- 1 -

Coproduction in Public Service; A Shared-Role of Bureaucracy and Citizenry1

Yogi Suwarno2

Abstrak Paradigma birokrasi sebagai pelayan masyarakat dari waktu ke waktu mengalami pergeseran. Dalam konteks keindonesiaan, misalnya, peran birokrasi yang pada mulanya sebagai yang “dilayani” telah beralih ke peran sesungguhnya, yaitu “melayani”. Namun demikian paradigma melayani (serving) ini juga mulai mengalami pergeseran ke arah peran pemberdayaan (empowering), melalui peningkatan partisipasi warga dalam proses pelayanan. Partisipasi warga dalam pelayanan publik bukanlah barang baru, baik secara teori maupun praktek. Secara teoritik, dalam ilmu partisipasi telah dikenal konsep “coproduction” yang menjelaskan peran dan partisipasi warga dalam pelayanan. Sementara secara praktek, khususnya di Indonesia, kegiatan tradisional Siskamling adalah contoh penting adanya peran dan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pelayanan di bidang keamanan. Untuk memahami kerangka berfiktr peran dan partisipasi warga dalam pelayanan, dapat dimulai dari konteks yang lebih luas, yaitu good governance, yang menekankan peningkatan peran warga masyarakat dan dunia bisnis. Dilanjutkan dengan konsep partisipasi publik dengan dimensi manajerial, politik dan demokrasi, serta terakhir adalah mengenal dan membumikan “coproduction”. Sebagai catatan akhir, tentunya tidak seluruh jenis pelayanan publik dapat diselenggarakan dengan mekanisme coproduction. Hal ini karena tingkat kebutuhan dan intensitas partisipasi pada masing-masing jenis pelayanan bervariasi.

Introduction

Nation-states across the world have become interested in, and committed to,

increasing the participation of citizens in public affairs3. Regarding this increasing level

of participation, we may witness a growing awareness from the public to take a part in

public affairs in general, e.g. in delivering public service. In line with that, Cooper4 says

that participation of the citizenry in governing, above and beyond the periodic visit to the

voting booth, is no longer solely to the whims of the public official, or to the exigencies

of popular inclination in a particular situation.

1 Tulisan ini dimuat di Jurnal Good Governance, terbitan Program Magister STIA-LAN, tahun 2006. 2 Dosen Tetap STIA LAN Jakarta untuk mata kuliah Difusi Inovasi dalam Pemerintahan, dan Peneliti pada Pusat Kajian Administrasi Internasional. 3 McLaverty. 2002. p.1 4 Lynch. 1983. p.13

- 2 -

This phenomenon can be best understood within the context of governance and/or

good governance. Good governance concept explains the shifting process of three main

actors (government, private sector and community), in which community has gained

higher level of participation than before. There is no way for us to talk only about public

participation beyond the context of good governance. By the end, good governance

results in good public service.

The concept of good governance itself is very broad. Theoretically, governance5

is the exercise of power or authority—political, economic, administrative or otherwise—

to manage a country's resources and affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and

institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their

legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Therefore, good

governance means competent management of a country’s resources and affairs in a

manner that is open, transparent, accountable, equitable and responsive to people’s needs.

Initially, government should provide all public services. However, the efficacy of

service is being questioned, since there is only one provider/monopoly. On the other hand,

private sector begins to penetrate wider market entering public service area. This can be

considered as bless to create a competitive service within the same kind of good.

Then what makes public services fail, especially, poor people? Learning from the

experience there are four ways why services often fail6. First, typically the non-poor

enjoy public spending on basic services. Second, even when public spending can be

reallocated toward poor people, the money does not always reach the frontline service

provider. Third, incentives for effective service delivery are weak, wages may not be paid,

corruption is rife, and political patronage is a way of life. Fourth, there is lack of demand

from citizen itself.

Since this vicious circle remains unsolved, the pattern of accountability seems to

be not working. Thus, good governance is noticeably necessary to strengthen the three

main actor’s role in doing this service. The government, private sector and society should

have equal responsibility in which each of them has its own role complementally.

5 Ausaid. 2000. p.3 6 see Overview on WDR 2004. p. 3.

- 3 -

To begin with, this paper will discuss the topic following this order, from brief

overview of good governance, concept of public participation, coproduction and finally

the case.

Good Governance: A Brief Overview

As mentioned above, good governance concept is highlighting three actors

dealing with public interest; government, private sector, and society. Some international

institutions tried to give comprehensive definition, e.g. World Bank defines good

governance as the way state power is used in managing economic and social resources for

development of society. Meanwhile UNDP identifies it as the exercise of political,

economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs at all levels.

However, to simplify this, some believe that good governance could be

accomplished, at least, by fulfilling political and economic principles first, which defined

as mentioned below.

Political principles7 encompass:

• Good governance is based on the establishment of a representative and accountability

form of government.

• Good governance requires a strong and pluralistic civil society, where there is

freedom of expression and association.

• Good governance requires good institutions – sets of rules governing the actions of

individuals and organizations and the negotiation of differences between them.

• Good governance requires the primacy of the rule of law, maintained through an

impartial and effective legal system.

• Good governance requires a high degree of transparency and accountability in public

and corporate processes. A participatory approach to service delivery is important for

public services to be effective.

While Economic principles encompass:

• Good governance requires policies to promote broad-based economic growth, a

dynamic private sector and social policies that will lead to poverty reduction.

Economic growth is best achieved in an efficient, open, market based economy. 7 Ausaid. 2000. p.3

- 4 -

• Investment in people is a high priority, through policies and institutions that improve

access to quality education, health and other services that underpin

• a country’s human resource base.

• Effective institutions and good corporate governance are needed to support the

development of a competitive private sector. In particular, for markets to function,

social norms are needed that respect contract and property rights.

• Careful management of the national economy is vital in order to maximize economic

and social advancement.

Of course this is not just what the doctor ordered, as a concept, there will always

be an improvement and revision, since it is easier said than done, as difficult as how the

scholars defining it. But there is a common understanding of the importance of good

governance as a concept to implement.

In terms of achieving social service delivery succeed; good governance is an

essential precondition of it. Not only has this encompassed three actors, but also it draw

up clearly the pattern of responsibility of each actor. When in the past, government

dominated public servicing through its power and legitimacy, while now, when

effectiveness and efficiency demanded, the rest abandoned domains; private sector and

society should be involved equally. It is not the question on why the government has

failed in providing service, it more emphasis on how to the poor can actually be lent a

hand. Good governance is intended to create equal responsibility to each of main actors,

which hopefully could result in synergistic cooperation among them.

The changing process of government’s role can be explained in this way; that the

government, beforehand, being dominant in providing service, and only gave a little

opportunity to the private sector to participate in, while society ignored and treated as a

marginal group which has no power or bargaining position to, even, determine what their

actually need. As a result, services provided by government didn’t meet the real public

interest, caused there was no direct communication in which both agreed with the same

agenda. The recent trend shows equal participation of each domain. Government (and the

state) in implementing policy engage private sector for the sake of efficiency and

effectiveness, and at the same time developing societal participation to determine agenda.

- 5 -

By the end, the three of them has equal responsibility to take care and maintain the

agenda.

Moreover UNDP 8 emphasize “participation” in the very first place of

characteristics of good governance, meaning that each citizen has a right to participate

directly or indirectly to the decision making process.

The Concept of Public Participation

We may find easily various terms concerning participation and its subsidiaries

that might be perplexing for the time being. However, mostly the terms of public

participation, community participation and citizen participation are used interchangeably.

Therefore, there is no essential difference among the three; we may assume that these

three terminologies are the same.

Public participation is closely tied with both sides of government and society.

Through government side, we can emphasize the managerial techniques implemented by

government as a goods and services provision involving society in the process of on

going service delivery. While in society side, we may see the spirit of togetherness that

enable people to help each other, even to ensure the government’s work running well.

However this should be very much related to the cultural factor that has been built-up

within a society for a long time.

The purpose of citizen participation, according to Marschall (2004: 231) is as

much to communicate preferences and influence policy making as to assist in the

implementation of the public good and to contribute to its preservation and continuation.

Such assistance and contribution could be functional as long as there are voluntary

actions of citizens and the existence of meaningful opportunities and arrangements.

In a broad sense we may find what according to Parry et al (1992, p.16), public

participation can be defined as taking part in the processes of formulation, passage and

implementation of public policies 9 . From this standpoint, we may conclude that

participation can be promoted from the top level of decision-making level to the

implementation.

8. op.cit. p.58 9. McLaverty, op.cit., p.185

- 6 -

The idea of participation is sometimes linked with the issue of equal rights

between people and the state. Definition written by Benjamin Barber10 says that public

participation is about creating membership associations that are open and egalitarian

enough to permit voluntary participation. According to him, there are two dominant

institutions in the society; the government and the free market, which unfortunately often

find themselves at odds with one another. As we know that, the classical libertarian

model tends to portray the state as a coercive force in public life and the market as the

fountainhead for genuine freedom. As a result, those who become dissatisfied with

government and its service tend to think that the state is too strong and the only remedy is

to downsize government and privatize its functions whereas those who feel the free

market does not provide needed services view the government as an important ally in

maintaining justice and fairness.

Maddick11 says that people gain experience in holding such office accountable;

especially in local government, participation plays an educative role by enhancing civic

consciousness and political maturity. In addition according to Hayward12, participation is

seen as providing a basis for the limitation of state power by society and for developing a

sense of efficacy and responsible of citizenry.

In line with that, Susskind13 affirmed that citizen involvement in government

decision making is synonymous with democratization of choices involving resource

allocation, decentralization of service systems management, deprofessionalization of

bureaucratic judgment that affect the lives of residents, and demystification of design and

investment decisions.

Consequently, democracy in administration rests upon the idea of broadening

participation. From these stand points; public participation may be regarded as a growing

phenomenon of either managerial or democratic sense.

Instead of saying public participation, which seems to be very broad, some

scholar would prefer to call it as community participation or citizen participation. A

10 Barber. 1998. p.35 11 Mutebi. 2004. Reassessing Popular Participation in Uganda. The International Journal of Management Research and Practice. West Sussex. UK. 12 Ibid. 13 Susskind. 1983. p.3.

- 7 -

research 14 initiated by University of Exeter define community participation as an

educational and empowering process in which people, in partnership with those able to

assist them, identify problems and needs and increasingly assume responsibility

themselves to plan, manage, control and assess the collective actions that are proved

necessary. This definition more put emphasis on outcome in which promoting

participation is actually to educate and to empower the citizenry themselves. This is in

line with the statement that participation ranges from being given notice of public

hearings to being actively included in decisions that affect communities15.

Furthermore, this research concludes seven propositions regarding community

participation:

1. Community Participation is educational because a “dialogue” - a two-way exchange

of knowledge, takes place in the interactions between communities and agencies. The

interactions should be characterized by learning through doing.

2. Community Participation is empowering because experience of how to influence,

implement and control activities which improve the quality of life is gained by the

people.

3. Community Participation is a process because education, empowerment and

increasing responsibility require time. Meaningful participation cannot be

manipulated within the context of pre-established time limits. Progress can only be

made gradually if the changes are to be permanent.

4. Community Participation must be a partnership between community and agency

because in most services, especially Family Planning, there will always be resources

(e.g. contraceptives), which must be provided from outside the community.

5. Problems and needs must be identified by the intended beneficiaries and not assumed

to exist by the agencies. Only when problems and needs are recognized by the

community will participation in programs be feasible.

6. The community must bear responsibility for planning, managing, and assessing their

actions if they are to control them. This will also ensure maximum self-reliance and

continuity of activities when outside support is withdrawn.

14 this research was conducted by the Program Development Department, IPPF and the Institute of Population Studies, 15 available online at http://mapp.naccho.org/MAPP_Glossary.asp

- 8 -

7. Collective action is necessary to address collective problems. It should be undertaken

through an organizational structure, which is broadly-based, flexible and ensures

continuity of action independent of individual leadership.

Thus, the definitions of public participation could range from policy level,

managerial context, and even to the sense of democracy. These definitions would lead us

to a comprehensive understanding of where public participation stands. Following

discussion will start from broadest concept as an umbrella i.e. public administration. The

evolution of public administration draws rationale of why public participation becomes

so important. Notwithstanding the important actors of public participation are both the

public and the government. Related fields had acknowledged the important of this.

Therefore, the concept of public participation, in broader context should also be linked to

governance, civil society and empowerment.

To have one single definition is apparently difficult, but in short, we may

conclude that public participation may be defined from the interaction of citizen’s

involvement degree and citizen’s initiatives approaches. A simple illustration below

explains and puts where participation’s position is supposed to be placed. In this figure, x

axis represents citizen’s initiatives, and y axis represents the degree of citizen’s

involvement in government’s program.

- 9 -

Figure 1

Map of Participation

Source: Suwarno, Yogi. (2005: 29)

From this illustration, participation can be generated through both approaches.

Top-down approach means the program or activity as government’s policy and/or order

wherein citizens get involved, while bottom-up approach deals with voices, initiatives,

and actions coming from citizens. In the case of participation where government takes

control dominantly and less initiatives but high involvement from citizens then

participation would be seemingly an order obliged by government over citizens. In other

words, citizens act as a tool of government in running such program. In this regard the

Tonarigumi case would apply to this situation. In contrast, when citizens have more space

to voice their demand, and initiate their own program, but no less involvement from

citizens, then participation would appear like protest, demanding citizens, and so on.

Usually government does not like such situation where citizen’s voices are apparently

stronger than government’s ones. Therefore, participation cannot be generated from

solely citizen’s initiatives or government’s program, but rather it complements both sides.

Participation

VoiceNon Participation

Order

Citizen’s Initiatives

No Citizen’s Initiatives

Low involvement (-)

High involvement (+)

- 10 -

One important key can be derived from the concept is to increase involvement of

people in deciding goods. Though it may be difficult to get the citizen involved in such

decision making process. In attempt to apply this concept in delivering public services,

many countries now on the way to modify and/or improve their way to deliver public

service. However only few of them aware that this concept is not really a brand new for

even common people, especially in terms of practical level. Such public involvement can

be easily found in any countries and any level, based on either their respective culture or

traditional way they do participate in any level of participation.

Coproduction: Public Participation in Delivering Public Service

With regard to those broader concepts of governance, we have to look upon the

concept that ties public participation with public service for so-called coproduction. This

has to be affirmed at the outset since public service does not solely depend on the

behavior of public officials, as the contribution from citizenry is often critical to the

provision, production, and the delivery of services.16

We may find many writing emphasizing the essential of public participation in

public service delivery. Cooper 17 emphasis that citizen participation has generally

focused on the role of the citizenry in decision-making. However, as fiscal pressures on

public budgets have increased, greater attention has been directed toward citizen

involvement in the delivery of service and the implementation of the program.

The involvement of public, in a sense to join with the government or service

provider in service delivery process, has been known as a coproduction mechanism. As

Ostrom (1996: 86) defines coproduction as the process through which inputs used to

produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not “in” the same

organization.

The theory of coproduction was widely recognized in 1980s, when scholars of

public administration and urban politics developed the theory that specifically emphasize

collective activities and critical role of citizen’s involvement in the provision of public

goods and services. The theory of coproduction conceptualizes service delivery as both

16 Powers & Thompson. 1994. p.179 17 Lynch. op.cit. p.40

- 11 -

an arrangement and a process, wherein citizens and government share “conjoint

responsibility” in producing public services18. So here, we are not supposed to distinct

citizens as “traditional” consumers from government as “traditional” producer of services.

In fact, both citizen and government may act as producer of services. Thereby we cannot

draw the line between the producer and the consumer exactly. In contrast, according to

economic theory, it is obvious that consumer of goods and services can be easily

distinguished from producer.

In brief, the theory of coproduction in public service delivery can be best

understood by analyzing the concepts of consumer and production in the public sector

that is the concepts of the consumer producer, of the regular producer, and of

coproduction. According to Parks 19 consumer producers are those who engage in

production in order to consume the resulting output. On the other hand, regular producers

are the one who undertake production to exchange the output to payments, which are in

turn exchanged for the other goods and services. In this regard, coproduction requires

both regular and consumer producers contribute inputs to a production of particular good

and service.

In other words, in many services, producing outputs and outcomes requires active

participations from the recipients. To put it simply, in education field, no matter how

good the teaching materials provided for students (inputs from provider) unless students

actively participate in learning (inputs from user) the output and outcome will be

meaningless. Certainly we cannot simply take it for granted as it will apply to other fields.

The concept may be bit fuzzy when, for example, we take taxation as the case. The

government, for sure, is attempting to get 100% compliance, thus the need active

compliance from the citizens who owe taxes. Yet we may agree that many fields of

public activity require active participation by citizens and/or civil society organizations to

achieve real outputs or outcomes.

We may now conclude that coproduction refers to the process of service delivery

by different parties so as to minimize costs and/or improve quality of service. A good

example of a coproduction process can be drawn from the case of neighborhood watch.

18 Marschall. 2004. p.232 19 Kiser. 1980. p.2.

- 12 -

Voluntary effort from citizenry in securing their property within one residence is an

evident on how functional coproduction is. Citizens collectively could also make their

own protection system, with regard to police service. These efforts have to be done in

order to support police service, because police department itself would not be able to

handle all crimes at once. A study conducted by Goldstein 20 in 1977 had proved

effectiveness of neighborhood watch program in combating crime than police department

program.

To roughly draw an illustration how the concept of coproduction works, figure

below shows how the lines of service and participation exchange.

Figure 2.

Framework of Coproduction

Sumber: Suwarno, Yogi. (2005: 5)

This framework shows the interaction between citizenry and government in both

delivering service and channeling participation. Both sides are supposed to have direct

channeling, but then for the reasons of effectiveness and efficiency, they need third party

to support channeling both service and participation. Derived from coproduction concept,

this third party is regarded as a coproducer. The coproducer structurally doesn’t belong to

both government and citizenry, in a sense that it is not officially a governmental agency,

but to bridge government as a provider and citizenry as consumer.

20 Ibid

The Government

Coproducer

Citizenry

Service

Participation

- 13 -

In all cases we might see the same pattern of how people contribute to the

delivery of public service. The distinction might come from the difference of wealth level

or social status. In developed and better-off countries, where public service is supposed to

be better than in developing countries, coproduction may not be necessarily needed.

However, coproduction may apply to poor countries as they are typically suffering from

bad public services. In line with the application of coproduction, the question of how are

services actually delivered to poor people, especially in poor countries may arise.

According to Joshi, the major answer is “Diversity”. One can find every type of

arrangement found in the standard classifications: 21

1. Self-provisioning through collective action, independently of external agencies. Poor

people often get together on a local basis to provide their own basic education,

security, funeral expenses or small-scale savings systems.

2. Direct social provision through private associations. In almost every part of the world

there is a long tradition of providing basic services through private associations,

notably religious organizations, but also private philanthropic foundations, locality

based associations, caste associations in India, etc. In recent years, increasing

attention has been paid to the fact that, especially in much of the Islamic world, in

India and many parts of the world where evangelical Christians are active, the kinds

of organizations normally labeled ‘religious fundamentalists’ are often major

providers of services, notably basic education and income assistance for very poor

families.

3. Direct market provision, on a commercial basis. High proportions of basic services,

especially health, are simply purchased on the market from local providers, formal or

informal.

4. Direct social provision through state agencies. In most poor countries, there is a

substantial government apparatus that is dedicated, at least formally, to the

widespread provision of, at a minimum, health and education, and often a much wider

range of services.

5. Indirect state provision, through sub-contracting of delivery responsibility to other

agencies – religious organizations, NGOs, private for profit companies, user groups

21 Joshi and Moore. 2003.. p.4

- 14 -

etc. In poor countries as elsewhere in the world, there has been an expansion of sub-

contracting in recent years.

That’s why some would prefer to a more profound meaning of coproduction that

goes to reconceptualising (discursively or in practice) the policy process. In contrast to

older ways of regarding the client or citizen as the passive recipient of government policy

and state action, this more recent approach tries to understand how they are active agents

working with government and non-government agencies in generating outcomes (i.e.

understanding policy, particularly planning, implementation and delivery and their effects,

in terms of social agency).

.

Case : Siskamling (Securing Neigborhood Units)

Siskamling (Community Security System/Surveillance) is an example of

traditional community participation in public service. It is a self protection scheme in

respective neighborhood units. In order to safeguard certain areas, e.g. residential area, a

task which the police are either unwilling or unable to do, citizens take part in this kind of

scheme in their respective neighborhood units.

Perhaps this kind of security system can be compared moderately with the

concept of neighborhood watch in developed countries. Neighborhood watch itself is a

community based crime prevention program, which aims to improve the quality of life

within a neighborhood by minimizing preventable crime and promoting closer

community ties. Neighborhood Watch is a popular way for people of all ages to get

involved in their community. It brings groups of local people together to address local

crime and other community issues.

However, there are some distinctions distinguishing both of them. Siskamling is

widely implemented in rural area where the population is small so that usually people

know each other. In order to safeguard their homes, in rural areas each household has

equal responsibility to participate. Meanwhile in urban areas, many are reluctantly doing

it themselves. So in a way to deal with the increasing crime they prefer to pay a kind of

compensation to the manager of Siskamling or just simply hire professionals/security

guards in their areas. However, in the case of wider area e.g. government at Kecamatan

- 15 -

(sub-municipal), they have their own security instrument involving local government,

police, and local military subdivision.

Thus, mostly siskamling has nothing to do with either government or police,

because it is basically initiated, carried out and financed by community. One reason why

this scheme is seemingly effective is that citizens, ironically, do not feel they can rely on

police protection. On the other hand, indeed police cannot answer all public demands

regarding security due to lack of officials available and other burden.

Conclusion

We may find easily other cases as good examples of coproduction. In developed

countries, like in Japan, waste management is a good example in which citizens

participate in segregating their waste into several boxes. Citizens are eager to participate

in this matter, because in return they will pay less. Not to mention the dimension of

empowerment, in which citizens are educated and empowered to be more active in

protecting environment.

In broader sense, when talking about public participation in delivering public

service, we should put the issue in the context of good governance, in which three actors

being involved. It means that public participation couldn’t be succeeded in achieving its

goal without support from government as a formal authority, and private sectors as a

capital owner. In a small scale, like the example case taken above, public participation is

dominant in carrying out the service. In most cases, either government’s involvement or

private sector’s presence is necessary.

To end this writing, I would like to briefly draw attention to the idea of New

Public Management (NPM) and Entrepreneurial Government concepts in which both are

strongly related to the theme of public participation. Principles below represent the idea

of how government should start to involve public and private sector in delivering public

service. These three concepts examine strongly the importance of participation. The

principles are:

1. Steering rather than rowing: Catalytic government - separating steering (policy and

regulatory functions) from rowing (service delivery and compliance functions)

- 16 -

2. Empowering rather than serving: Community oriented government - empowering

rather than serving: in other words, enabling the community to serve their own needs,

rather than the direct provision of services for them

3. From hierarchy to participation and teamwork: Decentralized government.

To end with, the idea is not to diminish completely the government’s role in

delivering service, it is the idea of how to empower and educate community in providing

their own good, and at the same time helping government to improve the quality of the

service. In addition, coproduction may or may not apply to some other kinds of services.

The degree of participation may vary, depends on the needs of each services. By the end,

when public participation has increased in delivering public service, hopefully it will be

better than before as well as meet the public need appropriately.

Sources: Asian Development Bank. 1999. Good Governance and Anticorruption: The Road Forward for

Indonesia (paper presented at the Eighth Meeting of the Consultative Group on Indonesia). Paris, France.

Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Program. 2000. Good Governance: Guiding Principles for Implementation. Ausaid Publishing. Canberra.

Barber. Benjamin R. 1998. A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong. Hill and Wang. New York.

Joshi, Anuradha and Mick Moore. 2003. Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments. The Institute of Development Studies. Brighton.

Kiser, Larry L. & Stephen L. Percy. 1980. The Concept of Coproduction and Its Implication for Public Service Delivery. Paper presented at the 1980 Annual Meetings of the American Society for Public Administration, on April 13-16. Indiana University. Bloomington.

Koike, Osamu & Deil S. Wright. 1998. Five Phases of Intergovernmental Relations in Japan: policy shifts and governance reform (in International Review of Administrative Science). SAGE Publication. London.

Lynch, Thomas D. Ed. c1983. Organization Theory and Management. M. Dekker, Inc. New York. Marschall, Melissa J. 2004. Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the

Coproduction of Local Public Goods. Political Research Quarterly. Academic Research Library.

McLaverty, Peter. 2002. Public Participation and Innovations in Community Governance. Ashgate. England.

Osborne, David. & Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Massachusetts.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1996. Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development." World Development, Vol. 24, No. 6 (June 1996), 1073-87.

- 17 -

Powers, Kathleen J. & Fred Thompson. 1994. Managing Coprovision: Using Expectancy Theory to overcome the Free Rider Problem (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory). Willamette University.

Susskind, Lawrence & Michael Elliott. 1983. Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Western Europe. Plenum Press. NY.

Suwarno, Yogi. 2005. The Emergence of Public Participation in Contemporary Indonesia: Coproduction Role of Neighborhood Association in delivering Public Service. Master Thesis at GSPA-ICU, Tokyo.

World Bank. 2003. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. World Bank. Washington