The Co-production of Public Services:

Management and Evaluation Denita

Cepiku
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-co-production-of-public-services-management-an
d-evaluation-denita-cepiku/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes 1st ed.

Edition Elke Loeffler

https://ebookmass.com/product/co-production-of-public-services-
and-outcomes-1st-ed-edition-elke-loeffler/

Research Co-Production in Healthcare Ian D. Graham

https://ebookmass.com/product/research-co-production-in-
healthcare-ian-d-graham/

Co-cultivation of Isochrysis galbana and Marinobacter

sp. can enhance algal growth and docosahexaenoic acid
production Ying-Ying Wang

https://ebookmass.com/product/co-cultivation-of-isochrysis-
galbana-and-marinobacter-sp-can-enhance-algal-growth-and-
docosahexaenoic-acid-production-ying-ying-wang/

Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management

of the Adult Patient – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/primary-care-medicine-office-
evaluation-and-management-of-the-adult-patient-ebook-pdf-version/
Technology and Creativity: Production, Mediation and
Evaluation in the Digital Age 1st ed. Edition Jesper
Strandgaard Pedersen

https://ebookmass.com/product/technology-and-creativity-
production-mediation-and-evaluation-in-the-digital-age-1st-ed-
edition-jesper-strandgaard-pedersen/

Contracting for Design and Construction Services in the

Public Sector John O. Adler

https://ebookmass.com/product/contracting-for-design-and-
construction-services-in-the-public-sector-john-o-adler/

The Diabetes Textbook: Clinical Principles, Patient

Management and Public

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-diabetes-textbook-clinical-
principles-patient-management-and-public/

Public Administration: Understanding Management,

Politics, and Law in the

https://ebookmass.com/product/public-administration-
understanding-management-politics-and-law-in-the/

Production and Operations Management 5th Edition S. N.

Chary

https://ebookmass.com/product/production-and-operations-
management-5th-edition-s-n-chary/
The Co-production of
Public Services
Management and
Evaluation

Denita Cepiku
Marta Marsilio
Mariafrancesca Sicilia
Milena Vainieri
The Co-production of Public Services
 Denita Cepiku • Marta Marsilio
Mariafrancesca Sicilia • Milena Vainieri

The Co-production
of Public Services
Management and Evaluation
Denita Cepiku Marta Marsilio
Department of Management and Law Department of Economics,
University of Rome Tor Vergata Management and
Rome, Italy Quantitative Methods
University of Milano
Mariafrancesca Sicilia Milan, Italy
Department of Management
University of Bergamo Milena Vainieri
Bergamo, Italy Management and Health Laboratory
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna
Pisa, Italy

ISBN 978-3-030-60709-8    ISBN 978-3-030-60710-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction  1
1.1 Co-Production Definitions  1
1.2 The Resurgence of Co-Production in Public Services  4
1.3 Book Aims and Outline  5
References  6

2 Research Aim and Methods 11

2.1 Research Aim 11
2.2 Research Methods 13
2.3 Enhancing the Understanding of Co-production:
A Comprehensive Framework 15
References 17

3 Activation of Co-Production: General Context and

Antecedents 21
3.1 Introduction 21
3.2 General Context 22
3.3 Antecedents of Co-Production 24
3.3.1 Antecedents Related to Lay Actors 24
3.3.2 Antecedents Related to the Regular Service Provider  34
3.3.3 Antecedents Related to the Co-Produced Service 36
3.4 Concluding Remarks 37
References 43

v
vi CONTENTS

4 Implementing and Managing Co-Production 51

4.1 Introduction 52
4.2 Co-Production Management Levers 53
4.2.1 Institutional Arrangements 55
4.2.2 Planning 59
4.2.3 Communication Strategies 59
4.2.4 Management of Lay Actors 61
4.2.5 Management of Professionals 64
4.2.6 Leadership 66
4.2.7 Accountability and Performance Management 67
4.3 Concluding Remarks 69
References 73

5 Co-production Evaluation 81
5.1 Introduction 81
5.2 Lay Actor Co-production Outcomes 82
5.2.1 Satisfaction 83
5.2.2 Empowerment 87
5.2.3 Awareness 87
5.2.4 Learning 88
5.2.5 Lay Actor Costs 88
5.2.6 Externalities 89
5.3 Regular Service Provider Co-production Outcomes 89
5.3.1 Cost Efficiency 90
5.3.2 Effectiveness 92
5.3.3 Impact on Workforce 93
5.3.4 Uncertainty 93
5.3.5 Trust 94
5.4 Co-production Outcomes for the Community 94
5.4.1 Value to Community 95
5.4.2 Value to Society 96
5.4.3 Social Economic Impact 97
5.5 Co-production Impact on Public Value 97
5.6 Concluding Remarks 99
References104
 CONTENTS vii

6 Conclusions113
6.1 A Comprehensive Framework on Co-production114
6.2 Future Research Agenda117
6.3 Implications for Policy and Practice119

Appendices121

Index145
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 PRISMA flow chart 14

Fig. 2.2 The comprehensive framework of co-production activation,
management and evaluation 16
Fig. A.1 The timeline overview of the papers dealing with coproduction 121

ix
 List of Tables

Table 3.1 Overview and summary conceptualisation of motivational

factors for co-production 28
Table 3.2 Synthesis of the antecedents of co-production 40
Table 4.1 Synthesis of managerial levers of co-production 70
Table 5.1 Synthesis of the outcome of co-production 100
Table A.1 The distribution of papers in terms of methodology applied
and sector 122
Table A.2 The journals that hosted co-production articles 123

xi
 List of Boxes

Box 3.1 Parents’ Co-Production on the Education of Their Children

During COVID-19 33
Box 3.2 Co-Production in the Municipality of Rimini (Italy): The Ci.Vi.
Vo. Project 38
Box 4.1 Lay Actor Selection: The Capacity-Representativeness Trade-Off 56
Box 4.2 Management of Lay Actors: An Example in Healthcare 63
Box 4.3 Co-Production in Australian Museums and the Influence of
Professional Bodies 65
Box 4.4 Performance Evaluation in a Pilot Neighbourhood
Co-Production Project in the City of Tampere, Finland 67

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract This chapter presents the concept of co-production and the

main classifications developed in the literature. It discusses the reasons for
the resurgence of interest in co-production among scholars and practitio-
ners. Finally, the main aims of the book and its contents are outlined.

Keywords Co-production definitions • Co-production research gaps •

Co-production framework

1.1   Co-Production Definitions

Co-production has received attention from both academics and practitio-
ners working in the public sector since the 1970s. The concept of co-­
production was originally developed in a workshop on ‘Political Theory
and Policy Analysis’ at Indiana University in 1973. Co-production drew
great interest among public administration scholars in the US in the 1970s
and 1980s (Parks et al. 1981). It was also studied in the context of indus-
trial and service markets and, in the 1990s, in consumer markets, where
the emergence of the ‘customising consumer’ who takes an active role in
the production process was witnessed (Abeysekera et al. 2015). More
recently, the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2002, 2004a, b)
and Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2006) on value co-creation and the service
dominant logic of marketing has driven the idea of co-production.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_1
2 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

According to Ostrom (1996), co-production is the process through

which input—used to provide a good or a service—is contributed by indi-
viduals who are not in the same organisation. It has been used with a large
variety of meanings and is considered a relatively heterogeneous concept
(Verschuere et al. 2012).
With respect to the ‘co-’ side of co-production, Nabatchi et al. (2017)
identified state actors (i.e., government agents serving in a professional
capacity) and lay actors (i.e., members of the public, serving voluntarily as
citizens or users) as working together in any phase of the public service
cycle (i.e., commissioning, design, delivery, and assessment). In particular,
they distinguish three levels of co-production: individual, group and col-
lective. The main differences between these three levels of co-production
are related to the role played by lay actors and the type of benefits they
generate and receive through co-production (Nabatchi et al. 2017).
Individual co-production implies that a state actor and a lay actor (a
client or a customer) work directly with each other. The benefits of the
co-production activity tend to be personal for the lay actor (see also
Brudney and England 1983) but there may also be social benefits for the
wider community.
Group co-production is characterised by the presence of one or more
state actors working directly and simultaneously with a specific cluster or
category of lay actors who share common interests.
Collective co-production is defined as one or more state actors (within
a single organisation or across multiple organisations) working directly
and simultaneously with several lay actors to address one or more related
issues. Differently from group co-production, where lay actors are defined
as a specific segment of the population, which leads to personal benefits
for the group members, collective co-production involves diverse mem-
bers of the community such as citizens, volunteers, and non-governmental
entities (see also Alford 2014; Bovaird 2007) and benefits are shared by
the entire community (see also Brudney and England 1983).
Another classification based on the ‘co-actors’ side was proposed by
Alford (2014). He distinguishes three kinds of co-producers: consumers,
suppliers, and partners. Consumers stand at the end of the service delivery
process and act as co-producers in their secondary role, whereas suppliers
and partners do so as part of their primary role.
With respect to the ‘production’ side of co-production, it is possible to
distinguish four types of co-production according to the specific phase of
the service cycle in which state actors and lay actors work together.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Co-commissioning is defined as the identification and prioritisation of

the necessary public services, outcomes, and users. It is thus prospective,
such as in the identification of budget priorities in order to allocate specific
amounts of resources in participatory budgeting experiences (Barbera
et al. 2016; Bovaird 2007).
Co-design involves users and communities participating in the creation,
planning or arrangement of public services (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012),
similarly to an approach based on direct citizen participation (Nabatchi
and Amsler 2014; Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). It can be prospective
or concurrent, such as in the case of a professional social services unit
working with elderly people to create opportunities for “interdependent”
living (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Willis and Bovaird 2012). It includes
user innovation (Bonomi Savignon and Cepiku 2018; De Rosis et al. 2020).
Co-delivery is related more to the traditional view of co-production
and consists of joint activities between the government and lay actors,
aimed at providing or improving public services (Alford and O’Flynn
2012; Thomas 2013), it is thus concurrent in nature. Examples include
students helping to organise university welcome days (e.g., Brandsen and
Honingh 2016), young people working as peer educators in schools (e.g.,
Bovaird and Loeffler 2012), and the involvement of patients in healthcare
services (Guglielmetti et al. 2016; Sorrentino et al. 2017).
Co-assessment involves the government and lay actors working together
to monitor and evaluate public services, and assess service quality, prob-
lems and/or areas for improvement (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). It is thus
retrospective in nature. At the practical level it involves, for example, with
parents working with special education auditors to assess services for their
children (Sicilia et al. 2016), or with residents of social housing complexes
as “tenant inspection advisors” for the government (Bovaird and
Loeffler 2012).
Other definitions considered the resources brought by professionals
and users/communities, or at the type of interaction. In the former, co-­
production may be seen as substitutive (replacing local government input
with input from users/communities) or additive (adding more user/com-
munity input to professional input or introducing professional support to
previous individual self-help or community self-organising) while the type
of co-production interaction is described as either relational or transac-
tional (Loeffler 2009).
Among the various definitions, Brandsen and Honing (2018) identified
three common features, that (a) they constitute a part of the process of
4 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

producing services, (b) they refer to collaboration between professional

service providers and citizens/users, and that (c) active input by citizens is
needed to shape the service (Brandsen and Honingh 2018).
All co-production definitions thus emphasise that citizens are not
merely the recipients of services, but can act as co-producers at different
stages of the production process for public services. This is quite an impor-
tant feature in order to understand how to set up a co-production arrange-
ment and how to control it.

1.2   The Resurgence of Co-Production

in Public Services

Since the first definition by Elinor Ostrom in the 1970s, co-production

has developed through different waves (the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) and
several disciplinary streams of research (public administration and contem-
porary public management; sociology; welfare economics and public
choice; urban studies; consumer psychology, marketing and services man-
agement, and the third sector). The interest of public management schol-
ars in the co-production of public services has waxed and waned (Fugini
et al. 2016); recently, this concept has attracted renewed attention from
both scholars and practitioners, generating a vibrant field of study and
practice with several ad-hoc study groups, think tanks, and EU funded
projects, conferences and publications investigating co-production in sev-
eral public services (OECD 2011, 2018).
The interest in co-production was due to various reasons that were
synthesised by Bovaird and Loeffler (2017) into five issues. The first is
public scepticism and concern, as well as increased dissatisfaction or frus-
tration on the part of some citizens, about the legitimacy of public deci-
sions and a low level of citizen trust of in government, which led
governments themselves to involve citizens in public decision-making.
Secondly, there is a belief that an increase in the knowledge and expertise
of citizens (learning) will improve the quality of public decisions and pub-
lic services. Thirdly, there is awareness that some important and some-
times hard decisions can be taken more effectively, and also be perceived
as more legitimate, if the point of view of citizens is considered in advance,
and at an early stage of the decision-making process. Forth, some groups
of citizens, especially those with specific interests (i.e., those hit by specific
diseases), have asked to participate in decisions affecting them and their
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

wellbeing. Fifth, there is increasing government awareness that the

involvement of service users can contribute to improving public services.
For some scholars, the co-production of public goods and services is
also linked to the austerity policies that OECD countries have been expe-
riencing (Grimshaw 2013; Bracci et al. 2015; Nabatchi et al. 2017), as
well as the increase in demand for complex services in response to wicked
problems (Head and Alford 2015). According to other scholars, co-­
production can help to provide public services that are better targeted and
more responsive towards users (Duffy 2007), and it can increase the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of service delivery, as well as spurring public sector
innovation (Nabatchi et al. 2016; Osborne et al. 2013; Cepiku and
Giordano 2014). Others see co-production as a way to respond to demo-
cratic and citizenship deficiencies (Pestoff 2009). From this perspective,
co-production may offer a way to reallocate roles and responsibilities
across government, civil society, and individuals (Nabatchi et al. 2016); it
can provide instrumental value for citizens in terms of satisfaction, need
fulfilment, and empowerment (Levine and Fisher 1984; Needham 2008;
Cepiku and Giordano 2014; Sancino 2016); and it can enhance services
and allow for greater sustainability (Boyle and Harris 2009; Dunston et al.
2009). It can also provide normative values for society with reference to
its relevance to promoting higher citizenship and democratic governance
(Dunston et al. 2009), greater empowerment and participation (Boyle
and Harris 2009; Brudney and England 1983; Dunston et al. 2009;
Needham 2008; Ostrom 1996), improved social capital (Jakobsen 2013;
Marschall 2004; Meijer 2011; Schneider et al. 1997), and greater account-
ability (Ostrom 1996).

1.3   Book Aims and Outline

This book aims to provide scholars and practitioners with a comprehensive
framework that can help to strengthen the understanding and analysis of
co-production and its outcomes. The proposed framework includes four
macro pillars commonly identified in the wider collaborative governance
literature: (i) general context, (ii) antecedents, (iii) collaboration manage-
ment, and (iv) outcomes. These macro pillars are discussed in order to
consider the distinctiveness of co-production. In particular, the fact that
co-production involves the relationship between lay actors and state actors
affects the characteristics of each these elements. Existing literature on co-­
production in both the public and private sector has therefore been
6 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

reviewed and analysed. Research focusing on the private sector was par-
ticularly included, as co-production has been extensively researched in the
business sector. Taking into due account context specificities, this volume
provides valuable insights into developing a comprehensive framework
and in identifying areas in need of further research in the public sector
field. The book is of interest for both students interested in better under-
standing the dynamics of co-production, and for practitioners engaged in
improving public service delivery through citizens and community
collaboration.
The book is structured as follows: Chap. 2 illustrates the research aims
and the method deployed to design the comprehensive theoretical frame-
work in more detail. It also illustrates the overall framework. The follow-
ing three Chapters (3, 4 and 5) focus on the macro pillars of the framework
and the related components. In particular, Chap. 3 illustrates and dis-
cusses the general context and the antecedents of co-production, Chap. 4
presents the levers of collaboration management, and Chap. 5 classifies the
findings related to the outcomes of co-production. Chapter 6 concludes
the book by suggesting implications for both scholars and practitioners.

References
Abeysekera, R., D. Patton, and A. Mullineux. 2015. Co-Production in Business
Counselling in Microfinance Setting: A Conceptual Approach. Journal of
Enterprising Culture 23 (03): 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S0218495815500107.
Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the Work of
Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review 16 (3): 299–316. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578.
Alford, John, and Janine O’Flynn. 2012. Rethinking Public Service Delivery:
Managing with External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barbera, C., M. Sicilia, and I. Steccolini. 2016. What Mr. Rossi Wants in
Participatory Budgeting: Two Rs (Responsiveness and Representation) and
Two Is (Iteration and Inclusiveness). International Journal of Public
Administration 39 (13): 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069
2.2016.1177839.
Bonomi Savignon, A., and D. Cepiku. 2018. Utenti che innovano: un’analisi
empirica nella tutela della salute. Azienda Pubblica. ISSN: 1127–5812.
Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community
Co-Production of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67 (5):
846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. 2012. From Engagement to Co-Production: The

Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23
(4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
Bovaird, Tony, and Elke Loeffler. 2017. From Participation to Co-Production. In
The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe,
ed. Edoardo Ongaro and Sandra van Thiel, 403–423. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Boyle, David, and Michael Harris. 2009. The Challenge of Co-Production: How
Equal Partnerships Between Professionals and the Public Are Crucial to Improving
Public Services. London: Nesta.
Bracci, E., C. Humphrey, J. Moll, and I. Steccolini. 2015. Public Sector
Accounting, Accountability and Austerity: More Than Balancing the Books?
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 28 (6): 878–908. https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2015-2090.
Brandsen, T., and M. Honingh. 2016. Distinguishing Different Types of
Co-Production: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions.
Public Administration Review 76 (3): 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/
puar.12465.
Brandsen and Honing. 2018. Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In
Co-Production and Co-Creation, eds. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere.
New York and London: Routledege Taylor & Francis Group.
Brudney, J.L., and R.E. England. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Co-Production
Concept. Public Administration Review 43 (1): 59–65. https://doi.
org/10.2307/975300.
Cepiku, D., and F. Giordano. 2014. Co-Production in Developing Countries:
Insights from the Community Health Workers Experience. Public Management
Review 16 (3): 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822535.
De Rosis, S., D. Cerasuolo, and S. Nuti. 2020. Using Patient-Reported Measures
to Drive Change in Healthcare: The Experience of the Digital, Continuous and
Systematic PREMs Observatory in Italy. BMC Health Services Research 20
(315). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05099-4.
Duffy, S. (2007). The Economics of Self-Directed Support. Journal of Integrated
Care 15 (2): 26–37.
Dunston, R., A. Lee, D. Boud, P. Brodie, and M. Chiarella. 2009. Co-Production
and Health System Reform—From Re-Imagining to Re-Making. Australian
Journal of Public Administration 68 (1): 39–52. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x.
Fugini, Mariagrazia, Enrico Bracci, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2016. Co-Production
in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges, PoliMI SpringerBriefs. Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
8 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Grimshaw, Damian. 2013. Austerity, Privatization and Levelling Down: Public

Sector Reforms in the United Kingdom. In Public Sector Shock: The Impact of
Policy Retrenchment in Europe, ed. Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead, 576–626.
Cheltenham/Geneva: Edward Elgar/ILO.
Guglielmetti, Chiara, Silvia Gilardi, Marta Marsilio, and Maddalena Sorrentino.
2016. Managing the Co-Production Puzzle in Healthcare Sector: Filling the
Blanks. In Co-Production in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges, ed.
M. Fugini, E. Bracci, and M. Sicilia, 77–95. Cham: Springer.
Head, B.W., and J. Alford. 2015. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy
and Management. Administration and Society 47 (6): 711–739. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095399713481601.
Jakobsen, M. 2013. Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Co-Production?
Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 23 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036.
Levine, C.H., and G. Fisher. 1984. Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise
of Co-Production. Public Administration Review 44: 178–189. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3380451.
Loeffler, E. 2009. Why Co-Production Is an Important Topic for Local Government.
Local Authority Research Councils Initiative.
Marschall, M.J. 2004. Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A
New Look at the Co-Production of Local Public Goods. Political Research
Quarterly 57 (2): 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/
106591290405700205.
Meijer, A.J. 2011. Networked Co-Production of Public Services in Virtual
Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to
Public Service Support. Public Administration Review 71 (4): 598–607.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x.
Nabatchi, T., and L.B. Amsler. 2014. Direct Public Engagement in Local
Government. American Review of Public Administration 44 (4): 63–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013519702.
Nabatchi, Tina, and Matt Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century
Democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nabatchi, T., T. Steen, M. Sicilia, and D. Brand. 2016. Understanding the
Diversity of Co-Production: Introduction to the IJPA Special Issue.
International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1001–1005. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177836.
Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public
Services: The Who, When, and What of Co-Production. Public Administration
Review 77 (5): 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765.
Needham, C. 2008. Realising the Potential of Co-Production: Negotiating
Improvements in Public Services. Social Policy and Society 7 (2): 221–231.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746407004174.
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

OECD. 2011. Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and
Civil Society. Paris.
———. 2018. Co-Production - Enhancing the Role of Citizens in Governance and
Service Delivery. Dossier No. 4, May.
Osborne, S.P., Z. Radnor, and G. Nasi. 2013. A New Theory of Public Service
Management: Towards a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. American
Review of Public Administration 43 (2): 135–158. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0275074012466935.
Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the Great Divide: Co-Production, Synergy, and
Development. World Development 24 (6): 1073–1087. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
Parks, R.B., P.C. Baker, L. Kiser, R. Oakerson, E. Ostrom, V. Ostrom, S.L. Percy,
M. Vandivort, G.P. Whitaker, and R. Wilson. 1981. Consumers as Co-Producers
of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. Policy
Studies Journal 9 (7): 1001–1011. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x.
Pestoff, V. 2009. Towards a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen
Participation and Co-Production of Personal Social Services in Sweden. Annals
of Public and Cooperative Economics 80 (2): 197–224. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x.
Prahalad, C.K., and V. Ramaswamy. 2000. Co-Opting Customer Competence.
Harvard Business Review 78: 79–87.
———. 2002. The Co-Creation Connection. Strategy and Business 27: 51–60.
———. 2004a. Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 18: 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
dir.20015.
Prahalad, Coimbatore Krishnarao, and Venkatram Ramaswamy. 2004b. The Future
of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
Sancino, A. 2016. The Meta Co-Production of Community Outcomes: Towards
a Citizens’ Capabilities Approach. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11266-015-9596-9.
Schneider, M., P. Teske, M. Marschall, M. Mintrom, and C. Roch. 1997.
Institutional Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of
Public School Choice. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2952260.
Sicilia, M., E. Guarini, A. Sancino, M. Andreani, and R. Ruffini. 2016. Public
Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 8–27. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0020852314566008.
10 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Sorrentino, M., C. Guglielmetti, S. Gilardi, and M. Marsilio. 2017. Healthcare

Services and the Co-Production Puzzle: Filling in the Blanks. Administration
and Society 49 (10): 1424–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0095399715593317.
Thomas, J.C. 2013. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the
Public in Public Management. Public Administration Review 73 (6): 786–796.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109.
Vargo, S.L., and R.F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.68.1.1.24036.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2006. Evolving to a New Dominant
Logic for Marketing. In The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing, ed. Stephen
L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch, 3–28. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-Production: The State of
the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.
Willis, M., and T. Bovaird. 2012. Commissioning for quality and outcome. In
Glasby J. Commissioning for Health and Well-Being: An Introduction. Bristol:
The Policy Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Research Aim and Methods

Abstract This chapter presents the research aim and the methods
deployed in collecting evidence and developing the theoretical framework
for co-production. The literature on co-production has grown steadily in
the past two decades, but in a fragmented way. Academic research has
mainly tackled particular aspects of co-production, and focused on specific
sectors. It has yet to integrate the many co-production concepts into a
distinctive theoretical overarching and comprehensive framework.
Drawing on a systematic literature review, the chapter develops a compre-
hensive framework that includes key four pillars (i) general context, (ii)
antecedents of co-production, (iii) management and implementation of
co-production, and (iv) outcomes of co-production. Finally, each compo-
nent is briefly described.

Keywords Co-production framework • Research methods • Systematic

literature review • Collaborative governance

2.1   Research Aim

Research into co-production has blossomed in recent years, into a vibrant
field of study. In response to this increase in interest, scholars have called
for a better understanding of this phenomenon, and have explicitly pointed
to the need to comprehensively integrate the wide array of concepts and

© The Author(s) 2020 11

D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_2
12 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

dimensions investigated, and their relationships (Brandsen et al. 2018;

Dudau et al. 2019). This lack of systematic knowledge represents a stage
of enchantment with the co-paradigm and, at the same time, an impetus
for disenchantment (Dudau et al. 2019, 1582).
Several works have tried to offer a synthesis of co-production in the
public sector in general (Sicilia et al. 2019; Verschuere et al. 2012;
Voorberg et al. 2014) and in specific contexts (Honingh et al. 2018;
Palumbo 2016; Loeffler and Bovaird 2020).
This book intends to provide scholars and practitioners with a compre-
hensive framework that can help to strengthen understanding of the func-
tioning and results of co-production.
This framework is innovative in several regards. Firstly, the proposed
framework provides a novel classification of the different variables affect-
ing the activation of co-production. While academic research has paid a
great deal of attention to the most influential factors in activating co-­
production (Voorberg et al. 2014; Sicilia et al. 2019), there is still no
overall and clear classification of the findings. Sicilia and colleagues (2019)
noted that context matters; thus, a clear and separate classification of the
exogenous factors and characteristics of the environment in which co-­
production takes place can provide useful hints for both scholars and prac-
titioners about the role played by these factors.
Secondly, the framework offers a classification of the different levels and
types of outcomes of co-production. So far studies have largely discussed
the expected effects of co-production, but they have not been systema-
tised. Reviews have already pointed out the paucity of empirical research
aimed at understanding the ultimate effects of co-production, and their
empirical evaluation (Sicilia et al. 2019; Verschuere et al. 2012; Voorberg
et al. 2014). This may be mainly ascribed to the celebratory nature of co-­
production, and to the normative assumption behind its ‘magic nature’,
that the outcomes of (public) services in which users and professionals
work together actively ought to be “better services” (Dudau et al. 2019;
Voorberg et al. 2014). The classification offered is useful in framing the
effects of co-production on different public services and can inform future
studies and allow a consistent accumulation of knowledge with respect to
co-production evaluation.
Thirdly, this framework introduces the concept of co-production man-
agement and implementation. Studies do not provide a comprehensive
analysis of ways in which co-production is managed. The recent interest in
the high complexity and failure rate of co-production, which may lead to
 2 RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 13

value co-destruction (Järvi et al. 2018; Williams et al. 2016), has paved
the way for widespread agreement that the design and implementation of
co-production initiatives affect the quality of collaboration and its out-
comes (Aschhoff and Vogel 2018; Cepiku 2017; Mustak et al. 2016).
Specifically, this book highlights the main managerial levers of co-­
production investigated in the literature, from both a theoretical and prac-
tical perspective.
We have embraced contributions coming from the private sector litera-
ture, where this is appropriate or suitable, considering context specificities,
in order to describe these issues in a distinctive way. Indeed, previous lit-
erature reviews have overlooked the valuable insights possible from the
extensive research, especially empirical, carried out in the private sector.
The framework also relies upon insights from the collaborative gover-
nance literature. Despite the differences between collaborative governance
literature and co-production, co-production can be seen as a collaborative
arrangement (Cepiku 2017). The comprehensive co-production frame-
work has thus been developed by leveraging several frameworks on col-
laborative governance in general (see the review by Bryson et al. 2015).

2.2   Research Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed to better identify and
classify the extensive literature on co-production. This method relies on a
replicable, scientific and transparent process for article selection (Tranfield
et al. 2003). A three-step procedure was applied for the identification,
selection and review of the extant co-production literature, as reported in
Fig. 2.1, illustrating the Prisma flow chart (Moher et al. 2009).
The first step was aimed at identifying existing studies on co-­production,
conducted in either the public or private sector. Papers relating to the
private sector were included, as co-production has been extensively stud-
ied in the business sector (Agarwal 2013). Taking context specificities into
due account, these papers provided some insights into developing a com-
prehensive framework and identifying areas in need of further research in
the public sector field.
An electronic keyword search for titles, abstracts and/or keywords con-
taining the terms ‘co-production’ or ‘co-production’ was conducted in
June 2019 across the ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. The search was
then narrowed to peer-reviewed English-language articles and the subject
areas in the social sciences, such as management, business, public
14 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Identification

Records identified through Records identified through

Scopus database ISI WoS database
(n =1.449) (n = 1073)
Screening

Records after duplicates were removed (163 duplicates)

(n = 2359)

Records excluded after

Records screened
reading abstracts
(n = 2359)
(n =2011)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles

for eligibility excluded
(n = 348) (n = 82)
Included

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 266)

Fig. 2.1 PRISMA flow chart

administration, economics, and sociology. This step returned 2359 arti-

cles, excluding duplicates.
The second step was to conduct a qualitative screening of the titles and
abstracts to identify those that met the following eligibility criteria: origi-
nal articles on the co-production of services or products either conceptu-
ally discussing or reporting empirical evidence on the components that
may affect the activation, management and evaluation of co-production.
Articles on knowledge co-production or political participation were
excluded. Papers related to private sector literature were excluded where
 2 RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 15

results did not provide transferable insights to the public sector. This step
returned 348 articles.
The third step was the in-depth qualitative analysis of the 348 articles
thus selecting 266 relevant papers for the comprehensive framework.
Appendix 1 provides a brief snapshot of the main descriptive statistics
related to these papers (growth across time, journals, and the research
methods used by both private and public sector papers).
The findings of the qualitative analysis were classified into macro-­
categories that commonly characterised collaborative governance frame-
works such as context, management and outcomes. The articles’
contributions were classified according to four main macro pillars: (i)
external context, which includes variables belonging to the environment
that creates opportunities and constraints, affecting how the collaborative
initiative unfolds; (ii) a set of initial conditions and drivers, separate from
the context, that can be either conducive or unfavourable to the imple-
mentation of co-production; (iii) management and implementation of the
collaborative initiative, and (iv) the effects of co-production, or the final
results or outcomes.
An inductive approach was adopted to identify the analytical compo-
nents of each pillar and to investigate their relationships.

2.3   Enhancing the Understanding

of Co-production: A Comprehensive Framework

The review of the relevant literature identified the analytical components

of each pillar of co-production: general context, antecedents, manage-
ment and outcomes of co-production. These insights are consolidated
into a comprehensive framework (Fig. 2.2) that can advance understand-
ing of how the process unfolds from a holistic perspective, and the under-
explored interrelation dynamics at play.
The framework distinguishes the general context from the antecedents,
the latter being more directly related to co-production activation, man-
agement and outcomes.
In particular, the general context includes variables belonging to the
environment, which creates opportunities and constraints, and affects how
the co-production initiative unfolds.
The antecedents identified are classified as pertaining to the lay actors,
the regular provider and the service that is co-produced.
16 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

GENERAL CONTEXT
state and governance traditions, regulatory framework, nature of welfare state,
availability of resources – economical, social and infrastructural

CO-PRODUCTION CO-PRODUCTION CO-PRODUCTION

ANTECEDENTS
Lay actors
demographic and socio-
economic characteristics,
motivational factors, socio-
psychological factors, resource
availability
MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES
Institutional arrangements
service delivery channels, formal Lay actors
rules, intensity, size and scope satisfaction, empowerment,
awareness, learning, costs,
Planning externalities
Communication strategies
modes, use of ICT

Regular provider organization Management of lay actors Regular service provider

degree of citizens’ orientation,
officials’ acceptance of an active
role of lay actors, organizational
culture
training, motivation-building,
socialization and group identity
building
Management of professionals
training, motivations mechanism
cost efficiency, effectiveness
impact on workforce,
environmental uncertainty,
trust

Co-produced service Leadership

continuity and duration, easy of
activities, perception of service
saliency
Community
public and community leaders
value for community, value for
society, social economic impact
Accountability & performance
measurement
horizontal vs vertical

Fig. 2.2 The comprehensive framework of co-production activation, manage-

ment and evaluation

It is worth noting that both the general context and the antecedents of
co-production are not only relevant for activating co-production, they
may also influence the collaboration dynamics, and condition the final
outcomes for the co-producers or the wider community. They create sev-
eral challenges that should be addressed though the levers of co-­production
management. They often act in combination rather than in isolation.
Co-production management includes institutional arrangements, plan-
ning, communication strategies, the management of lay actors and profes-
sionals, leadership, and accountability and performance management
systems, which play a key role in success or failure, and the sustainability of
the co-produced service. Co-production poses specific challenges that
require distinctive management systems and tools compared to traditional
hierarchical organisations, and also compared to other collaborative gov-
ernance arrangements.
 2 RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 17

Finally, the framework integrates the outcomes according to the three

categories of stakeholders: the lay actors, the regular service provider, and
the community. This pillar is particularly relevant given that the reviewed
literature considers co-production as an end benefit in itself, but does not
provide a clear categorisation of the outcomes. This part of the framework
can be used as a blueprint for developing a multidimensional performance
measurement system to monitor the real effect of co-production
initiatives.
The framework helps to identify interactions between the three compo-
nents. While the characteristics of the general context and the antecedents
can affect the co-production outcomes, the co-production management
levers can both address some of the challenges stemming from the context
and antecedents, and shape the final outcomes. The latter will also feed-
back into the antecedents (e.g., level of participant trust).
This framework therefore offers academics and practitioners a compre-
hensive and updated conceptual scheme to better understand the key fac-
tors, and their interactions, which lead a co-production initiative to
succeed.
The full list of articles and their classification into the four pillars are
reported in Appendix 2.
The following chapters will further investigate the pillars of the frame-
work and their analytical components, providing evidence of the research
gaps and the areas that need further investigation. Chapter 3 analyses the
findings from the general context and co-production antecedents and dis-
cusses the factors that impinge on the activation of co-production. Chapter
4 focuses on the systems and tools necessary to manage and implement
co-production, which is the second component of the model. Chapter 5
systematises the findings on co-production outcomes.

References
Agarwal, P.K. 2013. 311 Services: A Real-World Perspective. Public Administration
Review 73 (5): 702–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12115.
Aschhoff N., and R. Vogel. 2018. Value conflicts in co-production: governing
public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 31 (7): 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-
0222.
Brandsen T., B. Verschuere, and T. Steen. 2018. Co-Production and Co-Creation
Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New york: Routledge.
18 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M.M. Stone. 2015. Designing and Implementing
Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration
Review 75 (5): 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432.
Cepiku, D. 2017. Collaborative Governance. In The Routledge Handbook of Global
Public Policy and Administration. Oxon/New York: Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Dudau A., R. Glennon, and B. Verschuere. 2019. Following the yellow brick road?
(Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in pub-
lic services. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1577–1594. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1653604.
Honingh, M., E. Bondarouk, and T. Brandsen. 2018. Co-production in Primary
Schools: A Systematic Literature Review. International Review of Administrative
Science 86 (2): 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318769143.
Järvi, H., A. Kähkönen, and H. Torvinen. 2018. When Value Co-Creation Fails:
Reasons That Lead to Value Co-Destruction. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 34 (1): 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.01.
002.
Loeffler, E., and T. Bovaird. 2020. Assessing the Impact of Co-production on
Pathways to Outcomes in Public Services: The Case of Policing and Criminal
Justice. International Public Management Journal 23 (2): 205–223. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1668895.
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group. 2009.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000097.
Mustak, M., E. Jaakkola, A. Halinen, and V. Kaartemo. 2016. Customer participa-
tion management: Developing a comprehensive framework and a research
agenda. Journal of Service Management 27 (3): 250–275. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0014.
Palumbo, R. 2016. Contextualizing Co-production of Health Care. A Systematic
Literature Review. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29 (1):
72–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0125.
Sicilia M., A. Sancino, T. Nabatchi, and E. Guarini. 2019. Facilitating co-produc-
tion in public services: management implications from a systematic literature
review. Public Money & Management 39 (4): 233–240. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for
Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of
Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
 2 RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 19

Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-production: The State of

the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.
Voorberg, W. H., V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2014. A Systematic
Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innova-
tion journey. Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
Williams, B. N., S. Kang, and J. Johnson. 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the Dark
Side of Co-Production: Public Value Failures in Co-Production Processes.
Public Management Review 18 (5): 692–717. https://doi.org/10.108
0/14719037.2015.1111660.
 CHAPTER 3

Activation of Co-Production: General

Context and Antecedents

Abstract This chapter focuses on the first two components of the frame-
work proposed in the book: the general context and the antecedents of
co-production. While the general context includes the characteristics of
the environment in which co-production takes place, the antecedents of
co-production consist of those aspects that are necessary, according to the
main co-production research, for co-production to happen. The anteced-
ents to co-production are categorised by considering the extent to which
they are related to lay actors, the regular service provider, and the nature
of the co-produced service.

Keywords General context • Antecedents • Lay actors • Regular

service provider • Nature of public services

3.1   Introduction
This chapter focuses on the first two components of the proposed frame-
work: the general context and the antecedents of co-production. The gen-
eral context includes the characteristics of the environment in which
co-production takes place. In addition to general context, the chapter pro-
vides an analysis of the antecedents of co-production, categorising them in
three major groups: antecedents related to the lay actors, to the regular
provider, and to the nature of the service being co-produced. Several

© The Author(s) 2020 21

D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_3
22 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

antecedents are identified with specific reference to lay actors, such as

demographic and socio-economic characteristics, motivational factors,
socio-psychological characteristics, and resource availability. The charac-
teristics of the regular service provider, which may influence co-­production
activation, include the degree of user orientation, the acceptance of the lay
actor as a partner in the public service cycle, and organisational culture.
The last set of antecedents is related to the specific characteristics of the
co-produced service, in terms of its continuity and duration, the extent to
which tasks are easy to perform, and service salience. The chapter is struc-
tured as follows: Sect. 3.2 presents the effect of the general context on
co-production; Sect. 3.3 presents the antecedents of co-production by
differentiating between lay actors, service providers, and the specific char-
acteristics of the co-produced services; and Sect. 3.4 reports some final
conclusions.

3.2   General Context

Co-production is embedded in, and interacts with, the general context in
which it takes place. The general context involves the characteristics of the
environment in which practices of co-production occur and includes sev-
eral elements, such as the availability of resources, state and governance
traditions, regulatory frameworks, and socio-economic and cultural issues
(Jo and Nabatchi 2016). Research has shown that co-production is more
likely to take place when governments cannot afford the provision of pub-
lic services due to a lack of financial resources (Munoz et al. 2014).
Resources in terms of social capital (Andrews and Brewer 2013) and basic
public service infrastructure (Chaebo and Medeiros 2017) are also identi-
fied as necessary to support co-production.
State and governance traditions have been highlighted in the literature
of public administration and management as features that affect how pub-
lic administration works in a country (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). As
such, they also affect co-production. Two particularly relevant dimensions
involved in shaping state and governance traditions are the sharing of
authority with non-governmental parties and the culture of governance
(Lijphart 2012). A consultative style, with a strong decentralisation of
power and involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process, is
contrasted with an authoritative style, in which decisions are mostly made
by governments. An authoritative tradition may facilitate the implementa-
tion of reforms intended to introduce co-production, whereas in the
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 23

presence of consultative state tradition changes in the service cycle are

made slower by the involvement of many actors in the public service cycle
(Voorberg et al. 2017). There is more room for the involvement of citi-
zens in public service provision in countries in which the state plays a less
central role (Parrado et al. 2013).
A state’s governance culture can be characterised as either ‘Rechtsstaat’-
oriented or as ‘public interest’-oriented (Pierre 1995). In the Rechtstaat
culture of governance the state is mainly concerned with the preparation,
promulgation, and enforcement of laws. In the ‘public interest’ model,
rules and regulations are less dominant, and pragmatism and flexibility are
prized above technical expertise (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). Management
changes, including the active involvement of lay actors, are thus more dif-
ficult in the ‘Rechtsstaat’ model since the adoption of new rules and pro-
cedures is required (Sudhipongpracha and Wongpredee 2016; Voorberg
et al. 2017).
The role of the regulatory framework, with respect to co-production,
has been explicitly discussed by Szescilo (2018, pp. 137–138) who explains
that law “may serve as a useful instrument for promotion of co-production
and dissemination of it, as well as a tool for mitigating its adverse effects”,
playing the role of both enabler and guardian of public values. The law is
an enabler of co-production in that allows the transfer of responsibilities
from public organisation to lay-actors, while it is a guardian of public val-
ues in that it allows the discriminations that may be triggered by some
co-production initiatives to be countered. The role of the regulative
framework in fostering co-production by specifying the rules for the
involvement of lay-actors has been also highlighted by Chaebo and
Medeiros (2017).
Finally, the nature of welfare reforms seems to affect co-production in
different ways (Pestoff 2009; Rantamäki 2017). A welfare reform that
emphasises economically rational individuals who maximise their utilities
tends to play down values of reciprocity and solidarity and thus co-­
production (Pestoff 2009). Conversely, when people are worried about
the future of public welfare services, new participatory approaches are
more likely to manifest (Rantamäki 2017). The characteristics of the gen-
eral context can positively or negatively influence a co-production initia-
tive, how it unfolds and its outcomes, not only when co-production is first
launched, but also at different points along the way.
24 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

3.3   Antecedents of Co-Production

Several papers have identified a wide range of factors that may be either
conducive or obstructive to the activation of co-production. The analysis
of these factors is particularly valuable because it identifies several condi-
tions that are under the control of public organisations and that, if prop-
erly managed, help facilitate the initiation and implementation of
co-production (see Chap. 4). Existing studies on co-production offer a
wide list of potentially relevant drivers, but we lack a comprehensive and
systematic analysis of them. In this chapter, we classify them into three
main categories: antecedents related to lay actors, antecedents related to
the regular service provider, and antecedents related to the service
co-produced.

3.3.1  Antecedents Related to Lay Actors

Lay actors are one of the participants involved in co-production. Regardless
of whether they act as citizens (i.e., “member(s) of a geographic or politi-
cal community”), as clients (i.e., “recipient(s) of public services to which
he or she is legally entitled and for which he or she is not required to
directly pay the providing organisation”), or as customers (i.e., “recipient(s)
of public services for which he or she must directly pay the providing
organisation”) (Nabatchi et al. 2017, p. 769), their willingness to work
collaboratively with the regular producers of services is essential in order
for co-production to take place (Alford 1998, 2002; Nabatchi et al. 2017).
The literature has identified several factors related to lay actors that can
affect the activation of co-production. In this chapter, we group these fac-
tors in the following categories: demographic and socio-economic charac-
teristics, motivational factors, socio-psychological characteristics, and
resource availability. The main findings of previous research are presented
and discussed for each category.

 emographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics

D
Many studies have investigated the relationship between the propensity to
co-produce, and the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of
lay actors, including gender, age, education, employment status, and the
relationship between lay actors and other stakeholders. However, the
results so far are inconclusive, with studies not consistently reporting sig-
nificant associations between these demographic factors and the propen-
sity to adopt co-production behaviours.
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 25

Women seem more prone to engage in co-production than men (e.g.,

Christensen and Lægreid 2005; Einolf 2010; Alonso et al. 2019).
According to Christensen and Lægreid (2005), the underlying reason is
that public sector organisations tend to employ a great proportion of
women and that women are generally more involved in works concerning
care and health responsibilities, in which co-production is common (see
also Parrado et al. 2013; Alford and Yates 2016). These services usually
involve individual co-production, which leads Bovaird et al. (2015) to
observe that women tend to be more involved in individual co-­production,
and that this gender effect does not appear to be significant for collective
co-production. Women also seem more willing to co-produce when the
government officials and administrators involved are women (Riccucci
et al. 2016), showing a link between co-production and representative
bureaucracy in a local recycling initiative.1 However, a replication study in
the context of emergency preparedness did not find this symbolic repre-
sentation effect (Van Ryzin et al. 2017). The contrasting results of the two
studies seem to suggest that the symbolic effects of gender representation
depend on the specific characteristics of the policy context in which co-­
production is activated. The positive effect of representative bureaucracy
holds when: (a) lay actor input is requested from local (as opposed to state
or federal) governments; (b) the tasks to be performed require low effort
and commitment; and (c) the services to be co-produced are salient for
most citizens (Van Ryzin et al. 2017).
Older people tend to participate more than younger citizens
(Christensen and Lægreid 2005; Erlinghagen and Hank 2006), but, again,
Bovaird et al. (2015) emphasise that this is true for individual, not collec-
tive, co-production. The fact that elderly people are more likely to co-­
produce is due at least to two reasons: they tend to trust government
more, as they have seen the birth and development of the welfare state
(Christensen and Lægreid 2005), and they may also have fewer time

1
According to the theory of representative bureaucracy, passive representation, i.e. the
extent to which “the agency’s workforce reflects the demographics of the clients or citizens
it serves” (Riccucci et al. 2016, p. 121), can affect the trust and cooperation of citizens. This
effect, defined as “symbolic representation” (Gade and Wilkins 2013; Meier and Nicholson-
Crotty 2006; Riccucci et al. 2014; Theobald and Haider-Markel 2009; cit. Riccucci et al.
2016), rests on the assumption that when population demographic characteristics (in terms
of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) are reproduced within the public sector organisation, citizens
are more likely to see that organisation as more legitimate.
26 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

constraints. The greater efforts required to build the social contacts

needed to activate collective co-production compared to individual par-
ticipation seem to hinder the willingness of older lay actors to engage in
collective co-production (Bovaird et al. 2015). The relationship between
age and co-production appears to be affected by the type of service. For
example, Alford and Yates (2016) observe that older people tend to prefer
keeping an eye on other’s properties (which confirms Parrado et al.’s [2013]
results about older people being more likely to co-produce safety), or to
go to the doctor for a health check, while younger people are more likely
“to tell others not to drop rubbish or let their dog foul the street”, “walk,
cycle, and use public transport”, and “to take care of a sick family member
or friend” (p. 169).
Parrado et al. (2013) report that there is a difference in the engage-
ment of women and elderly citizens in co-production across services and
countries (in particular, across UK, Germany, Denmark, France and the
Czech Republic). Women engage more often in the co-production of
health services in all the countries studied, and are more prone to co-­
produce in the safety and environment domains only in the Czech
Republic, Denmark, and Germany. Age is more broadly associated with
willingness to act as co-producers in Germany and France, whereas, as
mentioned above, older people are particularly prone to engage in safety
in all countries.
Studies of co-production have analysed the impact of three main socio-­
economic variables: the level of education, income, and employment sta-
tus. The results emerging from the analysis are inconclusive. For instance,
with specific reference to the level of education, Parrado et al. (2013) anal-
yse general user and community co-production and find a weak and incon-
sistent relationship between education and co-production. The authors
distinguish between university educated and non-university educated citi-
zens and find that more educated people are less likely to co-produce.
Bovaird et al. (2015) adopt a finer-grained view and observe a small posi-
tive effect of education level on collective co-production, but not on indi-
vidual co-production. Alonso et al. (2019) show that more educated
people (those holding a diploma, first degree, higher degree or equivalent)
are more likely to engage in co-production activities. According to Alford
and Yates (2016), education has little or no significant impact on co-­
production. The association between employment status and co-­production
levels is also weak and inconsistent. For instance, a positive relationship
with safety co-production emerges in Germany and the UK, whereas a
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 27

negative relationship for environmental co-production is found in

Denmark (Parrado et al. 2013). Bovaird et al. (2015) show that an inac-
tive workforce appears to be more likely to participate only in collective
co-production. Alford and Yates (2016) report that students are more
prone to co-produce environmental services, whereas retired people com-
munity safety-related services. Their study also demonstrates that being
retired and unemployed does not affect higher levels of group co-produc-
tion (thus, they argue, time availability is not a distinctive determinant of
group co-production). People with lower incomes seem to be less likely to
co-produce (Warren et al. 1984). This may due to the fact that people
with lower incomes tend to be squeezed by daily needs, do not perceive
themselves as able to affect the world they live in, and may lack the knowl-
edge and material resources needed for co-production (Jakobsen 2013;
Jakobsen and Andersen 2013).
A final socio-economic factor investigated by research into co-­
production is related to the interaction-related antecedents, intended as
the interaction that people have with others, meaning other people (such
as citizens) or with service-provider organisations. With reference to
citizen-­to-citizen interaction, the literature has shown that “the environ-
ment in which you are living and the networks in which you are engag-
ing … (for) example, church attendance, group membership, and marital
status” can affect co-production (Van Eijk and Steen 2016, p. 322) by
enhancing social capital (Putnam 1993) and networking. As discussed by
Van Eijk and Steen (2016), while networking can impose limits on partici-
pation because of the need to decide which network to attend, it also
increases opportunities for participation. Interacting with other citizens
can, thus, incentivise greater participation (see also Mustak et al. 2016).
At the same time, it appears that even the type and quality of relationship
between a service provider and citizens can foster higher participation
(Mustak et al. 2016).

Motivational Factors
Psychological and organisational literature streams have identified the dif-
ferent motivational factors that drive the behaviours of people and organ-
isations (see Ryan and Deci 2000; Grant 2008). In particular, this literature
recognises that the desire to make an effort can stem from three main

2
Van Eijk and Steen (2016) use the label “social connectedness”.
28 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 3.1 Overview and summary conceptualisation of motivational factors for

co-production
Self-centred motivations Community-centred
motivation

Material motivation Extrinsic motivation (e.g., monetary) –

Non-material Extrinsic motivations (e.g., sociality, Prosocial behaviour
motivation normative commitment)
Intrinsic motivation

sources, which are grouped in three main types: extrinsic, intrinsic and
prosocial motivations. Extrinsic motivation is the desire to make an effort
triggered by outcomes external to the work itself (Amabile 1993; Brief
and Aldag 1977); intrinsic motivation is the desire to make an effort based
on interest and enjoyment of the task itself (Ryan and Deci 2000); and,
prosocial motivation is the desire to expend effort to make a positive dif-
ference in other people’s life (Grant 2008).
The effect of these different types of motivations have been studied in
the co-production literature. Table 3.1 shows how these motivations are
used in the co-production literature. It is worth noting that the classifica-
tions employed emphasise the distinction between self-centred and com-
munity-centred motivations. This distinction reflects the fact that lay
actors may be motivate by the attainment of personal benefits, or/and by
an orientation towards the public interest.
The “desire of tangible benefits”, such as money, goods or services, is
qualified by Alford (2009) as material self-interest, and ascribed by Van
Eijk and Steen (2016) to self-centred motivations. This desire is consid-
ered to be effective “for client co-production only when the work is easy
to prescribe and verify” (Alford 2009, p. 192) and when private value (i.e.,
“private consumption of goods and services”, Alford 2009) is consumed
(Alford 2002, 2009). Recently, Voorberg et al. (2018) have shown that
small financial rewards (2 euro/hour) have no effect on co-production,
while higher financial rewards (10 euro/hour) have a positive but mar-
ginal effect.
Previous studies have also recognised the important role of other types
of extrinsic motivations. In particular, studies have highlighted sociality as
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 29

a driver of co-production (Alford 2002, 2009).3 Sociality is described by

Van Eijk and Steen (2016) as a self-interested motivation and refers to the
desire to socialise (Sharp 1978; Alford 2002; Verschuere et al. 2012;
Vanleene et al. 2017). It makes people participating “even if it disadvan-
tages them financially, because they enjoy the company, fellowship and
esteem of others” (Alford 2009, p. 27).
Among non-material motivations there are also normative values,
which imply that citizens are guided by receiving “intangible rewards or
satisfaction with morally good actions” (Parrado et al. 2013, p. 89).
Normative purposes—defined also as “expressive values” (Alford 2002)—
may contrast with material self-interest. Co-production, according to a
normative perspective, relies on “people’s beliefs about what is norma-
tively right or about what principles should guide our society, which may
differ from their views of what is in their own self-interest” (Alford 2009).
In sum, those supporting the idea that normative purposes are key co-
production antecedents emphasise that citizens tend to co-produce
because their belief systems claim it to be right (Alford 2002; Verschuere
et al. 2012). For instance, citizens may be morally prone to co-produce
when they experience poor conditions in a policy area (Parrado et al.
2013; Bovaird et al. 2015, 2016; Alonso et al. 2019). Like sociality (and
tangible desires), normative values can also be considered self-centred and
extrinsic motivations for coproducing.
Intrinsic motivations have also been noted in the literature on co-­
production. They are described as an example of non-material (Alford
2002) and self-centred motivation for citizen engagement, and may even
be required for co-production (Fledderus and Honingh 2016). Self-­
determination theory suggests that intrinsically motivated people co-­
produce because they enjoy performing co-production activities (Fledderus
2015), and the activities they are involved in attract their interest, enhance
their self-esteem and self-determination (Alford 2002). Intrinsically moti-
vated people are thus interested in the work itself, which differentiates them
from extrinsically motivated people who engage in view of the achievement
of outcomes external to the work itself, such as rewards or recognition
(Amabile 1993; Brief and Aldag 1977; Grant 2008). In general, the

3
For the sake of completeness, “sociality” is defined in Alford (2009) as “the enjoyment
we derive from associating with others, from receiving their approval and concomitantly
from not being subject to their disapproval” (p. 27) and as “a person’s needs for affiliation
with social groups, a sense of belonging, or the positive regard of others” (p. 66).
30 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

psychological and organisational literature has suggested that intrinsic

motivation may reduce when extrinsic incentives are provided, but this
aspect has not been specifically investigated with respect to co-production.
Finally, studies on co-production have suggested the importance of pro-
social motivation in affecting the willingness to co-produce. Prosociality is
when people are motivated to make effort in order to benefit, or increase,
the well-being of others (Ryan and Connell 1989; Grant 2008; Hattke
and Kalucza 2019). It is therefore qualified as a community-centred moti-
vation (see Van Eijk and Steen 2016). There is an agreement that although
there are several types of co-producers (van Eijk and Steen 2014; Barbera
et al. 2016; van Eijk et al. 2017), they all tend to be driven more by pro-
sociality than by other self-centred motivations.

Socio-Psychological Factors
In this section, we focus on the socio-psychological factors that have
proven to impinge on the willingness of lay actors to co-produce: trust and
self-efficacy.
Trust can be defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to
the action of another party based on the expectation that the other party
will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of
the ability to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer et al. 1995,
p. 712). This definition of trust includes two main elements: benevolent
expectations and the willingness to be vulnerable.
Trust and co-production have been shown to be linked by a two-way
relationship. On the one hand, it has been observed that co-production,
and specifically the inclusion of users in the service delivery process, sup-
ports and helps restoring higher trust in governments (Fledderus et al.
2014). On the other hand, trust in a regular provider of services has been
identified as a precondition for involvement (Hsu et al. 2013; Parrado
et al. 2013; Fledderus et al. 2015; Fledderus and Honingh 2016; Li and
Hsu 2018). Fledderus et al. (2014), however, note that triggering co-­
production on the side of the lay actor requires not only trust in govern-
ment, but also trust in other people. More in general, the authors
distinguish particularised trust (of which trust in government is a form)
and generalised trust, which refers to “interpersonal” or “social” trust.
Different sources of trust are identified in the literature. Fledderus et al.
(2014), drawing on Lewicki and Bunker (1996), distinguish between
calculus-­based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based
trust. A cognitive approach lies behind calculus- and knowledge-based
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 31

trust, which, indeed, are supported respectively by controlling, contract-

ing and competition, and by performance management and transparency.
Conversely, identification-based trust essentially relies on emotional driv-
ers that can be enhanced when interacting in networks and through direct
participation. Identification-based trust characterises the new public gov-
ernance model and, thus, is the form of trust that seems to be associated
with the willingness to co-produce (Fledderus et al. 2014).
Self-efficacy is another social psychological characteristic that has been
investigated in the co-production literature in order to explain variation in
the co-production levels of lay actors. Two main typologies of self-efficacy
are conceptualised: political and individual. While political self-efficacy
tends to be related to the sense of efficacy of people “in general” (i.e., the
extent to which a person thinks that ordinary citizens or people can make
a difference; e.g., Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015)4, individual
self-efficacy involves “people’s beliefs in their capabilities to produce given
attainments” (Bandura 2006, p. 307), and is thus a more subjective factor
that captures the judgement that an individual has about his or her com-
petence to coproduce. Thus, it is different from the actual ability to co-
produce, which, as will be explained below in the “Resource availability”
section, depends on the objective possession of knowledge, skills and
material resources needed to co-produce. Individual self-efficacy and citi-
zen ability and knowledge are also linked: on the one hand, a higher
capacity to conduct a task tends to enhance the individual sense of self-­
efficacy (Alford and Yates 2016); on the other hand, the association
between the actual knowledge of how to co-produce and the level of co-­
production is dependent on the strength of self-efficacy, and is stronger
when lay actors feel less efficacious (Thomsen 2017).
Studies of co-production have shown that both types of self-efficacy are
associated with co-production. Lay actors with lower perceptions of politi-
cal (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015, 2016; Alford and Yates 2016)
and individual (Fledderus and Honingh 2016; Thomsen 2017; Alonso
et al. 2019) self-efficacy are less likely to participate.
Political self-efficacy, in particular, has proven to be a relevant determi-
nant of co-production across different sectors (e.g., across services related

4
In the political science field, political self-efficacy is defined as “the feeling that individual
political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Campbell et al.
1954, quoted in Madsen 1987 and in Bovaird et al. 2015).
32 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

to public safety, the environment, and health in Parrado et al. 2013), across
different countries (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015), and in the
case of both individual and collective co-production (Bovaird et al. 2015).
From this latter point of view, however, the relationship is stronger for col-
lective co-production, maybe because in this case barriers to citizen engage-
ment tend to be higher and only people with a high political self-­efficacy
are particularly motivated and can overcome these barriers. However, sev-
eral contributions show that the positive relationship between self-efficacy
and co-production exists only under certain circumstances, such as accord-
ing to age and gender (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015).

Resource Availability
The ability of lay actors to co-produce is essential for engaging them in
coproducing public services. The knowledge, skills, and material resources
needed to co-produce define this ability (Sharp 1980; Brudney and
England 1983; Percy 1984; Alford 2009; Jakobsen 2013; Thomsen
2017). The availability of knowledge, skills, and materials may depend on
the socio-economic situation of lay actors, however, public sector organ-
isations can lift the constraints on the ability of lay actors to co-produce by
providing them with relevant information and basic resources (Folz and
Hazlett 1991; Jakobsen 2013; Jakobsen and Andersen 2013; Thomsen
2017). The relevance of knowledge and skills becomes even more impor-
tant for some services, such as in case of professionalised services, where
information asymmetry is high and citizens need to be trained in order to
co-produce (Cepiku and Giordano 2014). Levine and Fisher (1984) pro-
vide an interesting categorisation of relevant skills that can enhance citizen
participation. Their analysis refers to the development and maintenance of
community-based crime prevention groups, and thus further research is
needed to extend the different skills typologies to other potential co-­
production activities. The two authors identify reporting skills (which
imply the capacity to observe, being familiar with an activity/location),
communication skills (ability to converse with other people), and having
past experience in an organisation or in a group, leadership skills and tech-
nical skills. Box 3.2 (see Sect. 3.3.3) provides an interesting example of the
above considerations.
Another resource, whose availability affects the willingness to co-­
produce, is time. More specifically, the lack of time availability seems to
constrain co-production (Hunt et al. 2012; Jakobsen 2013; Morton and
Paice 2016; Kaehne et al. 2018). For example, although in the context of
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 33

consumer co-production, Hunt et al. (2012) remind us in their literature

review that consumers’ time, in addition to skills, is a key antecedent of
co-production. Morton and Paice (2016), in their analysis of the co-design
process of an integrated care system in England, find that one of the key
elements for engaging lay partners (i.e., patients and carers) in the co-­
production of an integrated toolkit is the recruitment of “effective and
committed” patients and carers. Time availability is identified as a neces-
sary quality in order for lay actors to be included in the co-design initia-
tive. Nance and Ortolano’s (2007) study of community participation in
urban sanitisation in Northeastern Brazil demonstrates that residents par-
ticipated on the basis of, among other factors, time availability. Time is
also a key resource for co-production in the case of immigrant parents
coproducing language support for their children (Jakobsen 2013).

Box 3.1 Parents’ Co-Production on the Education of Their

Children During COVID-19
What: It appears that, on average, (working) parents have been
spending 17 hours per week on caring about their children’s educa-
tion and distance learning during COVID-19 (BCG 2020). While
parental assistance in the education of their children is not new, dis-
tance learning has made the major issues behind this co-production
activity clearer, mainly in terms of the equity and actual capacity of
parents to support their children’s academic success. The problems
linked to the co-production of education during COVID-19 have
attracted great attention, to the extent that many guidelines have
been issued by governments around the world on how to support
children’s education during a lockdown.5
Who: Parents have been involved in the education of their chil-
dren around the world, but women tend to assume greater respon-
sibility than their male partners (BCG 2020).

(continued)

5
See, for example, the supporting guidance issued by the UK Department for Education
to help parents provide learning assistance to their children during the pandemic (https://
www.gov.uk/guidance/supporting-your-childrens-education-during-coronavirus-
covid-19), as well as the tips provided by UNICEF (https://www.unicef.org/
coronavirus/5-tips-help-keep-children-learning-during-covid-19-pandemic).
34 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 3.1 (continued)

Why: School-care has always been a task for parents but the
COVID-19 crisis and the lockdown have imposed a high burden on
parents who have been increasingly involved in coproducing their
children’s education, in order to guarantee this fundamental service.
How: Parents are asked to assist their children with their educa-
tion: ensuring that they complete their homework, join online ses-
sions with teachers, and participate in online exams.
Key learning points:

• The importance of equity issues, particularly in distance learning

(connectivity/connection, availability of technological resources),
which raises the question of how to equip families to support
remote learning and how to support lower-income families who
tend to have more connection difficulties.
• Parental skills and competences (are they sufficient to provide
help to their children?)

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on information from a report

published by the Boston Consulting Group in May, 2020. A survey
was conducted involving 3,055 working parents in five countries
(the US, UK, Italy, Germany, and France) from March 20, 2020 to
April 3, 2020 and press articles (https://www.forbes.com/sites/
colinseale/2020/05/19/parent-involvement-has-always-mattered-
will-the-covid-19-pandemic-finally-make-this-the-new-normal-in-k-
12-education/)

3.3.2  Antecedents Related to the Regular Service Provider

The “co” side of the term co-production refers to the fact that public ser-
vice delivery involves two types of participants: the lay actors and the regu-
lar providers. The antecedents pertaining to lay actors have been presented
and discussed above. In this section, we devote attention to the regular
providers, the public agencies, public agents, or service providers serving
in a professional capacity (Nabatchi et al. 2017). We focus on those factors
that have been shown to impinge on the attitude of regular providers to
activate co-production. The managerial levers that can be used in order to
 3 ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 35

facilitate co-production activation, implementation and outcomes are at

the core of Chap. 4.
Co-production is an arrangement that requires new ways of looking at
citizens: they are active actors participating as co-producers at the opera-
tional stage of the service production process, where their contribution is
an essential component of service delivery (Osborne and Strokosch 2013),
and also at the strategic and design stage. This is a big change compared
to the more traditional vision, in which citizens are seen as the passive
recipients of services (Fugini et al. 2016).
Not all regular providers are likely to embark on this new journey. The
attitudes of politicians and professionals are crucial to co-production
(Voorberg et al. 2018). In this respect, Cassia and Magno (2009) show
that citizen orientation of mayors is a predictor of the intention to imple-
ment co-production.
Other studies point to the importance of the acceptance of the lay actor
as a partner by professionals (Bovaird 2007; Ryan 2012; Sicilia et al.
2016). This acceptance appears to be complex. The awareness of the regu-
lar service provider of having specialised knowledge on the service may be
a barrier to this acceptance. Moreover, it is apparently not easy for profes-
sionals to abandon their traditional modus operandi and to embrace new
practices that require new skills and tools and imply some ceding of power
to lay actors. For instance, Kershaw et al. (2018), in a study conducted in
the Australian museum sector, found that professional museum bodies,
while they were able to theoretically imagine co-­production in museums,
were not able to implement co-production at the practice level. This is
mainly due to “the professional nature of museum work” (Kershaw et al.
2018), where curators do not accept the idea of sharing their power and
control with citizens, and lack co-production skills, thereby providing evi-
dence of resistance to change. While expertise is a key issue and the cause
of potential scepticism about co-production by the regular service pro-
vider, Shandas and Messer (2008) demonstrate that citizens can success-
fully support experts, as in the case of engineering projects such as
watershed planning and management. From this perspective, public
experts should make efforts to improve citizen abilities to understand the
technicalities behind the co-production activities. This implies that the
regular provider assumes a role as facilitator of citizen competences, add-
ing (and not substituting) its expertise to the contribution of the lay actors
(Frieling et al. 2014).
36 D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Another characteristic of the regular provider is its organisational cul-

ture. Organisational culture is a broad concept that incorporates shared
assumptions, beliefs, values, meanings, and artefacts (Green 1988;
Deshpande and Webster 1989). In general, organisational culture is seen
as an important variable when investigating the adoption of new tools and
arrangements. Authors have suggested that a propensity toward co-­
production is also dependent on culture. A culture adverse to innovation,
flexibility and risk-taking can hamper co-production (Voorberg et al. 2015).

3.3.3  
Antecedents Related to the Co-Produced Service
The specific characteristics of the co-produced service can also affect the
introduction of co-production, especially because they are closely related
to the extent to which lay actors are willing to co-produce.
Services characterised by the continuity and the duration of need, such
as childcare, preschool services, basic and higher education, elderly care,
care of people with handicaps, housing, and health care (Pestoff 2012,
2014), are more suitable for co-production. Pestoff (2012) distinguishes
between enduring and non-enduring (social) services based on the dura-
bility of the service (see also Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). Co-production
is more suitable for enduring services because it is a potential way for citi-
zens to influence the development of the service, especially when the pro-
vider cannot be easily exchanged (Pestoff 2012).
Services may also require lay actors to perform different types of activi-
ties. If the service to be co-produced involves undertaking activities that
can be easily performed, co-production becomes more likely. However, not
only the tasks to be performed should be easy, but also for citizens to get
involved (Pestoff 2012; Bovaird et al. 2015; Vanleene et al. 2017). This is
defined as ease of involvement and depends on different aspects, including
“the distance to the service provider, the information available to citizens
about the service and its provision, etc.” and is “related to the time and
effort required for citizens to become involved” (Pestoff 2012, p. 1110).
Thus, the less effort required, the more lay actors will likely co-produce.
Similarly, Bovaird et al. (2015, p. 8) suggest that higher levels of engage-
ment can be found when citizens “do not need much effort or interaction
with third parties”. The ease of involvement is part of co-production man-
agement and will be discussed more broadly in Chap. 4. However, it is
worth noting that the ease of the activities to be performed and the ease
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 'I thought gentlemen did not smoke in ladies' society unless with
permission,' said Dulcie.

'Never bother about that, little one, please. But may I smoke?'

'Yes.'

'Thanks; this is jolly,' said he, looking up at her with eyes full of
admiration. 'I feel like Hercules at the feet of Omphale.'

'I don't know who he was, or what you feel, but do you know what you
look like?'

'No.'

'Shall I tell you?' asked Dulcie, her eyes sparkling with mischief.

'Yes.'

'Well, like the Athenian weaver, Bottom, with his ass's head, at the feet
of Titania. "Dost like the picture?"'

Shafto eyed her spitefully, all the more so that Dulcie laughed merrily,
showing all her pearly teeth at her reply.

'Oho, this comes of rambling in quarries,' said he, bluntly and coarsely;
'doing the Huguenot business, the pose of Millais' picture. Bosh! What can
you and he mean?'

'Millais and I?'

'No; you and Florian!'

'Mean!' exclaimed Dulcie, her sweet face growing very pale in spite of
herself at the bluntness of Shafto, and the unmistakable anger of his tone
and bearing.

'Yes—with your tomfoolery.'

 'How?—why?'

'Penniless as you are—he at least.'

'Good evening, Shafto; you are very unpleasant, to say the least of it,'
said Dulcie, as she gathered up her wools and sailed into the house, while
his eyes followed her with a menacing and very ugly expression indeed.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECRET PACKET.

The broken health brought by Lennard from the miasmatic Terai of

Nepaul was rapidly becoming more broken than ever, and, though not yet
fifty, he was a premature old man, and it seemed as if the first part of
Florian's presentiment or prevision of coming sorrow would soon be
fulfilled.

His steps became very feeble, and he could only get about, in the autumn
sunshine, with the aid of a stick and Florian's arm; and the latter watched
him with grief and pain, tottering like the aged, panting and leaning heavily
on his cane, as ever and anon he insisted on being led up a steep slope from
which he could clearly see the old church of Revelstoke on its wave-beaten
promontory, overlooked by sad and solitary hills, and his hollow eyes
glistened as he gazed on it, with a kind of yearning expression, as if he
longed to be at peace, and by the side of her he had laid there, it seemed
long years ago—a lifetime ago.

Poor Lennard was certainly near his tomb, and all who looked upon him
thought so; yet his calm eye, ever looking upward, betrayed no fear.

One day when Florian was absent—no doubt sketching, boating with
Dulcie on the Yealm, or idling with her on the moors—Lennard besought
Shafto to stay beside him as he sat feeble and languid in his easy chair,
sinking with the wasting and internal fever, with which the country
practitioners were totally incapable of grappling; and on this day, for the
first time, he began to speak to him of Scotland and the home he once had
there; and he was listened to with the keenest interest by Shafto, who had
ever—even as a child—been cunning, selfish, and avaricious, yet
wonderfully clever and complaisant in his uncle's prejudiced eyes, as he
remembered only Flora's dead and devoted sister.

'I have been thinking over old times and other days, Shafto,' said he, with
his attenuated hands crossed on the head of his bamboo cane; 'and, all
things considered, it seems an occupation I had better avoid did the memory
concern myself alone: but I must think of others and their interests—of
Florian and of you—so I can't help it, boy, in my present state of health, or
rather want of health,' he added, as a violent fit of spasmodic coughing
came upon him.

After a pause he spoke again.

'You, Shafto, are a couple of years older than Florian, and are, in many
ways, several years older in thought and experience by the short training
you have received in Carlyon's office.'

The Major paused again, leaving Shafto full of wonder and curiosity as
to what this preamble was leading up to.

The former had begun to see things more clearly and temperately with
regard to the sudden death of Cosmo, and to feel that, though he had
renounced all family ties, name, and wealth, so far as concerned himself, to
die, with the secret of all untold, would be to inflict a cruel wrong on
Florian. At one time Lennard thought of putting his papers and the whole
matter in the hands of Mr. Lewellen Carlyon, and it was a pity he did not do
so instead of choosing to entrust them to his long-headed nephew.

'Hand here my desk, and unlock it for me—my hands are so tremulous,'
said he.
 When this was done he selected a packet from a private drawer, and
briefly and rapidly told the story of his life, his proper name, and rank to
Shafto, who listened with open-eyed amazement.

When the latter had thoroughly digested the whole information, he said,
after a long pause:

'This must be told to Florian!'

And with Florian came the thought of Dulcie, and how this sudden
accession of her lover to fortune and position would affect her.

'Nay, Shafto—not yet—not till I am gone—a short time now. I can trust
you, with your sharpness and legal acumen, with the handling of this matter
entirely. When I am gone, and laid beside your aunt Flora, by the wall of
the old church yonder,' he continued with a very broken voice—one almost
a childish treble, 'you will seek the person to whom this packet is addressed,
Kenneth Kippilaw, a Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh—he is alive still;
place these in his hands, and he will do all that is required; but treasure
them, Shafto—be careful of them as you would of your soul's salvation—
for my sake, and more than all for the sake of Florian! Now, my good lad,
give me the composing draught—I feel sleepy and so weary with all this
talking, and the thoughts that have come unbidden—unbidden, sad, bitter,
and angry thoughts—to memory.'

Shafto locked the desk, put it aside, and, giving his uncle the draught,
stole softly away to his own room with the papers, to con them over and to
—think!

He had not sat at a desk for three years in Lawyer Carlyon's office
without having his wits sharpened. He paused as he put the documents
away.

'Stop—stop—let me think, let me consider!' he exclaimed to himself,

and he certainly did consider to some purpose. He was cold and calculating;
he was never unusually agitated or flustered, but he became both with the
thoughts that occurred to him now.
 Among the papers and letters entrusted to him were the certificates of
the marriage of Lennard and Flora, and another which ran thus:

'Certificate of entry of birth, under section 37 of 17 and 18 Vict., cap.

80.' It authenticated the birth of their child Florian at Revelstoke, with the
date thereof to a minute.

These documents were enclosed in a letter written in a tremulous and

uncertain hand by Lennard Melfort to Mr. Kenneth Kippilaw, part of which
was in these terms:

The child was baptized by a neighbouring clergyman—the Rev. Paul

Pentreath—who has faithfully kept the promise of secrecy he gave me, and,
dying as I now feel myself to be, I pray earnestly that my father and mother
will be kind to my orphan son. Let them not—as they one day hope for
mercy at that dread throne before which I am soon to appear—visit upon his
innocent head my supposed and most heavily punished offence. Let him
succeed in poor Cosmo's place to that which is his due; let him succeed to
all I renounced in anger—an anger that has passed away, for now, my dear
old friend, I am aged beyond my years, and my hair is now white as snow
through ill-health contracted in India, where, to procure money necessary
for my poor Flora, I volunteered on desperate service, and in seasons
destructive to existence. In your hands I leave the matter with perfect hope
and confidence. The bearer will tell you all more that may be necessary.'

After having read, reread, and made himself thoroughly master of the
contents of this to him certainly most astounding packet, he requested the
Major to re-address it in his own tremulous and all but illegible
handwriting, and seal it up with his long-disused signet ring, which bore the
arms of Fettercairn.

Prior to having all this done, Shafto had operated on one of the
documents most dexterously and destructively with his pen-knife!

'A peerage! a peerage!—rank, wealth, money, mine—all mine!' he

muttered under his breath, as he stored the packet away in a sure and secret
place, and while whistling softly to himself, a way he had when brooding
(as he often did) over mischief, he recalled the lines of Robert Herrick:
 'Our life is like a narrow raft,
Afloat upon the hungry sea;
Hereon is but a little space,
And all men, eager for a place,
Do thrust each other in the sea.'

'So why should I not thrust him into the hungry briny? If life is a raft—and,
by Jove, I find it so!—why should one not grasp at all one can, and make
the best of life for one's self, by making the worst of it for other folks? Does
such a chance of winning rank and wealth come often to any one's hands?
No! and I should be the biggest of fools—the most enormous of idiots—not
to avail myself to the fullest extent. I see my little game clearly, but must
play warily. "Eat, drink, and be merry," says Isaiah, "for to-morrow we die."
They say the devil can quote Scripture, and so can Shafto Gyle. But I don't
mean to die to-morrow, but to have a jolly good spell for many a year to
come!'

And in the wild exuberance of his spirits he tossed his hat again and
again to the ceiling.

From that day forward the health of Lennard Melfort seemed to decline
more rapidly, and erelong he was compelled by the chill winds of the
season to remain in bed, quite unable to take his place at table or move
about, save when wheeled in a chair to the window, where he loved to
watch the setting sun.

Then came one evening when, for the last time, he begged to be propped
up there in his pillowed chair. The sun was setting over Revelstoke Church,
and throwing its picturesque outline strongly forward, in a dark indigo tint,
against the golden and crimson flush of the west, and all the waves around
the promontory were glittering in light.

But Lennard saw nothing of all this, though he felt the feeble warmth of
the wintry sun as he stretched his thin, worn hands towards it; his eyesight
was gone, and would never come again! There was something very pathetic
in the withered face and sightless eyes, and the drooping white moustache
that had once been a rich dark-brown, and waxed à l'Empereur.
 His dream of life was over, and his last mutterings were a prayer for
Florian, on whose breast his head lay as he breathed his last.

The two lads looked at each other in that supreme moment—but with
very different thoughts in their hearts. Florian felt only desolation, blank
and utter, and even Shafto, in the awful presence of Death, felt alone in the
world.

CHAPTER VII.

A FAREWELL.

As he lay dead, that old-looking, wasted, and attenuated man, whose hair
was like the thistledown, none would have recognised in him the dark-
haired, bronzed, and joyous young subaltern who only twenty-four years
before had led his company at the storming of the Redan, who had planted
the scaling-ladder against the scarp, and shouted in a voice heard even amid
the roar of the adverse musketry:

'Come on, men! ladders to the front, eight men per ladder; up and at
them, lads, with the bayonet,' and fought his way into an embrasure, while
round-shot tore up the earth beneath his feet, and men were swept away in
sections of twenty; or the hardy soldier who faced fever and foes alike in
the Terai of Nepaul.

How still and peaceful he lay now as the coffin-lid was closed over him.

Snow-flakes, light and feathery, fell on the hard ground, and the waves
seemed to leap and sob heavily round the old church of Revelstoke, when
Lennard Melfort was laid beside the now old and flattened grave of Flora,
and keen and sharp the frosty wind lifted the silver hair of the Rev. Paul
Pentreath, whistled among the ivy or on the buttresses, and fluttered the
black ribbon of the pall held by Florian, who felt as one in a dreadful dream
—amid a dread and unreal phantasmagoria; and the same wind seemed to
twitch angrily the pall-ribbon from the hand of Shafto, nor could he by any
effort recover it, as more than one present, with their Devonian superstition,
remarked, and remembered when other things came to pass.

At last all was over; the mourners departed, and Lennard Melfort was
left alone—alone with the dead of yesterday and of ages; and Florian, while
Dulcie was by his side and pressed his hand, strove to commit to memory
the curate's words from the Book of Revelation, 'There shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor sighing; for God shall wipe away all tears from
their eyes.'

Shafto now let little time pass before he proceeded to inform Florian of
what he called their 'relative position,' and of their journey into Scotland to
search out Mr. Kippilaw.

It has been said that in life we have sometimes moments so full of

emotion that they seem to mark a turn in it we can never reach again; and
this sharp turn, young and startled Florian seemed to pass, when he learned
that since infancy he had been misled, and that the man, so tender and so
loving, whom he had deemed his father was but his uncle!

How came it all to pass now? Yet the old Major had ever been so kind
and affectionate to him—to both, in fact, equally so, treating them as his
sons—that he felt only a stunning surprise, a crushing grief and bitter
mortification, but not a vestige of anger; his love for the dead was too keen
and deep for that.

The packet, sealed and addressed to Mr. Kippilaw, though its contents
were as yet unknown to him, seemed to corroborate the strange intelligence
of Shafto; but the question naturally occurred to Florian, 'For what end or
purpose had this lifelong mystery and change in their positions been
brought about?'

He asked this of Shafto again and again.

 'It seems we have been very curiously deluded,' said that personage, not
daring to look the sorrowful Florian straight in the face, and pretended to be
intent on stuffing his pipe.

'Deluded—how?'

'How often am I to tell you,' exclaimed Shafto, with petulance and

assumed irritation, 'that the contents of this packet prove that I am the only
son of Major Melfort (not MacIan at all), and that you—you——'

'What?'

'Are Florian Gyle, the nephew—adopted as a son. Mr. Kippilaw will tell
you all about it.'

'And you, Shafto?' queried Florian, scarcely knowing, in his

bewilderment, what he said.

'Mean to go in for my proper position—my title, and all that sort of

thing, don't you see?'

'And act—how!'

'Not the proverbial beggar on horseback, I hope. I'll do something

handsome for you, of course.'

'I want nothing done for me while I have two hands, Shafto.'

'As you please,' replied the latter, puffing vigorously at his pipe. 'I have
had enough of hopeless drudgery for a quarterly pittance in the dingy office
of old Carlyon,' said he, after a long pause; 'and, by all the devils, I'll have
no more of it now that I am going to be rich.'

Indeed, from the day of Lennard Melfort entrusting him with the packet,
Shafto had done little else at the office but study the laws of succession in
Scotland and England.

'How much you love money, Shafto!' said Florian, eying him wistfully.
 'Do I? Well, I suppose that comes from having had so precious little of it
in my time. I am a poor devil just now, but,' thought he exultantly, 'this
"plant" achieved successfully, how many matrons with daughters unmarried
will all be anxious to be mother to me! And Dulcie Carlyon I might have
for asking; but I'll fly at higher game now, by Jove!'

As further credentials, Shafto now possessed himself of Major Melfort's

sword, commissions, and medals, while Florian looked in blank dismay and
growing mortification—puzzled by the new position in which he found
himself, of being no longer his father's son—a source of unfathomable
mystery.

Shafto was in great haste to be gone, to leave Revelstoke and its vicinity
behind him. It was too late for regrets or repentance now. Not that he felt
either, we suppose; and what he had done he would do again if there was no
chance of being found out. In the growing exuberance of his spirits, he
could not help, a day or two after, taunting Florian about Dulcie till they
were on the verge of a quarrel, and wound up by saying, with a scornful
laugh:

'You can't marry her—a fellow without a shilling in the world; and I
wouldn't now, if she would have me, which I don't doubt.'

Poor Dulcie! She heard with undisguised grief and astonishment of these
events, and of the approaching departure of the cousins.

The cottage home was being broken up; the dear old Major was in his
grave; and Florian, the playmate of her infancy, the lover of her girlhood,
was going away—she scarcely knew to where. They might be permitted to
correspond by letter, but when, thought Dulcie—oh, when should they meet
again?

The sun was shedding its light and warmth around her as usual, on
woodland and hill, on wave and rock; but both seemed to fade out, the
perfume to pass from the early spring flowers, the glory from land and sea,
and a dim mist of passionate tears clouded the sweet and tender blue eyes of
the affectionate girl.
 He would return, he said, as he strove to console her; but how and when,
and to what end? thought both so despairingly. Their future seemed such a
vague, a blank one!

'I am penniless, Dulcie—a beggar on the face of the earth—twice

beggared now, I think!' exclaimed Florian, in sorrowful bitterness.

'Don't speak thus,' said she imploringly, with piteous lips that were
tremulous as his own, and her eyes drowned in tears.

They had left the road now, and wandered among the trees in a thicket,
and seated themselves on a fallen trunk, a seat and place endeared to them
and familiar enough in past time.

He gazed into her eyes of deep pansy-blue, as if his own were striving to
take away a memory of her face—a memory that would last for eternity.

'And you really go to-night?' she asked, in piteous and broken accents.

'Yes—with Shafto. I am in a fever, darling, to seek out a position for

myself. Surely Shafto may assist me in that—though I shrink from asking
him.'

'Your own cousin?'

'Yes—but sometimes he looks like a supplanter now, and his bearing has
been so unpleasant to me, especially of late,' said Florian. 'But you will wait
for me, Dulcie, and not be persuaded to marry anyone else?' he added
imploringly, as he clasped each of her hands in his.

'I shall wait for you, Florian, if it should be for twenty years!' exclaimed
the girl, in a low and emphatic voice, scarcely considering the magnitude
and peril of such a promise.

'Thank you, darling Dulcie!' said he bending down and kissing her lips
with ardour, and, though on the eve of parting, they felt almost happy in the
confidence of the blissful present.
 'How often shall I recall this last meeting by the fallen tree, when you are
far, far away from Revelstoke and—me,' said Dulcie.

'You will often come here to be reminded of me?'

'Do you think, Florian, I will require to be reminded of you?' asked the
girl, with a little tone of pain in her sweet voice, as she kissed the silver
locket containing his likeness, and all the sweet iteration of lover-talk,
promises, and pledges went on for a time, and new hopes began to render
this last interview more bearable to the young pair who were on the eve of
separation, without any very distinct arrangement about correspondence in
the interval of it.

The sun was setting now redly, and amid dun winter clouds, beaming on
each chimney-head, on Revelstoke Church, and the leafless tree-tops his
farewell radiance.

Florian took a long, long kiss from Dulcie, and with the emotion of a
wrench in his heart, was gone, and she was alone.

A photo and a lock of red-golden hair were all that remained to him of
her—both to be looked upon again and again, till his eyes ached, but never
grew weary.

Dulcie's were very red with weeping, and the memory of that parting
kiss was still hovering on her quivering lips when, in a lonely lane not far
from her home, she found herself suddenly face to face with Shafto.

She had known him from his boyhood, ever since he came an orphan to
Lennard Melfort's cottage; and although she always distrusted and never
liked him, his face was a familiar one she might never see more; thus she
resolved to part with him as with the best of friends, and to remember that
he was the only kinsman of Florian, whose companion and fellow-traveller
he was to be on a journey the end of which she scarcely understood. So,
frankly and sweetly, with a sad smile in her eyes, she proffered her pretty
hand, which Shafto grasped and retained promptly enough.
 CHAPTER VIII.

THE SILVER LOCKET.

Shafto had just been with her father. How contemptuously he had eyed
the corner and the high old stool on which he had sat in the latter's legal
establishment, and all its surroundings; the fly-blown county maps of
Devon and Cornwall; advertisements of sales—property, mangold wurzel,
oats and hay, Thorley's food for cattle, and so forth; the tin boxes of most
legal aspect; dockets of papers in red tape; the well-thumbed ledgers; day
and letter books, and all the paraphernalia of a country solicitor's office.

Ugh! How well he knew and loathed them all. Now it was all over and
done with.

The three poor lads in the office, whose cheap cigars and beer he had
often shared at the Ashburton Arms, he barely condescended to notice,
while they regarded him with something akin to awe, as he gave Lawyer
Carlyon his final 'instructions' concerning the disposal of the lease of the
Major's pretty cottage, and of all the goods and chattels that were therein.

Had Florian been present he would have felt only shame and abasement
at the tone and manner Shafto adopted on this occasion; but worthy Lawyer
Carlyon, who did not believe a bit in the rumoured accession of Shafto to
family rank and wealth, laughed softly to himself, and thought his 'pride
would have a sore fall one of these fine days.'

And even now, when face to face with Dulcie, his general bearing, his
coolness and insouciance, rendered her, amid all her grief, indignant and
defiant ultimately.
 How piquant, compact, and perfect the girl looked, from the smart
scarlet feather in her little hat to her tiny Balmoral boots. Her veil was
tightly tied across her face, showing only the tip of her nose, her ripe red
lips, and pretty white chin—its point, like her cheeks, reddened somewhat
by the winter breeze from the Channel. Her gloved hands were in her small
muff, and the collar of her sealskin jacket was encircled by the necklet at
which her silver locket hung—the locket Shafto had seen her kiss when
Florian had bestowed it on her, while he looked close by, with his heart full
of envy, jealousy, and hatred, and now it was the first thing that attracted his
eye.

'And you actually leave us to-night, Shafto?' she said softly.

'Yes, Dulcie, by the train for Worcester and the north. My estates, you
know, are in Scotland.'

'These changes are all strange and most startling,' said she, with a sob in
her slender throat.

'We live in whirligig times, Dulcie; but I suppose it is the result of

progress,' he added sententiously. 'I wonder how our grandfathers and
grandmothers contrived to mope over and yawn out their dull and
emotionless existence till they reached threescore and ten years.'

'I shall never see that age, Shafto.'

'Who knows; though life, however sweet now, won't be worth living for
then, I fancy.'

Dulcie sighed, and he regarded her in admiring silence, for he had a high
appreciation of her bright and delicate beauty, and loved her—if we may
degrade the phrase—in his own selfish and peculiar way, though now
resolved—as he had often thought vainly—to 'fly at higher game;' and so,
full of ideas, hopes, and ambitions of his own, if he had ceased to think of
Dulcie, he had, at least, ceased for a space to trouble her.

'Florian will be writing to you, of course?' said he, after a pause.

 'Alas! no, we have made no arrangement; and then, you know, papa——'

'Wouldn't approve, of course. My farewell advice to you, Dulcie, is—

Don't put off your time thinking of Florian—his ship will never come
home.'

'Nor yours either, perhaps,' said Dulcie, angrily.

'You think so—but you are wrong.'

'Ah! I know these waited for ships rarely do.'

'I have read somewhere that ships of the kind rarely do come home in
this prosaic and disappointing world; that some get wrecked almost within
sight of land; others go down without the flapping of a sail, and sometimes
after long and firm battling with adverse winds and tides; but my ship is a
sure craft, Dulcie,' he added, as he thought of the packet in his possession—
that precious packet on which all his hopes rested and his daring ambition
was founded.

Dulcie looked at him wistfully and distrustfully, and thought—

'Why is he so sure? But his ideas were always selfish and evil. Tide what
may,' she added aloud, 'I shall wait twenty years and more for Florian.'

'The more fool you, then! And so die an old maid?'

'I am, perhaps, cut out for an old maid.'

'And if he never can marry you—or marries some one else when he can?'
asked Shafto viciously.

'Oh, then I'll take to æstheticism, or women's rights, and all that sort of
thing,' said the poor girl, with a ghastly and defiant attempt at a jest, which
ended in tears, while Shafto eyed her angrily.

'How fond you are of that silver locket—you never wear any other!'

'I have so few ornaments, Shafto.'

 'And none you prize so much?'

'None!' said Dulcie, with a sweet, sad smile.

'Is that the reason you wear it with all kinds of dresses? What is in it—
anything?'

'That is my secret,' replied Dulcie, putting her right hand on it and

instinctively drawing back a pace, for there was a menacing expression in
the cold grey eyes of Shafto.

'Allow me to open it,' said he, taking her hand in his.

'No.'

'You shall!'

'Never!' exclaimed Dulcie, her eyes sparkling now as his grasp upon her
hand tightened.

An imprecation escaped Shafto, and with his eyes aflame and his cheeks
pale with jealousy and rage he tore her hand aside and wrenched by brutal
force the locket from her, breaking the silver necklet as he did so.

'Coward!' exclaimed Dulcie; 'coward and thief—how dare you?

Surrender that locket instantly!'

'Not if I know it,' said he, mockingly, holding the prized trinket before
her at arm's length.

'But for Florian's sake, I would at once apply to the police.'

'A vulgar resort—no, my pretty Dulcie, you wouldn't.'

'Why?'

'Not for Florian's sake?'

'Whose, then?'
 'Your own, for you wouldn't like to have your old pump of a father down
on you; and so you dare not make a row about it, my pretty little fury.'

'Shafto, I entreat you, give me back that photo,' said Dulcie, her tears
welling forth.

'No; I won't.'

'Of what interest or use can it be to you?'

'More than you imagine,' said Shafto, to whom a villainous idea just then
occurred.

'I entreat you,' said Dulcie, letting her muff drop and clasping her slim
little hands.

'Entreat away! I feel deucedly inclined to put my heel upon it—but I

won't.'

'This robbery is cruel and infamous!' exclaimed Dulcie, trembling with

grief and just indignation; but Shafto only laughed in anger and bitterness—
and a very hyena-like laugh it was, and as some one was coming down the
secluded lane, he turned away and left her in the twilight.

He felt himself safe from opprobrium and punishment, as he knew well

she was loth to make any complaint to her father on the subject; and just
then she knew not how to communicate with Florian, as the darkness was
falling fast, and the hour of his departure was close at hand. She thought it
not improbable that Shafto would relent and return the locket to her; but the
night was far advanced ere that hope was dissipated, and she attained some
outward appearance of composure, though her father's sharp and
affectionate eyes detected that she had been suffering.

He had heard from her some confused and rambling story about the
family secret, the packet, and the peerage, a story of which he could make
nothing, though Shafto's bearing to himself that evening seemed to confirm
the idea that 'there was something in it.' Anyway, Mr. Carlyon was not
indisposed to turn the event to account in one sense.
 'Likely—likely enough, Dulcie lass,' said he; 'and so you'll hear no more
of these two lads, if they are likely to become great folks, and belong to
what is called the upper ten; they'll never think again of a poor village belle
like you, though there is not a prettier face in all Devonshire than my
Dulcie's from Lyme Regis to Cawsand Bay.'

He meant this kindly, and spoke with a purpose; and his words and the
warning they conveyed sank bitterly into the tender heart of poor Dulcie.

By this time the cousins were sweeping through the darkness in the
express train by Exeter, Taunton, and so forth; both were very silent, and
each was full of his own thoughts, and what these were the reader may very
well imagine.

Heedless of the covert and sneering smiles of Shafto, Florian, from time
to time, drew forth the photo of Dulcie, and her shining lock of red-golden
hair, his sole links between the past and the present; and already he felt as if
a score of years had lapsed since they sat side by side upon the fallen tree.

Then, that he might give his whole thoughts to Dulcie, he affected to

sleep; but Shafto did not sleep for hours. He sat quietly enough with his
face in shadow, his travelling-cap of tweed-check pulled well down over his
watchful and shifty grey-green eyes, the lamp overhead giving a miserable
glimmer suited to the concealment of expression and thought; and as the
swift train sped northward, the cousins addressed not a word to each other
concerning those they had left behind, what was before them, or anything
else.

After a time, Shafto really slept—slept the slumber which is supposed to

be the reward of the just and conscientious, but which is much more often
enjoyed by those who have no conscience at all.

Dulcie contrived to despatch a letter to Florian detailing the outrage to

which she had been subjected by Shafto; but time passed on, and, for a
reason we shall give in its place, the letter never reached him.

Again and again she recalled and rehearsed her farewell with Florian,
and thought regretfully of his passionate pride, and desperate poverty too
probably, if he quarrelled with Shafto; and she still seemed to see his
beautiful dark eyes, dim with unshed tears, while her own welled freely and
bitterly.

When could they meet again, if ever, and where and how? Her heart and
brain ached with these questions.

Dulcie did not bemoan her fate, though her cheek paled a little, and she
felt—even at her early years—as if life seemed over and done with, and in
her passionate love for the absent, that existence alone was left to her, and
so forth.

And as she was her father's housekeeper now, kept the keys and paid all
the servants, paid all accounts and made the preserves, he was in no way
sorry that the young men were gone; that the 'aimless philandering,' as he
deemed it, had come to an end; and that much would be attended to in his
cosy little household which he suspected—but unjustly—had been
neglected hitherto.

To Dulcie, the whole locality of her native place, the breezy moors, the
solitary hills, the mysterious Druid pillars and logan stones, the rocky shore,
and the pretty estuary of the Yealm, where they had been wont to boat and
fish for pilchards in summer and autumn, were all full of the haunting
presence of the absent—the poor but proud and handsome lad who from
boyhood, yea from infancy, had loved her, and who now seemed to have
slipped out of her existence.

Spring melted into summer; golden sunshine flooded hill and dale, and
lit up the waters of the Erm, the Yealm, and the far-stretching Channel,
tinting with wondrous gleams and hues the waves that rolled upon the
shore, or boiled about the Mewstorre Rock, and the sea-beaten promontory
of Revelstoke; but to Dulcie the glory was gone from land and water: she
heard no more, by letter or otherwise, of the love of her youth; he seemed to
have dropped utterly out of her sphere; and though mechanically she
gathered the fragrant leaves of the bursting June roses—the Marshal Neil
and Gloire de Dijon—and treasured them carefully in rare old china jars
and vases, a task in which she had often been assisted by Florian, she felt
and thought—'Ichabod! Ichabod! the glory has departed!'
 CHAPTER IX.

MR. KIPPILAW, W.S.

Shafto found himself a little nervous when he and Florian were actually
in Edinburgh, a city in its beauty, boldness and grandeur of rock and
mountain, fortress, terrace, and temple, so foreign-looking to English eyes,
and so utterly unlike everything they had ever seen or conceived before.

Florian's thoughts were peculiarly his own. His father's death—though

called an uncle now, but Florian always felt for and thought of him as a
parent—the loss of Dulcie, their abrupt departure from Devonshire, and
rough uprootal of all early associations, had made a kind of hiatus in the
young fellow's life, and it was only now when he found himself amid the
strange streets and picturesque splendour of Edinburgh that he began—like
one recovering consciousness after a long illness—to gather up again the
ravelled threads of thought, but with curious want of concern and energy;
while Shafto felt that he personally had both, and that now he required to
have all his wits about him.

Florian stood for a time that night at the door of their hotel in Princes
Street looking at the wonderful lights of the Old Town sparkling in mid air,
and some that were in the Castle must, he thought, be stars, they were so
high above the earth. Scores of cabs and carriages went by, eastward and
westward, but no carts or wains or lorries, such as one sees in London or
Glasgow—vehicles with bright lamps and well muffled occupants,
gentlemen in evening suits, and ladies in ball or dinner dresses, and crowds
of pedestrians, under the brilliant gas lights and long boulevard-like lines of
trees—the ever-changing human panorama of a great city street before
midnight.