The sustainability of outcomes in temporary co-production

• Pages: 62-77
• Date: 26 November 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2019-0124
• Published date: 26 November 2019
• Author: Sylke Jaspers,Trui Steen
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

The sustainability of outcomes

in temporary co-production

Sylke Jaspers and Trui Steen

Public Governance Institute, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Purpose –The temporary use of vacant spaces as a format to co-produce public services is becoming

popular. Research addressing the question of whether the public outcomes created in temporary co-

production lead to sustainable results is lacking. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential

sustainability of public outcomes created through temporary co-production.

Design/methodology/approach –The paper builds on the literature on creating sustainable outcomes in

policy making and on co-production to design a theoretical framework that captures the sustainable

co-production of public outcomes. Attention is directed to problem solving and capacity building, and to

addressing the needs of society today and being responsive to the needs of tomorrow. A study of 8 temporary

initiatives set in a large city in Flanders and 35 in-depth interviews with public servants, project coordinators

and citizen co-producers provide empirical data for this exploratory study of the creation of sustainable

outcomes in temporary co-production.

Findings –The data indicate that lasting collaborations, institutionalized (flexible) processes and

empowered citizens support the creation of sustainable results from temporary co-production.

Originality/value –The paper bridges the literature on policy capacity, the co-production of public services

and value creation. By doing so, the paper sheds light on the temporary use of vacant spaces as a way to

effectively create outcomes. In addition, the paper addresses the paradox of temporary co-production and the

creation of lasting outcomes. Finally, the framework presented offers a tool for analysts and practitioners to

take into account various conditions for co-production to create lasting effects.

Keywords Co-production, Co-creation, Capacity, Creating sustainable outcomes,

Temporary co-production, Temporary use of vacant spaces

Paper type Case study

1. Introduction

Building on the research of Mark H. Moore (1995) about creating public value, public

administration scholars have recently shifted their attention to the co-creation of public

value (Payne et al., 2007; Fledderus et al., 2015; Osborne et al., 2016; Alford, 2014, 2016).

When producing and delivering services, both public servants and citizens are co-creating

outcomes that provide value for the public. One field of interest is the expectations these

co-producers (i.e. the public servants and citizens) hold regarding creating outcomes in the

co-production process (e.g. Vanleene et al., 2017; Jaspers and Steen, 2019). However, research

addressing the question of whether these public outcomes are produced in a way that leads

to sustainable results is lacking. In this paper, we explore this gap in the literature by

analyzing the sustainability of public outcomes created through co-production by

examining eight cases on the temporary use of vacant spaces and buildings.

The concept “temporary use of vacant spaces”refers to a phenomenon in which unused

buildings and places (e.g. abandoned lots) are made available for citizens to set up (public)

initiatives. This phenomenon is becoming increasingly popular in large and small cities as a

way to co-produce services with citizens ( Jégou et al., 2016; Cotičand Lah, 2016).

Co-producing in these spaces may create a cultural, social and economic boost for the city,

especially since (affordable) spaces for organizing community-building projec ts or

experimentation spaces for societal start-ups are lacking. For the municipality or city

itself, temporary use may form a true win–win service provision method: it tackles urban

vacancy and the associated risks of neglect and vandalism while providing accommodation

for cultural, social and innovative economic initiatives, the revitalization of the urban fabric,

experimentation in urban planning, etc. (Jégou et al., 2016).

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 33 No. 1, 2020

pp. 62-77

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-05-2019-0124

Received 9 May 2019

Revised 6 September 2019

Accepted 13 October 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

62

IJPSM

33,1

However, temporary use also poses challenges that have to do with this particular kind

of co-production being temporary by definition. Our research question invites us to look at

what outcomes stakeholders in the temporary use initiatives aim for, as well as the capacity

that is available for creating sustainable outcomes. Thus, if cities aim for social, cultural,

environmental and economic value from temporary initiatives, how can they make sure the

created value is sustained beyond the temporary use?

We first build a theoretical framework for studying co-producing sustainable outcomes

and more specifically seek to determine how sustainability can be applied to the temporary

use of vacant spaces. Next, we present the methodology and the results of an in-depth study

of eight temporary use initiatives. We conclude by discussing the results and insights from

these eight cases.

2. Sustainable co-creation of co-production outcomes

2.1 Co-production in temporary use

Co-production refers to the phenomenon in which public servants and citizens actively

collaborate in delivering public services, whether initiated by public servants or by the citizens

themselves (Brandsen et al.,2018).Publicservantsmovefrom being service providers in

an offer-oriented way towards playing an enabling role in which they facilitate citizens’

co-production of services. For example, in the temporary use of vacant spaces, a service provider

enables citizen co-production by removing or helpingto overcome legal barriers to temporary use

or by training and empowering citizens (Oswalt et al., 2009). Consequentially, citizens become

service producers instead of solely being receivers of the service and its value by co-deciding on

design and implementation or co-implementing a policy (Brandsen and Honingh, 2016).

Co-production is often expected to improve the creation of public outcomes that are

difficult to attain in regular public service delivery, as co-production is expected to make

service delivery more efficient (through making better use of resources), more responsive,

more inclusive, etc. (Pestoff, 2006; Fledderus, 2016; Verschuere et al., 2012; Vanleene et al.,

2017; Jaspers and Steen, 2019; Ross et al., 2013). Our critical view, however, focuses on the

sustainability of public outcomes that are co-created.

2.2 Defining sustainable outcome creation

The challenge in defining sustainability is that the concept is used with many different

connotations over a variety of research fields. Often, sustainability is understood purely as

ecological sustainability. According to Ralf-Eckhard Türke (2012), sustainability can be

defined more broadly as being about “the ability of someone or something to uphold or

support, i.e. sustain something considered valuable”(p. 238). This latter definition is the

focus of this paper, i.e. we examine whether and how temporary co-production phenomena

enable the creation of effects that endure, even after the temporary activity itself has come to

an end. We thus examine the creation of sustainable outcomes (e.g. Mukherjee and

Mukherjee, 2017) in temporary co-production. To operationalize creating sustainable

outcomes, we construct a matrix. First, we borrow aspects from Hart et al. (2003), who

developed a framework for sustainable value creation that uses a dimension that focusses

both on the drivers of today and the drivers of tomorrow to create value. Second, the public

administration literature shows that capacity is an important factor in value creation (e.g.

Moore, 1995; Murray et al., 2010, Türke, 2012), by adding a second dimension to our matrix.

The first dimension is the Today–Tomorrow dimension (e.g. Hart et al., 2003). This

dimension reflects the aim of resolving the needs of society today while also resolving the

needs of tomorrow. Some needs that exist today will probably remain challenges tomorrow,

for example, the inclusion of citizens in society. Specifically, sustainability here means

sustaining the desired effects of the co-production after the termination of the initiative

63

The

sustainability

of outcomes