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

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 Why the new Public management is obsolete: An Analysis in the Context of the Post-New Public Management trends.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