Public and its problems in government institutions: from customer orientation to co-production of services

The interaction of citizens ("public") with 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.

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 order. His opinion and experience are not taken into account.

Customer (New Public Management, 1980-2000s). Under the influence of market approaches, the citizen has become considered as a consumer of government services. The focus has shifted to convenience, speed, and quality of service. Service standards, MFCs ("one window"), satisfaction ratings have appeared. However, the essence remained 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 possessing unique knowledge, experience, and resources for joint resolution of public problems. The task of the institution is to create an environment for such partnership.

Key public problems and institutional responses

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

Answer: Digitization and "one window 2.0" principle.

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

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

2. Problem of dehumanization and ignoring context ("they do not hear me").

Answer: Personalization and proactive services.

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

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

3. Problem of collective, "uncomfortable" issues (improvement, ecology, territory development).

Answer: Participatory practices and co-production.

Example — the "Decidim" platform in Barcelona ("Let's 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. Part of the municipal budget is distributed according to proposals and voting by residents. This turns the public from passive critics into responsible co-managers.

4. Problem of feedback and feeling of uselessness of complaints.

Answer: Digital feedback tools with mandatory feedback loop.

Moscow platform "Our City": Allows to report 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 his signal has led to a change.

Analysis of the tone of appeals using NLP (Natural Language Processing): Allows to identify systemic problems and moods in a mass of complaints, not just react to each one 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). The solution requires maintaining and modernizing offline channels.

Tokenism: The risk of turning participation into formality when authorities simulate dialogue but do not take into account its results. Transparency rules and the obligation to account for decisions made with the participation of the public are needed for trust.

Overload of data and responsibility: Excessive involvement may lead to citizen fatigue and shifting responsibility from professional government agencies to amateur 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 participated in creating) works in the public sector as well. Studies show that citizens who have participated in co-production of services (such as in the discussion of park design) 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.

Conclusion: from solving problems to creating opportunities

The modern public institution, oriented towards the public, stops being just a "problem solver" by request. 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: Elimination of bureaucratic barriers through digitization 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 the data and time of the citizen.

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 of decisions). The public ceases to be an external element whose problems need to be "solved"; 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 increasing both the quality of services and citizen satisfaction.

Permanent link to this publication: