Who Gets to Coproduce? Frontline Discretion and the Interpretation of Client Performance Information

Abstract

Coproduction is promoted in public administration for its potential to improve service experiences, client outcomes, and legitimacy, yet its implementation remains uneven. Existing research has identified client- and organizational-level factors that affect coproduction, but less attention has been paid to the provider-side judgments that precede it. Meanwhile, frontline workers increasingly rely on client-level performance information, which prior research shows is interpreted through professional norms, goals, and organizational context, and can influence how they allocate effort and engage with clients. The implications of these interpretive processes for coproduction remain underexamined. Thus, this study examines whether client performance information influences frontline workers’ discretionary judgments about coproduction. The analysis focuses on primary care, where physicians routinely interpret clinical indicators and exercise discretion when involving patients in shared decision-making. Using a vignette experiment with 200 U.S. primary care physicians, the study isolates the effect of client-level performance information on perceived suitability for coproduction and expectations of coproduction. Respondents indicated that physicians would view a patient with poorer performance information as less suitable for coproduction and less likely to be engaged collaboratively. These findings show how performance information can influence how frontline workers interpret clients and form judgments about coproduction.