University of the Philippines

National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG)

UP Diliman Campus, Diliman, Quezon City

ENHANCING CO-PRODUCTION AS PUBLIC

SECTOR INNOVATION IN THE
AGRICULTURE SECTOR
Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)

Jhon Dave E. Llanto

(Doctoral Candidate)

June 30, 2020

 Introduction

• Co-production - an emerging trend in public management in the 21st century (Ryan, 2012a)
• System of service provision (Vamstad, 2012)
• Active participation of citizen from the design to delivery and “revolutionary solution to public service
reform” (Strokosch, 2019)
• Present in all stages of public service cycle (Sicilia et. al, 2016)
• Driver to improve public valued outcomes
• A “specific kind of citizen participation” where citizens play an “active and direct role” in service delivery
(Brandsen et al., 2020) as service-users together with the public sector organizations in the implementation
by giving “input” to enhance public service delivery (Fledderus & Honingh, 2015).
 Research Gap
Co-production Area No. of CP PAG articles

Healthcare 23
Social Services
Environment
19
15
No research conducted
General Public Sector
Safety and Security
12
10
in the agriculture sector
Article Review 10
Information Communication and Technology 9
Education 9
Senior Citizen 7
Employment 7 Agriculture remains a vital indicator of
Climate/Climate Change 6 development in terms of its share in local
Participation 6 employment (PSA, 2018)
Persons with Disability (PWDs) 5
Childcare 5 Declining, underperforming and lagging
Sustainability 3
performance in GDP share (OECD, 2017)
Urban 3
Housing 3
Immigration/ Asylum 2 Possible area to address is to enhance
Water 2 innovation in the agriculture sector
Justice 2
Others 11
Source: Generated by the author from different sources. Based on the systematic literature review of PAG indexed journals
 Research Questions
General Question:
How does co-production as public sector innovation enhance the R&D programs of the agriculture sector?
Specific questions:
1. What contextual factors (personal characteristics, willingness to co-produce, attitude, and
collective/shared values) affect co-production and how do they influence the institutional arrangements of
R&D programs in the agriculture sector?
2. What are the institutional arrangements (action situation/action arena, actors’ inputs, rules-in-use) and how
do these arrangements through the patterns of interaction affect co-production in the R&D programs of
agriculture?
3. What are the patterns of interactions’ dynamics and its effect in the outcome of co-production of R&D
programs of agriculture sector?
4. What co-production values or public sector values are present and what is the level of these values in the
R&D programs of the agriculture sector?
5. What co-production values/public sector values affect the patterns of interactions in the R&D programs of
agriculture sector?
6. How do these public sector values affect or enhance the outcome in the co-production of R&D programs
in the agriculture sector?
 Research Objectives
General objective:
To enhance the co-production of R&D programs in the agriculture sector in the Philippines.
Specific objectives:
1. Determine the contextual factors (personal characteristics, willingness to co-produce, attitude, and
collective/shared values) that affect co-production and their influence on the institutional arrangements of
R&D programs in the agriculture sector.
2. Describe the institutional arrangements (action situation/action arena, actors’ inputs, rules-in-use) and
determine how these arrangements through patterns of interactions affect the co-production in the R&D
programs agriculture.
3. Describe the patterns of interactions dynamics and its effect to the outcome of co-production of R&D
programs of agriculture sector .
4. Identify the co-production values or public sector values present and evaluate the level of these values in
the R&D programs of the agriculture sector.
5. Describe the public sector values that affect the patterns of interactions in the co-production of R&D
programs of agriculture sector
6. Determine the public sector values that affect or enhance the outcome of the co-production of R&D
programs of the agriculture sector.
 Themes/Typologies of CP
Public Service Delivery Technique Governance Mechanism Technique
• Uses variety of governance technique • It has a strategy
• Variation in the level of governance • Has desired service delivery objectives
• Different roles of actors

Public Service Innovation

• Variety of public sector innovation
• To produce values
• New idea creating public value
• New ideas, processes, policies, procedures, technology, or services

Policy Instrument System of Service Provision

• Recognizes the importance of context • Address social and human needs
• It has a design
• Objectives in policy instruments
• Personalized delivery
• Identification, engagement, and dialogues of actors • Need for collaboration and networking
• The implementation
• The policy outcomes
 Significance of the Study

Theory Practice

• Examine the foreign concept in the local • Understand the principle of people
setting as unescapable part of public service empowerment in AFMA
delivery • Improve the co-production design in the
• Provide additional knowledge to the scant agriculture sector
literatures mostly found in European and
first world countries
• Clear concept of CP and how to enhance
Philippine agriculture sector
 Theoretical Framework
The General Underpinning Theories of Co-Production

The Collective Action Theory

The theory suggests that the action performed is aimed to enhance the status and to achieve
the desired objective and to address the social dilemma. Ostrom (2009) asserted that the
theory of bounded-rationality and norm-based behavior can explain a collective action.

The Institutions Theory

This theory seeks to understand the role of the institutions in policy choices. Peters (2016)
identified the different versions of institutional theory such as normative institutionalism,
rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, and discursive institutionalism
(p. 59)

The Systems Theory

Initially proposed by Bertalanffy (1928) that a system could be broken down into
components where each component could be analyzed independently. This also postulates
that changes in the component of the system could affect the other parts of it.
 Conceptual Framework
Co-Production as Public Sector Innovation in the R&D Programs of Agriculture Sector
Contextual Factors
Attributes of the Community Institutional Arrangements
Action Situation
Personal Characteristics (Bovaird et al., (action arena)
2016)
•Age Monthly income Co-production process in
Patterns of Evaluative Criteria
•Gender Source of income CPAR and NTCP
Interaction
•Educational level Other source of income
•Location • Effectiveness
•Ethnic Background • Efficiency
Willingness to Co-Produce (van Eijk & Actors • Legitimacy
Steen, 2014) • Accountability
•Motivations Service Producer Inputs • Participation
➢Intrinsic Outcome
Service User Inputs • Inclusion
➢Extrinsic
➢Altruism Rules-in-use Enhanced Co- • Quality
•Other Motivation Factors (Fledderus & Rules Production in the • Involvement
Honingh, 2016) Boundaries
R&D Program of • Engagement
➢Perceived Control Authority
Agriculture Sector
Attitude in Co-Production (Bovaird et al., Aggregation
2015); (Bovaird et al., 2016) Scope
Collective/Shared Values Information
•Trust (Yang & Pandey, 2011) Payoffs
•Social Capital (Andrews, 2011)

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework: A Modified IAD for the Analysis of Co-Production of R&D Programs in the Agriculture Sector; Source: Modified Basic Component of the IAD Framework. Source: Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom (2010, p. 646)
 THE SETTING
Community-Based Participatory Action Research (CPAR)
• The CPAR is a banner program for research and development along with the extension to transfer agriculture
and fisheries mature technologies for community adoption.
• an innovative program solution to improve the conditions of the community and to contribute to modernizing
the agriculture sector (DA-BAR, 2012).
• The objectives of the program are to (1) enhance the role of RD&E in technology transfer and production
management system; (2) institutionalize active community participation
• The benefits are to provide (1) additional funds for local agriculture and fisheries mandates; (2) improved
technical capacity of local agriculture offices; (3) increased productivity; (4) improved product quality; and (5)
empowerment of project beneficiaries.
National Technology Commercialization Program (NTCP)
• The NTCP is one of the major programs of BAR that highlights research breakthroughs and mature
technologies that were generated and developed by R&D institutions used to prepare emerging technologies
towards enhancing the added value of products and processes. The development of enterprises based on
activities using technology transfer, adoption, utilization, and commercialization
(www.bar.gov.ph/programs/major-programs).
 METHODOLOGY
Study Design Phase Data Collection Phase Case Analysis Phase
Within Case Stage Between Case Stage

Pilot Case Study Case Report 1

Case Study Cross-Case Analysis
Selection Criteria

Case Report 2

Develop Data Collection Refine Data Case Report 3

Theory Protocol Collection

Case Report 4

- Instrument Case Study - Implications

Case Report 5
- Procedures - Findings
- General - Conclusions
Rules Case Report 6

Figure 4. Case Study Research Design; Source: Adopted from Yin (1994) and Kumar (2019)
 Study Design
Research Design. A case study research design using the convergent parallel mixed-
method strategy

Case Study Selection Criteria

1. Institutionalized participation in the policy process /program
2. Active engagement of the service users and producers
3. There is an involvement of stakeholders (implemention)
4. Both service users and service producers provide input in the process
5. There is an external actor (non-state actors)
 Study Design
Data Collection Protocol.
1. Overview of the research (name of the researcher and affiliation, title, research
questions and objectives)
2. Field procedures (case study site selection, sources of information, and procedural
reminder answering questions)
3. Case study questions (specific questions for collecting data, sources of information)
4. Case study guide (outline, narrative format, documentation of information) (Yin,
2003, p. 70)

Research Instrument
Survey questionnaire (five parts) and interview guide (six parts each)
 Study Design
Research Instrument: Survey Questionnaire
P1 – Personal P2 – Willingness to co- P3 – Attitude in co- P4 – Collective/Shared P5 – Evaluative
Characteristics produce production values criteria
a. Name of organization a. Motivation (intrinsic) a. Efficacy of service a. Trust a. Effectiveness
b. Educational level b. Motivation (extrinsic) users • Generalized trusts b. Efficiency
c. Location c. Altruism b. Government • Interpersonal trust c. Legitimacy
d. Tribe d. Other motivational performance • Trust in the work d. Accountability
e. Monthly income factors c. Government • Trust in the e. Participation
i. Information information municipality
f. Mains source of f. Inclusion
income provision d. Government • Trust in g. Quality
ii. Inclusion/consultati consultation government and
g. Other source of h. Involvement
income on e. Organizational politics
conditions i. Engagement
iii.Satisfaction w/ b. Social capital
govt./community • Community org’l
services life
iv.Perceived control • Engagement in
public affairs
• Community
volunteerism
• Informal sociability
• Social trust
 Study Design
Research Instrument: Interview Guide
P4 –
P1 – Personal P2 – Willingness to P3 – Attitude in co- P5 - Patterns of P6 – Public service
Collective/Shared
Characteristics co-produce production Interaction values
values
a. Name of a. Things willing to a. Perceived attitude a. Trust and its a. Process of a. Values created
organization provide in the b. Level of attitude importance Program b. Developed values
b. Educational level program on the indicators b. Social capital and b. Engagement/ in the program
c. Location b. Motivation its importance interaction
d. Tribe/Ethnicity c. Factors of c. Interesting
e. Position in the motivation patterns of
org’n interaction
f. Monthly income
g. Mains source of
income
h. Other source of
income
 Study Design
Four (4) Design Tests
Research Stage/ Tests Methods/ Tactics
Process
Research Design External Validity IAD Framework
Six case studies (CPAR and NTCP)
Common commodity
Data Collection Construct validity Primary sources: interviews; survey instrument
Secondary sources: techno guide pamphlets,
operations manuals of the programs, memorandum
circulars, and other policy instruments.
Reliability Case study protocol; interview guide; case study
database
Data Analysis Internal validity Pattern matching; rival explanations; Cronbach’s
alpha
 Data Collection
Data Gathering Procedure
4th Stage 3rd Stage 2nd Stage 1st Stage

• Selection of case study area • Assessment of • Identification of • Preliminary survey

presence/absence of citizen projects/programs in the DA
engagement agencies

Research Participants
Case Study Area R&D Program Location No. of Registered sample size
Members (N=646) (n=242)
RFO 12 Soybean Farmers 1 Commercialization of Organically Grown Soybean Region XII N1 = 140 n1 = 52
RFO 12 Soybean Farmers 2 Commercialization of Organically Grown Soybean Region XII N2 = 85 n2 = 32
RFO 12 Soybean Farmers 3 Development of Commercial Organic Soybean Region XII N3 = 157 n3 = 59
LBGA Banana Isulan, Sultan Kudarat N4 = 54 n4 = 20
TCBGA Banana Pres. Quirino, Sultan Kudarat N5 = 95 n5 = 36
BCBGA Banana Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat N6 = 115 n6 = 43
 Data Collection
Documentary Analysis
Secondary sources: techno guide pamphlets, operations manuals of the programs, memorandum circulars,
and other policy instruments

Pilot Study and Pre-Testing.

• 20 survey questionnaires for pre-testing
• Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α ≥ .8 ) for internal consistency and scale
reliability of SQ

Structured Interview
implementor leaders and leaders of farmer associations and farmer cooperators.
 Data Analysis
Case Analysis: Quantitative
Contextual factors (CF): CF: Willingness to CF: Perceived attitude; Level of public service
Personal characteristics: co-produce and collective/shared values:
values
name of organization; Level of Motivation:
educational level; 5 - Always (A) 5 - Very High (VH) 5 - Strongly Agree (SA)
location; tribe; age; 4 - Oftentimes (O) 4 - High (H) 4 - Agree (A)
gender; monthly income; 3 - Sometimes (S) 3 - Neutral (N) 3 – Neutral (N)
main source of income; 2 - Rarely (R) 2 - Low (L) 2 – Disagree (D)
and other source of 1 - Never (N) 1 - Very Low (VL) 1 - Strongly Disagree (SD)
income) – Frequency
counts and averages Likert scale Likert scale Likert scale
 Data Analysis
Case Analysis: Qualitative
• within case analysis - individual case reports
• between case analysis - comparing different cases to have findings, conclusions, and implications

Statistical Analysis
• Frequency count, percentage, and weighted mean
• Data triangulation used to strengthen the quantitative results
• A coding process will be used from the interview to expound discussions
• All statistical analysis will use Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
 Data Analysis
Hypotheses Testing
Ho1: relationship of contextual factors and institutional arrangements
r value range Interpretation
0.90 - 1.00 (- 0.90 to - 1.00) - very high positive (negative)correlation
0.70 - 0.89 (-0.70 to - 0.89) - high positive (negative) correlation
0.50 - 0.69 (-0.50 to - 0.69) - moderate positive (negative) correlation
0.30 - 0.49 (-0.30 to - 0.49) - low positive (negative) correlation
0.00 - 0.29 (-0.00 to - 0.29) - negligible correlation

Ho2: influence of contextual factors and public sectors values

Multiple linear regression analysis to measure the contextual factors as explanatory variables to predict the
outcome in the public sector values
 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
Objective Concept/Variable Indicator Measurement Method of data collection/
Sources of information
Obj 1. Personal a) Name of organization; b) Educational level; c) Frequency count; mean Survey/ Socio-economic
Determine characteristics Location; d) Tribe; e) Age; f) Gender; g) count/averages profile of service users
contextual factors Monthly income; h) Main source of income; i)
Other source of income
Willingness to co- a) Motivation (intrinsic) Level of Motivation: QUAN +QUAL
produce b) Motivation (extrinsic) 5 - Always (A) Survey and Interview
c) Altruism 4 - Oftentimes (O)
d) Other motivational factors (Information 3 - Sometimes (S)
provision; Inclusion/ consultation; Satisfaction w/ 2 - Rarely (R)
govt./community services; Perceived control 1 - Never (N)
Attitude in co- a) Efficacy of service users; Perceived attitude; and QUAN +QUAL
production b) Government performance; collective/shared values Survey and Interview
c) Government information;
d) Government consultation; 5 - Very High (VH)
e) Organizational conditions 4 - High (H)
Collective/shared a) Trust 3 - Neutral (N) QUAN +QUAL
values b) Social capital (Community org’l life; 2 - Low (L) Survey and Interview
Engagement in public affairs; Community 1 - Very Low (VL)
volunteerism; Informal sociability; Social trust)
 Objective Concept/Variable Indicator Measurement Sources of info/ Method
of data collection
Relationship of Personal characteristics, Likert scale and weighted QUAN
contextual factors willingness to collab; attitude; mean; Pearson correlation Survey
and institutional collective/shared values and
arrangement institutional arrangements
Obj 2. Institutional a) Rules; b) Norms; Qualitative QUAN +QUAL
Describe institutional arrangements c) Behavior; d) Policies; Survey and Interview
arrangements and effect to the e) Power dynamics;
outcome f) Implementation
Actors input a) Service users; Qualitative; Quantitative QUAN +QUAL
b) Service producers Survey and Interview
Action situation a) Rules; b) Boundaries; c) Qualitative; Quantitative QUAN +QUAL
Authority; d) Scope; e) Survey and Interview
Information; f) Payoff
Obj 3. Patterns of Themes generated from the Qualitative QUAN +QUAL
Describe patterns of interaction interactions; interview Survey and Interview
and effect to the outcome Outcome of CP
Obj 4. PSV; level of PSV For survey questionnaire: Level of PSV: QUAN +QUAL
Identify CP values/public sector a) Effectiveness; b) 5 - Strongly Agree (SA) Survey and Interview
values (PSV); evaluate the level Efficiency; c) Legitimacy; d) 4 - Agree (A)
Accountability; 3 – Neutral (N)
e) Participation; 2 – Disagree (D)
f) Inclusion; g) Quality; h) 1 - Strongly Disagree (SD)
Involvement; (i) Engagement
 Objective Concept/Variable Indicator Measurement Sources of info/
Method of data
collection
For interview:
a) Process; b)
Program;
c) Funding; d) Service
users; e) Service
producer
Obj 5. PSV; Patterns of PSV as evaluative Qualitative Survey questionnaire
Describe PSV that affect interactions criteria (quanti) and and interview
patterns of interactions patterns of interactions
(quali)
Obj 6. PSV; and outcome PSV as evaluative Likert scale; weighted Survey questionnaire
Determine PSV that affect criteria mean: Multiple linear
the outcome regression (quanti)
 Study Timeline
2019 2020 2021

1st Sem 2nd Sem MID 1st Sem 2nd Sem MID

S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J

Proposal 1st draft

2nd draft

3rd draft

4th draft

Proposal defense

Data gathering

Discussion writeup

Dissert 1st draft

2nd draft

3rd draft

Dissert defense

Dissert final draft v1

Dissert final draft v2

Submit hardbound
Thank You!!!