CONCEPT OF CO-PRODUCTION AND THE URBAN POOR'S HOUSING CHALLENGE IN BANGLADESH

Rabaya Nusrath  Niva; Samia  Zabeen; Tamanna Sultana  Swarna; Fahria Momtaz  Lima

doi:10.53808/KUS.2022.ICSTEM4IR.0252-se

Authors

Rabaya Nusrath Niva Faculty of Engineering, Department of Architecture, Premier University, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Samia Zabeen Lecturer, Department of Architecture, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh
Tamanna Sultana Swarna Lecturer, Department of Architecture, Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology, Rajshahi, Bangladesh
Fahria Momtaz Lima M. Arch Student, Department of Architecture, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53808/KUS.2022.ICSTEM4IR.0252-se

Keywords:

co-production; urban poor; housing; community participation; global south

Abstract

Co-production is more than an idea; it is a gathering of thoughts collaborating to find common results. Co-production within the community becomes successful when the community people lead their processes themselves. Through this theme, the communities can enhance their capacity to respond constructively to future problems. Besides, community people, the government, and other organizations play important roles in regulating, financing, and managing the whole process, being potential actors. Slowly, a transformation is taking place in the relationships between the stakeholders—that is, being equal partners in development. This type of relationship strengthens the sustainability of community development initiatives. In some cases, the application of co-production at the grassroots for a better life has encountered numerous challenges limiting participation at various levels. Our study aims at exploring the concept of co-production in housing scenarios, identifying the outcomes of this concept by indicating active roles encountering diverse ways that actors and participants may face challenges to make it successful in the housing process. This paper also focuses on finding out the benefits and drawbacks of co-production in housing and the effectiveness of management policies in the context of Bangladesh. For achieving these objectives, an effective literature review of the existing knowledge on this theme of “Co-Production” has been followed as the study methodology. The results from this study depict that co-production within a community can be an alternative approach to addressing the housing issues of the underprivileged community of society. Although having the challenges of socio-economic and political dynamics, a flexible participatory approach to co-production can be successful in Bangladesh, with an appropriate management policy undertaken by the stakeholders.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “Exit” and “Voice”. World Development, 32(3), 447-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015

Alam, M., & Baidya, E. U. (2019). Empowering the urban poor through the participatory planning process: A case from Jhenaidah, Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 3(2), 47-54. https://doi.org /10.25034/ijcua.2018.4700

Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients Coproduce? Administration & Society, 34(1), 32-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702034001004

Begum, H., Heywood, P. R., & Susilawati, C. (2018). Assisted Community Housing Initiative in Dhaka. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 9(2), 214-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425318783573

Boonyabancha, S., & Kerr, T. (2018). Lessons from CODI on Co-production. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2), 444-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818791239

Bevington, C. B. (1992). Collaborative communities: Cohousing, central living, and other new forms of housing with shared facilities. Landscape Journal, 11(2), 190-192. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.11.2.190

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007. 00773.x

Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427-435. https://doi.org /10.1111/puar.12465

Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector, and the delivery of public services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022874

Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/975300

Czischke, D. (2017). Collaborative housing and housing providers: Towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing Co-production. International Journal of Housing Policy, 18(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593

Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The Global South. Contexts, 11(1), 12-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1536504212436479

Jarvis, H. (2015). Community-led housing and ‘Slow’ opposition to corporate development: Citizen participation as common ground? Geography Compass, 9(4), 202-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/ gec3.12206

Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalized Co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00220380410001673184

McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. (1988). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves, Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press.

Mitlin, D. (2008). With and beyond the state — co-production is a route to political influence, power, and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247808096117

Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x

Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001-1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x

Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G., Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2013). Correlates of Co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85-112. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10967494.2013.796260

Poocharoen, O., & Ting, B. (2013). Collaboration, Co-production, networks: Convergence of theories. Public Management Review, 17(4), 587-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.866479

Rahman, M. (2019). Community Driven Development (CDD) in Bangladesh: Critical Analysis of Successes and Failures in Rural settings, 7-42.

Diyono, G. (2013). Learning from the management and development of current self-organized and community-oriented co-housing projects in Berlin, (Unpublished master’s thesis), Berlin University of Technology, Berlin.

Usavagovitwong, N., & Posriprasert, P. (2006). Urban poor housing development on Bangkok’s waterfront: Securing tenure, supporting community processes. Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247806069629

Yu, S., & Karaos, A. M. (2004). Establishing the role of communities in governance: The experience of the homeless people's Federation Philippines. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 107-119. https:// doi.org/10.1630/095624704323026188