Assessing the Potential for Co-Production: Evidence from a Comparative Survey of Local Government Leaders in Four Countries

As with all democratic innovations – in this case, from a local public administration perspective - co-production refers to arrangements in which governments and citizens are actively involved in the planning and design (co-design) and delivery (co-delivery) of public services to develop innovative solutions to societal problems. Co-production and similar approaches are key elements in many recent public management concepts (e.g., design thinking, collaborative governance, and organisational agility). While research on co-production has grown exponentially, especially in countries with an Anglo-American or Scandinavian administrative tradition, there is little systematic knowledge on the practical importance of co-production in countries with a Germanic administrative tradition. In such “legalistic” contexts, co-production might be a particularly valuable approach to democratic innovations to bring the public sector closer to its citizens, thereby renewing and extending citizens’ engagement in and commitment to local democracy. With this paper we want to extend the debate on the most effective drivers of democratic innovations within the field of public administration. The paper explores the importance and the use of co-production in three regions with a Germanic administrative tradition (German-speaking Switzerland, southern Germany, and Austria) compared to an Anglo-American administrative tradition (the Midlands in the United Kingdom) and a Napoleonic tradition (French-speaking Switzerland). Based on survey data among top local government leaders (mayors, municipal clerks, chief executives and heads of departments), we will investigate our respondents’ perceptions of how important co-production is for local service delivery; how widespread it is used, and whether the drivers of co-production in different local government administrations are primarily individual (ideological, generational) or contextual (municipal size, economic situation, political control). Finally, we explore whether there are country-specific differences that can be explained by the administrative traditions of the five regions compared.