000			02238cam a2200205 4500500
005			20250112055905.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aSicilia, Mariafrancesca _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Guarini, Enrico _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Sancino, Alessandro _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Andreani, Martino _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Ruffini, Renato _eauthor
245	0	0	_aPublic services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings
260			_c2016.
500			_a2
520			_aFrom a normative stance, co-production has been recommended at all stages of the public service cycle. However, previous empirical studies on co-production have neglected the question of how to make this happen. Moreover, little attention has been paid to how co-production might occur in multi-level governance settings. The aim of this article is to fill these gaps, identifying triggers and organizational and managerial issues that could support the adoption of co-production in multi-level governance settings. The empirical analysis is based on a case study of services for autistic children. The findings highlight that co-production was prompted by inter-organizational arrangements and that trust-building among the actors played a pivotal role in nurturing a coproduction approach.Points for practitionersFrom an organizational perspective, our case study shows that, in order to foster coproduction in multi-level governance settings, all stages of the public service cycle should be aligned and inspired by the same logic. From a managerial perspective it highlights that the implementation of co-production requires new managerial skills and tools. Public managers are asked to listen to community groups and individuals, to mobilize collective resources and knowledge, and exercise a meta-governance role. Finally, in order to have co-produced services, our findings point to the need to start thinking differently about the roles of civil society and government in satisfying the common good.
786	0		_nInternational Review of Administrative Sciences | 82 | 1 | 2016-03-16 | p. 11-32 | 0303-965X
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-international-review-of-administrative-sciences-2016-1-page-11?lang=en
999			_c220572 _d220572