ЮФУ
ул. М. Горького, 88, к. 211
г.Ростов-на-Дону, Россия
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Концепция со-производства публичных услуг: создание базового условия развития сектора или поиски под фонарем?


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Том 21 (номер 1),
Цитирование: Тамбовцев В.Л., Рождественская И.А. (2023). Концепция со-производства публичных услуг: создание базового условия развития сектора или поиски под фонарем? Terra Economicus 21(1), 19–31. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-1-19-31

Рост экономического потенциала государств в большинстве стран мира в последние десятилетия резко повысил интерес к проблематике повышения результативности и эффективности государственного управления. Задачей статьи является анализ группы подходов, которые должны были заменить новый государственный менеджмент. Они ориентированы на усиление участия граждан в процессах принятия и реализации решений, что можно назвать концепцией со-производства. Основу анализа составляют положения экономической теории, такие как модель принципала-агента и понятие оппортунистического поведения. Исходя из этих положений, введено и проанализировано понятие со-производственного действия индивида, предложена классификация таких действий и определены условия принятия решений об их осуществлении. Анализ концепций со-производства публичных услуг, ценности для общества и новой социальной координации позволил сделать выводы о том, что в рамках теории государственного управления остаются без должного внимания не только упомянутые выше, но и другие положения экономической теории. Не учитывается тот факт, что публичные услуги относятся к разным типам экономических благ, таких как исследуемые, опытные и доверительные; отсутствует последовательное разграничение услуг и условий их потребления; в практических рекомендациях по совершенствованию государственного управления для стран, в которых сложились государства естественного типа, не учитываются результаты исследования социальных предпочтений индивидов. Исходя из этого, можно заключить, что проанализированные концепции не выходят за рамки предпосылок теории государственного управления, которые привели к возникновению и массовому распространению концепции нового государственного менеджмента, и не способны без упомянутых изменений повысить результативность и эффективность государственного управления.


Ключевые слова: со-производство публичных услуг; ценность для общества; новая социальная координация; со-производственное действие; оппортунистическое поведение

Список литературы:
  • Тамбовцев В.Л. (2006). Стандарты государственных услуг (экономическая теория и российские реформы). Общественные науки и современность (4), 5–20. [Tambovtsev, V. (2006). Standards of state services and Russian reforms. Social Sciences and Contemporary World (4), 5–20 (in Russian)].
  • Aldrich, J. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 37(1), 246–278.
  • Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social exchange perspective. Public Administration Review 62(3), 337–346.
  • Aligica, P., Tarko, V. (2013). Co-production, polycentricity, and value heterogeneity: The Ostroms public choice institutionalism revisited. American Political Science Review 107(4), 726–741.
  • Almond, G., Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Andersen, L., Jørgensen, T., Kjeldsen, A., Pedersen, L., Vrangbæk, K. (2012). Public value dimensions: Developing and testing a multi-dimensional classification. International Journal of Public Administration 35(11), 715–728.
  • Andrews, R. (2007). Civic culture and public service failure: An empirical exploration. Urban Studies 44(4), 845–863.
  • Andrews, R., Guarneros-Meza, V., Downe, J. (2015). Public management reforms and social cohesion in Europe: The view from the top. Public Management Review 18(4), 558–582.
  • Ansell, C., Doberstein, C., Henderson, H., Siddiki, S., ‘T Hart, P. (2020). Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: A mixed methods approach. Policy and Society 39(4), 570–591.
  • Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation? Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), 216–224.
  • Becker, G. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy 82(6), 1063–1093.
  • Becker, G. (1976). Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature 14(3), 817–826.
  • Bovaird, T., Flemig, S., Loeffler, E., Osborne, S. (2019). How far have we come with co-production – And what’s next? Public Money & Management 39(4), 229–232.
  • Box, R. (1992). The administrator as trustee of the public interest: Normative ideals and daily practice. Administration & Society 24(3), 323–345.
  • Brandsen, T., Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review 76(3), 427–435.
  • Brekke, K., Kverndokk, S., Nyborg, K. (2003). An economic model of moral motivation. Journal of Public Economics 87(9–10), 1967–1983.
  • Brogan, J. (2001). The mirror of enlightenment: The rational choice debate. Review of Politics 58(4), 793–806.
  • Brown, P., Cherney, L., Warner, S. (2021). Understanding public value – Why does it matter? International Journal of Public Administration 44(10), 803–807.
  • Bryson, J., Crosby, B., Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review 74(4), 445–456.
  • Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review 19(5), 640–654.
  • Churchman, C. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science 14(4), B141–B142.
  • Dalton, R. (2005). The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology / Revue Internationale de Sociologie 15(1), 133–154.
  • Dixon, J., Melloni, E., Echevarria, L., Osimo, D., Rykkja, L., Shaw, K., Sørsdal, L., Triantafillou, A., Vasilescu, C. (2021). Creating public value together: From research to action. The Co-Creation Compass (27). Brussels: Lisbon Council.
  • Douglas, S., Ansell, C., Parker, C., Sørensen, E., ‘T Hart, P., Torfing, J. (2020). Understanding collaboration: Introducing the collaborative governance case databank. Policy and Society 39(4), 495–509.
  • Dudau, A., Glennon, R., Verschuere, B. (2019). Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services. Public Management Review 21(11), 1577–1594.
  • Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Durose, C., Perry, B., Richardson, L. (2022). Is co-production a ʻgoodʼ concept? Three responses. Futures 142, article 102999. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2022.102999
  • Ekelund, R., Mixon, F., Ressler, R. (1995). Advertising and information: an empirical study of search, experience and credence goods. Journal of Economic Studies 22(2), 33–43.
  • Eriksson, E. (2022). Coproduction and inclusion: A public administrator perspective. International Public Management Journal 25(2), 217–240.
  • Fitzsimmons, J. (1985). Consumer participation and productivity in service operations. Interfaces 15(3), 60–67.
  • Goldfinch, S., Wallis, J. (2010). Two myths of convergence in public management reform. Public Administration 88(4), 1099–1115.
  • Goldman, S. (1966). Voting behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964. American Political Science Review 60(2), 374–383.
  • Gordon, S. (2003). The History and Philosophy of Social Science. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Howlett, M., Kekez, A., Poocharoen, O. (2017). Understanding co-production as a policy tool: Integrating new public governance and comparative policy theory. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 19(5), 487–501.
  • Kampen, J., Van De Walle, S., Bouckaert, G. (2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review 29(4), 387–404.
  • Kelley, S., Donnelly, J., Skinner, S. (1990). Customer participation in service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing 66(3), 315–335.
  • Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
  • Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J. (2000). Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory 2(2), 135–158.
  • Klijn, E.-H., Koppenjan, J., Termeer, K. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration 73(3), 437–454.
  • Koppenjan, J., Koliba, C. (2013). Transformations towards new public governance: Can the new paradigm handle complexity? International Review of Public Administration 18(2), 1–8.
  • Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit? Abacus 45(1), 1–21.
  • Lee, J., Choi, H.-S., Han, S. (2020). Opportunism and opportunity cost as antecedents of participatory behavior. Annals of Social Sciences & Management Studies 6(1), 28–35.
  • Lodge, M., Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 24(1), 141–166.
  • Loewenstein, G., Thompson, L., Bazerman, M. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(3), 426–441.
  • Mills, P., Morris, J. (1986). Clients as “partial” employees of service organizations: Role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review 11(4), 726–735.
  • Mizrahi, S. (2012). Self-provision of public services: Its evolution and impact. Public Administration Review 72(2), 285–291.
  • Moore, M. (1994). Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration 53(3), 296–303.
  • Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Moore, M., Braga, A. (2004). Police performance measurement: A normative framework. Criminal Justice Ethics 23(1), 3–19.
  • Munno, G., Nabatchi, T. (2014). Public deliberation and co-production in the political and electoral arena: A citizens’ jury approach. Journal of Deliberative Democracy 10(2), Art. 1.
  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review 77(5), 766–776.
  • North, D., Wallis, J., Weingast, B. (2009). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration 66(3), 353–366.
  • Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review 8(3), 377–387.
  • Osborne, S., Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management 24(Is. Suppl.), S31–S47.
  • Ostrom, V, Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review 31(2), 203–216.
  • Parks, R., Baker, P., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S., Vandivort, M., Whitaker, G., Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal 9(7), 1001–1011.
  • Perry, J. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(2), 181–197.
  • Perry, J., Wise, L. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50(3), 367–373.
  • Rainey, H. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public Administration 16(4), 288–302.
  • Rittel, H., Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), 155–169.
  • Runya, X., Qigui, S., Wei, S. (2015). The third wave of public administration: The new public governance. Canadian Social Science 11(7), 11–21.
  • Sharp, E. (1980). Towards a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The coproduction concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration 14(2), 105–118.
  • Shaw, R. (2013). Another size fits all? Public value management and challenges for institutional design. Public Management Review 15(4), 477–500.
  • Sheth, J., Jain, V., Ambika, A. (2020). Repositioning the customer support services: the next frontier of competitive advantage. European Journal of Marketing 54(7), 1787–1804.
  • Siverbo, S., Cäker, M., Åkesson, J. (2019). Conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector. Public Management Review 21(12), 1801–1823.
  • Sterling, J., Lambert, D. (1989). Customer service research: past, present and future. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management 19(2), 2–23.
  • Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the Public Sector into an Arena for CoCreation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward. Administration & Society 51(5), 795–825.
  • Torfing, J., Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a politicaladministrative system. International Review of Public Administration 18(2), 9–25.
  • Turkel, E., Turkel, G. (2016). Public Value Theory: Reconciling Public Interests, Administrative Autonomy and Efficiency. Review of Public Administration and Management 4(2), Art. 189. DOI: 10.4172/2315-7844.1000189
  • Van de Walle, S. (2016). When public services fail: A research agenda on public service failure. Journal of Service Management 27(5), 831–846.
  • Van der Wal, Z., de Graaf, G., Lawton, A. (2011). Competing values in public management. Public Management Review 13(3), 331–341.
  • Van der Wal, Z., Van Hout, E. (2009). Is public value pluralism paramount? The intrinsic multiplicity and hybridity of public values. International Journal of Public Administration 32(3-4), 220–231.
  • Virtanen, P., Stenvall, J. (2014). The evolution of public services from co-production to co-creation and beyond: New public management’s unfinished trajectory? International Journal of Leadership in Public Services 10(2), 91–107.
  • West, K., Davis, P. (2011). What is the public value of government action? Toward a (new) paradigmatic approach to values questions in public endeavours. Public Administration 89(2), 226–241.
  • Whitaker, G. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review 40(3), 240–246.
  • Wiesel, F., Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance? Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability & Management 30(2), 175–205.
  • Williams, O., Sarre, S., Papoulias, S., Knowles, S., Robert, G., Beresford, P., Rose, D., Carr, S., Kaur, M., Palme, V. (2020). Lost in the shadows: Reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Research Policy and Systems 18, Art. 43.
  • Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Издатель: Южный Федеральный Университет
Учредитель: Южный федеральный университет
ISSN: 2073-6606