J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS  ◎  vol. 14  ◎  no. 2  ◎  20 21  34 
 
 
 
	 	 	 	 I S	CULTURE	A	SPECIAL	‘HUB’	POLICY	AREA	FOR	
CO - CREATION? 	 	 	 Sanja	VRBEK	and	Irene	PLUCHINOTTA
1 	 ………………………………………………………………… .... ……… ................................. ……… 	 	 	 	 	 Co-creation	is	promoted	as	a	solution	to	the	‘wicked’	problems	of	
today.	Despite	its	applicability	across	policy	areas	and	its	promising	
effects,	culture	is	often	referred	to	separately,	as	a	special	field	of	
interest	and	favourable	environment	for	co -creation.	Although	this	
tacitly	 implies	 that	 this	 policy	 area	 features	 rather	 different	
conditions	for	co -creation,	there	are	no	solid	arguments	to	justify	the	
fact	that	culture	is	treated	differently	than	other	policy	areas.	To	
address	this	dilemma,	the	paper 	aims	to	answer	whether	and	to	what	
extent	co-creation	drivers	and	barriers	in	the	area	of	culture	are	
‘policy	 specific’.	 This	 is	 achieved	 with	the	 help	 of	 a	 systematic	
literature	review	and	a	case	study	of	the	2020	Rijeka	European	
Capital	of	Culture	project.	On	this	basis,	the	paper	concludes	that	
there	are	no	‘culture	specific’	drivers	and	barriers	to	justify	the	
‘special	treatment’	of	culture	as	a	substantially	different	co -creation	
arena.
2 	 	 Key	 words: 	 culture;	 co - creation	 drivers	 and	 barriers;	 Fuzzy	
Co gnitive	Map;	European	Capital	of	Culture	project. 	 	 
 
1	I NTRODUCTION 	 	 Co - creation	is	advertised	as	a	promising	solution	to	the	‘wicked’	problems	of	
today	(e.g.	Rittel 	 and	Webber	1973).	It	is	recognised	as	a	strategy	capable	to	
counteract	and	reshape	the	precarious	political	and	economic	conditions	faced	
by	the	public	sector	since	the	2008	economic	crisis,	which	in	the	light	of	the	
 
1 	Sanja	VRBEK 	 holds	a	doctorate	in	political	science	from	the	University	of	Ljubljana	(Faculty	of	
Social	Sciences)	and	currently	works	as	a	postdoctoral	researche r	on	the	COGOV	project	(Horizon	
2020	No.	770591)	at	the	University	of	Ljubljana,	Faculty	of	Public	Administration.	Her	main	
research	interest	is	collaborative	innovation	in	the	public	sector,	public	policy	in	general	and	
Europeanisation.	Contact:	 sanja.vrbek@fu.uni - lj.si .	Irene	PLUCHINOTTA 	 is	a	research	fellow	at	
the	University	College	London ,	the	Bartlett	Faculty	of	The	Built	Environment 	 (UK).	 She	 is	
currently	working	on	the	innovative	design	and	co - design	of	public	policies.	She	uses	System	
Dynamics	and	Operational	Research	 approaches	 to	support	decision- making	for	sustainability	
policies. 	Contact:	i.pluchinotta@ucl.ac.uk .	 2 	This	research	received	funding	from	the	European	Union’s	Horizon	2020	research	and	innovation	
programme	under	grant	agreement	No.	770591. 

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     35 
 
 
 
present	COVID - 19	crisis	bear	a	risk	of	being	amplified.	Thus,	co - creation	is	seen	
as	an	answer	to	the	politics	of	austerity	and	financial	pressures	on	the	public	
sector	as	it	mobilises	the	resources,	knowledge	and	skills	of	different	actors	with	
the	aim	to	improve	the	effectiveness	and	quality 	of	public	services	while	lowering	
costs	(Pestoff	2014).	The	main	result	of	this	process	is	(co - )creation	of	public	
value,	which	leads	to	higher	satisfaction	with	a	particular	service,	as	well	as	to	
the	general	improvement	of	the	wellbeing	of	citizens	and	fulfilment	of	their	needs	
(Osborne,	Radnor	and	Strokosch	2016).	The	attractiveness	of	this	concept	stems	
not	only	from	economic	grounds,	but	also	from	the	‘promise’	to	address	the	main	
problem	of	modern	democracies	‒	the	democratic	deficit	(Osborne,	Radnor 	 and	
Strokosch	2016).	The	active	inclusion	and	contribution	of	citizens	in	policy	
making,	presumed	by	this	concept,	is	seen	as	a	path	towards	stronger	social	
cohesion	 and	 democratisation	 in	 general	 (Voorberg,	 Bekkers	 and	 Tummers	
2015).	 	 	 In	such	a	context, 	 culture	has	been	given	significant	attention	as	a	particularly	
favourable	environment	for	co - creation	(Barile	and	Saviano	2014;	Minkiewicz,	
Bridson	and	Evans	2016;	Concilio	and	Vitellio	2016;	Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	
2018;	Wiid	and	Mora-Avila	2018;	A lexiou	2019).	This	could	imply	that	culture	
features	different	conditions	for	co - creation,	which	require	special	attention	and	
consequently	 a	 different	 approach.	 However,	 there	 are	 no	 evidence - based	
arguments	that	could	justify	culture	 – 	 as	a	separate	co - c reation	arena	– 	 being	
treated	substantially	differently	than	other	policy	areas. 	 	 To	solve	the	dilemma,	the	paper	critically	discusses	the	drivers	and	barriers	of	
co- creation	in	the	area	of	culture	vis - à - vis	‘general’	co - creation	drivers	and	
barriers	noted 	 in	other	policy	areas.	On	this	basis,	it	attempts	to	answer	the	
following	research	question:	whether	and	to	what	extent	co - creation	drivers	and	
barriers	in	the	area	of	culture	are	‘policy	specific’? 	 	 To	achieve	this,	the	paper	is	structured	in	six	section s.	In	the	next	section	two,	we	
initially	endeavour	to	identify	the	main	changes/trends	in	the	area	of	culture,	as	
well	as	the	general	features	of	this	policy	area	that	make	this	context	conducive	
to	co- creation.	In	addition,	in	section	three,	we	present	th e	methodology	of	the	
research,	which	builds	on	two	methods:	content	analysis	of	Web	of	Science	(WoS)	
papers	and	a	case	study	of	the	2020	Rijeka	European	Capital	of	Culture	project	
(ECoC).	In	section	four,	with	the	help	of	the	first	method	(i.e.	content	ana lysis),	
we	identify	and	discuss	both	‘general’	and	‘culture	specific’	co - creation	drivers	
and	barriers.	These	results	are	further,	i.e.	in	section	five,	complemented	with	the	
findings	of	the	Rijeka	2020	ECoC	case	study.	Finally,	in	the	conclusion,	we	answe r	
the	research	question	and	draw	conclusions	as	to	whether	the	special	treatment	
of	culture	as	a	‘hub’	policy	area	for	co - creation	is	justified	or	not. 	 	 	 2	CO -CREATION	IN	THE	AREA	OF	CULTURE 	 	 There	are	three	breaking	points	in	the	area	of	culture	recognise d	as	crucial	for	
setting	the	stage	for	co - creation.	The	first	is	traced	back	to	the	1960s,	when	a	new 	 ‘consumerist’	idea	of	culture	emerged,	placing	the	user	at	its	centre	(Barile	and 	 Saviano	2014).	This	is	especially	evident	in	the	redefinition	of	the	idea	of	cultural	
heritage	featuring	both	tangible	and	intangible	cultural	goods	‒	the	former	
referring	to	material	cultural	sites,	while	the	latter	to	symbols	and	values.	Non -
material	 aspects	 of	 cultural	 heritage	 have	 become	 subject	 to	 wider	
interpretations	 ( and	 consequently	 value	 creation)	 by	 external	 actors	 as	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     36 
 
 
 
recipients	of	culture.	This	new	type	of	cultural	value	creation	is	seen	to	derive	
“from	the	interaction	between	an	offering	system,	which	has	been	organised	to	
propose	a	value	and	a	beneficiary/user	wh o	is	capable	of	extracting	that	value	
through	the	interaction	process”	(Barile	and 	Saviano	2014,	59) . 	 		 The	second	breaking	point	is	noted	in	the	1990s,	with	the	technological	progress	
and	penetration	of	internet	in	every	segment	of	life	(Rutten	2018).	This	stirred	
the	interest	for	greater	participation	and	collaboration	in	culture	and	arts,	while	
digital	technologies	also	reshaped	the	management	of	culture	as	such	‒	for	
instance,	by	making	cultural	heritage	artefacts	more	visible	and	accessible	to	the	
public	(Concilio	and	Vitellio	2016;	Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	2018).	Moreover,	
digitalisation	contributed	to	the	inclusion	of	different	actors	and	their	active	
contribution	to	the	process	of	co- creation	of	cultural	value	(Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	
Cosimato	 2 018).	 Technology	 actually	 transformed	 citizens	 (or	 at	 least	 the	
perception	of	them)	from	passive	recipients	of	culture	to	active	co - creators	of	
cultural	content,	who	have	the	opportunity	to	critically	deliberate	and	challenge	
deeply	 entrenched	 representati ons	 by	 the	 dominant	 (mainstream)	 culture	
(Rutten	2018).	Hence,	digitalisation	could	be	interpreted	as	the	main	‘ally’	of	the	
processes	of	democratisation	and	de - elitisation	of	culture	‒	firstly,	in	terms	of	
boosting	 connections/interactions	 among	 users	 and 	 providers	 of	 cultural	
services	and	secondly,	by	challenging	traditional	processes	of	cultural	value	
creation	( Lang,	Shang	and	Vragov	2009;	Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	2018).	 	 	 Last	but	not	least,	the	third	event	boosting	the	attractiveness	of	co - creatio n	in	the	
area	of	culture	(but	also	in	other	policy	areas)	is	the	2008	economic	crisis.	In	the	
aftermath	of	the	crisis,	co - creation	was	recognised	as	an	alternative	to	the	
downfall	of	the	welfare	state	and	the	lack	of	public	financing	for	non - profitable	
public	services	(Wiid	and	Mora-Avila	2018),	with	culture	as	their	very	epitome.	
Thus,	faced	with	scarce	resources	on	the	one	hand	and	increased	competition	
coupled	with	cultural	commodification	and	more	demanding	consumer	base	on	
the	other,	cultural	organisat ions	found	themselves	under	strong	pressure	to	
redefine	their	role	(Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	2018).	This	was	the	trigger	that	
made	them	pursue	a	more	entrepreneurial	approach,	often	embedding	a	co -
creation	orientation	and	more	consumer	centric	culture 	 (Minkiewicz,	Bridson	
and	Evans	2016).	This	also	contributed	to	the	redefinition	of	their	attitude	
towards	users,	i.e.	consumers	of	cultural	services	‒	accepting	them	as	active	
partners	in	the	process	of	creation	of	cultural	experience	and	value	(Minkiewic z,	
Bridson	and	Evans	2016).	 	 	 Hence,	aesthetic	enjoyment	of	cultural	products	or	services	is	no	longer	seen	as	
the	key	aspect	that	shapes	cultural	value;	instead,	it	is	the	multiple	meanings	that	
emerge	among	‘users’	when	enjoying,	i.e.	consuming	culture 	(Barile	and 	Saviano	
2014).	Such	an	understanding	of	cultural	value	implies	strong	dynamism	and	
sensitivity	to	the	context	where	interaction	takes	place	and	multiple	meanings	
regarding	the	cultural	product/service	are	exchanged	 (Barile	and 	Saviano	2014) .	
This	is	especially	evident	in	the	case	of	intangible	cultural	representations	(e.g.	
intangible	cultural	heritage,	festivals	etc.),	as	they	set	the	stage	for	people	to	meet	
and	jointly	co- create	memorable	experiences	(Alexiou	2019).	 	 	 On	this	basis,	it	can	 be	concluded	that	cultural	goods/services	as	such	do	not	have	
an	intrinsic	value,	as	their	value	is	constantly	re(co - )created	within	the	physical	
communities	where	interaction	and	sharing	of	experiences	takes	place	(Concilio	
and	Vitellio	2016;	Alexiou	2019 ).	Trying	to	acknowledge	the	importance	of	the	
social	context,	Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	(2018,	167)	refer	to	this	situation	as	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     37 
 
 
 
“value	in	use”.	This	means	that	both	the	context	where	interaction	takes	place	
and	the	actors’	disposition	in	sharing	and	in tegrating	their	resources	shape	
cultural	value	(Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	2018,	162).	Other	authors	(e.g.	
Rutten	2018)	even	go	a	step	further,	claiming	that	the	very	events	that	provoke	
social	interaction,	participation	and	cultural	encounters	represen t	a	form	of	art.	
This	 understanding	 of	 cultural	 value	 as	 a	 product	 of	 co - creation	 through	
“experience- for- experience	exchanges”	(Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	Cosimato	2018,	167)	
departs	from	the	traditional	understanding	of	culture	as	hedonic,	elitist	and	static	
phenomenon.	Accordingly,	cultural	value	is	no	longer	fixed	and	predefined,	but	
emerges	in	a	dynamic	process	of	co - creation	with	users	(Ciasullo,	Troisi	and	
Cosimato	2018).	As	such,	this	new	idea	of	culture	comes	close	to	the	wider	
understanding	of	co- creati on	as	collaborative	innovation,	which	does	not	allow	
any	reference	to	predetermined	results	(Sørensen	and	Torfing	2018,	391).	 	 	 However,	culture	is	not	a	‘monolithic’	policy	area	(as	it	features	substantially	
different	cultural	goods	and	services),	which	m eans	that	co- creation	in	this	
context	could	manifest	itself	in	many	different	ways.	For	instance,	in	the	area	of	
cultural	heritage,	Concilio	and	Vitellio	(2016) 	 recognise	two	dimensions	of	co -
creation	‒	generative	and	preservative.	The	former	implies	co- cr eation	of	new	
forms	of	(intangible)	cultural	heritage,	while	the	latter	refers	to	reproduction	
(and	thus	generational	transfer)	of	existent	cultural	value	(Concilio	and	Vitellio	
2016) .	Other	authors	(e.g.	Hudson,	Sandberg	and	Schmauch	2017)	approach	
cultur e	in	a	more	general	manner	and	discuss	co- creation	either	as	joint	creation	
of	 culture	 per	 se,	 or	 as	 a	 specific	 act	 of	 collaboration/interaction	 between	
audience	and	artists	at	a	concrete	event.	 	 	 Despite	these	differences	regarding	the	manifestation	of	co - creation	(stemming	
from	the	cultural	context	where	it	takes	place),	the	arguments	in	favour	of	the	
introduction	of	this	approach	are	more	or	less	unified	and	to	a	great	extent	
overlapping	with	the	general	debate	about	the	benefits	of	co - creation.	Thus,	in 	 the	cultural	sphere,	as	in	other	policy	areas,	co - creation	is	expected	to	contribute	
to	the	efficiency	and	effectiveness	of	public	services,	improve	democratic	practice	
and	deliver	greater	public	value	(Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2017);	contribute	
to	wis er	policies	and	more	democracy	(Edelenbos,	van	Meerkerk	and	Schenk	
2018);	and	empower	citizens	(Griffiths	2013).	There	are,	however,	benefits	of	co -
creation	that	are	context	bound,	such	as	greater	creativity	as	a	result	of	opening	
of	cultural	content	and	i ncreased	product	selection	(Lang,	Shang	and	Vragov	
2009),	 as	 well	 as	 co - creation	 of	 alternative	 (i.e.	 more	 inclusive)	 cultural	
narratives	that	break	deeply	entrenched	stereotypes	(Concilio	and	Vitellio	2016).	 	 	 Yet,	although	culture	is	recognised	as	a	frui tful	soil	for	co - creation,	there	are	
certain	issues	that	challenge	this	process.	For	instance,	Lang,	Shang	and	Vragov	
(2009)	refer	to	copyrights	and	intellectual	property	as	specific	barriers	to	co -
creation	in	culture.	In	addition,	Minkiewicz,	Bridson	and	 Evans	(2016,	749)	
recognise	as	problematic	the	tension	between	“a	curatorial	orientation	and	one	
that	 focuses	 on	 the	 consumer	 experience”.	 The	 latter	 implies	 that	 cultural	
organisations	are	often	torn	between	their	goals	of	education,	preservation	and	
presentation	 of	 cultural	 value,	 on	 the	 one	 hand	 and	 customer	 satisfaction,	
consumer	experience	and	coproduction	within	the	organisation’s	mission,	on	the	
other	hand	(Minkiewicz,	Bridson	and	Evans	2016,	751).	This	could	be	interpreted	
by	some	as	a	trend	of	comm ercialisation	and	devaluation	of	culture	leading	to	
resistance	and	negative	connotation	ascribed	to	co - creation. 	 		

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     38 
 
 
 
Nevertheless,	apart	from	this,	the	issue	of	co - creation	drivers	and	barriers	in	the	
cultural	sphere	has	not	gained	appropriate	research	inter est.	Among	the	rare	
endeavours	for	a	more	systematic	analysis	of	drivers	and	barriers	in	this	area,	we	
note	the	research	by	Minkiewicz,	Bridson	and	Evans	(2016)	arguing	that	many	
co- creation	drivers	and	barriers	are	not	culture	specific	but	are	relevant	al so	in	
other	policy	areas.	However,	in	the	absence	of	a	more	systematic	research	effort	
for	a	comparative	analysis	of	the	drivers	and	barriers	in	culture	vis - à - vis	other	
sectors,	this	is	only	an	assumption,	which	we	will	try	to	revisit	in	the	conclusion	
of	 paper. 	 	 	 3	M ETHODOLOGY 	 	 To	answer	the	research	question,	the	paper	relies	on	two	methods:	a	content	
analysis	of	WoS	papers	and	a	case	study	of	the	2020	Rijeka	ECoC	project.	The	
content	analysis	is	used	with	the	purpose	of	identifying	‘general’	and	‘culture 	 specific’	co - creation	drivers	and	barriers.	The	findings	of	the	content	analysis	are	
complemented	with	an	in- depth	analysis	of	the	drivers	and	barriers	identified	in	
the	case	of	the	2020	Rijeka	ECoC	project.	For	this	purpose,	the	case	study	relies	
on	a	Fu zzy	Cognitive	Map	(FCM)	on	co - creation	barriers	and	drivers.	Case	study	
is	used	as	the	most	appropriate	method	for	investigation	of	a	contemporary	
phenomenon	(i.e.	co- creation)	within	its	real - life	context,	where	the	research	
goal	is	to	answer	‘how’	and	‘w hy’	some	events	occur	(Yin	2003).	Thus,	it	is	
intended	to	help	us	better	understand	the	process	of	co - creation	in	the	field	of	
culture:	firstly,	by	identifying	‘cultural’	co - creation	drivers	and	barriers	and,	
secondly,	by	showing	exactly	‘how’	and	‘why’	th ey	enable,	or	prevent,	co - creation.	 	 	 3.1	Content	analysis	of	Web	of	Science	papers 	 	 The	papers	analysed	with	this	method	were	selected	based	on	the	following	
criteria:	 	 § time - span	of	the	papers:	10	years,	between	2009	and	2018; 	 § key	words:	 co- creation	or	co- production;	 § WoS	category:	Public	Administration;	and	 § written	in	English	language. 	 	 On	this	basis,	we	initially	identified	one	hundred	fifty - five	papers.	However,	after	
the	cleaning	process,	sixteen	papers	were	excluded	as	they	did	not	ref er	to	co-
creation	and/or	co- production	in	the	context	of	the	public	sector	and	public	
services.	At	the	end,	the	total	number	of	papers	that	were	systematically	analysed	
by	means	of	the	content	analysis	was	one	hundred	thirty - nine.		 	 The	idea	behind	this	ap proach	was	to	provide	a	list	of	both	‘general’	co - creation	
drivers	and	barriers	present	across	different	policy	sectors	and	‘specific’	drivers	
and	barriers	in	the	area	of	culture.	However,	due	to	the	small	number	of	papers	
(only	four)	referring	to	culture	 as	a	policy	area	where	co- creation	had	been	
applied,	we	decided	to	fill	this	gap	with	the	analysis	of	drivers	and	barriers	
identified	in	a	real	case	of	successful	co - creation	‒	the	2020	Rijeka	ECoC	project.	 	 	 3.2	Case	study	of	the	2020	Rijeka	 European	Capital	of	Culture	project 	 	 The	case	study	of	the	2020	ECoC	project	builds	on	the	information	obtained	from	
10	semi- structured	interviews	carried	out	in	the	context	of	the	COGOV	project	
between	April	and	May	2019	(Cvelić	et	al.	2020).	The	intervie ws	were	conducted	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     39 
 
 
 
with	persons	on	key	managerial	positions	within	RIJEKA	2020	LLC	(Limited	
Liability	Company),	the	City	of	Rijeka	and	other	related	organisations	responsible	
for	the	project	implementation.	Hence,	the	paper	uses	the	data	gathered	in	the	
int erviews	‒	precisely,	by	eliciting	the	information	about	co - creation	drivers	and	
barriers	for	the	purpose	of	their	further	analysis	by	means	of	FCM	methodology.	 	 	 FCMs	have	become	a	suitable	and	proven	knowledge - based	methodology	for	
systems	modelling	(Kosko	1986).	This	technique	is	especially	attractive	when	
modelling	systems	are	characterised	by	ambiguity,	uncertainty	and/or	non -
trivial	causalities	among	their	variables	(Nápoles	et	al.	2018).	The	vast	literature	
related	to	FCMs	reports	very	clearly	about	m any	successful	studies	that	used	
FCMs. 	 	 A	cognitive	map,	together	with	the	related	FCM,	is	the	representation	of	thinking	
about	a	problem	(e.g.	Ozesmi	and	Maurer	2004).	FCMs	are	intended	to	represent	
the	subjective	world	of	the	interviewees	(Eden	2004).	They	are	considered	a	
suitable	method	to	categorise	manageably	complex	knowledge	forms	(e.g.	Eden	
1988;	Pluchinotta,	Esposito	and	Camarda	2019).		 	 The	maps	are	directed	graphs,	a	network	of	nodes	and	links	where	the	direction	
of	the	arrow	implies	believed	causality	(Ackermann	et	al.	2014).	FCMs	represent	
the	integration	of	the	cognitive	mapping	approach	with	the	fuzzy	logic	theory	
(Kosko	1986).	 F or	each	variable	a	Centrality	Index	(CI)	was	computed	leading	to	
the	identification	of	the	most	important	 nodes	 within	a	map,	accounting	for	the	
complexity	of	its	network	of	links	(Ozesmi	and	Maurer	2004).	The	CI	of	a	FCM	is	
defined	as	the	summation	of	its	in- arrows	and	out - arrows	(Eden	1992).	 	 	 Within	this	paper,	the	case	study	represents	a	context - based	ex- post	analysis	of	
the	drivers/barriers	of	the	ECoC	project.	The	empirical	data	from	the	case	study	
allowed	to	identify	specific	variables	enabling	or	preventing	co - creation,	in	order	
to	answer	the	research	question.	Furthermore,	the	analysis	of	the	CI	determined	
which	drivers	and	barriers	were	more	relevant	according	to	the	interviewees. 	 	 	 4	 CO -CREATION	 DRIVERS	 AND	 BARRIERS	 IDENTIFIED	 IN	 THE	
LITERATURE 	 	 4.1	General	drivers	and	barriers	of	co -creation 	 	 Based	on	the	content	analysis,	we	identified	one	hundred	nine	(78	% )	papers	that	
refer	to	co- creation	drivers	and/or	barriers	in	different	policy	areas	(e.g.	health,	
environment,	public	safety,	social	policy,	education	and	‘others’).	However,	the	
majority	of	the	papers	discuss	drivers	and	barriers	indirectly	‒	as	issues	r elevant	
for	the	process	of	co- creation,	without	explicitly	designating	them	as	such.	This	
is	due	to	the	fact	that	co - creation	drivers	and	barriers	are	rarely	in	the	prime	
research	focus	of	the	relevant	literature.	Moreover,	the	lack	of	a	systematic	
approach	to	this	problem	manifested	itself	in	our	research	as	an	enormously	long	
list	of	substantially	different	drivers	and	barriers	that	lack	clear	categorisation.	
Hence,	to	present	our	results	in	a	more	comprehensive	and	clearer	manner,	we	
categorised	the	‘gen eral’	drivers	and	barriers	according	to	the	subject,	i.e.	aspect	
of	the	co- creation	process	they	affect.	On	this	basis,	we	recognised	five	categories	
of	drivers	and	barriers:	1.	structural/organisational	drivers	and	barriers;	2.	
drivers	 and	 barriers	 relate d	 to	 the	 quality	 of	 the	 relationship	 between	 co -
creators;	3.	drivers	and	barriers	related	to	internal	(public	organisation)	co -

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     40 
 
 
 
creators;	4.	drivers	and	barriers	related	to	external	co - creators;	and	5.	contextual	
drivers	and	barriers. 	 	 4.1.1	Structural/orga nisational	drivers	and	barriers 	 Structural/organisational	 drivers	 and	 barriers	 refer	 to	 the	 organisational	
properties	and	capacity	of	the	public	institutions	to	co - create.	As	the	main	driver	
of	 co- creation,	 here,	 we	 recognise	 less - centralised	 and	 highly	 connected	
structures	 with	 multiple	 stakeholders	 and	 decentralised	 and	 polycentric	
governance	(e.g.	networks)	(Cepiku	and	Giordano	2014;	Durose	and	Richardson	
2016b).	 However,	 an	 appropriate	 (i.e.	 multi - actor	 and	 less	 centralised )	
organisational	structure	is	not	sufficient	for	successful	co - creation,	unless	certain	
barriers	are	addressed,	namely:	unclear	accountability,	not	clearly	defined	roles,	
lack	 of	 institutional	 instruments	 for	 motivation	 of	 co - creators	 and	 non-
involvement	 o f	 key	 (both	 internal	 and	 external)	 actors	 at	 the	 highest	
(management)	level	of	organisation	(Levasseur	2018;	Nesti	2018;	Touati	and	
Maillet	2018).	Moreover,	an	organisational	structure	favourable	to	co - creation	
presumes	the	existence	of	a	continuous	two- way	channel	of	communication	
providing	regular	and	direct	interaction	with	external	stakeholders	(Barbera,	
Sicilia	 and	 Steccolini	 2016;	 Tu	 2016).	 Such	 communication	 should	 be	
complemented	 by	 institutional	 strategies	 securing	 the	 representation	 and	
engagement 	 of	different	actors,	 inter	alia 	 ‘hard - to- reach’	and	‘voiceless’	groups	
(Pill	and	Bailey	2012;	Bovaird	et	al.	2016).	This	means	that	an	institutional	setup	
that	privileges	certain	(usually	more	resourceful)	actors	at	the	expense	of	more	
disadvantaged	groups	represents	a	barrier	that	undermines	the	impact	of	co -
creation	(Pestoff	2014;	Burall	and	Hughes	2016;	Farr	2016).	In	addition,	public	
organisations	which	are	more	flexible	in	their	approach	‒	relying	on	incomplete,	
i.e.	underspecified	policy	design	(open 	to	being	directly	affected	by	participation)	
– 	 have	a	better	chance	to	be	successful	in	co - creation	than	organisations	that	
apply	 a	 ‘one- size- fits - all’	 approach	 insensitive	 to	 the	 context	 (Durose	 and	
Richardson	2016a	and	2016c;	Torvinen	and	Haukipuro	2018 ).	To	be	able	to	co-
create,	public	organisations	not	only	need	to	have	appropriate	financial	and	
human	resources,	but	also	need	to	be	willing	to	invest	in	capacity	building	and	
training	(Dunston	et	al.	2009;	Pill	and	Bailey	2012;	Sicilia	et	al.	2016;	Surva ,	
Tõnurist	 and	 Lember	 2016).	 Eventually,	 resources	 misalignment,	 lack	 of	
experience	in	managing	co- creation	and	lack	of	evidence	within	the	organisation	
about	the	positive	effects	of	co - creation	are	also	issues	that	hinder	the	process	
(Loeffler	and	Bovaird 	2016;	Vennik	et	al.	2016;	Wiewiora,	Keast	and	Brown	2016;	
Nesti	2018).	 	 	 4.1.2	 Drivers	 and	 barriers	 related	 to	 the	 quality	 of	 the	 relationship	 between	
(internal	and	external)	co-creators	 These	drivers	and	barriers	include	the	features	and	quality	of	the	r elationship	
between	co- creators	that	affect	the	process	of	co - creation.	For	the	establishment	
of	 this	 relationship,	 in	 the	 first	 place,	 there	 needs	 to	 be	 a	 sense	 of	
interdependency	among	participants	(public	institution	and	citizens)	(Alford	
2016).	 This	 means	 that	 the	 efforts	 and	 resources	 of	 all	 participants	 are	
recognised	 as	 necessary,	 complementary	 and	 interdependent	 for	 the	
achievement	 of	 the	 goal	 set	 (Chaebo	 and	 Medeiros	 2017).	 Moreover,	 the	
relationship	between	co - creators	should	build	on	willingness, 	trust	and	equality	
among	participants,	clear	commitment,	shared	responsibility	and	ownership	
(Pestoff	2014;	Burall	and	Hughes	2016;	Durose	and	Richardson	2016a;	Loeffler	
and	 Bovaird	 2016).	 It	 is	 also	 important	 that	 all	 parties	 share	 a	 common	
understanding 	 of	 the	 basic	 principles	 of	 the	 process	 and	 are	 prepared	 for	
constructive	 interaction	 (Surva,	 Tõnurist	 and	 Lember	 2016).	 Precisely,	 this	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     41 
 
 
 
means	that	they	have	a	clear	idea	about	the	expected	outcomes	and	each	other’s	
goals,	respect	each	other	and	are	open - minded	to	change	their	positions	in	the	
light	of	stronger	arguments	(Kemp	and	Rotmans	2009;	Fledderus,	Brandsen	and	
Honingh	2014;	Durose	and	Richardson	2016a	and	2016c).	In	addition	to	the	need	
for	 establishing	 this	 relationship	 from	 an	 early	 stage	 of	 the	 policy	 process	
(McCabe	2016),	another	relevant	driver	is	the	feeling	among	the	participants	that	
they	have	sufficient	time	for	deliberation	and	performance	of	the	tasks	required	
(vs.	limited	time	for	debate	and	participants’	inability	to	actively	follow	the 	 process)	 (Isett	 and	 Miranda	 2015;	 Burall	 and	 Hughes	 2016).	 In	 contrast,	
‘relationship	 related’	 barriers	 that	 hinder	 co - creation	 comprise	 a	 prevailing	
feeling	among	co- creators	that	they	are	not	understood	and	the	asymmetry	in	
knowledge,	 skills,	 power,	 exp ertise,	 information	 and	 power	 (Pestoff	 2014;	
Hardyman,	Daunt	and	Kitchener	2015;	Burall	and	Hughes	2016;	Wiewiora,	Keast	
and	Brown	2016;	Williams	et	al.	2016;	van	Eijk,	Steen	and	Verschuere	2017).	
Their	 relationship	 can	 also	 be	 strained	 by	 misuse	 of	 resources	 during	 the	
interaction	and	immense	politicisation	of	the	process	(Bartenberger	and	Sześciło	
2016;	Williams,	Kang	and	Johnson	2016). 	 	 4.1.3	Drivers	and	barriers	related	to	internal	(public	organisation)	co-creators	 Drivers	and	barriers	related	to	intern al	(public	organisation)	co - creators	refer	to	
the	capacity	and	attitudes	of	the	staff	of	the	public	organisation	(public	managers,	
middle - rank	and	frontline	public	servants)	regarding	co - creation.	The	key	issue,	
here,	 is	 that	 internal	 co - creators	 understan d	 co- creation	 (beyond	 mere	
consultation	 and	 formal	 participation),	 believe	 in	 its	 benefits	 and	 have	 the	
capacity/skills	 to	 participate	 in	 such	 process	 ‒	 e.g.	 ‘soft	 skills’,	 skills	 to	
experiment	and	to	be	open	to	surprises	(Dunston	et	al.	2009;	Duijn,	Rijnv eld	and	
van	Hulst	2010;	Durose	and	Richardson	2016c;	Strokosch	and	Osborne	2016).	
Consequently,	 a	 closed	 mind - set	 of	 the	 public	 servants	 to	 innovation,	 their	
inclination	to	a	traditional	‘way	of	doing	things’,	the	lack	of	appropriate	skills	
(above	mentione d)	and	the	inability/reluctance	to	break	away	from	a	‘path	
dependent’	logic	are	recognised	as	barriers	to	co - creation	(Baker	and	Irving	2016;	
Nesti	2018).	However,	even	in	the	absence	of	these	barriers	and	in	case	of	a	
genuine	desire	for	co- creation,	this	 process	can	be	undermined	by	the	staff’s	lack	
of	time	to	co- create 	 (e.g.	due	to	market	pressures	for	increased	productivity)	
(Vennik	et	al.	2016)	or	fear	that	co - creation	would	increase	their	workload	(Nesti	
2018).	Moreover,	beside	sufficient	resources,	pu blic	servants	need	to	enjoy	a	
certain	 level	 of	 flexibility	 and	 autonomy,	 i.e.	 leeway	 to	 take	 independent	
decisions	during	the	‘unpredictable’	process	of	co - creation	(Lindsay	et	al.	2018).	
This	implies	that	instead	of	selfishly	protecting	their	‘privileged’ 	 position	(in	
policy	making),	they	are	ready	to	give	some	discretion	‒	in	terms	of	responsibility	
and	ownership	‒	to	external	co - creators	(Howlett,	Kekez	and	Poocharoen	2017).	
This	to	be	achieved	often	requires	a	‘role	model’	among	high	profile	public	
servants,	who	not	only	practice	collaborative	leadership,	but	take	the	role	of	
advocates	of	co- creation	(Griffiths	2013;	Strokosch	and	Osborne	2016).	Finally,	
an	important	driver	in	this	context	is	a	strong	sense	and	desire	among	internal	
co- creators	to	enhanc e	the	public	image	of	the	organisation	(Vennik	et	al.	2016).	
This	 requires	 that	 public	 servants	 do	 not	 fear	 the	 innovation	 for	 revealing	
systemic	and	organisational	flaws	(Meričkova,	Nemec	and	Svidronova	2015),	nor	
see	it	as	a	‘Potemkin’	strategy	for	justi fying	existing	(flawed)	goals	and	policies	
(Lövbrand	2011).	 	 4.1.4	Drivers	and	barriers	related	to	external	co -creators		 Drivers	 and	 barriers	 related	 to	 external	 co - creators	 refer	 to	 the	 traits	 (i.e.	
features,	attitudes	and	capacity)	of	the	citizens	as	co - creators.	In	order	to	be	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     42 
 
 
 
willing	to	co- create,	citizens	first	need	to	recognise	the	‘salience	of	a	problem’	
(Chaebo	 and	 M edeiros	 2017).	 This	 implies	 that	 voluntary	– 	 in	 contrast	 to	
pressured	– 	participation	positively	affects	the	process	of	co - creation	(Osborne,	
Radnor	and	Strokosch	2016;	Surva,	Tõnurist	and	Lember	2016;	Chaebo	and	
Medeiros	2017;	Torvinen	and	Haukipuro	2018) .	Another	significant	driver	of	
citizen	 participation	 is	 ‘political	 efficacy’	 ‒	 a	 prevailing	 perception	 that	
government	 authorities	 are	 responsive	 to	 their	 demands	 and	 value	 their	
contribution	(Fledderus,	Brandsen	and	Honingh	2014;	Van	Eijk	and	Steen	2016).	
In	addition,	citizens	should	feel	confident	(‘sense	of	self - efficacy’)	that	they	are	
capable	to	contribute	in	the	process	(Fledderus,	Brandsen	and	Honingh	2015;	
Bovaird	et	al.	2016;	Van	Eijk	and	Steen	2016;	Chaebo	and	Medeiros	2017).	This	
confidence	 buil ds	 on	 both,	 objective/material	 and	 intangible	 assets	 such	 as	
(leisure)	time,	money,	social	capital	and	civic	skills	(Thijssen	and	Van	Dooren	
2016).	The	absence	of	these	conditions	represents	a	barrier	to	co - creation,	
especially	 in	 terms	 of	 inclusion	 of	 mar ginalised	 and	 vulnerable	 groups.	
Additional	barriers	related	to	external	co - creators	include	doubt	that	other	
participants	 will	 be	 actively	 co - creating;	 taking	 higher	 share	 of	 risk	 and	
responsibility	within	the	process;	too	professionally	oriented	and	abstract	tasks;	
and	costs	outweighing	the	benefits	of	participation	(Fledderus,	Brandsen	and	
Honingh	2015;	Tuurnas	2016;	Williams,	Kang	and	Johnson	2016;	Levasseur	
2018). 	 	 4.1.5	Context	related	drivers	and	barriers		 Context	related	drivers	and	barriers	refer	t o	conditions	concerning	the	wider	
political	and	socio - economic	context	in	which	co - creation	takes	place.	Thus,	
policy	areas	that	are	less	defined	and	feature	‘loose’	normative	and	regulatory	
frameworks	seem	to	be	more	open	to	the	prospect	of	co - creation,	a 	concept	that	
does	 not	 follow	 strictly	 defined	 rules	 and	 requires	 significant	 leeway	 for	
creativity	and	experimentation	(Burall	and	Hughes	2016;	Voorberg	et	al.	2017).	
Also,	strong	political	support	for	co - creation	among	elected	politicians,	beyond	
ideological	and	party	lines	(Griffiths	2013;	Cepiku	and	Giordano	2014;	McCabe	
2016;	Strokosch	and	Osborne	2016)	and	a	prevailing	discourse	supportive	of	
citizen	collaboration	‒	presuming	collaboration	as	the	standard	‘way	of	doing	
things’	(Doheny	and	Milbourne	20 13;	Bianchi,	Bovaird	and	Loeffler	2017)	– 	 indicate	a	favourable	context.	On	the	other	hand,	contextual	barriers	seem	to	
include	state	regulations	and	policies	which,	even	though	not	directly	related	to	
co- creation,	may	have	a	significant	impact	on	the	proc ess:	e.g.	fiscal	climate,	
budgetary	restrictions	and	austerity	measures	(Lum,	Evans	and	Shields	2016;	
Martin	2018;	Pearson,	Watson	and	Manji	2018).	 	 	 4.2	Culture	specific	drivers	and	barriers	of	co -creation 	 	 In	the	content	analysis,	we	identified	four	pape rs	that	discuss	co - creation	in	
culture,	 precisely	 in	 the	 context	 of:	 conservation	 of	 historical	 buildings	
(Edelenbos,	van	Meerkerk	and	Schenk	2018);	establishment	of	a	digital	cultural	
sphere	(Griffiths	2013);	role	of	museums	(Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2 017);	
and	arts	in	general	(Wiid	and	Mora - Avila	2018).	We	systematised	the	‘cultural’	
drivers	and	barriers	identified	in	these	papers	following	the	categorisation	from	
section	4.1.	 	 	 The	key	structural/organisational	barriers	that	hinder	co - creation	in	cult ure	are	
‘inertia’	(resistance)	to	new	ways	of	operating	and	lack	of	suitable	institutional	
infrastructure	supporting	co - creation	(Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2017).	The	
latter	refers	to	the	lack	of	a	clearly	structured/institutionalised	process	of	co -

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     43 
 
 
 
creat ion,	building	on	consultation	with	external	stakeholders,	consolidation	of	
their	ideas	and	development	of	solutions	that	reflect	different	contributions	in	
the	process	(Griffiths	2013;	Edelenbos,	van	Meerkerk	and	Schenk	2018).	A	
specific	driver	emerging	in 	the	first	phase	(i.e.	consultation)	is	the	application	of	
familiar	(to	external	co - creators)	consultation	techniques,	such	as	the	use	of	
social	media	(Griffiths	2013 ;	 Wiid	and	Mora - Avila	2018).	Another	driver	is	the	
sensitivity	 of	 the	 (cultural)	 organisat ion	 in	 terms	 of	 understanding	 the	
psychosocial	characteristics	of	external	co - creators	(Wiid	and	Mora - Avila	2018). 	 Moreover,	transparency,	accuracy	and	accessibility	of	information	should	be	
included	in	the	process	to	have	the	effects	of	drivers	of	co - creation.	This	often	
implies	systematic	endeavours	by	the	organisation	to	clarify	complex	issues	
(with	the	help	of	dia grams,	visualisation	and	links	to	external	sites)	and	existence	
of	a	centralised	information	base	providing	the	relevant	materials	to	citizens	
(Griffiths	2013;	Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2017).		 	 In	 addition,	 a	 high	 level	 of	 trust	 and	 open,	 honest	 and	 con structive	
communication	between	co - creators	are	recognised	as	crucial	drivers	related	to	
the	 relationship	 among	 (internal	 and	 external)	 co - creators	 (Edelenbos,	 van	
Meerkerk	and	Schenk	2018;	Wiid	and	Mora - Avila	2018).	Also,	consensus	and	
common	 vison	 shared 	 by	 co- creators	 are	 drivers	 that	 further	 enhance	 this	
process.	However,	for	ensuring	legitimacy	of	the	co - creation	process	(and	thus	
wider	acceptance	of	its	results),	the	relationship	among	internal	and	external	co -
creators	needs	to	be	representative	(Grif fiths	2013).	 	 	 Moreover,	among	the	key	drivers	related	to	internal	co - creators	we	note	the	
prevailing	perception	of	citizens	as	active	agents	(rather	than	passive	recipients)	
of	 change	 and	 positive	 attitudes	 towards	 citizen	 initiatives	 ( Griffiths	 2013;	
Edelenbos,	van	Meerkerk	and	Schenk	2018).	In	contrast,	the	main	barriers	here	
are	lack	of	skills	for	co - creation,	reluctance	to	share	control	(i.e.	responsibility)	
with	 external	 co- creators	 and	 fear	 that	 co - creation	 could	 undermine	 the	
reputation	of	the	(cult ural)	institution	(Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2017).	 	 	 The	key	driver	related	to	external	co- creators	that	triggers	their	mobilisation	is	
discontent	with	governmental	planning	and	decision	making	(Edelenbos,	van	
Meerkerk	 and	 Schenk	 2018).	 Later	 in	 the	 process,	 digital	 skills	 and	 use	 of	
technology,	informed	participation	and	the	perception	that	their	contribution	is	
valued	emerge	as	important	drivers	(Griffiths	2013).	 	 	 Eventually,	 general	 political	 support	 for	 experimentation	 and	 inclusion	 of	
citizens	are	 considered	context	related	drivers	and	barriers	(ibid.).	A	favourable	
context	is	further	created	by	the	general	regulative	framework	encouraging	or	
mandating	collaboration	(Kershaw,	Bridson	and	Parris	2017).	Surprisingly,	even	
the	general	lack	of	funding	i n	the	cultural	sphere	(ibid.)	is	recognised	as	a	driver	
that	forces	cultural	organisations	to	look	for	alternative	ways	to	secure	their	
sustainability,	e.g.	to	turn	to	co - creation. 	 	 This	discussion	to	a	great	extent	matches	the	‘cultural’	co - creation	drive rs	and	
barriers	identified	by	Minkiewicz,	Bridson	and	Evans	(2016).	However,	their	
research	 complements	 our	 analysis	 with	 additional	 drivers,	 such	 as	 more	
demanding	consumers	and	competitive	pressures	for	change	(as	context	related	
drivers)	and	upper	management	commitment	to	co - creation	(as	a	driver	related	
to	internal	co - creators).	Moreover,	tensions	between	curatorial	and	commercial	
imperatives	within	cultural	organisations,	hierarchical	organisational	structure	
featuring	 ‘silo’	 mentality	 and	 lack	 of	 fund ing	 (ibid.)	 emerge	 as	 additional	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     44 
 
 
 
structural/organisational	barriers	to	those	identified	in	the	content	analysis.	
Here,	however,	the	lack	of	funding	is	reported	as	an	impediment	to	the	process	– 	 in	contrast	to	the	discussion	above,	where	‘lack	of	funding’	i s	seen	as	a	‘context	
related	driver’.	This	could	be	explained	by	the	fact	that	co - creation,	although	
implying	mobilisation	and	use	of	resources	of	different	actors	(leading	to	lower	
costs	of	services	provision),	is	not	a	‘cheap’	process	 per	se.	On	the	cont rary,	it	
requires	cultural	organisations	to	have	sufficient	funding	to	properly	conduct	co -
creation 	activities . 	 	 	 5	 CO -CREATION	DRIVERS	AND	BARRIERS	IN	THE	CASE	STUDY	OF	
THE	2020	RIJEKA	EUROPEAN	CAPITAL	OF	CULTURE	PROJECT	 	 	 The	main	idea	of	the	European	Ca pitals	of	Culture	(ECoC)	project	is	to	bring	cities	
at	the	heart	of	cultural	life	across	Europe,	improving	the	quality	of	life	in	these	
cities	and	strengthening	their	sense	of	community.	The	candidature	of	Rijeka	
(Croatia)	for	the	ECoC	2020	project	was	gui ded	and	financed	by	the	City	of	Rijeka	
from	2014	till	March	2016,	when	RIJEKA	2020	LLC	(Limited	Liability	Company)	
was	jointly	founded	by	the	City	of	Rijeka	and	the	Primorje - Gorski	Kotar	(PGK)	
County	for	the	implementation	of	the	project.	Through	the	ECoC	 project,	the	City	
of	Rijeka	and	the	PGK	County	aimed	to	improve	the	scope	and	variety	of	the	city’s	
and	region’s	cultural	offer,	expand	accessibility	and	participation	in	culture,	build	
capacities	 in	 the	 cultural	 sector	 and	 its	 ties	 to	 other	 sectors	 and	 in crease	
international	visibility	as	well	as	the	city’s	and	region’s	profile.	 	 	 Since	the	preparation	phase,	cultural	organisations,	NGOs,	citizens	and	other	
stakeholders	have	been	included	in	the	ECoC	project.	Specifically,	the	Rijeka	2020	
Participatory	Programme	is	considered	as	one	of	the	most	innovative	areas	of	co -
creation	thanks 	 to	the	comprehensive	citizen	participation.	The	core	idea	is	to	
actively	 involve	 citizens	 in	 creating	 cultural,	 social	 and	 environmental	
programmes	and	to	improve	the	production	and	organisational	capacities	of	
informal	 civilian	 groups.	 The	 Participatory	 Programme	 intends	 to	 raise	 the	
degree	of	citizen	participation	in	social	and	cultural	activities	and	the	awareness	
about	 the	 environment.	 The	 Programme	 consists	 of	 two	 micro - funding	
programmes	(Civil	Initiatives	and	Green	Wave),	a	capacity	building	program me	
(Learning	to	Build	Communities),	a	participatory	decision - making	body	(Council	
of	Citizens)	and	RiHub	as	a	physical	place	for	education,	meetings,	exchange	and	
joint	action.	 	 	 Currently,	the	Rijeka	2020	ECoC	project	and	its	Participatory	Programme	are	in	
the	implementation	phase	ending	in	2021.	In	the	first	call	for	project	proposals	
of	the	Participatory	Programme	for	2019,	80	projects	were	submitted	(59	under	
Civil	Initiatives	and	21	under	the	Green	Wave	programme)	and	22	were	selected	
(plus	8	backup	pr ojects).	The	call	for	members	of	the	Council	of	Citizens	received	
94	applications	and	30	Council	members	were	randomly	selected. 	 	 In	this	section,	the	results	of	the	FCM	analysis	of	the	Rijeka	2020	ECoC	project	are	
presented	and	discussed.	The	FCM	is	built 	on	the	drivers	and	barriers	identified	
during	the	stakeholders’	interviews	in	the	context	of	the	case	study,	conducted	in	
the	framework	of	the	COGOV	project	(Cvelić	et	al.	2020).	Below,	drivers	and	
barriers	and	the	related	CI	are	reported	(Table	1)	togeth er	with	a	graphical	
representation	of	their	relationships	(Figure	1).	 	 	 	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     45 
 
 
 
FIGURE	1:	THE	FCM	OF	THE	DRIVERS	AND	BARRIERS	OF	THE	2020	RIJEKA	ECOC	
PROJECT 	 	 	 	 	 TABLE	 1:	 LIST	 OF	 DRIVERS	 AND	 BARRIERS	 OF	 THE	 2020	 RIJEKA	 ECOC	 PROJECT	
ELICITED	FROM	THE	INTERVIEWS	AND	THE	RELATED	CI	 	 	 The	‘Tools	for	project	implementation'	(A16)	was	recognised	as	the	key	driver	in	
the	process	of	implementation	of	the	Participatory	Programme	of	the	Rijeka	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     46 
 
 
 
2020	ECoC	project.	Specifically,	the	Programme	relies	on	a	‘Strong	 marketing	
campaign'	 (A18,	 CI=1.5)	 which	 was	 considered	 essential	 together	 with	
‘Dedicated	funds’	(A19)	and	‘Dedicated	space	for	meetings’	(A17).	Furthermore,	
a	set	of	‘Educational	workshops’	(A15)	was	organised	in	RiHub	with	the	purpose	
of	breaking	barriers	in	future	communication	and	cooperation	between	citizens	
and	public	servants. 	 	 The	presence	of	a	‘Dedicated	team	of	cultural	professionals’	(A26)	was	also	
recognised	as	an	important	driver	(CI=1).	Specifically,	the	team	was	trained	and	
empowered	through	 an	intense	‘Capacity	building	programme’. 	 	 The	‘Political	support	to	project	implementation’	(A22,	CI=1.10)	from	the	City	of	
Rijeka	as	well	as	from	national	and	regional	governments	and	the	presence	of	the	
‘Internal	 RiHub’s	 operational	 action	 plan	 till	 202 1’	 (A25)	 were	 consider	
beneficial. 	 	 While	 ‘Cooperation	 between	 citizens	 and	 municipality’	 (A13,	 CI=1.13)	 and	
‘Cooperation	between	involved	public	professionals’	(A11)	were	mentioned	as	
influential,	the	main	barriers	in	the	implementation	of	the	Rijeka	2020 	 ECoC	
project	were	generally	related	to	any	kind	of	‘Difficulties	in	cooperation’	(A10,	
CI=1.70),	such	as	the	one	‘ Between	citizens	and	a	municipality’	(A13)	caused	by	
‘Mistrust	and	scepticism	towards	public	organisations	and	their	work’	(A14)	and	
the	 one	 ‘ Between	 involved	 public	 professionals’	 (A11)	 triggered	 by	 the	
‘Resistance	of	public	professionals’	(A12). 	 	 The	 barrier	 ‘Demotivation	 of	 engaged	 professionals’	 (A4,	 CI=1.20)	 was	 also	
considered	 a	 key	 element	 influencing	 the	 effectiveness	 of	 the	 Programme,	
generated	by	‘Lack	of	long - term	strategy’,	‘Uncertainty	of	the	project	legacy’	and	
‘Complicated	and	time - consuming	project	administration	procedures’.	Lastly,	
one	of	the	barriers	mentioned	due	to	the	negative	impact	on	the	marketing	
campaign	was	the	‘Ignorance	of	the	media	on	the	project’	(A20).		 	 	 6	CONCLUSION 	 	 The	analysis	of	the	‘general’	and	‘culture	specific’	drivers	and	barriers	identified	
in	the	relevant	literature	does	not	indicate	a	substantial	difference	between	
culture	and	other	policy	 areas.	Actually,	the	analysis	shows	a	significant	overlap	
of	the	co- creation	drivers	and	barriers	irrespective	of	the	policy	area	in	which	the	
process	takes	place.	The	only	‘specific’	difference	ascribed	to	culture	emerges	as	
a	rather	epistemological	chall enge,	deriving	from	the	underlying	antagonism	of	
different	understanding(s)	of	culture	‒	often	manifested	in	the	tension	between	
curatorial	 and	 commercial	 imperatives	 arising	 within	 cultural	 organisations	
(Minkiewicz,	Bridson	and	Evans	2016).	However,	it	is	questionable	to	what	
extent	this	is	a	unique	feature	of	culture,	since	under	neoliberal	pressure	all	
policy	areas	face	similar	challenges	in	terms	of	the	need	for	reinterpretation	of	
their	‘traditional’	understanding	and	role	towards	greater	commercialis ation	and	
commodification.	 	 	 Moreover,	also	the	findings	of	the	Rijeka	2020	ECoC	case	study	bring	no	surprise	
in	this	regard;	they	actually	confirm	the	conclusion	that	there	is	no	substantial	
difference	between	culture	and	other	policy	areas	in	terms	of	co - creation	drivers	
and	barriers.	Seen	through	the	prism	of	the	categorisation	presented	in	section	4,	
the	drivers	and	barriers	identified	in	the	Croatian	case	study	can	be	easily	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     47 
 
 
 
grouped	according	to:	structural/organisational	features,	features	of	internal 	co-
creators,	quality	of	the	relationship	between	internal	and	external	co - creators;	
and	wider	contextual	features.	 	 	 In	line	with	the	findings	of	the	literature	review,	the	case	study	emphasises	the	
importance	 of	 structural/organisational	 features	 by	 poin ting	 out	 the	
communication	 infrastructure	 and	 actions	 undertaken	 by	 the	 organisation	
towards	securing	better	access	of	external	stakeholders	(covered	by	the	drivers	
‘Tools	for	project	implementation’,	‘Strong	marketing	campaign’	and	‘Dedicated	
space	for	me etings’).	Furthermore,	the	case	study	stresses	the	importance	of	
financial	and	human	resources	as	the	key	organisational	attributes	enabling	
effective	implementation	of	co - creation.	The	impact	of	the	organisational	setup	
is	noted	also	in	terms	of	organisat ional	barriers	to	co- creation,	such	as	‘Lack	of	
long- term	strategy’,	‘Uncertainty	of	the	project	legacy’	and	‘Complicated	and	
time - consuming	project	administration	procedures’.	In	particular,	the	barrier	
‘Short	time - frame	of	the	project’	indicates	the	need 	for	sustainable	organisational	
structure	and	reveals	a	causal	connection	with	the	problem	of	‘Pressurised	
environment	within	the	organisation’	as	an	additional	barrier.	 	 As	barriers	related	to	internal	co - creators,	the	Rijeka	2020	case	study	recognises	
‘Resistance	of	public	professionals’	and	‘Demotivation	of	engaged	professionals’,	
in	 contrast	 to	 the	 drivers	 ‘Dedicated	 team	 of	 cultural	 professionals’	 and	
‘Cooperation	 between	 involved	 public	 professionals’.	 Thus,	 similar	 to	 the	
findings	of	the	literature	r eview,	the	emphasis	here	is	placed	on	the	skills	and	
capacity	of	internal	co - creators	enhanced	by	‘Capacity	building	programme’.	 	 	 A	similar	driver	‒	‘Educational	workshops’	 – 	 is	identified	in	the	context	of	the	
next	category	referring	to	the	relationship	between	internal	and	external	co -
creators.	This	driver	is	seen	crucial	for	improving	the	‘Communication	and	
cooperation	between	citizens	and	public	servants’	and	thus	addressing	barriers	
that	undermine	their	relationship,	such	as	‘Mistrust	and	scepticism	t owards	
public	organisations	and	their	work’. 	 	 Eventually,	an	overlap	between	the	case	study	and	the	literature	review	is	noted	
regarding	context	related	drivers	and	barriers.	Namely,	the	key	contextual	driver	
noted	in	the	Rijeka	2020	case	study	 – 	 political 	 support	at	different	levels	(local,	
regional	and	national)	– 	 corresponds	to	the	findings	of	the	literature	review	
about	the	prominence	of	the	general	political	support	to	co- creation.	Moreover,	
the	interconnected	contextual	factors	from	the	case	study	‒	‘ Inadequate	support	
from	the	national	tax	administration’	leading	to	‘Difficulties	in	the	interpretation	
of	tax	policies’	– 	can	be	interpreted	as	a	concrete	example	of	the	‘general’	barrier	
from	the	literature	i.e.	‘state	regulations	and	policies,	which	eve n	though	not	
directly	related	to	co - creation	have	significant	impact	on	the	process’	(see	sub -
section	4.1.5).	Although	‘Ignorance	of	the	media’	emerges	as	a	specific	contextual	
barrier	in	the	case	study,	it	can	be	perceived	as	complementary	to	the	general	
factor	referring	to	a	prevailing	discourse	favourable	to	citizen	collaboration. 	 	 On	this	basis,	we	conclude	that	that	there	are	no	‘culture	specific’	drivers	and	
barriers	of	co - creation	that	make	this	policy	area	more	(or	less)	conducive	to	co -
creation	in	comparison	to	other	policy	areas.	Thus,	the	special	treatment	of	
culture	as	a	separate	co - creation	arena	that	differs	substantially	from	other	
policy	areas	is	not	justified.	This,	however,	does	not	mean	that	culture	is	not	
worthy	of	special	research	focus; 	 on	the	contrary,	it	implies	a	need	for	better	
interaction	of	the	research	on	co - creation	across	different	policy	areas.	As	the	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     48 
 
 
 
analysis	shows,	there	are	many	parallels	that	can	be	drawn	from	the	research	in	
other	policy	areas	to	inform	and	enrich	the	literature	on	co- creation	in	the	field	
of	culture.	 	 	 At	the	same	time,	however,	it	should	be	born	in	mind	that	culture	is	not	a	
‘monolithic’	policy	area,	meaning	that	the	drivers	and	barriers	discussed	here	do	
not	 have	 universal	 and	 equal	 significance	 irrespec tive	 of	 the	 specific,	 i.e.	
individual	 cultural	 context	 in	 which	 co - creation	 takes	 place.	 Although	 the	
significance	of	a	specific	individual	context	was	not	the	focus	of	this	research,	it	
can	be	assumed	that	it	bears	greater	importance	for	the	co - creation	p rocess	than	
the	policy	area	as	such.	Nevertheless,	for	drawing	more	solid	conclusions	about	
the	significance	of	the	individual	context	vis - à - vis	type	of	policy	area	additional	
research	efforts	are	required. 	 	 	 R EFERENCES 	 	 Ackermann,	Fran,	Susan	Howick,	John 	 Quigley,	Lesley	Walls	and	Tom	Houghton.	2014.	
“Systemic	risk	elicitation:	Using	causal	maps	to	engage	stakeholders	and	build	a	
comprehensive	view	of	risks.”	 European	Journal	of	Operational	Research 	238	(1):	290 – 299.	 Alexiou,	 Melissa-Vasiliki.	 2019.	 “Experience	 economy	 and	 co -creation	 in	 a	 cultural	
heritage	festival:	consumers’	views.”	 Journal	of	Heritage	Tourism 	15	(2):	200‒216. 	 Alford,	John.	2014.	“The	Multiple	Facets	of	Co-Production:	Building	on	the	Work	of	Elinor	
Ostrom.”	 Public	Management	Review 	16	(3):	299 – 316. 	 Barbera,	Carmela,	Mariafrancesca	Sicilia	and	Ileana	Steccolini.	2016.	“What	Mr.	Rossi	
Wants	in	Participatory	Budgeting:	Two	R’s	(Responsiveness	and	Representation)	and	
Two	 I’s	 (Inclusiveness	 and	 Interaction).”	 International	 Journal	 of	 Public	
Administration 	39	(13):	1088 – 1100. 	 Barile,	Sergio	and	Marialuisa 	Saviano.	2014.	“Resource	Integration	and	Value	Co -Creation	
in	 Cultural	 Heritage	 Management.”	 In 	 Management	 of	 Cultural	 Products:	 E -
Relationship	Marketing	and	Accessibility	Perspectives ,	ed.	Aiello,	Lucia,	58 – 82.	IGI	
Global.	 	 Bartenberger,	Martin	and	Dawid 	Sześciło.	2016.	“The	Benefits	and	Risks	of	Experimental	
Co-production:	The	Case	of	Urban	Redesign	in	Vienna.”	 Public	Administration 	94	(2):	
509– 525. 	 Baker,	Keith	and	Adele	Irving.	2016.	“Co -producing	Approaches	to	the	Management	of	
Dementia	through	Social 	Prescribing.”	 Social	Policy	&	Administration 	50	(3):	379 – 397.	 Bianchi,	 Carmine,	 Tony	 Bovaird	 and	 Elke	 Loeffler.	 2017.	 “Applying	 a	 Dynamic	
Performance	Management	Framework	to	Wicked	Issues:	How	Coproduction	Helps	to	
Transform	 Young	 People’s	 Services	 in	 Sur rey	 County	 Council,	 UK.”	 Journal	
International	Journal	of	Public	Administration 	40	(10):	833‒846. 	 Bovaird,	Tony,	Gerry	Stoker,	Tricia	Jones,	Elke	Loeffler	and	Monica	Pinilla	Roncancio.	
2016.	“Activating	collective	co-production	of	public	services:	influenc ing	citizens	to	
participate	in	complex	governance	mechanisms	in	the	UK.”	 International	Review	of	
Administrative	Sciences 	82	(1):	47 – 68. 	 Burall,	Simon	and	Tim	Hughes.	2016.	“The	hidden	politics	of	policy	design.”	In	 Designing	
Public	Policy	for	Co -production:	Theory,	Practice	and	Change,	eds.	Durose,	Catherine	
and	Liz	Richardson,	71 – 80.	Bristol:	Policy	Press. 	 Cepiku,	Denita	and	Filippo	Giordano.	2014.	“Co -Production	in	Developing	Countries:	
Insights	from	the	community	health	workers	experience.”	 Public	Manage ment	Review 	 16	(3):	317 – 340.	 Chaebo,	Gemael	and	Janann	Joslin	Medeiros.	2017.	“Conditions	for	policy	implementation	
via	co-production:	the	control	of	dengue	fever	in	Brazil.”	 Public	Management	Review 	 19	(10):	1381 – 1398. 	 Ciasullo,	 Vincenza	 Maria,	 Orlando	 Tr oisi	 and	 Silvia	 Cosimato.	 2018.	 “How	 Digital	
Platforms	Can	Trigger	Cultural	Value	Co -Creation? — A	Proposed	Model.”	 Journal	of	
Service	Science	and	Management 	11	(2):	161‒181. 	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     49 
 
 
 
Concilio,	Grazia	and	Ilaria	Vitellio.	2016.	“Co -creating	intangible	cultural	herita ge	by	
crowdmapping:	the	case	of	mappi[na].”	2nd	International	Forum	on	Research	and	
Technologies	 for	 Society	 and	 Industry	 Leveraging	 a	 better	 tomorrow	 (RTSI),	 in	
Bologna,	Italy,	September	7– 9.	 Cvelić,	Josipa,	Tatjana	Perše,	Sanja	Vrbek	and	Irene	Pluchinott a.	2020.	“RIJEKA	2020:	
Participatory	Programme:	Deliverable	2.3”,	prepared	for	the	EU	Horizon	2020	funded	
COGOV	 project	 (grant	 agreement	 No	 770591).	 Available	 at	 http://cogov.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/D2 -3.pdf 		 Doheny,	Shane	and	Paul	Milbourne.	2013.	“Modernization	and	devolution:	delivering	
services	for	older	people	in	rural	areas	of	England	and	Wales.”	 Social	Policy	and	
Administration 	47	(5):	501‒519. 	 Duijn,	Michael,	Marc	Rijnveld	and	Merlijn	van	Hulst.	2010.	“Meeting	in	the	middle:	Joining	
reflection	 and	 action	 in	 complex	 public	 sector	 projects.”	 Public	 Money	 and	
Management 	30	(4):	227 – 233. 	 Dunston,	Roger,	Alison	Lee,	David	Boud,	Pat	Brodie	and	Mary	Chiarella.	2009.	“Co -
Production	 and 	 Health	 System	 Reform	 – 	 From	 Re -Imagining	 To	 Re -Making.”	
Australian	Journal	of	Public	Administration 	68	(1):	39 – 52. 	 Durose,	Catherine	and	Liz	Richardson.	2016a.	“Co -productive	policy	design.”	In	 Designing	
Public	Policy	for	Co -production:	Theory,	Practice	and	Change,	eds.	Durose,	Catherine	
and	Liz	Richardson,	30 – 50.	Bristol:	Policy	Press.	 	 Durose,	Catherine	and	Liz	Richa rdson.	2016b.	“Debating	co -productive	policy	design.”	In	
Designing	Public	Policy	for	Co -production:	Theory,	Practice	and	Change,	eds.	Durose,	
Catherine	and	Liz	Richardson,	181 – 202.	Bristol:	Policy	Press.	 	 Durose,	Catherine	and	Liz	Richardson.	2016c.	“Gover nance	for	co -productive	policy	
designs.”	In	 Designing	Public	Policy	for	Co -production:	Theory,	Practice	and	Change,	eds.	
Durose,	Catherine	and	Liz	Richardson,	203 – 206.	Bristol:	Policy	Press.	 	 Edelenbos,	Jurian,	Ingmar	van	Meerkerk	and	Todd	Schenk.	2018.	“T he	Evolution	of	
Community	Self-Organization	in	Interaction	with	Government	Institutions:	Cross -
Case	Insights	From	Three	Countries.”	 The	American	Review	of	Public	Administration 	 48	(1):	52 – 66. 	 Eden,	Colin.	1988.	“Cognitive	mapping.”	 European	Journal	of	Oper ational	Research	36	(1):	
1– 13. 	 Eden,	Colin.	1992.	“On	the	nature	of	cognitive	maps.”	 Journal	of	Management	Studies 	29:	
261‒265. 	 Eden,	Colin.	2004.	“Analyzing	cognitive	maps	to	help	structure	issues	or	problems.”	
European	Journal	of	Operational	Research	 159:	673 – 686. 	 Farr,	 Michelle,	 2016.	 “Co -Production	 and	 Value	 Co -Creation	 in	 Outcome -Based	
Contracting	in	Public	Services.”	 Public	Management	Review 	18(5):	654‒672. 	 Fledderus,	Joost,	Taco	Brandsen	and	Marlies	Honingh.	2014.	“Restoring	Trust	Through	
the	Co-Prod uction	of	Public	Services:	A	theoretical	elaboration.”	Public	Management	
Review 	16	(3):	424 – 443.	 Fledderus,	Joost,	Taco	Brandsen	and	Marlies	Honingh.	2015.	“User	co -production	of	
public	service	delivery:	An	uncertainty	approach.”	Public	Policy	and	Administ ration 	30	
(2):	145 – 164. 	 Griffiths,	Mary.	2013.	“Empowering	Citizens:	A	Constructivist	Assessment	of	the	Impact	
of	 Contextual	 and	 Design	 Factors	 on	 Shared	 Governance.”	 Public	 Affairs	 and	
Administration 	443– 461. 	 Hardyman,	 Wendy,	 Kate	 L.	 Daunt	 and	 Martin	 Kitc hener.	 2015.	 “Value	 Co -Creation	
through	Patient	Engagement	in	Health	Care:	A	micro -level	approach	and	research	
agenda.”	 Public	Management	Review 	17	(1):	90– 107.	 Howlett,	 Michael,	 Anka	 Kekez	 and	 Ora -orn	 Poocharoen.	 2017.	 “Understanding	 Co -
Production	as	a	Po licy	Tool:	Integrating	New	Public	Governance	and	Comparative	
Policy	Theory.”	 Journal	of	Comparative	Policy	Analysis:	Research	and	Practice 	 19	(5):	
487– 501.	 Hudson,	Christine,	Linda	Sandberg	and	Ulrika	Schmauch .	2017.	“The	co -creation	(of)	
culture?	The	case	of	Umeå,	European	Capital	of	Culture	2014.”	 Journal	European	
Planning	Studies	25	(9):	1538 – 1555. 	 Isett,	Kimberley	R.	and	Jeanne	Miranda.	2015.	“Watching	Sausage	Being	Made:	Lessons	
learned	from	the	co -production	of	governance	in	a	behavioural	health	system.”	 Public	
Management	Review 	17	(1):	35 – 56. 	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     50 
 
 
 
Kemp,	René	and	Jan	Rotmans.	2009.	“Transitioning	policy:	co -production	of	a	new	
strategic	framework	for	energy	innovation	policy	in	the	Netherlands.”	 Policy	Sciences 	 42	(4):	303‒322. 	 Kershaw,	Anne,	Kerrie	Bridson	and	Melissa	A.	Parris.	2017.	“Encouraging	Writing	on	the	
White	Walls:	Co -production	in	Museums	and	the	Influence	of	Professional	Bodies.”	
Australian	Journal	of	Public	Administration 	77	(1):	19– 34.	 Kosko,	Bart .	1986.	“Fuzzy	knowledge	combination.”	 International	Journal	of	Intelligent	
Systems 	1(4):	293 – 320.	 	 Lang,	Karl	R.,	Richard	D.	Shang	and	Roumen	Vragov.	2009.	“Designing	Markets	for	Co -
Production	of	Digital	Culture	Goods.”	 Decision	Support	Systems 	48	(1):	33 ‒ 45.	 Levasseur,	Karine.	2018.	“Co -producing	accountability?	Drawing	conclusions	from	non -
profit	child	care	services	in	Manitoba.”	 Canadian	Public	Administration 	61	(1):	26 – 44.	 Lindsay,	Colin,	Sarah	Pearson,	Elaine	Batty,	Anne	Marie	Cullen	and	Will	Eadso.	2018.	“Co -
production	as	a	route	to	employability:	Lessons	from	services	with	lone	parents.”	
Public	Administration 	96	(2):	318 – 332. 	 Loeffler,	Elke	and	Tony	Bovaird.	2016.	“User	a nd	Community	Co -Production	of	Public	
Services:	 What	 Does	 the	 Evidence	 Tell	 Us?”	 International	 Journal	 of	 Public	
Administration 	39	(3):	1006 – 1019. 	 Lövbrand,	Eva.	2011.	“Co -producing	European	climate	science	and	policy:	a	cautionary	
note	on	the	making	of	use ful	knowledge.”	 Science	and	Public	Policy	38	(3):	225 – 236. 	 Lum,	 Janet	 M.,	 Bryan	 Evans	 and	 John	 Shields.	 2016.	 “Co -Constructing	 Performance	
Indicators	in	Home	and	Community	Care:	Assessing	the	Role	of	Nongovernmental	
Organizations	in	Three	Canadian	Province s.”	 Canadian	Journal	of	Nonprofit	and	Social	
Economy	Research 	7	(1):	46 – 67.	 Martin,	Douglas.	2018.	“Lean	in	a	cold	fiscal	climate:	the	public	sector	in	an	age	of	reduced	
resources.”	 Public	Money	and	Management 	38	(1):	29 – 36. 	 McCabe,	Paul.	2016.	“Challenges 	 in	policy	redesign.”	In	 Designing	Public	Policy	for	Co -
production:	Theory,	Practice	and	Change,	eds.	Durose,	Catherine	and	Liz	Richardson,	
63 – 70.	Bristol:	Policy	Press.	 Meričkova,	Beata	Mikusova,	Juraj	Nemec	and	Maria	Svidronova.	2015.	“Co -creation	in	
local	public	services	delivery	innovation:	Slovak	experience.”	 Lex	Localis 	13	(3):	521 – 535. 	 Minkiewicz,	Joanna,	Kerrie	Bridson	and	Jody	Evans.	2016.	“Co -production	of	service	
experiences:	insights	from	the	cultural	sector.”	 Journal	of	services	marketing	 30	(7 ):	
749‒761. 	 Nápoles,	Gonzalo,	Maikel	Leon	Espinosa,	Isel	Grau	and	Koen	Vanhoof.	2018.	“FCM	Expert:	
Software	 Tool	 for	 Scenario	 Analysis	 and	 Pattern	 Classification	 Based	 on	 Fuzzy	
Cognitive	Maps.”	 International	Journal	on	Artificial	Intelligence	Tools 	27	(7).	 Nesti,	Giorgia.	2018.	“Co -production	for	innovation:	the	urban	living	lab	experience.”	
Policy	and	Society 	37	(3):	310 – 325. 	 Osborne,	Stephen	P.,	Zoe	Radnor	and	Kirsty	Strokosch.	2016.	“Co -Production	and	the	Co -
Creation	 of	 Value	 in	 Public	 Services:	 A	 Suitable	 Case	 for	 Treatment?”	 Public	
Management	Review 	18	(5):	639 – 653. 	 Ozesmi,	 Uygar	 and	 Stacy	 L.	 Maurer.	 2004.	 “Ecological	 models	 based	 on	 people’s	
knowledge:	A	multi -step	fuzzy	cognitive	mapping	approach.”	 Ecological	Modelling 	176	
(1 – 2):	43 – 64. 	 Pearson,	Charl otte,	Nicholas	Watson	and	Kainde	Manji.	2018.	“Changing	the	culture	of	
social	care	in	Scotland:	Has	a	shift	to	personalization	brought	about	transformative	
change?”	 Social	Policy	&	Administration 	52	(3):	662 – 676. 	 Pestoff,	Victor.	2014.	“Collective	Action	a nd	the	Sustainability	of	Co -Production.”	 Public	
Management	Review 	16	(3):	383 – 401.	 Pill,	 Madeleine	 and	 Nick	 Bailey.	 2012.	 “Community	 Empowerment	 or	 a	 Strategy	 of	
Containment?	Evaluating	Neighbourhood	Governance	in	the	City	of	Westminster.”	
Local	Government 	Studies 	38	(6):	731 – 751.	 Pluchinotta,	 Irene,	 Dario	 Esposito	 and	 Domenico	 Camarda.	 2019.	 “Fuzzy	 cognitive	
mapping	to	support	multi -agent	decisions	in	development	of	urban	policymaking.”	
Sustainable	Cities	and	Society 	46. 	 Rittel,	Horst	W.	J.	and	Melvin	M.	W ebber.	1973.	“Dilemmas	in	a	general	theory	of	planning.”	
Policy	Sciences 	4	(2):	155 – 169. 	 Rutten,	Kris.	2018.	“Participation,	Art	and	Digital	Culture.”	 Critical	Arts 	32	(3):	1‒8. 	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     51 
 
 
 
Sicilia,	Mariafrancesca,	Enrico	Guarini,	Alessandro	Sancino,	Martino	Andreani	 and	Renato	
Ruffini.	 2016.	 “Public	 services	 management	 and	 co -production	 in	 multi-level	
governance	settings.”	 International	Review	of	Administrative	Sciences 	82	(1):	8 – 27.	 Sørensen,	Eva	and	Jacob	Torfing .	2018.	“Co -initiation	of	Collaborative	Innovation	in	
Urban	Spaces.”	 Urban	Affairs	Review 	54	(2):	388 – 418. 	 Strokosch,	Kirsty	and	Stephen	Osborne.	2016.	“Asylum	Seekers	and	the	Co -production	of	
Public	Services:	Understanding	the	Implications	for	Social	Inclusion	and	Citizenship.”	
Journal	of	Social	Policy 	45	(4):	673 – 690. 	 Surva,	Laidi,	Piret	Tõnurist	and	Veiko	Lember.	201 6.	“Co -Production	in	a	Network	Setting:	
Providing	an	Alternative	to	the	National	Probation	Service.”	 International	Journal	of	
Public	Administration 	39	(13):	1031 – 1043. 	 Thijssen,	Peter	and	Wouter	Van	Dooren.	2016.	“Who	You	Are/Where	You	Live:	Do	
Neighbourho od	 Characteristics	 Explain	 Co-Production?”	 International	 Review	 of	
Administrative	Sciences 	82	(1):	88 – 109.	 Torvinen,	Hannu	and	Lotta	Haukipuro.	2018.	“New	roles	for	end -users	in	innovative	
public	procurement:	case	study	on	user	engaging	property	procuremen t.”	 Public	
Management	Review 	20	(10):	1444‒1464. 	 Touati,	Nassera	and	Lara	Maillet.	2018.	“Co -creation	within	Hybrid	Networks:	What	Can	
be	Learnt	from	the	Difficulties	Encountered?	The	Example	of	the	Fight	against	Blood -	 and	Sexually-Transmitted	Infections. ”	 International	Review	of	Administrative	Sciences 	 84	(3):	469 – 485.	 Tu,	Xuan.	2016.	“Conditions	for	the	Co -Production	of	New	Immigrant	Services	in	Hong	
Kong.”	 International	Journal	of	Public	Administration 	39	(13):	1067 – 1076.	 Tuurnas,	Sanna.	2016.	“Looking	 beyond	the	Simplistic	Ideals	of	Participatory	Projects:	
Fostering	Effective	Co -production?”	 International	Journal	of	Public	Administration 	39	
(13):	1077– 1087.	 Van	Eijk,	Carola	and	Trui	Steen.	2016.	“Why	engage	in	co -production	of	public	services?	
Mixing	 theory	 and	 empirical	 evidence.”	 International	 Review	 of	 Administrative	
Sciences	82	(1):	28 – 46. 	 Van	Eijk,	Carola,	Trui	Steen	and	Bram	Verschuere.	2017.	“Co -producing	safety	in	the	local	
community:	A	Q -methodology	study	on	the	incentives	of	Belgian	and	Dutch	m embers	
of	neighbourhood	watch	schemes.”	 Local	Government	Studies 	43	(3):	323 – 343. 	 Vennik,	Femke	D.,	Hester	M.	van	de	Bovenkamp,	Kim	Putters	and	Kor	J.	Grit.	2016.	“Co -
production	 in	 Healthcare:	 Rhetoric	 and	 Practice.”	 International	 Review	 of	
Administrative	 Sciences	82	(1):	150 – 168. 	 Voorberg,	William,	Victor	Bekkers	and	Lars	Tummers.	2015.	“A	Systematic	Review	of	Co -
Creation	and	Co -Production:	Embarking	on	the	social	innovation	journey.”	 Public	
Management	Review 	17	(9):	1333‒1357. 	 Voorberg,	William,	Victor	Be kkers,	Krista	Timeus,	Piret	Tonurist	and	Lars	Tummers.	
2017.	“Changing	public	service	delivery:	learning	in	co -creation.”	 Policy	and	Society 	36	
(2):	178‒194. 	 Wiewiora,	Anna,	Robyn	Keast	and	Kerry	Brown.	2016.	“Opportunities	and	Challenges	in	
Engaging	Citizens	in	the	Co -Production	of	Infrastructure -Based	Public	Services	in	
Australia.”	 Public	Management	Review 	18	(4):	483 – 507.	 Wiid,	Ria	and	Paulo	Mora-Avila.	2018.	“Arts	marketing	framework:	The	arts	organisation	
as	a	hub	for	participation.”	 Journal	of	Public	Affairs 	18	(2):	1‒8. 	 Williams,	Brian	N.,	Seong -Cheol	Kang	and	Japera	Johnson.	2016.	“(Co) -Contamination	as	
the	Dark	Side	of	Co-Production:	Public	value	failures	in	co-production	processes.”	
Public	Management	Review 	18	(5):	692‒717. 	 Williams,	Brian	N.,	Mega n	LePere -Schloop,	Daniel	P.	Silk	and	Alexandra	Hebdon.	2016.	
“The	co -production	of	campus	safety	and	security:	a	case	study	at	the	University	of	
Georgia.”	 International	Review	of	Administrative	Sciences 	82	(1):	110‒130. 	 Yin,	Robert	K.	2003.	 Case	Study	Research	and	Methods .	Thousand	Oaks:	Sage	Publications. 	 	 	 	 	 	

J OURNAL OF C OMPARATIVE P OLITICS     52 
 
 
 
	 	 	 J E	 KULTURA 	 KOT 	 PODROČJE 	 JAVNIH 	 POLITIK 	 VOZLIŠČE 	 SOUSTVARJANJA? 	 	 Soustvarjanje	se	promovira	kot	rešitev	današnjih	izzivov.	Kljub	uporabnosti	na	
različnih	področjih	javne	politike	in	 obetavnih	učinkih,	se	področje	kulture	pogosto	
izpostavlja	 kot	 posebej	 zanimivo	 in	 ugodno	 okolje	 za	 soustvarjanje.	 Tako	 se	
intuitivno	uveljavlja	kot	področje,	ki	ponuja	precej	različne	pogoje	za	soustvarjanje	
‒	 kljub	 pomanjkanju	 trdnih	 argumentov,	 ki	 lahko 	 upravičujejo	 drugačno	
obravnavo	kulture	od	ostalih	področij	javnih	politik.	Da	bi	rešili	to	dilemo,	je	namen	
članka	odgovoriti	na	vprašanje,	ali	in	v	kolikšni	meri	so	spodbudni	dejavniki	in	ovire	
soustvarjanja	 na	 področju	 kulture	 specifični.	 Odgovor	 iščem o	 s	 pomočjo	
sistematičnega	 pregleda	 literature	 in	 študije	 primera	 projekta	 »Evropska	
prestolnica	kulture	2020	Reka«.	Članek	na	podlagi	tega	ugotavlja,	da	ni	specifičnih	
spodbudnih	dejavnikov	in	ovir,	ki	bi	opravičevali	posebno	obravnavo	kulture	kot	
bistven o	drugačnega	področja	soustvarjanja. 	 	 Ključne	besede: 	 kultura;	spodbudni	dejavniki	in	ovire	soustvarjanja;	mehki	
kognitivni	zemljevid;	projekt	»Evropska	prestolnica	kulture«.