Civilsamfundet i den offentlige samskabelsesdagsorden: Deltagelse og styring i udvalgte samskabelsesinitiativer i danske kommuner

Many Danish municipalities have a growing strategic focus on collaborating with civil society and volunteers to develop, implement and evaluate welfare solutions in a closer integrated collaboration rather than through parallel distribution of tasks and roles. This co-production agenda is called ‘the collaborative turn’ and stems from increasing complexity in societal challenges, democratic deficit and an economically stressed public sector. In addition, the co-production agenda is based on an extended trust-based partnership-like relationship between civil society and the public sector, where the state is responsible for public welfare and recognises and supports the function of civil society as an arena for participatory democracy, democratic formation, active citizenship and
protection of interests and to a lesser extent a role as a service provider.

This thesis delves into selected co-production initiatives between civil society and the municipalities in the social area, exploring how participation and governance are perceived and practised. The thesis explores participation and volunteering in civil society organisations, how participation and management are in the context of new public management and new public governance, and how co-production initiatives can be understood. The thesis adopts a hermeneutic scientific methodology with emancipatory elements. It fills a significant gap in the existing research by examining co-production initiatives from the perspective of civil society. The thesis is paper-based, offering a collection of articles, each contributing to the overall understanding of the topic and a binding text. It also underscores the need for new theories about co-production initiatives
to guide future research and practice.

Initially, I establish the historical development of how civil society has been related to the public sector, providing insightful context into what kind of civil society is currently involved in co-production initiatives. With roots in the Danish Constitution of 1849 and a population with many resources, Denmark has a tradition of high voluntary participation, allowing people to pursue interests and gain influence through organising associations. Historically, civil society organisations developed parallel to the construction of the welfare state. I point to research that unfolds studies of the democratic functions and influence of civil society, as well as research that emphasises how civil society can be
exclusionary and divisive. Liberal democracies contain their contradiction.

From the 1980s, a pervasive ambivalence has been identified in the state's expectations of civil society. Through new public management's marketing methods, civil society also becomes welfare suppliers to the state. At the same time, the organisations must continue to be guarantors of social cohesion, participatory democracy, protection of interests, and mediation of values. This means that expectations of specific results and professionalisation pressure civil society's deliberative processes.

This ambivalence is not contained in the theoretical definitions of civil society and
volunteering. I identify both an institutional theoretical tradition and a normative
(democratic) theoretical discussion that does not sufficiently identify the total span of
hybrid and cross-sector forms of organisation and participation in co-production
initiatives, including the instrumentalisation of marketisation. Both new public
management (top-down and marketing) and new public governance (network
management) currently affect the relationship between civil society organisations and municipalities and create multiple opportunities for participation in co-production initiatives, depending on balancing multi-layered governance. New public governance creates opportunities for transforming roles and new spaces for democratic participation, while new public management instrumentalises volunteering as a tool for professionals and municipalities.

The theoretical concepts for co-production initiatives (co-production) emphasise the necessity of equal power in both planning and production of welfare solutions so that it is possible to achieve synergy and strengthened participation. However, since civil society is not present with its agency in the theoretical definitions, they are not equal partners, and it isn't easy to achieve synergy. Co-production focuses on public value creation (service quality and efficiency) and, to a much lesser extent, on value creation for civil society in the form of, e.g. increased participation, protection of interests and value generation, and civil society participation as a supplement rather than as an equal partner.

The first article analyses how selected political and strategic documents at the municipal and state levels in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden also balance ambitions about equal collaboration and increased efficiency by making civil society responsible for municipal task-solving. The Nordic countries have both differences and similarities. In conclusion, the article discusses how the instrumentalisation of new public management and its impact on the hybridisation of civil society organisations will affect the high voluntary
engagement in Scandinavian countries.

The second article uncovers different expectations and approaches to co-production initiatives from municipal employees at various levels and other civil society organisations. Top managers in municipalities describe civil society and the municipality as a unified whole and delegitimise civil society's advocacy role as old-fashioned and not innovative. At the same time, frontline workers have a more pragmatic focus on using civil society organisations to solve their perceived challenges and respect different interests. More minor local associations find it difficult to contact the municipality. Still, they would like to collaborate when their cause and values are respected, and they can gain access to new participants. More hybrid civil society organisations see themselves as facilitators of crosssector co-production initiatives and build capacity through changeable horizontal collaborations and reflexive volunteers. They adapt and gain capacity, especially when their agenda is the same as the municipality's.

The third article analyses collaboration formats and governance in two concrete cases in social housing areas: Jobs and training guidance for the unemployed and cross-sector Hotspot units that fight organised crime. Both projects work with collaboration across sectors to address complex and interconnected challenges, which require holistic orientation, joint problem-solving, synergy effects and the involvement of many actors. Because of the managerial cross-pressure between new public management and new public governance, it isn't easy to collaborate at the citizen and organisational levels to share learning and knowledge and establish synergy across the sectors.

The fourth article analyses the governance structures and interaction between different citizens and professionals in the cross-sector collaboration between the civil society organisation INSP and Roskilde municipality's social psychiatry regarding the participation of youth with mental health problems. New public management also challenges young people's equal participation, while new public governance establishes space for horizontal networks and bottom-up. When new public governance dominates, youth with mental health problems get opportunities to take on many different roles supported by non-controlling multi-professional employees from social psychiatry. The article is divided into three themes that uncover governance and context factors crucial for the equal participation of youth with mental health problems. Meanwhile, new public
management challenges equal participation and is displaced in favour of municipal goals of jobs, education, and economic material effects.

In conclusion, it is not only the ambivalent multi-layered governance and civil society as a blind partner that make synergy and participation difficult. Even when new public governance dominates, there is a risk of inappropriate power shifts in the local areas, favouring some strong citizen groups. Furthermore, as a researcher, I reproduce the research's blind spots by applying the existing theory. It can make the emancipation that my research has ambitions to create complex. There is a need to develop new theories about co-production initiatives that focus on the contributions, roles and value creation of civil society organisations in co-production initiatives and examine the contextual factors that are decisive for success.