Coproduction investments: Street-level management perspective on coproduction

References

• Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34, 32–20. doi:10.1177/0095399702034001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alford, J. (2016). Co-production, interdependence and publicness: Extending public service-dominant logic. Public Management Review, 18, 673–691. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2013). Social capital, management capacity and public service performance: Evidence from the US states. Public Management Review, 15, 19–42. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.662445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. (2011). Public administration as storytelling. Public Administration, 89, 183–195. doi:10.1111/padm.2011.89.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 1119–1138. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2013). We’re all in this together: Harnessing user and community co-production of public outcomes. Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies: University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G. G., Loeffler, E., & Parrado, S. (2015). Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44, 1–23. doi:10.1017/S0047279414000567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76, 427–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. The Social Service Review, 71, 1–33. doi:10.1086/604228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2008). Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. Journal of Public Administration, 31, 317–336. doi:10.1080/01900690701590587
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i253– i277. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72, 940–949. doi:10.1111/puar.2012.72.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2013). Street-level organizations and the welfare state. In E. Z. Brodkin & G. Marston (Eds.), Work and the welfare state: Street-level organizations and workfare politics (pp. 17–34). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z., & Majmundar, M. (2010). Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research And, Theory, 20, 827–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryer, T. A. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69, 271–283. doi:10.1111/puar.2009.69.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaebo, G., & Medeiros, J. J. (2016). Conditions for policy implementation via co-production: The control of dengue fever in Brazil. Public Management Review, 19, 1381–1398. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1209231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Ba.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Roos, I. (2005). Service portraits in service research: A critical review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16, 107–121. doi:10.1108/09564230510587177
   Google Scholar
• Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97–108. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favero, N., & Molina, A. L., Jr. (2018). Is active representation an organizational-level process? The indirect effect of bureaucrats on clients they don’t directly serve. The American Review of Public Administration, 48, 3–17. doi:10.1177/0275074016660614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fledderus, J. (2015). Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28, 550–565. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frieling, M. A., Lindenberg, S. M., & Stokman, F. N. (2014). Collaborative communities through coproduction: Two case studies. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 35–58. doi:10.1177/0275074012456897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gassner, D., & Gofen, A. (2018). Street-level management: A clientele-agent perspective on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 551–568. doi:10.1093/jopart/muy051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, J. (2010). Community policing and community building: A case study of officer perceptions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 309–325. doi:10.1177/0275074009340050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gofen, A., Blomqvist, P., Needham, C. E., Warren, K., & Winblad, U. (2018). Negotiated compliance at the street level: personalizing immunization in England, Israel and Sweden. Public Administration. doi:10.1111/padm.12557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoggett, P. (2006). Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public organizations. Human Relations, 59, 175–194. doi:10.1177/0018726706062731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitinen, I., Kinder, T., & Stenvall, J. (2018). Street-level new public governances in integrated services-as-a-system. Public Management Review, 20, 845–872. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1340506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas and the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Stage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Stage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2016). User and community co-production of public services: What does the evidence tell us? International Journal of Public Administration, 39, 1006–1019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loffler, E., Parrado, S., Bovaird, T., & Van Ryzin, G. (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. Report to the EU Presidency. Paris: Ministry of finance, budget and public services.
   Google Scholar
• Loyens, K., & Maesschalck, J. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 42, 66–100. doi:10.1177/0095399710362524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, L. E., Jr, Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. (2005). Engaging with citizens and other stakeholders. In T. Bovaird & E. Loffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 189–201). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., & Portillo, S. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In R. F. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. J. (2014). New media and the coproduction of safety: An empirical analysis of Dutch practices. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 17–34. doi:10.1177/0275074012455843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. J., & Torenvlied, R. (2016). Social media and the new organization of government communications: An empirical analysis of Twitter usage by the Dutch police. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 143–161. doi:10.1177/0275074014551381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G. (1991). Citizens and responsibilities. In G. Andrews (Ed.), Citizenship (pp. 37–49). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 63S–88S. doi:10.1177/0275074013519702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77, 766–776. doi:10.1111/puar.12765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvements in public services. Social Policy and Society, 7, 221–231. doi:10.1017/S1474746407004174
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C., & Carr, S. (2009). Co-production-an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation: Research briefing. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
   Google Scholar
• Normann, R. (2002). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service business (3rd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 135–158. doi:10.1177/0275074012466935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value. Public Management Review, 18, 639–653. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, S31–S47. doi:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-s1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning—Usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65, 143–157. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00440.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24, 1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paarlberg, L. E., & Gen, S. (2009). Exploring the determinants of nonprofit coproduction of public service delivery: The case of K-12 public education. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 391–408. doi:10.1177/0275074008320711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G., Bovaird, T., & Loffler, E. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16, 85–112. doi:10.1080/10967494.2013.796260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8, 503–519. doi:10.1080/14719030601022882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 315–353. doi:10.1177/0275074004269288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, B. (2012). Co‐production: Option or obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71, 314–324. doi:10.1111/aupa.2012.71.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 729–756. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Judging quality: Evaluative criteria and epistemic communities. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 89–114). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., & Ruffini, R. (2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 8–27. doi:10.1177/0020852314566008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siciliano, M. D. (2017). Professional networks and street-level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 47, 79–101. doi:10.1177/0275074015577110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. (1965). Front-line organization of the state mental hospital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 381–399. doi:10.2307/2391474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. R. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and public policy. In P. B. Guy & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 431–446). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73, 786–796. doi:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen, M. K. (2017). Citizen coproduction: The influence of self-efficacy perception and knowledge of how to coproduce. The American Review of Public Administration, 47, 340–353. doi:10.1177/0275074015611744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1099–1126. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 1083–1101. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17, 1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537. doi:10.1177/104973201129119299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar