The Promise of Citizen Coproduction: Some Persistent Issues

As the federal government continues to narrow its scope of financial responsibility to cities, no doubt for some public managers the term coproduction will increasingly become the buzzword, especially among those cities that are facing fiscal stress. Indeed, coproduction is believed by its proponents to be the best alternative for municipal service delivery today. Understood to mean the joint production of municipal goods and services by the local municipal bureaucracy and the individual citizentaxpayer,' coproduction promises the city lower taxes while maintaining existing municipal service levels. At the same time, it promises to expand the role of the citizen from one of mere passive consumption of public services to one of active involvement with the responsibility for the selection, production, and delivery of public services. Presumably, the by-products of coproduction are four-fold. First, coproduction increases the citizen's sense of well-being as a result of greater participation. Second, coproduction should improve the political accountability of the urban bureaucracy. Third, it should stabilize the city's budget. Finally, coproduction should not only maintain but also actually enhance municipal service quality by the additional voluntary inputs from the citizen-taxpayer.2