So sánh phương pháp

	Co-Production Assessment	Accountability Mechanism Analysis
Lĩnh vực	Public Administration	Public Administration
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1996	2007
Người khởi xướng	Elinor Ostrom	Mark Bovens
Loại	Service-relationship assessment framework	Conceptual accountability assessment framework
Công trình gốc	Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.	Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
Tên gọi khác	Coproduction Analysis, Citizen Co-Production Assessment, Service Co-Production Evaluation	Accountability Assessment Framework, Bovens Accountability Analysis, Public Accountability Mechanism Analysis
Liên quan	4	4
Tóm tắt	Co-production assessment analyses how public services are produced jointly by professional providers and the citizens, clients or communities who use them, rather than delivered to passive recipients. The concept was developed by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues and sharpened in her 1996 article, which argued that the inputs of "regular producers" such as teachers, police or doctors and those of citizen "co-producers" are often complementary, so that neither can produce the service well alone. The framework assesses what citizens contribute, how their inputs combine with professional inputs, and the conditions under which this combination creates synergy. Its purpose is to identify and strengthen the joint production at the heart of many public services.	Accountability mechanism analysis provides a structured way to identify, describe and evaluate the relationships through which public actors must explain and justify their conduct to others. Mark Bovens, in his 2007 conceptual framework, defines accountability narrowly as a relationship in which an actor has an obligation to render an account of conduct to a forum that can pose questions, pass judgement, and impose consequences. The method first maps these relationships, then classifies them by the type of forum and obligation, and finally assesses them against political, constitutional and learning perspectives. Its purpose is to bring analytical precision to a concept that is otherwise used as a vague synonym for good governance.