CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Co-planning and co-design as progress in the implementation of welfare services

Becchetti, Leonardo, Pisani, Fabio, Raffaele, Luca·2023·International Review of Economics
DOI 10.1007/s12232-023-00420-z

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Co-planning (and co-design) of welfare services between public administrations and civic organisations is an innovative approach aiming to enact and maximise aggregate effort and competence contributions among complementary actors in the direction of participation and active citizenship. In our paper, we develop a simple theoretical framework trying to illustrate how it is possible to pursue the first best of an optimal participated planning, design and management approach for welfare services. We examine pros and cons of different solutions reconciling involvement of civil actors and respect of antitrust principles outlining four benchmark models with different characteristics in terms of upstream and downstream participation levels. We outline policy proposals to solve dilemmas related to the difficulty of jointly activating participation, intrinsic and monetary incentives avoiding in the meanwhile collusion and corruption.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12232-023-00420-z

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Alford J (2014) The multiple facets of co-production: building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Manag Rev 16(3):299–316 · DOI
  2. Axelrod R, Dion D (1988) The further evolution of cooperation. Science 242(4884):1385–1390 · DOI
  3. Becchetti L, Salustri F (2019) The vote with the Wallet game: responsible consumerism as a multiplayer prisoner’s dilemma. Sustainability 11(4):1109 · DOI
  4. Becchetti L, Gianfreda G, Pace N (2012) Human resource management and productivity in the “trust game corporation.” Int Rev Econ 59(1):3–20 · DOI
  5. Bovaird T (2007a) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm Rev 67(5):846–860 · DOI
  6. Bovaird T (2007b) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Admin Rev 67(5):846–860 · DOI
  7. Brudney JL (1983) The evaluation of coproduction programs. Policy Stud J 12(2):376–385 · DOI
  8. Brudney JL, England RE (1983) Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Admin Rev 26:59–65 · DOI
  9. Cahn E, Gray C (2012) Co-production from a normative perspective. In: Pestoff V, Brandsen T, Verschuere B (eds) New public governance, the third sector and co-production. Routledge, London, pp 129–144
  10. Daniel G, Arce M, Sandler T (2005) The dilemma of the prisoners’ dilemmas. Kyklos 58(1):3–24 · DOI
  11. Donetto S et al (2015) Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J 18(2):227–248
  12. Farrell J (1987) Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. Rand J Econ 18(1987):34–39 · DOI
  13. Hilbe C, Wu B, Traulsen A, Nowak MA (2014) Cooperation and control in multiplayer social dilemmas. PNAS 111:16425–16430 · DOI
  14. Jakobsen M (2013) Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. J Public Admin Res Theory 23(1):27–54 · DOI
  15. Levine CH (1984) Citizenship and service delivery: the promise of coproduction. Public Adm Rev 44:178–189 · DOI
  16. Osborne S, Radnor Z, Nasi G (2013) A new theory for public services management? Towards a (public) service-dominant approach. Am Rev Public Admin 43:135–158 · DOI
  17. Ostrom E (1999) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. In: McGinnis MD (ed) Polycentric governance and development. Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis, vol 15. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
  18. Pestoff V (2009) Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: citizen participation and co-production of personal social services in Sweden. Ann Public Cooper Econ 80(2):197–224 · DOI
  19. Sen AK (1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen AK (eds) The quality of life. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp 30–53 · DOI
  20. Sharp EB (1980) Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: the coproduction concept. Midwest Rev Public Admin 14(2):105–118 · DOI
  21. Sicilia M, Guarini E, Sancino A, Andreani M, Ruffini R (2016) Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. Int Rev Adm Sci 82(1):8–27 · DOI
  22. Stewart JA, Plotkin JB (2013) From extortion to generosity, evolution in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. PNAS 110:1534–1535 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Vaillancourt Y (2009) Social economy in the co-construction of public policy. Ann Public Cooper Econ 80(2):275–313 · DOI
  24. Wärneryd K (1993) Cheap talk, coordination, and evolutionary stability. Games Econ Behav 5(4):532–546 · DOI
  25. Wilson R K (1981) Citizen coproduction as a mode of participation: conjectures and models. J Urban Aff 3:37–49 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Becchetti, L., Pisani, F., & Raffaele, L.
Venue
International Review of Economics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-07-03
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
301-322
ISSN
  • 1865-1704
  • 1863-4613
DOI
10.1007/s12232-023-00420-z
Cited by
7
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Co-planning and co-design as progress in the implementation of welfare services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s12232-023-00420-z
The paper
Becchetti, L., Pisani, F., & Raffaele, L. (2023). Co-planning and co-design as progress in the implementation of welfare services. International Review of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-023-00420-z