Search

Co-production of public services is attracting growing attention, although little is known regarding its outcomes. This paper aims to examine how the management of co-production can enhance the principles of good governance, which are intended as its potential outcomes. To this purpose, the research investigates the key issues in managing co-production to explain how they contribute to enhancing good governance principles and fulfil the potential of co-production as a transformative governance arrangement suitable for achieving outcomes instead of being an outcome per se. Two case studies were carried out in Italy with data gathered from both desk analysis and focus groups with key actors involved in the process of co-production. The findings show that group co-production may require limited participation and inclusiveness of actors who have a direct stake in co-produced services and are able to contribute to them. The findings also show that state actors should consider the perspective of lay actors for co-producing usable information. Specifically, the co-elaboration of managerial tools and measures contributes to strengthening horizontal accountability mechanisms which, however, act mainly through commitment. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on co-production and good governance by investigating key issues that can enhance good governance principles. It also provides practitioners with significant insights into the management of co-production.

This study explores how certain characteristics of the network structure, such as autonomization and connectivity, differently combine with individual leadership in order to produce high network performance. Data gathered through a survey of 265 networks for homecare assistance shed light on three different paths simultaneously leading to network success. First, the presence of autonomy from government (autonomization) appears to be able to ensure network success, irrespective of the other conditions. Secondly, the presence (or absence) of an individual network leader combines differently with the network’s connectivity. Sparsely connected networks seem to require a network leader, forging agreements and leading partners towards a common objective. On the contrary, in highly connected networks, it is the intensity of network ties that appears to lead the network (the network leader seems to be not important). These networks seem to be leaderless, but not necessarily leadershipless.