Communication for coproduction: a systematic review and research agenda

Abstract

Government and nonprofit organizations communicate with the public to reduce the degree of information asymmetry that could impede the two parties from working together to achieve higher levels of performance and accountability and coproduce better policy outcomes and public goods. Different organizational communication strategies’ influences, including choices of information channels, types, frequency, and contents, vary across individuals. This study reviews the relevant literature, discusses various communication strategies and their influences on citizens and implications for public policies and programs, develops a conceptual framework, and proposes a research agenda for future studies.

Keywords:

• Coproduction
• communication
• information
• nonprofit
• donation

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Jeffery Brudney, Chao Guo, Yondong Shen, and participants of the 2018 Coproduction Workshop at Zhejiang University for helpful comments. All remaining errors are my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Brudney and England, “Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept,” 59–65; Frederickson, “Toward a New Public Administration,” 309–331; Riccucci and Van Ryzin, “Representative Bureaucracy,” 21–30; Coleman et al., “Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution,” 717–744.

2 Brudney and England, see note 1 above, 59.

3 Jakobsen, “Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction,” 27–54; Ostrom, “Crossing the Great Divide,” 1073–1087; Parrado et al., “Correlates of Co-production,” 85–112; Pestoff, “Citizens and Co-production of Welfare Services,” 503–519; Riccucci et al., “Representative Bureaucracy in Policing,” 537–551; Van Ryzin et al., “Representative Bureaucracy and Its Symbolic Effect on Citizens,” 1365–1379.

4 Voorberg et al., “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production,” 1333–1357.

5 Nabatchi et al., “Varieties of Participation in Public Services,” 766–776; Voorberg et al., see note 4 above.

6 For a recent discussion, see Li, “Information and Donations,” Chapter 2.

7 Frank and Salkever, “Nonprofit Organizations in the Health Sector,” 129–144.

8 See note 6 above.

9 Graber, The Power of Communication, 193.

10 Kim et al., “A Systematic Review of Chinese Public Administration in English Language Journals (1996–2016),” 753–764; Kim et al., “Public Administration Research in Mainland China,” 1–8; Moher et al., “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,” e1000097.

11 Li and Van Ryzin, “A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies in Public Management Journals,” 20–36.

12 Brandsen and Honingh, “Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction,” 427–435; Brudney and England, see note 1 above; Ostrom, see note 3 above; Parks et al., “Consumers as Coproducers of Public Services,” 1001–1011; Whitaker, “Coproduction,” 240–246.

13 Cheng, “Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision,” 203–214; Sundeen, “Coproduction and Communities,” 387–402.

14 Ferris, “Coprovision,” 324–333; see note 6 above; Van Ryzin et al., see note 3 above.

15 Ferris, see note 14 above.

16 Young, “Complementary, Supplementary, or Adversarial,” 37–80.

17 Ferris, see note 14 above.

18 Warren, “Digital Member Network Implementation and Coproduction.”

19 Meijer, “Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities,” 598–607; Pestoff, see note 3 above; Voorberg et al., see note 4 above.

20 Riccucci et al., “Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce,” 121–130.

21 McDougle, et al., “Can Philanthropy be Taught,” 330–351.

22 Ferris, “Coprovision,” 324–333; See note 6 above.

23 Alford, “The Multiple Facets of Co-production,” 299–316; Brandsen and Honingh, see note 12 above; Nabatchi et al., see note 5 above.

24 Nabatchi et al., see note 5 above.

25 Nabatchi et al., see note 5 above, 773.

26 See note 4 above.

27 Gore, From Red Tape to Results, 46.

28 Maynard-Moody and Musheno, Cops, Teachers, and Counselors.

29 Clark, et al., “Coproduction of Government Services and the New Information Technology,” 687–701; Pestoff, “Collective Action and the Sustainability of Co-Production,” 383–401; Hand, “Producing a Vision of the Self-Governing Mother,” 1148–1174.

30 Comfort, “Crisis Management in Hindsight,” 189–197; Garnett et al., “Penetrating the Performance Predicament,” 266–281; Pandey and Garnett, “Exploring Public Sector Communication Performance,” 37–51.

31 See note 6 above; Rothschild and Stiglitz, “Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets,” 629–649.

32 Palumbo, “Contextualizing Co-production of Healthcare,” 72–90.

33 Kettl, Little Bites of Big Data for Public Policy; Li, “Kettl, Little Bites of Big Data for Public Policy,” 77–78.

34 Lasswell, “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society,” 84.

35 See note 9 above; See note 6 above.

36 See note 34 above.

37 See note 6 above.

38 See note 9 above, 239.

39 Liu and Yuan, “The Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Public Administration,” 140–151.

40 Lember et al., “The Potential Impacts of Digital Technologies on Co-production and Co-creation,” 1–22.

41 Meijer, see note 19 above.

42 Ingrams, “Mobile phones, Smartphones, and the Transformation of Civic Behavior through Mobile Information and Connectivity,” 506–515.

43 Meijer, “New Media and the Coproduction of Safety,” 17–34.

44 Li and McDougle, “Information Source Reliance and Charitable Giving Decisions,” 549–560.

45 Li et al., “Philanthropy Can Be Learned,” 29–52; McDougle et al., “Can Philanthropy Be Taught?” 330–351; Xu et al., “Experiential Philanthropy,” 1–7.

46 Nesti, “Co-Production for Innovation,” 310–325.

47 Buick et al., “Effective Practitioner–Scholar Relationships,” 35–47.

48 Jakobsen, see note 3 above; Jakobsen and Andersen, “Coproduction and Equity in Public Service Delivery,” 704–713.

49 Stevens and McGowan, Information Systems and Public Management, 16.

50 Hyndman, “Charity Accounting,” 295–307.

51 McDowell, et al., “An Experimental Examination of US Individual Donors’ Information Needs and Use,” 327–347; Parsons, “Is Accounting Information from Nonprofit Organizations Useful to Donors,” 104–129; Saxton et al., “Web Disclosure and the Market for Charitable Contributions,” 127–144.

52 See note 6 above.

53 Kim et al., “Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management,” 415–436; See note 11 above.

54 See note 9 above, 3.

55 Riccucci and Van Ryzin, see note 1 above.

56 See note 11 above; Riccucci et al., “Representative Bureaucracy, Race, and Policing,” 506–518; Riccucci et al., see note 3 above; See note 20 above; Van Ryzin et al., see note 3 above.

57 See note 20 above.

58 Buse et al., “The Influence of Board Diversity, Board Diversity Policies and Practices, and Board Inclusion Behaviors on Nonprofit Governance Practices,” 179–191.

59 Kustov and Pardelli, “Ethnoracial Homogeneity and Public Outcomes,” 1096–1103.

60 Thaler and Sunstein, Nudge.

61 Andreoni and Rao, “The Power of Asking,” 513–520; See note 6 above.

62 Andreoni and Rao, see note 61 above.

63 See note 6 above.

64 Andersen and Thomsen, “How to Increase Citizen Coproduction,” 1–21; Jakobsen, see note 3 above; Jakobsen and Andersen, see note 48 above; Thomsen and Jakobsen, “Influencing Citizen Coproduction by Sending Encouragement and Advice,” 286–303.

65 Mukherjee and Mukherjee, “Designing for Sustainable Outcomes,” 326–346; Powers and Thompson, “Managing Coprovision,” 179–196.

66 Parrado et al., see note 3 above.

67 Parsons, see note 51 above.

68 McDowell et al., see note 51 above.

69 Saxton et al., see note 51 above.

70 McDowell et al., see note 51 above; Saxton et al., see note 51 above.

71 Pollitt, “Performance Information for Democracy,” 38–55.

72 James and John, “Public Management at the Ballot Box,” 567–580.

73 See note 6 above.

74 Calabrese, “Do Donors Penalize Nonprofit Organizations with Accumulated Wealth,” 859–869.

75 Cnaan et al., “Nonprofit Watchdogs,” 381–397; Moxham et al., “Charities,” 5–22.

76 O’reilly,III, “Individuals and Information Overload in Organizations,” 684–696.

77 See note 6 above.

78 Cavaille and Marshall, “Education and Anti-Immigration Attitudes,” 254–263.

79 Cialdini and Schroeder, “Increasing Compliance by Legitimizing Paltry Contributions,” 599–604; Weyant and Smith, “Getting More by Asking for Less,” 392–400.

80 See note 6 above.

81 See note 47 above.

82 Trussel and Parsons, “Financial Reporting Factors Affecting Donations to Charitable Organizations,” 263–285.

83 Parsons and Trussel, “Fundamental Analysis of Not-for-profit Financial Statements,” 216–218.

84 See note 6 above.

85 de Wit and Bekkers, “Government Support and Charitable Donations,” 301–319; Lu, “The Philanthropic Consequence of Government Grants to Nonprofit Organizations,” 381–400.

86 Saxton et al., see note 51 above.

87 See note 6 above.

88 Fountain et al., “Report on the GASB Citizen Discussion Groups on Performance Reporting.”

89 Olsen, “The Numerical Psychology of Performance Information,” 100–115.

90 James and Moseley, “Does Performance Information about Public Services Affect Citizens’ Perception, Satisfaction, and Voice Behaviour,” 493–511.

91 Moynihan and Pandey, “The Big Question for Performance Management,” 849–866.

92 See note 6 above.

93 Alford, “Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce,” 32–56; Voorberg et al., “Financial Rewards Do Not Stimulate Coproduction,” 864–873.

94 Alonso et al., “Factors Influencing Citizens’ Co-Production of Environmental Outcomes,” 1–26; Bovaird et al., “Activating Collective Co-Production of Public Services,” 47–68; Thomsen, “Citizen Coproduction,” 340–353; Van Eijk and Steen, “Why Engage in Co-Production of Public Services?,” 28–46.

95 O’Brien et al., “Uncharted Territoriality in Coproduction,” 320–335.

96 Kahneman, Think, Fast and Slow.

97 See note 6 above.

98 Li and Chen, “Turning Challenges into Opportunities: Advancing Studies of Nonprofit Organizations in China,” 1–5; Ma et al., “The Research Infrastructure of Chinese Foundations, a Database for Chinese Civil Society Studies,” 170094.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Huafang Li

Huafang Li is an assistant professor in the School of Public, Nonprofit and Health Administration at Grand Valley State University. He uses mixed methods to study how citizens react to information about public policies and organizations.