Chapter 7 develops the idea that there are sufficient existing pro-public public banking functions (and resources) to synthesise what a democratised green & just public bank can and should look like. It does so to illustrate how public banks can be made to function in pro-public green & just ways otherwise impossible under the short-term, high-return regime of corporatised and private financiers. The proposal revolves around pursuing a Triple Bottom Line, or mandate, aimed at (1) a green & just transition, (2) financial sustainability, and (3) democratic decision-making.

The Introduction situates contemporary public banks as socially contested and institutionally dynamic financial institutions. It presents the book's core argument that public banks are resurgent not by virtue of being publicly owned but because of the institutional functions they have acquired over time and can perform within class-divided society. These functions are not neutral within global financialised capitalism but are pulled between private and public interests. This leaves open the possibility for pro-public, green & just orientations. The chapter provides the book's methodology, rationale, and overview of the book’s structure.

Chapter 2 explores how the economics literature is anything but conclusive on public banking. Reliant on fixed yet polarised tenets of public versus private ownership, its scholars offer contrasting evidence on and contending theories of public banks in economic development. This division within economics occurs along ideological lines. For heterodox ‘development’ views, there is good theory and evidence for public banks. For orthodox ‘political’ ones, the opposite. The aim of this chapter is not to resolve these antinomies but to illustrate them in order to move past them. The economics literature is too preoccupied with fixed notions of public and private ownership and this impedes understanding of how and why public banks evolve. By contrast, I argue for a dynamic political economy view of public banks. In this view, what public banks are depends instead on how social forces in class-divided societies make and remake them over time. That is, contested institutional functions give meaning to the public ownership form.

This chapter aims to open the black box of co-creation, look at its constituent parts and inner mechanics, identify the drivers of and barriers to different parts of the process, and highlight the tools that may support and facilitate the co-creation of public value. Hence, to provide a baseline for subsequent analysis, it establishes an analytical framework for studying processes of co-creation. While recognizing that the dynamic processes of co-creation are often extremely complex and full of gaps, overlaps, jumps, feedback loops, and iterations, it makes sense for heuristic reasons to speak of four phases in the process of co-creating public solutions: 1) initiation; 2) design; 3) implementation; and 4) consolidation, upscaling, and diffusion. Each of these phases can be broken down into three interlacing sub-phases. This chapter carefully elaborates what goes on in the different phases and sub-phases of co-creation and identifies relevant drivers and barriers that may affect the internal dynamics of these phases and sub-phases.

Chapter 8, the Epilogue, sketches out how public banks have responded to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in its earliest stages. The chapter makes two interrelated points, points which have run through the book so far. First, it exposes the societal dangers of subordinating control of the financial system and its capacity to the private sector and to financialised profit imperatives. Second, it highlights the benefits of protecting public banking capacity in order to make time available when needed. It focuses on the responses of the six public banks discussed in the book: the China Development Bank, the Nordic Investment Bank, the Indian National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), the American Bank of North Dakota, the German KfW, and the Costa Rican Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal.

The chapter provides an initial definition of co-creation and explains why co-creation is a new and powerful vision. It proceeds to reflect on the current demands and possibilities for co-creation and then identifies the main enablers, before concluding with brief discussion of the wider perspectives and consequences of a turn to co-creation.

This chapter argues that co-creation requires what new research refers to as generative governance. It first explores the meaning of the term “generative” and the concept of “generativity,” and then examines some key components of generative governance (interactions, tools, processes, and institutions) and how they relate to co-creation. The main argument is that generative governance involves the formation of platforms that in turn foster arenas where co-creation processes can unfold.

Along with the potential benefits and advantages, co-creation presents a series of dilemmas that may hamper the expansion of co-creation as a core principle of governance. In addition, co-creation has a dark side that we seldom talk about. Finally, co-creation may jeopardize cherished norms and values of liberal democracy. Our attempt to elevate co-creation to a key governance principle must look these challenges in the eye and reflect on the possibilities for either circumventing them or mitigating their negative effect. Consequently, this chapter aims to assess the acknowledged governance dilemmas inherent to co-creation, shed light on the dark side of co-creation, and consider the conflicts that may arise between co-creation and some of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. It also reflects on the normative status of co-creation as a way of democratizing public governance and insists that co-creation is neither a settled concept nor a perfected ideal, but rather a work in progress in need of further reflection and experiential learning.

This chapter takes issue with idea that governance is produced in and through a linear chain of command and seeks to replace this with an ecosystem perspective that appreciates co-created governance. Equipped with this new perspective on public governance, the chapters explores the empirical prevalence of co-creation in different policy sectors and countries and concludes that co-creation is everywhere in the sense that it is found in must policy sectors and most countries. At the same time, co-creation is argued to be nowhere in the sense that it has not yet become a core principle of governance.

The aim of this final chapter is to take stock of the current research on co-creation in the public sector and assess the prospect for co-creation to become a core principle of public governance. The chapter also sets an agenda for future research and identifies some disruptive steps that the key social and political actors must take in order to advance co-creation.