Search

The current relationship between the state and civil society in Europe is a curious and historically unique one. This is no longer a situation in which participation and association prepare citizens for the offices of the state; rather, it is the state urging a sometimes-reluctant citizenry to engage actively in civil society. This phenomenon stems from a combination of changes in prevailing governance paradigms and of the more general process of social liquefaction. In the article, we analyse these two intertwining trends and discuss the new type of relationship between the state and civil society that may be emerging. Points for practitioners The article puts the current vogue for renewed state–civil society relationships in a larger context. It shows that, however commendable many initiatives may be, there is the risk that the desire on the part of governments for their citizens to participate and self-organize may lead the state to take over such initiatives, leading to a manufactured civil society that has little to do with spontaneous citizen initiatives. Another possible consequence is that truly spontaneous citizen initiatives will shun collaboration with the state and focus only inwards, to the detriment of broader public values. Therefore, in this area, the state must strike a delicate balance between encouragement and restraint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hybrid organizations mix the characteristics of state, market, and civil society. Critics have suggested that such organizations pose severe risks to the public sector, both financially and culturally. However, these assertions are based mostly on theoretical claims or single case studies. No systematic evidence has been collected to support them. The findings of a large research program in The Netherlands in several policy fields show that the concerns over hybrid organizations appear to be overstated, since theoretically defined risks have not materialized. Conditions such as the presence of active regulators and a high degree of professionalism appear to dampen the risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the roles of the third sector in the delivery of public services has so far been scattered. However, there is much to learn from drawing the different manifestations of third-sector involvement together, as each represents an element of the third sector within the public services, expressed in different ways. An interesting question for research and practice is how different combinations of such elements are and should be embedded, given the variations in national structures of service provision. The studies presented in this collection have offered a stepping-stone in progressing towards an answer. Here we offer some suggestions for a future research agenda. These concern, respectively, the relationships between different roles of the third sector, links with the analysis of welfare state reform and the function of co-production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, public management research has paid increasing attention to the third sector, especially to its role in the provision of public services. Evidence of this is the rising number of publications on the topic, as well as a growing number of sessions and papers on the topic in academic conferences of the EGPA and IRSPM. However, much of the discussion on its role is motivated at least as much by ideology as by fact. We still lack a comprehensive empirical understanding of what happens when the third sector is drawn into public service provision. In this collection on Co-Production: The Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services, we will try to enhance this understanding by presenting several new studies on the subject. We also introduce the concepts of co-production, co-management and co-governance as a conceptual framework that enables us to better understand such developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The third sector increasingly produces public services in collaboration with the state. This has not left the organizations in question unaffected. Recent research suggests that organizations involved in public service delivery are evolving towards forms of network production, in which the production process takes shape across a number of different organizations. As we will argue, organizations are faced with simultaneous pressures for differentiation and integration, which are alleviated (though not resolved) by internal changes in staffing, skills, structure and management style. Some of the problems of integrating public service networks are essentially resolved within organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term “third sector” is increasingly used, but it is also increasingly difficult to define. It is characterized by fragmentation, fuzziness, and constant change. Furthermore, the bordering domains of community, market, and state are equally difficult to define and are becoming more blurred. One may have to accept that hybridity and change are permanent features of the organizations and arrangements involved. They could be classified not with reference to the structural characteristics of abstract domains but on the basis of how they cope with conditions of hybridity and change. The search for a valid empirical definition of the third sector, however modestly ambitious, must focus on the fringes of the domain where the “hard cases” can be found—the phenomena that are most difficult to identify and therefore most likely to reveal what is essential to the different domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]