Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T20:32:24.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementing Co-Production in Adult Social Care: An Example of Meta-Governance Failure?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2014

Peter Scourfield
Peter Scourfield*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University E-mail: Peter.Scourfield@anglia.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea of ‘co-production’ has been promoted by both New Labour and Coalition governments as a means to help ‘transform’ adult social care. With its emphasis on active citizenship, community support networks, voluntary effort and power sharing, the idea might have been expected to have been received more enthusiastically by those expected to put it into practice and benefit from it. However, unlike other ‘big ideas’ intended to ‘transform’ adult social care, such as ‘personal budgets’, co-production has gained comparatively little traction with either local authorities or service users. Despite the publication of much promotional literature in recent years, co-production has not yet become a significant part of either official or lay discourse on adult social care. It is concluded that apart from definitional problems and conceptual ambiguity, the inability of successive governments to effectively deploy common techniques of meta-governance might also be contributory factors to its sluggish take up.

Keywords

Co-productionpersonalisationsocial caremeta-governance
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 541 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, J. (1998) ‘A public management road less travelled: clients as co-producers of public services’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57, 4, 128–37.Google Scholar
APSE (2011) Communities and Local Government Committee: Fourth Report. The Future Audit and Inspection of Local Authorities and Performance Management Issues, Briefing 11–41, August, Manchester: APSE.Google Scholar
Ball, J. and Rogers, S. (2011) ‘Coalition cuts force £10bn in public sector savings’, The Guardian, 26 October, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/oct/26/coalition-spending-cuts-survey.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (eds.) (2012) Critical Perspectives on User Involvement, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2009) Whose Personalisation?, Think pieces 47, London: Compass, http://www.compassonline.org.uk.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (2009) Key Concepts in Governance, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (ed.) (2011) The Sage Handbook of Governance, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2007) ‘Beyond engagement and participation – user and community co-production of public services’, Public Administration Review, 67, 5, 846–60.Google Scholar
Boyle, D., Coote, A., Sherwood, C. and Slay, J. (2010) Right Here, Right Now: Taking Co-Production into the Mainstream, London: National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts.Google Scholar
Burns, S. and Smith, K. (2004) Co-Production Works! The Win: Win of Involving Local People in Public Services, London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2010) Building the Big Society, www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-the-big-society.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. (2002) System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Denscombe, N. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th edn, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2010) A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. (2013) ‘New labour and the politics of depoliticisation: the delivery agenda in Britain's public services 1997–2007’, Transforming Policy and Politics: The Future of the State in the 21st Century, Policy and Politics Conference, University of Bristol, 17–18 September.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. (2014) Counting the Cuts: What the Government Doesn't Want the Public to Know, Sheffield: The Centre for Welfare Reform.Google Scholar
Enroth, H. (2011) ‘Policy network theory’, in Bevir, M. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Governance, London: Sage, pp. 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, M. (2012) ‘Collaboration in public services: can service users and staff participate together’, in Barnes, M. and Cotterell, P. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on User Involvement, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th edn, London: Sage.Google Scholar
HM Government (1999) Modernising Government, Cm 4310, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
HM Government (2006) Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services, Cm 6737, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
HM Government (2007) Putting People First: A Shared Vision and Commitment to the Transformation of Adult Social Care, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
House of Commons Treasury Committee (2007) The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2002) Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony, Lancaster: Lancaster University, Department of Sociology, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Jessop-Governance-and-Metagovernance.pdf [accessed 29.12.2013].Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2011) ‘Metagovernance’, in Bevir, M. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Governance, London: Sage, pp. 106–23.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. (2004) Personalisation through Participation: A New Script for Public Services, London: Demos.Google Scholar
McGuire, M. (2011) ‘Network management’, in Bevir, M. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Governance, London: Sage, pp. 436–53.Google Scholar
Means, R., Richards, S. and Smith, R. (2008) Community Care: Policy and Practice, 4th edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (NAQ) (2013) Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities, HC 888, Session 2012–13, 30 January, London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
Needham, C. (2011a) ‘Personalization: from story-line to practice’, Social Policy and Administration, 45, 1, 54–68.Google Scholar
Needham, C. (2011b) Personalising Public Services: Understanding the Personalisation Narrative, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Needham, C. and Carr, S. (2009) Co-production: An Emerging Evidence Base for Adult Social Care Transformation, Research Briefing 31, London: Social Care Institution for Excellence.Google Scholar
Payne, G. and Williams, M. (2005) ‘Generalization in qualitative research’, Sociology, 39, 2, 295–314.Google Scholar
Rein, M. (1973) Social Science and Public Policy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Rigby, E. and Cumbo, J. (2014) ‘Osborne to insist on need to continue UK spending cuts’, The Financial Times, 5 January, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/921e1946-763f-11e3-8c8d-00144feabdc0.html.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973) ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4, 2, 155–69.Google Scholar
Seldon, A. (ed.) (2007) Blair's Britain, 1997–2007, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Social Care Institution for Excellence (SCIE) (2013) Co-production in Social Care: What It Is and How to Do It, Adults’ Services, SCIE Guide 51, London: Social Care Institution for Excellence.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. (2006) ‘Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance’, The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 1, 98–114.Google Scholar
Spicker, P. (2013) ‘Personalisation falls short’, British Journal of Social Work, 43, 7, 1259–75.Google Scholar
Think Local Act Personal (2011) Making It Real: Marking Progress towards Personalised, Community Based Support, London: Think Local Act Personal.Google Scholar
UNISON (2013) The Cuts: UK's Damaged Future, London: UNISON.Google Scholar
Wilson, G., (1994) ‘Co-production and self-care: new approaches to managing community care services for older people’, Social Policy and Administration, 26, 3, 236–50.Google Scholar