Dennis Linders
ABSTRACT
This paper examines whether the tools of the Information Age---principally but not exclusively the Internet---make citizen coproduction of government services more viable and effective. The paper first discusses the re-emergence of citizen coproduction as a fashionable policy option in the face of persistent budget deficits, the rise of "government by network," and the advent of mass "peer-production." Finding a plethora of competing labels, models, and concepts for Internet-facilitated coproduction, the paper proposes a formal taxonomy to provide a more robust framework for systematic analysis. The paper then applies this framework to evaluate the impact of the tools of the Information Age on citizen coproduction. Its findings cautiously support the claim that the Information Age enables and advances new forms of citizen coproduction, namely large-scale "Do-It-Yourself Government" and "Government as a Platform." The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential implications for public administration, including the possible emergence of a new social contract that empowers the public to play a far more active role in the functioning of their government.
- Samuelson, Robert J. 2010. The Age of Austerity. The Washington Post (October 11, 2010).Google Scholar
- Weber, E. P and Khademian, A. M. 2008. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68, 2 (2008), 334--349.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donahue, J. 2004. On collaborative governance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard (2004).Google Scholar
- Kettl, Donald F. 2000. The tranformation of governance: globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60, 6 (2000).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mattson, G. 1986. The promise of citizen coproduction: some persistent issues. Public Productivity Review, 10, 2 (1986).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Horne, M. & Shirley, T. 2009. Co-production in public services: a new partnership with citizens (Discussion Paper).Google Scholar
- Levine, C. & Fisher, G. 1984. Citizenship and service delivery: the promise of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 44 (1984).Google Scholar
- Whitaker, G. P. 1980. Coproduction: citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40, 3 (1980), 240--246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benkler, Yochai. 2002. Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm. The Yale Law Journal, 112 (2002).Google Scholar
- Shirky, Clay. 2010. Cognitive Surplus. Penguin Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Orszag, Peter. 2009. Open Government Directive. Washington, DC: White House.Google Scholar
- Government 2.0 Taskforce. 2009. Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. Australian Government.Google Scholar
- The Gov Monitor. 2010. New Singapore e-Government Masterplan to connect with the people. thegovmonitor.com (June 14, 2010).Google Scholar
- Cameron, David. 2010. The Next Age of Government (Video). TED 2010.Google Scholar
- Cameron, David. 2010. The Big Society Speech. The Office of the British Prime Minister.Google Scholar
- Johnston, E. and Hansen, D. 2011. Design Lessons for Smart Governance Infrastructures. In American Governance 3.0: Rebooting the Public Square? National Academy of Public Administration.Google Scholar
- O'Reilly, Tim. 2010. Government as a Platform (Chap 2). In Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media.Google Scholar
- Brudney, J. & England, R. 1983. Toward a definition of the Coproduction Concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 1 (1983).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Prince, Rosa. 2010. David Cameron launches his Big Society. The Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk) (June 18, 2010).Google Scholar
- Torres, L. H. 2007. Citizen sourcing in the public interest. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 3, 1 (2007), 134--145.Google Scholar
- McGuire, M. 2006. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66 (2006), 33--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noveck, B. S. 2009. Wiki Government. Brookings Institutions Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Ackerman, J. 2004. Co-Governance for accountability: beyond "Exit" and "Voice". World Development, 32, 3 (2004), 447--463.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dunleavy, P. and Margetts, H. Z. 2010. The Second Wave of Digital Era Governance. 2010 Annual Meeting of APSA.Google Scholar
- Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tickler, J. 2005. New Public Administration Is Dead - Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (2005), 467--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. 2006. Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public management review, 8, 4 (2006), 493--501.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, T. & Downe, J. 2008. Innovation in Public Engagement and Co-production of Services (Policy Paper). Cardiff.Google Scholar
- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2008. Potential and promise of online volunteering. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2 (2008), 544--562. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 4 (1969), 216--224.Google Scholar
- Gazley, B. 2008. Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit partnerships. Public administration review, 68, 1 (2008), 141--154.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24, 6 (1996), 1073--1087.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Flanagin, A. J, Stohl, C., and Bimber, B. 2006. Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs, 73, 1 (2006), 29--54.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C., and Eden, C. 2000. The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management Review, 2, 3 (2000), 337--358.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cooper, T. L, Bryer, T. A, and Meek, J. W. 2006. Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management. Public Administration Review, 66 (2006), 76--88.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carlitz, R. D. and Gunn, R. W. 2002. Online rulemaking: A step towards e-governance. Governance Information Quarterly, 19, 4 (2002), 389--405.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kumar, N. and Vragov, R. 2009. Active citizen participation using ICT tools. Communications of the ACM, 52, 1 (Jan 2009), 118--121. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noveck, B. S. Wiki-government. 2008. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 7 (2008).Google Scholar
- Padget, J. 2005. E-Government and E-Democracy in Latin America. IEEE Intelligent Systems (2005). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Boyd, O. P. 2008. Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems. Information Polity, 13, 3 (2008), 167--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vigoda, E. 2002. From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 5, 527--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benkler, Y. 2003. Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information. Duke Law Journal, 52, 6 (2003), 1245--1277.Google Scholar
- Jones, C and Mitnick, S. 2006. Open Source Disaster Recovery: Case Studies of Networked Collaboration. First Monday, 11, 5 (2006).Google Scholar
- Long, M. 2002. Beyond traditional boundaries: Government in the information age. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61, 1 (2002), 3--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Prince, R. 2010. David Cameron: Big Society is not a 'cover for cuts'. The Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk) (July 19, 2010).Google Scholar
- Preece, J. and Shneiderman, B. 2009. The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 1 (2009), 13--32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 5 (2007), 846--860.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lallana, E. 2004. SMS in business and government in the Philippines. ICT4D Monograph Series. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/Other/UNPAN024834.pdf.Google Scholar
- Shneiderman, B., et al. 2009. National Initaitive for Social Participation. NISP iParticipate.Google Scholar
- Robinson, D. G, Yu, H., Zeller, W. P, and Felten, E. W. 2009. Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law\& Technology, 11 (2009), 160.Google Scholar
- CS Transform. 2010. Citizen Service Transformation: A manifesto for change in the delivery of public services.Google Scholar
- Goldsmith, S. and Kettl, D. 2009. Unlocking the Power of Networks: Keys to High Performance Government. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Bertot, J. T., Jaeger, P. T, Munson, S., and Glaisyer, T. 2010. Social media technology and policy for government transparency. Computer, 43, 11 (Nov 2010), 53--59. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: he Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Benkler.org. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, Xu. 1999. Review: Mutual Empowerment of State and Society: Its Natre, Conditions, Mechanisms, and Limits. Comparative Politics, 31, 2 (1999), 231--249.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rethemeyer, R. K. 2007. The Empires Strike Back: Is the Internet Corporatizing Rather Than Democratizing Policy Processes? Public Administration Review, 67, 2, 199--215.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaeger, P. T and Bertot, J. C. 2010. Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly (2010).Google Scholar
- Schlozman, K. L, Verba, S., and Brady, H. E. 2010. Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 02 (2010), 487--509.Google ScholarCross Ref
- van Dijck, J. & Nieborg, D. 2009. Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11, 4 (2009), 855--874.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boulianne, S. 2009. Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 2 (2009), 193--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carpini, M. X. D. 2000. Gen. com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 4 (2000), 341--349.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennings, M. K and Zeitner, V. 2003. Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 3 (2003), 311--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lam, W. F. 1996. Institutional design of public agencies and coproduction: a study of irrigation associations in Taiwan. World development, 24, 6 (1996), 1039--1054.Google Scholar
- Shneiderman, B. 2009. iParticipate.gov: A National Initiative for Social Participation. Science, 323, 5920, 1426--1427.Google Scholar
- Castells, M. 2008. The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78 (2008).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- We-Government: an anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age
Recommendations
The Public Library's Role in Enabling E-Government: A View of Two Countries in the English-Speaking Caribbean
In most developed countries, linking citizens with e-government through Information Communication Technology ICT is an important social role for public libraries. Public libraries partner with government agencies; acting as intermediaries to bridge ...
E-Government is dead: Long live Public Administration 2.0
ICT, public administration and democracy in the coming decadeMany complexities associated with e-Government are caused by using the wrong perspectives to understand and explain e-Government phenomena. This argument will be further introduced and explained by using e-Government initiatives and approaches in New ...
Engaging Citizens and Delivering Services: The Housing Corporation in Trinidad and Tobago
Globally, governments are attempting to transform their societies with the widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Public agencies consider ICTs as powerful tools to deliver services to citizens and encourage engagement. ...
Comments