Analytical Lens for Investigating CSOs and State Relations: The Contributions of Coproduction and Institutional Logics Perspectives

5.1 CSOs-State Coproduction Processes Take Place in Institutional Fields

Institutions and their institutional logics are elements of organizational life that operate at various levels. They are present at the macro (societal) level of institutional orders, but also at the meso level, of institutional fields, and the micro level, of individuals and organizations. Coproduction, in turn, occurs at the latter two levels.

When it comes to the CSOs-state partnerships, we are talking about the meso level, the institutional fields. They are arenas of interaction between individual and organizational actors, who interact more among themselves than with other actors, according to a system of common meanings (Scott 2014) based on their relational/structural and symbolic/meaning dimensions (Machado-da-Silva, Guarido Filho, and Rossoni 2006).

These institutional fields are spaces of interaction where community and state logics generally predominate. It is worth noting that, although we are talking about two predominant logics that inform the nature of the functioning of the state and CSOs, as they operate in a variety of political spaces and in different areas of policies, other logics may also affect, for example, the public policy area sub logics, as health, education, culture, social assistance, among others.

By emphasizing the multiplicity of logics in the field of state and CSOs relations, we have that they relate to each other in such a way as to generate a new institutionality given by the interaction between actors and structures within this field, characterized here by the phenomenon of coproduction. The creation of this new institutionality is achieved through combinations of state and community institutional logics and materialized to the extent that there is a broad sharing of information, knowledge, experiences, organizational principles, values, and beliefs that affect the actors in this relationship.

The study by Gazley, Cheng, and Lafontant (2018) can be illustrative of this proposition. The authors discuss the dependence of some public services on charities, specifically in the case of national and state parks in the United States. We can infer from this case that there is a field, constituted by the government, responsible for these parks, and CSOs, defined by the authors as “friends of the parks” or “park foundations”, filled with actors that share common meanings concerning the importance of the preservation and maintenance of these parks. The sharing of meanings about fundraising and volunteering among these actors leads to the creation of a new institutionality in the face of the economic instabilities experienced in the field, which allows these goals to be achieved. It would not be possible without the participation of all the actors.

The same can be seen in Lotta’s (2017) discussions of coproduction arrangements in health care in Brazil. This area can be considered a field to the extent that it is a more consolidated and systematized policy area, and that has greater integration regarding intersectoral relations, given the existence of the Unified Health System (SUS) in the country. In this way, there is closer and more frequent interaction between health actors from different federation levels and different social sectors than with actors from other areas.

What we propose, therefore, is when such logics interacts in spaces dedicated to coproduction between state and CSOs, institutional new orders emerge. Furthermore, this recombination can occur in multiple ways and can generate different coproduced results.

5.2 Coproduction Encompasses the Mobilization of Institutional Logics’ Material and Symbolic Resources

If coproduction occurs from the active participation of actors from different organizations in the production of a good, service, or policy, it then depends on the mobilization by these actors of material and symbolic resources linked to institutional logics.

In her comparative study of community regeneration organizations in Sheffield, England, and Lyon, France, McMullin (2016) shows how differences in the norms, narratives, values, and assumptions of these organizations in each case, linked to the logics of service delivery and social solidarity, respectively, are translated into distinct coproduction activities. In the same sense, Andion, Becker, and Victor (2012), when discussing whether Brazilian Private Social Investment^[1] (ISP) is a form of coproduction of public goods, demonstrate how certain characteristics that make up the ISP hybrid logic (e.g. voluntary engagement, civic participation of individuals and organizations in the public sphere, etc.) influence the practice of coproduction in the country’s social sector.

In this way, we propose that, when applied to state and community logics, the sources of legitimacy of state and community logics, for example, respectively, democratic participation and the union of wills, and the belief in trust and reciprocity, are mobilized so that categories such as “active participation”, “catalyzing effect”, and “breaking down barriers” of coproduction can be boosted. Similarly, the “use of skills” of coproduction is linked to the employment of the strategy bases, sources of the agency, and structure of these logics, contained in Table 2.

5.3 Structural Mechanisms Influence Coproduction

Just as individuals and organizations influence the institutions of which they are a part, these institutions influence these individuals and organizations. According to new institutional theories, the actions of individuals and organizations are intertwined with their societal context, so it is impossible to explain either one without considering the other (Friedland and Alford 1991).

Studies on the motivations of different actors that lead them to coproduce (Alford 2009, 2014; Fledderus and Honingh 2016; Parks et al. 1981; Van Eijk and Steen 2014; Vanleene, Voets, and Verschuere 2015) usually give primacy to the agency of these actors, highlighting their willingness to participate in coproduction processes. However, it is necessary to question how reflexive these actors are and to consider, beyond the agency, the structural mechanisms involved in this participation decision.

By bringing institutional logics into the discussion of coproduction, we bring into play a contextual debate that has not yet been addressed through this theoretical lens. Actors, whether they are individuals or organizations, do not decide to participate in a co-productive activity based on a decision detached from context. Starting from this assumption means assuming the principles of rational choice (Simon 1965), based on voluntarism and decision-making established by precise calculations that lead to the final objective, in a way that means and ends are hierarchized. There are, however, structural mechanisms, such as regulatory mechanisms, that conform, promote, or restrict these decisions and actions.

This can be seen in the discussions made by Lino et al. (2019) regarding how regulatory mechanisms influence coproduction. The authors study Brazilian municipal health councils as latent spaces of coproduction, created by legal regulation through formal coordination mechanisms. They demonstrate that elements such as manuals and structured processes can support and facilitate coproduction. In this sense, material aspects, such as rules and structures, have the potential to promote or undermine the coproduction process within the councils from their translation by different institutional logics. In the same vein, McMullin (2020) demonstrates how changes in the partnership model for contracting and performance management between the state and CSOs that work to provide welfare services to the population in Sheffield, England, have created barriers to coproduction activities.

We can say that institutional logics shapes the interests and preferences of actors present in fields and how these translate into repertoires of behavior to be mobilized (Friedland and Alford 1991).

It is important to say that what we argue here is not the primacy of structures, but the recursiveness between structure and agency. Studies in institutional logics, while considering that institutions shape actions, highlight that these same institutions are the fruit of them (Cloutier and Langley 2014). Thus, coproduction and institutional logics should be conceived from a relational approach. This perspective seeks to explain how we understand and situate action, considering that both structure and agency should be thought about and their relations explored, taking into account how actors are inserted in a given social context and respond to the situations present within it (Battilana and D’aunno 2009; Emirbayer 1997).

5.4 Institutional Logics Brings both Collaboration and Conflict Dimensions into Coproduction Processes

One of the properties that characterize coproduced processes, according to the consolidated literature, is that of reciprocity: the establishment of a balanced and mutual relationship between coproducers, as placed in Table 1. This is a point that has been receiving criticism from several authors (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Goodwin 2018; Mitlin 2008) for its excessively functionalist view, which ignores that even in coproduced processes there are conflicts and asymmetries of power, capacity, and resources among the various actors involved.

Cultural and systemic impediments to the establishment of these reciprocal relationships are even more common when it comes to relationships established with the public sector, as is the case of partnerships between the state and CSOs. Ferreira’s (2015) paper about the crisis of the Welfare State in Portugal in the 2010s brings an example. According to the author, despite having instituted a Cooperation Protocol between CSOs confederations and the government, which established a set of measures aimed at the sustainability of some social policies through their coproduction, for a long period the government held substantial power on these organizations. The same can be seen in partnerships between the state and CSOs in France, where although there are clear examples of coproduction, “while the third sector is seen in some way as a partner, it is as a decidedly junior partner, controlled through regulations and conventions that determine its scope, purpose, and internal procedures.” (McMullin 2020, 8). It is in this sense that Bovaird and Loeffler (2012, 1121) state about the concept of coproduction: “it insists on an ‘equal and reciprocal relationship’, a condition which has been rarely encountered in the sphere of public services”.

Institutional logics bring to this discussion considerations of symbolic dimensions, which point to the differences between the participating actors, based on the logic to which they respond, will mediate possibilities of cooperation and conflicts.

By providing a set of organizational principles for actors to act upon at the individual, organizational, and societal levels, logics provides them with frames under which to justify their action. To the extent that institutional logics affect different levels, there is therefore a significance to action based on the choice made (Friedland and Alford 1991). Depending on how they affect a given space of interactions, institutional logics will shape what is done, in which direction: cooperation or conflict.

State and community institutional logics give direction to the various sets of actors through their different basic assumptions and characteristics, as occurs in the relations between the state and CSOs. From their interactions, different means and behaviors are available to the actors. It is from this narrow basis of action (Friedland and Alford 1991) that conflict occurs.

In their study on the implementation of the Regulatory Framework for Civil Society Organizations (Law 13019 of 2014), which regulates partnerships between the government and CSOs in Brazil, Holanda and Mendonça (2022) show how the government and CSOs’ institutional logics do not establish a relationship free of conflicts and disputes, yet the actors still manage to coproduce the law implementation. The same is discussed by Rasmussen, Skjerning, and Burau (2023) who show that in the processes coproduced by municipal administrations and voluntary sports clubs in Denmark, there is both conflict and complementarity of institutional logics.

Similarly, the theory of institutional logics helps to understand also how it occurs, from the understanding of how central different logics are to an organization or field – the level at which they are all important, occupying fundamental positions –, and how compatible they are – the degree to which they agree on the means and ends to be achieved (Besharov and Smith 2014). This discussion will be further developed below.

5.5 Coproduction Helps Operationalize Studies in Institutional Logics

Institutional logics are characterized by manifesting themselves in very broad, abstract categories that are difficult to operationalize empirically. To overcome this issue, their association with distinct theoretical, methodological, and phenomenological approaches is necessary (Durand and Thornton 2018).

What this essay proposes is that the association at the theoretical level of the pieces of literature of institutional logics and coproduction allows for greater operationalization of the former at least on two points.

First, we suggest that to the same extent that institutional logics may support the understanding of conflict in coproduced processes, coproduction categories applied by scholars may collaborate in understanding how conflicting institutional logics reconcile.

How participation and exchanges between networks are mobilized, and how the resources, capabilities, and incentives addressed in co-production are used can be interesting keys to better understanding the combination of different logics or even the emergence of new logics in partnerships between the government and CSOs (Bovaird et al. 2019).

The exchanges between institutional logics do not always occur in the same way, conditioning the construction of meaning to different spaces and times, as shown by studies on hybridity in the new institutional literature (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Denis, Ferlie, and Van Gestel 2015). As Cloutier and Langley (2014) state, studies in institutional logics have not yet produced typologies of how this happens. The categories mobilized by coproduction (Table 1) could then help operationalize analyses that seek to mobilize institutional logics to understand how interactions between actors with different worldviews produce meaningful results in goods, services, and policies.

In their study on social partnerships between Corporate Social Responsibility actors and CSOs in China, Yin and Jamali (2021) highlight how, despite their contrasting business and social logics, the partnerships achieved varying levels of outcome values. In this case, despite some level of conflict, there was also conciliation. Using this example, we can say that active participation, one of the characteristics of the coproduction process, was fundamental to this result.

Another example can be seen in the paper of Vickers et al. (2017). In their study, the authors show how the logics of the state, market, and civil society, present in the context of social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing services in England, despite their tensions, act in a process of coproduction of public innovation. In this scenario, the organizational strategies and practices that facilitate the creative interaction between logics, and its reconciliation, are related to several of the requirements for co-production (Table 1): the use of the pre-existing skills of all the actors, the encouragement of participation, the redesign of processes, among others.

Second, we propose that the coproduction literature offers the institutional logics lens mechanisms of analysis that highlight the outcomes of the processes of production of goods, services, and policies in more concrete terms while allowing us to observe the influence of institutional logics on what is produced in coproduction processes, a topic addressed below.

5.6 Institutional Logics Influences Coproduced Results

We have already suggested that institutional logics can collaborate in understanding the motivation that leads actors to coproduce by bringing to light the structural and symbolic mechanisms that shape the decisions of these actors. We now propose to understand the effects of institutional logics on coproduced outcomes.

What we suggest here is that different forms of incidence of institutional logics generate different coproduced results. In this sense, the co-produced results can be different, even when dealing with similar processes, depending on the degrees of centrality – “the extent to which these logics manifest in core features that are central to organizational functioning” – and compatibility – “the extent to which the instantiations of multiple logics within an organization imply consistent organizational actions” – of institutional logics manifested in the fields in which the interactions occur (Besharov and Smith 2014, 365).

What the coproduction literature has demonstrated is the contingency of these processes, and their main categories alone, have not accounted for a deeper understanding of why different co-producers engage, why it is necessary to consider how they are immersed in their institutional fields: what relative position they occupy, what forms of rationalization they use, mediated by institutional logics (Bovaird et al. 2019; Nederhand, Van Der Steen, and Van Twist 2019).

In the case of partnerships between the state and CSOs, even if there is coproduction, in the sense of the indispensability of the active participation of the coproducers in the production process, the various possible combinations between levels of centrality and compatibility will generate different results, as our model shows:

1. High centrality and compatibility: the state and community logics are considered equally important in the process and there is a convergence on the means and/or ends to be adopted and achieved, generating results that can assume a hybrid form of the conceptions that feed into these two logics;

   Holanda and Mendonça (2022) work on the implementation of the Regulatory Framework for Civil Society Organizations study coproduction spaces called Councils for Fostering and Collaboration in two Brazilian cases: the municipality of Belo Horizonte and the state of Bahia. It was observed that in Belo Horizonte there was a harmonious coexistence between the logics of public authorities and CSOs, considered equally important and with aligned objectives so that the results achieved (e.g.: capacity building, changes in process flows, etc.) carried characteristics of both actors.

2. High centrality and low compatibility: the state and community logics are considered equally important in the process, but they disagree as to the means and/or ends to be adopted and reached, generating highly disputed results that may tend towards the conceptions of either logic;

   In the same study mentioned above, Holanda and Mendonça (2022) show that in Bahia, although the participation of state and CSOs actors was considered equally important, the goals established between them were very disputed, leading to disputed results that ended up tending towards CSOs characteristics (e.g.: greater incentives for democratic participation).

3. Low centrality and high compatibility: one of the logics is considered more important than the other in the process, but both agree on the means and/or ends to be adopted and reached, generating results that can assume a hybrid form of the conceptions that feed these two logics. In this case, in the face of sporadic disagreements, the logic that is considered more important tends to have more influence on actor’s decisions;

   In McMullin’s (2020) study on partnerships between government and CSOs in Lyon, France, when she says that CSOs are “junior partners”, we can infer that there is a logic in these relations that is considered more important, that of the government. Nevertheless, government and CSOs have common goals concerning community development and local social support. In this way, what is co-produced tends to have characteristics closer to those of the government. An example of this is the formalization of coproduction in pre-defined models of citizen participation to the detriment of more innovative approaches.

4. Low centrality and compatibility: one of the logics is considered more important than the other in the process, and they disagree as to the means and/or ends to be adopted and reached, generating results aligned to the conceptions of the predominant logic. If it is the state logic, the results may be influenced in the sense that they correspond more to its operating rationality, based on bureaucratic domination and process hierarchization, for example. If it is the community logic, these results may be linked to the community’s values and ideologies.

   That is a hypothesis based on the other results found. We have found no examples of its practical application in the consolidated literature.