ABSTRACT

The co-production of public services involving service users and their communities is a form of collaboration of increasing appeal to governments around the world. Its increasing popularity has resulted in critical debates about its collaborative nature, in particular whether co-production assists the state to withdraw from service provision through prompting self-reliance. The research focuses on how the local state engages in co-production with neighbourhood-based communities of place under austerity, drawing from analysis of the discourses and practices of collaboration in the city of Cardiff, Wales. Problematizing how the term is understood and enacted by different actors sheds light on the power relations entailed and the scope for these to be challenged with the development of new ways of working. The research reveals radical potentialities in the case of timebanking, a form of co-production founded in reciprocal exchange. But findings underline that co-production entails a redistribution of responsibility and risk in managing and delivering services from the state to civil society, and from the local to the neighbourhood, revalorized as a site for community self-provisioning of formerly public services. The imperative that governments and communities pursuing co-production develop shared understandings of its precise nature, use and consequences is made clear.

摘要

涉及服务用户及其社区的公共服务的共同生产是一种对世界各国政府越来越有吸引力的合作形式。它的日益普及引发了关于其合作性质的批判性辩论，特别是合作生产是否有助于国家通过促进自力更生来退出服务提供。该研究的重点是当地政府如何在紧缩政策下与以邻里为基础的地方社区进行合作生产，该研究来自对威尔士卡迪夫市合作的话语和实践的分析。对不同行为者如何理解和实施该术语提出问题，可以阐明所涉及的权力关系以及随着新工作方式的发展而挑战这些权力关系的范围。该研究揭示了时间银行的巨大潜力，时间银行是一种建立在互惠交换基础上的联合生产形式。但研究结果强调，合作生产需要重新分配管理和提供服务的责任和风险，从国家到民间社会，从地方到社区，重新评估为社区自我提供以前的公共服务的场所。政府和社区追求共同生产的必要性对其确切性质、用途和后果达成共识，这一点已经明确。从当地到社区，重新定位为社区自我提供以前公共服务的场所。政府和社区追求共同生产的必要性对其确切性质、用途和后果达成共识，这一点已经明确。从当地到社区，重新定位为社区自我提供以前公共服务的场所。政府和社区追求共同生产的必要性对其确切性质、用途和后果达成共识，这一点已经明确。