commons. (…) Exploring heritage as a commons requires us to carry out in-depth empirical research in specific heritage contexts while at the same time evolving internal disciplinary knowledge practices.”43 Some of the most inspiring work on commons was produced by Elinor Ostrom who also launched the concept of co-production.44
On co-production, co-management and the reorganization of power Co-production is a concept appearing widely in discussions about social governance and public value production. It was defined by Governance International as “the public sector and citizens making better use of each other’s assets and resources to achieve better outcomes and improved efficiency.”45 The term co-production as it was originally coined in the late 1970s by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues, radically reframed the potential role of “users” and “professionals” in the process of producing services, and was later developed by Edgar S. Cahn in the concept of “core economy” framing specialized services dealing with crime, education, care, health and so on to be all underpinned by the family, the neighbourhood, community and civil society. The concept of co-production was not launched to promote civic consultation or participation. It should be made clear that its point was not to involve people more in decision making; it was to encourage every actor involved to use the human skills and experience they have to help broaden and deepen public services so that they are no longer the preserve of professionals, but a shared responsibility, both building and using a multi-faceted network of mutual support.46 A new agenda emerged from this thinking; challenging the way professionals are expected to work, and policy-makers who are setting targets as indicators of success; It was a call for an alternative way of doing things and improving (and explaining why) things not going so well. This made a shift from output to outcome. Those origins of the concept of co-production risk making it linger in a context and vision of “public service”, which does not fully fit the assets of intangible heritage, which are not a service to be delivered but a commons to be safeguarded. We might however also conceive the policy making as the service intended. This brings again the aspect of involvement in decision-making and sharing of power to the forefront.
43 P. Alfonso Gonzalez, “From a given to a construct, Heritage as a commons”, https://www.academia. edu/3492529/From_a_Given_to_a_Construct_Heritage_as_a_Commons (25-05-2014). 44 For an elaborate bibliography on commons and related concepts: http://www.collective-action.info/ (26.08.2014). 45 http://www.govint.org/our-services/co-production/ (25-05-2014). 46 New economics foundation. “Co-production: A manifesto for growing the core economy”. London, 2008. http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/co-production (25-05-2014).
volkskunde 2014 | 3 : 319-337
333