as Co-producers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. Rick Policy Studies Journal, 1981, pp. 1001–1011.
  41. PETRESCU, M., POPESCU, D., BARBU, I., DINESCU, R. Public Management: between the Traditional and New Model” Review of International Comparative Management, 2010, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 408–415.
  42. PILO, F. Co-producing affordability’ to the electricity service: a market-oriented response to addressing inequality of access in Rio de Janeiro’s favelas. Urban Research & Practice, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 86-101. DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2016.1154101
  43. PUTANS, R. Modern Interactions between the Society and the State: In Search of Clients within Public Administration. Voices from the Sylff Community, 2015. [online] Available at: < https://www.sylff.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/06_SRA_Putans_Article-web.pdf>
  44. RAJNEESH, S. Value Creation in Citizen Services: Sakala as India’s Most Effective Citizen-first Public Engagement Model. Journal of Creating Value, 2015, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 275-291. < https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964315604096>
  45. SCOGNAMIGLIO, F. The New Public Governance in the platform society: Co-productive networks for a new public administration. Ph.D. research proposal at UK Open University, 2019, p. 8.
  46. SICILIA, M., GUARINI, E., SANCINO, A., ANDREANI, M., RUFFINI, R. Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2016, vol. 82, no. 1, pp.8–27.
  47. THOMAS, J.C. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management. Public Administration Review, 2013, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 786–796. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109>
  48. TORFING, J., SØRENSEN, E., RØISELAND, A. Transforming the Public Sector Into an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward, Administration and Society, 2016, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 795–825. < https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057>
  49. TROCCIOLA, G., PALUMBO, R. Co-producing services to enhance cultural heritage. The role of co-production in improving the quality of tourism services. Sinergie – Italian Journal of Management, 2015. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.7433/SRECP.2015.05>
  50. VERSCHUERE, B., BRANDSEN, T., PESTOFF, V. Co-production as a maturing concept”. In: PESTOFF, V., BRANDSEN, T., VERSCHUERE, B. (eds) New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production. New York, Routledge, 2012, pp. 1–12, 424, 66.
  51. VOORBERG, WH, BEKKERS, VJJM and TUMMERS, LG. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 2015, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1333–1357.
  52. WILLIAMSON, B. Knowing public services: Cross sector intermediaries and algorithmic governance in public sector reform. Public Policy & Administration, 2014, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 292–312. DOI: < https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0952076714529139>
Language: English
Page range: 121 - 147
Published on: Apr 19, 2023
Published by: Palacký University Olomouc
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2023 Romans Putans, Zane Zeibote, published by Palacký University Olomouc
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.