The Challenges and Benefits of Co-Production Models in Public Services in Makkasar City


This study aimed to develop a recommendation model for the co-production of public services based on community shelters, involving collaboration between the government, community organizations, NGOs, shelter leaders, and the private sector in Makassar City. The objective was to improve the quality and accessibility of public services by utilizing the knowledge and networks of service users. The study utilized a qualitative approach, including observation, document review, and interviews with key informants from the local department of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection and shelter administrators. The data analysis followed a qualitative method involving data organization, selection of analysis units, identification of categories and themes, analysis and interpretation, verification, and reporting. The results and discussions present a recommended model for the co-production of public services in community shelters in Makassar City, emphasizing the need for social readiness, effective communication, and trust-building among stakeholders. The study also highlights the challenges of implementing co-production, such as conflicting interests, complex coordination, and the importance of understanding the behavior and motivations of the involved actors. The proposed model aims to enhance collaboration between the government and community to provide sustainable solutions to shelter-related issues and improve the well-being of residents.

Keywords: public services, collaboration, shared decision-making

[1] Osborne SP, Strokosch K, Radnor Z. Co-Production and co-creation of value in public services: A perspective from service management. Routledge. 2018.

[2] Kekez A. Public service reforms and clientelism: Explaining the variation in service delivery modes in Croatian social policy. Policy and Society. 2018;37(3):386–404.

[3] Olds DL. The nurse-family partnership: An evidence-based preventive intervention. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2006 Jan;27(1):5–25.

[4] Fledderus J, Brandsen T, Honingh ME. User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy Administration. 2015;30(2):145–64.

[5] Sugiyono, Memahami penelitian kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta. 2009.

[6] ohn CW. Research design pendekatan metode kualitatif, kuantitatif dan campuran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka pelajar Yogyakarta. 2016.

[7] Ostorm E. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development. 1996;24(6):1073–87.

[8] Latulippe N, Klenk N. Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty, and the politics of global environmental change in decision making. Current opinion in environmental sustainability. 2020;42:7-14.

[9] Merickova BM, Svindronova MM, Nemec J. Innovation in public service delivery: Civic participation in Slovakia. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review. 2016;4(2):264–82.

[10] Freeman RE. Politics of stakeholder theory: Future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly. 1994. pp. 409–21.

[11] Stelzie B, Jannack A, Noenning JR. Co-design and co-decision: Decision-making on collaborative design platforms. Procedia Computer Science. 2017;112:2435–44.

[12] Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American community. Simon and Schuster. 2000.

[13] Lewis E. Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic political power. Indiana University Press. 1980.

[14] Waddock SA, Post JE. Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public Administration Review. 1991:393–401.

[15] Roberts NC. Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 1991;1(2):147–75.

[16] Certo ST, Miller T. Social entrepreneurship: Key issue and concepts. Business Horizons. 2008;51(4):267–71.

[17] Austin J, Stevenson H, Wei J, Skillern J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship same, different, or both. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2006;30(1):1–22.

[18] Leadbeater C. The rise in the number of social entrepreneurs. Demos. 1997.

[19] Serensen E, Torfing J. Enhancing public innovation through collaboration, leadership, and new public governance. New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. 2015:145-

[20] Warren ME, Pearce H. Designing deliberative democracy. The British Columbia Citizen.

[21] Mair J, Marti I. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing. 2009;24(5):419–35.