Coproduction In Public Service

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 masingmasing 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. 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

-1-

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 fail 6 . 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 6

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

-2-

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

-3-

•

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.

-4-

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 9

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

-5-

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, Susskind 13 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 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. 11

-6-

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

-7-

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.

-8-

Figure 1 Map of Participation High involvement (+)

Order

Participation

No Citizen’s Initiatives

Citizen’s Initiatives

Non Participation

Voice

Low involvement (-) 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.

-9-

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 17

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

- 10 -

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 19

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

- 11 -

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

Service

The Government

Coproducer

Citizenry

Participation

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

- 12 -

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

- 13 -

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

- 14 -

(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)

- 15 -

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.

- 16 -

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

- 17 -