Business, Government, Society and Science Interest in Co-Production by Relative Evaluation Using Google Trends

Open access

Abstract

The article provides the theoretical analysis of co-production phenomenon. The interests in co-production and related concepts are examined applying the methods of Google Trends statistical analysis and information visualization. The activity of business, government, society and research sectors during the last five years are compared, the trends of interest change and the balance of inter-sectoral interest in co-production is assessed. The relative evaluation of interest in co-production indicates that the situation in different sectors is not the same – the asymmetry in interest in co-production prevails. The article concludes that cooperation between public sector organizations with private sector organizations and society in providing public service as well as cooperation between scientific research, methods and technologies is developed at a different rate thus hindering breakthrough on a larger scale.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Algan Y. Murtin F. Beasley E. Higa K. Senik C. (2019). Correction: Well-Being Through the Lens of the Internet // PLoS ONE. Vol. 14 No. 1 e0211586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211586

  • 2. Bailey S. J. (2011). The Evolving Governance of Public Services in England: Extending Competition Choice Co-design and Co-production // Innovation and Public Sector. Vol. 15: Innovations in Public Governance pp. 68-88. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-727-7-68

  • 3. Bel G. Hebdon R. Warner M. (2018). Beyond Privatisation and Cost Savings: Alternatives for Local Government Reform // Local Government Studies. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2018.1428190

  • 4. Bovaird T. Loeffler E. (2012). From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value // Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 23 No. 4 pp. 1119–1138. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6

  • 5. Brudney J. L. (1987). Coproduction and Privatization: Exploring the Relationship and Its Implications // Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Vol. 16 No. 3 pp. 11–21. doi: 10.1177/089976408701600303

  • 6. Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (2016). Public sector activities in commercial markets. Internet access: <https://www.en.kfst.dk/analyser/kfst/publikationer/engelsk/2016/20160526-regulation-for-public-players-on-commercial-markets/> [accessed May 6 2019].

  • 7. Dehkordy S. F. Carlos R. C. Hall K. S. Dalton V. K. (2014). Novel Data Sources for Women’s Health Research: Mapping Breast Screening Online Information Seeking Through Google Trends // Acad Radiol. Vol. 21 No. 9 pp. 1172–1176. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.005

  • 8. European Commission (2016). State-Owned Enterprises in the EU: Lesson Learnt and Ways Forward in a Post-Crisis Context. Institutional Paper 031. Internet access: <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/ip031_en_2.pdf> [accessed May 7 2019].

  • 9. Lindgren S. (2010). YouTube Gunmen? Mapping Participatory Media Discourse on School Shooting Videos // Media Culture & Society. Vol. 33 No. 1 pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1177/0163443710386527

  • 10. Maas B. (2019). Short-Term Forecasting of the US Unemployment Rate. MPRA Paper No. 94066.

  • 11. Mellon J. (2014). Internet Search Data and Issue Salience: The Properties of Google Trends as a Measure of Issue Salience // Journal of Elections Public Opinion & Parties. Vol. 24 No. 1 pp. 45–72. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2013.846346

  • 12. Mira J. J. Carrillo I. Navarro I. M. Guilabert M. Vitaller J. Pérez-Jover V. Aguado H. (2018). Public Participation in Health. A Review of Reviews // Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra. Vol. 41 No. 1 pp. 91–106. doi: 10.23938/ASSN.0172

  • 13. Nuti S. V. Wayda B. Ranasinghe I. Wang S. Dreyer R. P. Chen S. I. et al. (2014). The Use of Google Trends in Health Care Research: A Systematic Review // PLoS ONE. Vol. 9 No. 10. e109583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109583

  • 14. Osborne S. P. Radnor Z. Strokosch K. (2016). Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A Suitable Case for Treatment? // Public Management Review. Vol. 18 No. 5 pp. 639–653. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927

  • 15. Pestoff V. (2014). Collective Action and the Sustainability of Co-Production // Public Management Review. Vol. 16 No. 3 pp. 383–401. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.841460

  • 16. Ramírez-Montoya M. S. García-Peñalvo F. J. (2018). Co-creation and Open Innovation: Systematic Literature Review // Comunicar. Vol. 26 No. 54. doi:10.3916/C54-2018-01

  • 17. Sicilia M. Guarini E. Sancino A. Andreani M. Ruffini R. (2016). Public Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings // International Review of Administrative Science. Vol. 82 No. 1 pp. 8–27. doi: 10.1177/0020852314566008

  • 18. Sorrentino M. Sicilia M. Howlett M. (2018). Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool // Policy and Society. Vol. 37 No. 3 pp. 277–293. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676

  • 19. Talbot C. R. (2011). Paradoxes and Prospects of ‘Public Value’ // Public Money & Management. Vol. 31 No. 1 pp. 27–34. doi. 10.1080/09540962.2011.545544

  • 20. Vanleene D. Verschuere B. Voets J. (2015). Benefits and Risks of Co-Production. A Preliminary Literature Review. – Paper for the IIAS Conference on co-production of public services.

  • 21. Voorberg W. Bekkers V. Flemig S. Timeus K. Tõnurist P. Tummers L. (2017). Does Co-creation Impact Public Service Delivery? The Importance of State and Governance Traditions // Public Money & Management. Vol. 37 No. 5 pp. 365–372. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2017.1328798

  • 22. Wang H. Xiong W. Wu G. Zhu D. (2018). Public–Private Partnership in Public Administration Discipline: A Literature Review // Public Management Review. Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 293–316. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1313445

  • 23. Xue M. Harker P. T. (2003). Service Co-Production Customer Efficiency and Market Competition. – Working paper Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions University of Pennsylvania.