Public-service logic (PSL) has recently attracted attention in the discussion on public governance and public-service systems. The core idea of PSL is that it places the service user at the centre of complex value-creating service processes (Osborne 2018). At the heart of PSL are concepts of value and value co-creation (Ojasalo & Kauppinen 2022). Severe budgetary constraints, high service expectations, and increased political populism mark the current public-service development atmosphere. Given that context, PSL offers a new way to approach public services that could facilitate value co-creation by service users and involve citizens in the process (Osborne 2020). Public-service logic recognizes that the role of a public service organization is to produce a service offering that a service user can utilize to create value in their lives (Osborne 2018).

From the perspective of democratic governance, PSL seems to support that ideal, especially the participatory aspects. First, citizen service users are ideally central to the service system and instead of seeing service development as an intra-organizational issue, it is open to other stakeholders. Co-creation processes have a democratic potential: In addition to possibilities co-creation processes give citizens to influence on a particular service or service path, co-creation processes can affect broader issues and have a societal impact (Ansell et al. 2023; Osborne et al. 2020; Osborne et al. 2022). Third, a key ideal of PSL is to give a voice to marginalized or silent groups; a key issue, especially in participative forms of democracy (Cui & Osborne 2023, 189; Arnstein 1969). Finally, PSL contributes to the discussion around public value (e.g., Moore 1995; Hartley et al. 2017). According to the core of public value is not on who produces it, but who consumes it. Citizens appreciate, for instance, the institutional structures that allow societal systems to work effectively. While citizens cherish these matters, partly due to the personal advantages available, the reasons for that can transcend self-interest (Alford & Hughes 2008, 131–132).

However, there are doubts concerning the democratic contribution of PSL. These doubts relate to questions of value creation and an inability to change the existing political inequalities and pursuits. In addition, the lack of open-ended democratic debate is criticized (Dahl & Soss 2014). The doubts and criticism seem to represent the instrumental side of citizen participation while enhancing democratic values and changing the power structures attract less attention. An illustration is that PSL seems to emphasize the role of citizens mainly as service users influencing their own service path or service process but pays less attention to their role as active participants, influencing wider processes in the service system.

As a rather new concept PSL requires more conceptual and empirical research. We argue, that operationalization of its democratic contribution is in place, given that questions of democracy are an inseparable part of public governance and public service systems. The current research adopts a scoping review method to examine the democratic aspects of PSL. The specific interest of this paper is to combine questions of citizens’ roles with the concept of PSL. The guiding questions are: What varieties of citizens’ roles are found in the PSL discussion, and how do these roles interact with the democratic understanding of citizens’ roles?

By analysing the key studies on PSL alongside the role of citizens in value co-creation processes, this study challenges the existing discussion of PSL. It introduces new knowledge on PSL’s democratic potential, the associated limitations, and the relationship with citizens. The practical implications offered by the study relate to advancing the understanding of the evolving role of citizens, which also affects the role of public managers, professionals, and other experts. As such, the study enriches the discussion on PSL. Furthermore, the paper constructs an analytical framework on the topic to support further empirical research, which will be critical to understanding the prerequisites of PSL in public service organizations.

References

Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2023). The democratic quality of co-creation: A theoretical exploration. Public Policy and Administration, 09520767231170715.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.

Cui, T., & Osborne, S. P. (2022). Unpacking value destruction at the intersection between public and private value. Public Administration.

Dahl, A., & Soss, J. (2014). Neoliberalism for the common good? Public value governance and the downsizing of democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 496-504.

van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2022). The Public encounter and the role of citizens. In Hupe, P. (Ed.). The politics of the public encounter : What happens when citizens meet the state. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Ojasalo, J., & Kauppinen, S. (2022). Public Value in Public Service Ecosystems. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1-29.

Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation?. Public Management Review, 20(2), 225-231.

Osborne, S. P., Nasi, G., & Powell, M. (2020). Beyond co‐production: Value creation and public services. Public Administration, 99(4), 641‒657.

Osborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value creation in the public service ecosystem: An integrative framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634‒645.

The interest in co-creation as a collaborative approach to private and public value creation has proliferated over the past few years. Although the literature has highlighted the positive influence of co-creation and has generally discussed it with a positive tone (Parker et al., 2023, Vooberg et al, 2023: Torfint et al., 2016), a critical strand of research which emphasizes the potential of individual and public value co-destruction from engagement in service interactions has recently emerged (Engen et al., 2020; Järvi et al., 2018; Espersson & Westrup, 2020; Dudau et al., 2019). While the scholarly debate has focused mostly on the conditions and outcomes of value co-creation/co-destruction, less is known about the process itself. Moreover, existing research has predominantly focused on private and public sector organizations, hence scant attention has been devoted to the dynamics of value co-creation/co-destruction in the context of (formal) volunteering.

This study explores the process of private and public value co-creation in the context of volunteering in non-profit organizations. The study draws upon evidence from an NGO-initiated project in Norway where refugee, established immigrant, and native-born individuals volunteer together. We identify three dimensions of value co-creation and discuss the risk of value co-destruction in each of them. The study contributes to the existing body of literature on co-creation and to the emerging discussion on value co-destruction. The implications for practice are discussed.

Engagement of groups living in vulnerable circumstances in the co-creation of their own services has recently attracted increasing attention among both scholars and policymakers (Mulvale & Robert, 2021; Brandsen, 2020; Radl-Karimi et al., 2022; Tu, 2018; European Commission, 2020). Co-creation is seen as a potential means of empowering these groups by providing opportunities for greater participation and improving the quality of the services they receive. While previous research has explored the preconditions, means and barriers of involving different disadvantaged groups in co-creation processes, less attention has been given to the potential of co-creation for fostering immigrants’(socio-economic) integration in host countries. This study explores how immigrants’ participation in co-creation processes can support their integration. The paper first discusses the multi-faceted concept of ‘immigrant integration ‘and reviews key theoretical perspectives on immigrant integration. Subsequently, it explains how co-creation relates to each of these perspectives and reflects on the potential and barriers of co-creation for fostering immigrant integration. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed, and a research agenda for public administration and public management scholars is provided.

In this paper we argue for acknowledgement that youth are beneficiaries of the political rights stated in the Declaration of Human Rights (“UNDHR”) and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“UNCCPR”). Youth is an especially vulnerable part of society. As of 2021 30,25% of the global population was younger than 18 (United Nations, 2022). Therefore, the youth is the most disenfranchised group in global society.

Young people are considered not fully capable of recognising the effects of their actions (Chan and Clayton, 2006). They bear limited legal responsibility. The lack of legal majority is usually paired with the exclusion from political decision-making. However, recent research shows that people above 16 are mentally capable to recognise the effect of their voting decision. Their level of political knowledge (Wagner et al., 2012; Zeglovits and Zandonella, 2013) and willingness to participate is no different from that of ‘adults’ (Maheó and Belanger, 2020).

Participation benefits the youth. The topic of youth participation gained substantial recognition after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”). Its article 12(1) states that children have the right to form and express their own views. Those should be given due weight. This provision is a source of participatory rights, both in individual and collective decision-making (Checkoway, 2011).

Adoption of UNCRC resulted in increased academic interest in political participation of youth (Greene and Hogan, 2005; Shamrova and Cummings, 2017). It is worth noting that the majority of works are in the social psychology, educational studies, criminology and similar disciplines. The interest in administrative law and public administration is limited.

Youth participation is protected under UNCRC (Checkoway, 2011). Howerer, in this paper we want to highlight that youth participation is also subject to the protection of UNDHR and UNCCPR. Both documents contain provisions which grant every citizen the right to partake in the government of its own country. The scientific community, despite vague wording of the documents (Dryzek, 2016) recognise those as a source of the human right to political participation (Peter, 2012) or even democracy (Fahner, 2017). Yet, youth are subject to all of the human rights, expressed in UNDHR and UNCCPR, thus - why should they be exempt from the political rights?

Recognition of youth participatory rights obliges public authorities to safeguard those rights and enable their expression. Those must account for capabilities of the youth and requirements for their protection, in line with UNCRC. The inter-relations between the abovementioned legal acts require careful consideration.

The youth, being an especially vulnerable group, should have a say in all matters, whose consequences (climate change, pandemic etc.) disproportionately affects them, as they will be the majority of the population.