The Public and Its Problems in Government Institutions: From Customer Orientation to Co-Production of Services

The interaction between citizens ("the public") and government institutions evolves from the paternalistic model of "petitioner-official" to the paradigm of "customer-centricity" and further to the concept of "co-production" (co-production) of public services. Solving the public's problems today is a complex process that requires restructuring institutions, introducing technologies, and changing the management culture.

The Evolution of Perception of the Public: From Object to Partner

Passive beneficiary (traditional model). The citizen is an object of administrative influence, receiving a standardized service by decree. Their opinion and experience are not taken into account.

Customer (New Public Management, 1980s-2000s). Under the influence of market approaches, the citizen has become considered as a consumer of public services. The focus has shifted to convenience, speed, and quality of service. Service standards, MFCs ("one window"), satisfaction ratings have appeared. However, the essence remains reactive: the institution responds to the request but does not involve the citizen in creating the service.

Partner in co-production (modern Public Governance paradigm). Citizens and communities are recognized as active agents with unique knowledge, experience, and resources for joint solving public problems. The task of the institution is to create an environment for such partnership.

Key Public Problems and Institutional Responses

1. The problem of complexity and opacity ("where to run and what to sign?").

Answer: Digitization and the "One Window 2.0" principle.

Example — Estonia and X-Road: Citizens enter data once (the principle of Once-Only), and the system itself distributes them between departments. A social benefit application can be automatically checked for compliance with criteria using data from income, property, and family registers.

Russia's state services portal: Consolidation of hundreds of services in one point of access, which has sharply reduced transaction costs for citizens.

2. The problem of deindividuation and context ignoring ("I am not heard").

Answer: Personalization and proactive services.

Example — Singapore, the "LifeSG" platform: Based on data about age, family, place of residence, the application itself offers users relevant services and support (enrollment in a kindergarten, tax benefits, programs for the elderly). The institution anticipates the need.

Service Design: A methodology implemented in advanced government agencies (for example, in the UK — Government Digital Service). The institution studies the user's journey (user journey) from recognizing the problem to its resolution, identifying and eliminating "pain points." The design of the service is created with the participation of future users.

3. The problem of collective, "uncomfortable" issues (amenities, ecology, territorial development).

Answer: Participatory practices and co-production.

Example — the "Decidim" platform in Barcelona ("Decide"): Allows not only to vote for proposals but also to collectively develop, comment on, track the budget, and stages of implementation. Citizens become co-authors of urban policies.

Participatory Budgeting: From practices in Porto Alegre (Brazil) to Russian cities. A portion of the municipal budget is distributed based on residents' proposals and voting. This turns the public from passive critics into responsible co-managers.

4. The problem of feedback and the feeling of uselessness of complaints.

Answer: Digital feedback tools with an obligatory feedback loop.

Moscow's "Our City" platform: Allows reporting problems in the city with geolocation and photos. The request receives a number, the status of its consideration is publicly tracked, and the result (filled pothole, removed garbage) is fixed. The key is "closing the feedback loop": the citizen sees that their signal led to a change.

Analysis of the tone of appeals using NLP (Natural Language Processing): Allows identifying systemic problems and moods in a mass of complaints, not just responding to each individually.

Challenges and Risks of New Approaches

Digital inequality: Deepening the gap between those who can effectively use digital channels and vulnerable groups (elderly, low-income, illiterate). A solution requires maintaining and modernizing offline channels.

Data overload and responsibility: Over-involvement can lead to citizen fatigue and shifting responsibility from professional government agencies to non-professional activists.

Data ethics: Proactive and personalized services require processing large volumes of personal data, which creates risks for privacy and requires the highest standards of protection.

Fact: The "IKEA" Effect in Public Administration

The psychological phenomenon known as the "IKEA effect" (people value more what they have created themselves) works in the public sector as well. Studies show that citizens involved in co-production of services (such as in discussing the design of a park) demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction with the result and trust in the authorities, even if the final decision does not fully coincide with their initial preferences. Value is created by the process of co-participation itself.

Conclusion: From Problem Solving to Creating Opportunities

The modern public institution, oriented towards the public, stops being just a "problem solver" based on requests. It becomes a platform and a facilitator, creating conditions under which citizens and communities can effectively solve their problems with the support of the state.

Successful interaction is built on three principles:

Accessibility and simplicity: Eliminating bureaucratic barriers through digitalization and process redesign.

Dialogue and involvement: Creating institutional channels for meaningful participation where the voice of the public influences decisions.

Trust and transparency: Ensuring predictability, accountability, and respect for citizens' data and time.

The future of an effective state lies in the ability to combine the power of technology (for personalization and efficiency) with the wisdom of the crowd (for legitimacy and innovation in decisions). The public ceases to be an external element whose problems need to be "resolved"; it becomes an integral part of the governance system, and its activity becomes the main resource for the development of public goods. In this transition from the "state for the people" model to the "state with the people" model — the key to improving both the quality of services and public satisfaction.

Permanent link to this publication: