Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:31:18.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Co-Production in the Context of Social Care Personalisation: Testing Theory and Practice in a Scottish Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2019

SARAH SOPHIE FLEMIG Open the ORCID record for SARAH SOPHIE FLEMIG [Opens in a new window]  and
STEPHEN OSBORNE
SARAH SOPHIE FLEMIG*
Affiliation:
Centre for Service Excellence, University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS email: [email protected]
STEPHEN OSBORNE
Affiliation:
Centre for Service Excellence, University of Edinburgh Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasing pressures on social systems have spurred innovations in service delivery models. One such innovation is an increased focus on co-production-based models of care, which focus on increased personal autonomy and service-user self-determination. However, there is little empirical evidence on how co-production interacts with other social policies, such as personalisation. This paper uses data from two qualitative case studies to explore the role of co-production for personalisation in the context of recent Scottish policy initiatives. We use Osborne et al.’s (2016) [‘Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?’, Public Management Review, 18, 639–653] co-production matrix to understand what forms of co-production are used in personalisation, what factors act as drivers and barriers, how co-production relates to outcomes, and how co-production theory can inform social policy and legislative reform on personalisation.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 671 - 697
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, J. (2009), Engaging Public Sector Clients. From Service-delivery to Co-production, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J. (2015), ‘Co-production, interdependence and publicness: extending public service dominant logic’, Public Management Review, 18, 673–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audit Scotland. (2014), Self-Directed Support, Edinburgh: Audit Scotland.Google Scholar
Audit Scotland. (2016), Reshaping Care for Older People: Impact Report, Edinburgh: Audit Scotland.Google Scholar
Audit Scotland. (2017), Self-Directed Support: A Follow-Up Audit, Edinburgh: Audit Scotland.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2007), ‘Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services’, Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2010), ‘User and community co-production of public services and public policies through collective decision-making: role of emerging technologies’, in Brandsen, T. and Holzer, M. (eds.), The Future of Governance. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G.G., Loeffler, E. and Parrado, S. (2015), ‘Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, D. and Harris, M. (2009), The Challenge of Co-production, London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).Google Scholar
Bracci, E. and Llewellyn, S. (2012), ‘Accounting and accountability in an Italian social care provider: Contrasting people-changing with people-processing approaches’, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25, 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2016), ‘Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classic definitions’, Public Administration Review, 76, 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. (2010), ‘Balancing risk and innovation to improve social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1211–1228.Google Scholar
Brudney, J.L. and England, R.E. (1983), ‘Toward a definition of the coproduction concept’, Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.Google Scholar
Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, National Health Service and Scottish Government. (2013), ‘Reshaping care for older people 2011–2021’, Edinburgh: APS Group Scotland, http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00432593.pdf [accessed 20.7.2017].Google Scholar
Corley, K. and Gioia, D. (2004), ‘Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. (2007), ‘Care management and self‐directed support’, Journal of Integrated Care, 15, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2011), ‘Co-creation and co-destruction: a practice-theory based study of interactive value formation’, Marketing Theory, 11, 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, I. (2007), ‘Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 387–403.Google Scholar
Flemig, S., Osborne, S. and Kinder, T. (2016), ‘Risky business – reconceptualising risk and innovation in public services’, Public Money & Management, 36, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, D., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2012), ‘Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology’, Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Office for Science. (2015), ‘Future of ageing: preventive health and social care services’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-ageing-preventive-health-and-social-care-services Google Scholar
Holloway, M. (2007), ‘Caring for people: social work with adults in the next decade and beyond: introduction’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2002), ‘The risk game and the blame game’, Government and Opposition, 37, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismail, M., Hussein, S., Stevens, M., Woolham, J., Manthorpe, J., Aspinal, F., Baxter, K. and Samsi, K. (2017), ‘Do personal budgets increase the risk of abuse? Evidence from English national data’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, M., Laybourne, A., Williams, V., Cyhlarova, E., Williamson, T. and Robotham, D. (2016), ‘Indirect payments: when the Mental Capacity Act interacts with the personalisation agenda’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 24, 623–630.Google ScholarPubMed
King’s Fund. (2014), ‘Commission on the future of health and social care in England: the social care and health systems of nine countries’, https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/commission-background-paper-social-care-health-system-other-countries.pdf Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. (2004), Personalisation through Participation: A New Script for Public Services, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2007), The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S.P. and Bond, S. (2013), ‘The “new public governance” and employability services in an era of crisis’, Public Administration, 92, 192–207.Google Scholar
Loeffler, E., Parrado, S., Bovaird, T. and Van Ryzin, G. (2008), “If you want to go Fast, Walk Alone; if you want to go Far, Walk Together”: Citizens and the Co-Production of Public Services,. Paris: French Ministry of the Treasury, Public Accounts and Civil Service, on behalf of the Presidency of the EU.Google Scholar
Lymbery, M. and Postle, K. (2010), ‘Social work in the context of adult social care in england and the resultant implications for social work education’, British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2502–2522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, C., Spinks, A., Hajkowicz, S. and Hobman, L. (2014), ‘Exploring the contribution of frontline welfare service delivery to capability development in Australia’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Records of Scotland. (2015), ‘Scotland’s changing population’, https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2015/scotlands-changing-population Google Scholar
Needham, C. (2008), ‘Realising the potential of co-production: negotiating improvements in public services’, Journal of Social Policy and Society, 7, 221–231. Themed section: ‘Choice or voice or something else? User participation in public services’, Greener, I. and Talbot, C. (eds).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C. (2011), Personalising Public Services: Understanding the Personalisation Narrative. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C. (2016), ‘Social welfare policy: fantasy and assemblage in a personalised welfare state’, in Bevir, M. (Ed.) Governmentality after Neo-Liberalism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Needham, C. and Glasby, J. (2014), eds., Debates in Personalisation. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of National Statistics. (2015), ‘The changing UK population’, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/articles/thechangingukpopulation/2015-01-15 Google Scholar
Oliver, M. and Sapey, B. (2006), Social Work with Disabled People, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T. and Vidal, I. (2015), ‘The SERVICE framework: a public service-dominant approach to sustainable public services’, British Journal of Management, 26, 424–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., and Strokosch, K. (2016), ‘Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?’, Public Management Review, 18, 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S. and 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, S31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Parks, R.B., Whitaker, G.P. and Percy, S.L. (1978), ‘The public service production process: a framework for analyzing police services’, Policy Studies Journal, 7, 381–389.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1971), Theory of public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 1, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrado, S., van Ryzin, G., Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (2013), ‘Correlates of co-production: evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens’, International Public Management Journal, 16, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C. and Ridley, J. (2017), ‘Is personalization the right plan at the wrong time? Re-thinking cash-for-care in an age of austerity’, Social Policy & Administration, 51, 1042–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C., Watson, N. and Manji, K. (2017), ‘Changing the culture of social care in Scotland: has a shift to personalization brought about transformative change?’, Social Policy & Administration, 52, 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2006), ‘Citizens and co-production of welfare services: childcare in eight European countries’, Public Management Review, 8, 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2012), ‘Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: some crucial conceptual issues’. In: Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B. (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Power, A. (2014), ‘Personalisation and austerity in the crosshairs: government perspectives on the remaking of adult social care’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Government. (2012), ‘The reshaping care for older people: a programme for change 2011-2021’, http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Support-Social-Care/Support/Older-People/Reshaping-Care Google Scholar
Scottish Government. (2018), ‘Health and social care integration’, http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Policy/Health-Social-Care-Integration Google Scholar
Scottish Government (‘Christie Commission’ ). (2011), Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2017), ‘Integration 2020: scoping research’, Report to the Department of Health. SCIE Research Report. https://www.scie.org.uk/files/integrated-health-social-care/measuring-progress/research/integration-2020-scoping-research.pdf Google Scholar
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Tummers, L.G. (2015), ‘A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review, 17, 1333–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar