Sustainable social services - a co-production perspective

• Autorzy: Frączkiewicz-Wronka Aldona , Kozak Anna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2024.202.5

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: This study aims to identify management practices that enhance the provision of social services through co-production. It is based on the assumption that co-produced social services align with the sustainability paradigm. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study's objectives were achieved through a comprehensive literature review and a field survey conducted in December 2022. The survey utilized a questionnaire distributed to 357 local government units (LGUs) functioning as municipalities. To ensure a representative sample that included all types of units, stratified random sampling was employed. These LGUs were distinguished by their classification within a NUTS macro-region. The sampling strata were designed to ensure comparability across macro-regions, with each stratum reflecting the diversity of institutions, categorized into urban municipality offices, urban-rural municipality offices, and rural municipality offices. A limitation of the methodology is the potential for ambiguous interpretations of research questions, leading to responses that may not fully align with the actual conditions. Future research should aim to deepen these findings through qualitative methods. Findings: The study identified key determinants that influence the collaboration between municipalities and organizations involved in social service provision, whether in the market or civil sectors. Research Limitations/Implications: The study has several limitations. First, the reliance on self-reported data from LGUs may introduce bias, as respondents might present their practices more favorably. Second, the focus on Poland limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts with different political, social, and economic conditions. Implications: The findings suggest that co-produced social services can foster sustainability. Sustainable co-production involves the continuous and meaningful engagement of service users in the design and delivery of services, moving beyond sporadic efforts to establish long-term relationships between professionals and service users. The sustainability of social service provision refers to the ability of involved organizations to adapt to changes in policy, funding, or the needs and preferences of service users. Originality/Value: The research underscores that building relationships with social service providers significantly contributes to meeting social needs effectively, fostering sustainable practices, and making communities more responsive to citizen needs. Enhancing sensitivity to citizen needs is a crucial expectation of municipalities.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

public management; public governance; social services; co-production; ecosystem

PL

zarządzanie publiczne; usługi społeczne; koprodukcja; ekosystem

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: z. 202
• Strony: 75--93
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 59 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Frączkiewicz-Wronka Aldona

• University of Economics in Katowice

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-1068

autor

Kozak Anna

• University of Economics in Katowice

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8903-444X

Bibliografia

• 1. Bąkiewicz, A. (2010). Zróżnicowanie poziomu rozwoju gospodarczego na świecie. In: A. Bąkiewicz, U. Żuławska (Eds.), Rozwój w dobie globalizacji. PWE.
• 2. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860.
• 3. Bovaird, T., Löffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS, 23(4), 1119-1138.
• 4. Boyle, D., Harris, M. (2009). The Challenge of Co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. NESTA.
• 5. Brandsen, T., Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of co-production: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427-435.
• 6. Brandsen, T., Steen, T., Verschuere, B. (Eds.) (2018). Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge.
• 7. Brown, L., Osborne, S.P. (2013). Risk and innovation. Public Management Reviews, 15, 186-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.707681
• 8. Brown, P., Löffler, E., Christie, J. (2016). Present: Co-producing improved wellbeing with people living with dementia in East Dunbartonshire. Joint Improvement Team, East Dunbartonshire Council, Governance International, East Dunbartonshire.
• 9. Bussu, S., Galanti, M.T. (2018). Facilitating coproduction: The role of leadership in coproduction initiatives in the UK. Policy and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1414355
• 10. Ćwiklicki, M. (2019). Metody zarządzania wartością publiczną. Scholar.
• 11. Ćwiklicki, M. (2023). Tworzenie wartości publicznej jako cel zarządzania publicznego. In: A. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, M. Ćwiklicki (Eds.), Zarządzanie publiczne. Perspektywa teorii i praktyki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach.
• 12. European Commission (2019). Reflection paper towards a sustainable Europe by 2030. COM(2019) 22 of 30 January 2019.
• 13. Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9-10), 737-748.
• 14. Evers, A., Heinze, R., Olk, T. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of social services: The example of Germany. J. Korczak WSP, PTPS.
• 15. Fledderus, J., Honingh, M. (2016). Why people co-produce within activation services: The necessity of motivations and trust - an investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation program in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 69-87.
• 16. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A. (2014). Zarządzanie usługami społecznymi. Studium partnerstw publiczno-społecznych. Difin.
• 17. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A. (2024). Wyzwania zarządzania publicznego w kontekście deinstytucjonalizacji usług publicznych (społecznych). In: M. Grewiński (Ed.), Deinstytucjonalizacja usług społecznych - stan i perspektywy rozwoju. Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA.
• 18. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A., Ćwiklicki, M. (Eds.) (2022). Zarządzanie publiczne. Perspektywa teorii i praktyki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach.
• 19. Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A., Kozak, A. (2022). Uwarunkowania efektywnej koprodukcji usług promocji zdrowia - perspektywa Rad Seniorów. In: M. Ćwiklicki, A. Frączkiewicz- Wronka, A. Pacut (Eds.), Współczesne problemy zarządzania opartego na dowodach. Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej University of Economics in Kraków.
• 20. George, D., Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
• 21. Grewiński, M. (2021). Social services in contemporary social policy. Review of problems and vision for the future. Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA.
• 22. Gronkiewicz, A., Ziolkowski, A. (2014). Komisje, zespoły, rady jako forma partycypacji obywateli w samorządzie terytorialnym. In: B. Dolnicki (Ed.), Partycypacja społeczna w samorządzie terytorialnym. Wolters Kluwer.
• 23. Heo, M., Kim, N., Faith, M. (2015). Statistical power as a function of Cronbach alpha of instrument questionnaire items. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15.
• 24. Inter-institutional proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, OJ EU.C.2017.428.10.
• 25. Iwankiewicz-Rak, B. (2012). Usługi społeczne: kryteria wyboru miejsca i formy konsumpcji. Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług, 25, 25-35.
• 26. Janoś-Kresło, M. (2002). Usługi społeczne w procesie przemian systemowych w Polsce. Szkoła Główna Handlowa.
• 27. Kaźmierczak, T. (2014). Koprodukcja usług publicznych (koncepcja, badania, rola w świadczeniu usług adresowanych do osób wykluczonych społecznie, warunki upowszechnienia). Ekspertyza przygotowana w ramach projektu "EAPN Polska - wspólnie budujemy Europę Socjalną".
• 28. Kershaw, A., Bridson, K., Parris, M.A. (2017). Encouraging writing on the white walls: Co-production in museums and the influence of professional bodies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 1-16.
• 29. Kozak, A. (2020). Rola pracowników włączonych w proces koprodukcji usług społecznych w środowisku lokalnym. Raport z analizy literatury. In: M. Ćwiklicki, A. Frączkiewicz- Wronka, A. Pacut, K. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek (Eds.), Współczesne problemy zarządzania publicznego i przedsiębiorczości społecznej. Kraków: Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie.
• 30. Lara-Montero, A. (2021). Transforming community care. European Social Services Award 2020. European Social Network.
• 31. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446- 454.
• 32. McMullin, C. (2023). Expectations versus reality: The sustainability of co-production approaches over time. Public Management Review, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719037.2023.2212265
• 33. McMullin, C., Needham, C. (2018). Co-production in healthcare. In: T. Brandsen, T. Steen, B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge.
• 34. Meijer, A.J. (2014). New media and the coproduction of safety: An empirical analysis of Dutch practices. American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 17-34.
• 35. Meijer, A.J. (2016). Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(6), 596-611.
• 36. Munoz, S.A. (2013). Co-producing care services in rural areas. Journal of Integrated Care, 21(5), 276-287.
• 37. Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: Negotiating improvement in public services. Social Policy & Society, 7(2), 221-231.
• 38. OECD (2011). Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society. Paris.
• 39. Osborne, S.P. (2010). Delivering public services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12(1), 1-10.
• 40. Osborne, S.P. (2021). Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service Delivery. Routledge.
• 41. Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639- 653.
• 42. Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T., Martinez, I.V. (2015). The SERVICE framework: A public-service-dominant approach to sustainable public services. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 424-438.
• 43. Owsiak, S. (2021). Public Finance: Współczesne Ujęcie. PWN.
• 44. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Concilo, G. (2017). Co-producing smart city services: Does one size fit all? Public Administration and Information Technology, 24, 123-158.
• 45. Pestoff, V. (2012a). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: Some concepts and evidence. VOLUNTAS, 23(4), 1102-1118.
• 46. Pestoff, V. (2012b). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: Some crucial conceptual issues. In: V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere (Eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production (pp. 13-34). Routledge.
• 47. Pestoff, V. (2021). Co-Production and Japanese Healthcare: Work Environment, Governance, Service Quality and Social Values. Routledge.
• 48. Poocharoen, O., Ting, N. (2015). Collaboration, coproduction, networks: Convergence of theories. Public Management Review, 17(4), 587-614.
• 49. Rogoziński, K. (2020). Usługi Rynkowe. Akademia Ekonomiczna w Poznaniu.
• 50. Sen, A. (1999). Development and Freedom. Zysk i S-ka.
• 51. Sicilia, M., Sancino, A., Nabatchi, T., Guarini, E. (2019). Facilitating coproduction in public services: Management implications from a systematic literature review. Public Money & Management, 39(4), 233-240.
• 52. Sześciło, D. (2015a). Samoobsługowe Państwo Dobrobytu: Czy Obywatelska Koprodukcja Uratuje Usługi Publiczne. Scholar.
• 53. Sześciło, D. (2015b). Współzarządzanie jako koprodukcja usług publicznych. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 31, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2015.31.1.02
• 54. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_
• 55. van Eijk, C., Steen, T. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens' perceptions on co-planning engagement in healthcare services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358- 382.
• 56. van Meerkerk, I., Kleinhans, R., Molenveld, A. (2018). Exploring the durability of community enterprises: A qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 96(4), 651-667.
• 57. Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS, 23, 1083-1101.
• 58. Verschuere, B., Vanleen, D., Steen, T., Brandsen, T. (2018). Democratic co-production: Concepts and determinants. In: T. Brandsen, T. Steen, B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services (pp. 243-251). Routledge.
• 59. www1_European Commission (n.d.). The European Pillar of Social Rights in 20 principles. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/ downloads/KE0921008ENN.pdf