The Pitfalls of a Popular Concept: Co-Production in Times of Individualization, Marketization, and De-Politicization

Erik Masao Eriksson, Erik Magnus Eriksson
{"title":"The Pitfalls of a Popular Concept: Co-Production in Times of Individualization, Marketization, and De-Politicization","authors":"Erik Masao Eriksson, Erik Magnus Eriksson","doi":"10.58235/sjpa.v27i3.14155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Co-production between public administrators and citizens has attracted renewed interest in recent years. Co-production is predominantly perceived as something desirable and is claimed to improve service efficiency and outcome and user satisfaction, at the same time as addressing democratic ideals. Drawing from interviews with public administrators and patients in a Swedish healthcare context, this paper seeks to nuance the often overly positive notion of co-production by understanding these micro-level practices as being embedded in a macro-level societal context. Theorizing the empirical material based on three features of contemporary society – individualization, marketization, and de-politicization – we argue that co-production risks placing a burden and responsibility on individual users and creating a (welfare)market in which better-off people are recruited and benefitted. In this sense, co-production may consolidate or reinforce inequalities. Through de-politicization, political issues may appear as value-free; however, as long as market-logics prevail, the welfare system and practices of co-production will, in some respects, be impotent to address crucial societal issues. Co-production as a collective practice targeting democratic standards is called for, rather than an efficiency focus, preferably by taking the recruitment of those in the greatest need seriously – scaffolded by a revitalized public service ethos of public administrators and their organizations.","PeriodicalId":31772,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v27i3.14155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Co-production between public administrators and citizens has attracted renewed interest in recent years. Co-production is predominantly perceived as something desirable and is claimed to improve service efficiency and outcome and user satisfaction, at the same time as addressing democratic ideals. Drawing from interviews with public administrators and patients in a Swedish healthcare context, this paper seeks to nuance the often overly positive notion of co-production by understanding these micro-level practices as being embedded in a macro-level societal context. Theorizing the empirical material based on three features of contemporary society – individualization, marketization, and de-politicization – we argue that co-production risks placing a burden and responsibility on individual users and creating a (welfare)market in which better-off people are recruited and benefitted. In this sense, co-production may consolidate or reinforce inequalities. Through de-politicization, political issues may appear as value-free; however, as long as market-logics prevail, the welfare system and practices of co-production will, in some respects, be impotent to address crucial societal issues. Co-production as a collective practice targeting democratic standards is called for, rather than an efficiency focus, preferably by taking the recruitment of those in the greatest need seriously – scaffolded by a revitalized public service ethos of public administrators and their organizations.
流行概念的陷阱:个体化、市场化和去政治化时代的合拍片
近年来,公共行政人员和公民之间的合作再次引起了人们的兴趣。合作生产主要被认为是一种可取的东西,据称可以提高服务效率、结果和用户满意度,同时还能实现民主理想。通过对瑞典医疗保健背景下的公共管理人员和患者的采访,本文试图通过理解这些微观层面的实践嵌入宏观层面的社会背景,来细微差别通常过于积极的联合生产概念。根据当代社会的三个特征——个体化、市场化和去政治化——对经验材料进行理论化,我们认为,联合生产可能会给个人用户带来负担和责任,并创造一个(福利)市场,在这个市场中,更富裕的人被招募并从中受益。从这个意义上说,合拍片可能会巩固或加强不平等。通过去政治化,政治问题可能表现为价值无关;然而,只要市场逻辑占上风,福利制度和合作生产的做法在某些方面将无力解决关键的社会问题。需要联合制作作为一种以民主标准为目标的集体做法,而不是注重效率,最好是认真征聘最需要的人- -以恢复公共行政人员及其组织的公共服务精神为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信