1. bookVolume 10 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2353-3773
First Published
15 Dec 2015
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Are You in the Network? The Impact of Co-Creation on the Network of Participants

Published Online: 09 Jul 2022
Volume & Issue: Volume 10 (2022) - Issue 1 (June 2022)
Page range: 83 - 96
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2353-3773
First Published
15 Dec 2015
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Abstract

At present, local communities are increasingly confronted with problems that do not have simple solutions. To tackle them, complex responses are needed. One such problem is found in the question of who shall be responsible for stabilising the economic situation of people living in small villages? Is it the individual, who should be able to effectively manage his or her own farm, or is it the state, which is liable for creating a better economic environment? Is it the market, since it is the space for economic activities? Is it the municipality that is responsible for the well-being of the citizens living in the villages? Is it NGOs, because of their social responsibility? Boundaries have been blurred, making functions, goals, and responsibilities more complex. The aim of the H2020 CoSIE project is to revive the forgotten culture of farming, horticulture, and animal husbandry in 10 disadvantaged rural settlements in Hungary and, thus, to develop a new service model. The data presented are collected in two consecutive questionnaire surveys. The first took place in September 2019 and the second in January 2020, involving 72 households. Between the two surveys, the agricultural tools of the respondents developed remarkably and there were also significant changes in the network of the participants. Project participants regarded the change in their attitude as one of the most positive outcomes, as they became much more open to new things. The highest proportion of respondents reported an improvement in their relationships with locals. Joint communication has improved to a similar extent because there are more frequently spontaneous meetings than before the start of the project.

Keywords

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x Search in Google Scholar

Byrkjeflot, H., Du gay, P. & greve, C. (2018). What is the ‘Neo-Weberian state’ as a regime of Public Administration? in ongaro, E. & Van thiel, s. (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave macmillan. 991–1009.10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_50 Search in Google Scholar

Çolak, Ç. D. (2019). Why the new Public management is obsolete: An Analysis in the Context of the Post-New Public Management trends. Croatian and comparative public administration: a journal for theory and practice of public administration, 19(4), 517–536.10.31297/hkju.19.4.1 Search in Google Scholar

Csoba J. (2017): A kertkultúra és a háztartásgazdaság szerepe a vidéki szegények tár- sadalmi integrációjában — 25 éves a Szociális Földprogram. Té r és Társadalom, 31 (3): 85–102.10.17649/TET.31.3.2858 Search in Google Scholar

Csoba J. (2017): A szociális földprogram társadalmi és munkaerőpiaci integrációs szerepe a vidéki Magyarországon, Debreceni Egyetem Kiadó Search in Google Scholar

Denhardt, R. B. & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). the new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.10.1111/0033-3352.00117 Search in Google Scholar

Drechsler, W. (2009a). the rise and demise of the new public management: lessons and opportunities for southeast Europe. Uprava, 7(3), 7–27.10.17573/cepar.v7i3.131 Search in Google Scholar

Fazekas K. — Neumann L. (2014): The Hungarian labour market 2014. Budapest: Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences & National Employment Non-profit Public Company Ltd. Search in Google Scholar

Greve, C. (2010, november 4–5). Whatever happened to new public management? [Paper presentation]. Danish Political science Association meeting, Velje fjord. Search in Google Scholar

Johannisson B. (1987): Beyond process and structure social exchange networks, International Studies of Management and Organisations, 17: 3–2310.1080/00208825.1987.11656442 Search in Google Scholar

Johannisson, B. 1987 Beyond process and structure: social exchange networks, International Studies of Management and Organisations, 17: 3–2310.1080/00208825.1987.11656442 Search in Google Scholar

KSH (2018): 2016 évi mikrocenzus. Search in Google Scholar

Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University Press Search in Google Scholar

Mulgan, G. (2006). the process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162.10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145 Search in Google Scholar

O’flynn, J. (2007). from new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366.10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x Search in Google Scholar

Osborne, S. P. (2006). the new Public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–38710.1080/14719030600853022 Search in Google Scholar

Osborne, S. P. (2018): From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organisations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231.10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461 Search in Google Scholar

Osborne, S. P. & strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, 31–47.10.1111/1467-8551.12010 Search in Google Scholar

Paul J.M van Tongeren (2001): “The Challenge of Coordination and Networking,” in Peace-building: A Field Guide, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2001) Community entrepreneurs: networking for local development Search in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Randma-liiv, T. & Drechsler, W. (2017). three decades, four phases: public administration development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1989–2017. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(6–7), 595–605.10.1108/IJPSM-06-2017-0175 Search in Google Scholar

Roszczynska-Kurasinska, m., Kacprzyk-murawska, m.,i Rychwalska, A. & nowak, A. (2017). Between passive involvement and active participation — policy making on the crossroads. in moreso, j. j. & Casanovas, P. (eds.). Anchoring Institutions. Democracy and Regulations in a Global and Semi-automated World. Low Governance and Technology. springer. Search in Google Scholar

SCiE (2015). Co-Production in Social Care: What it is and how to do it? SCiE guide 51. Search in Google Scholar

United Nations (1994). The age of digital interdependence report of the Un secretary-generals high-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalCo-operation-report-for%20web.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Terry D. Bergdall (2012): Facilitating Asset Based Community Development, Chapter 9 from CHANGING LIVES, CHANGING SOCIETY: ICA’s Expereince in Nepal and in the World, edited by Tatwa Timsina and Dasarath Neupane, ICA Nepal, Kathmandu Search in Google Scholar

Veiko L., Taco B. & Piret T. (2019): The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation, Public Management Review, 21:11, 1665–1686.10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo