方法对比

	Co-Production Assessment	Administrative Burden Analysis
领域	Public Administration	Public Administration
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1996	2015
提出者	Elinor Ostrom	Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd & Hope Harvey
类型	Service-relationship assessment framework	Cost-typology policy analysis
开创性文献	Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.	Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
别名	Coproduction Analysis, Citizen Co-Production Assessment, Service Co-Production Evaluation	Administrative Burden Assessment, Learning Psychological and Compliance Cost Analysis, Citizen-State Burden Analysis
相关	4	4
摘要	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.	Administrative burden analysis examines the costs that individuals experience when they interact with the state to claim benefits, comply with obligations or access public services. Articulated by Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd and Hope Harvey in their influential 2015 article, the framework decomposes these costs into three types: learning costs of finding out about and understanding a program, psychological costs of stress and stigma, and compliance costs of the time, paperwork and effort required to participate. The central claim is that burdens are consequential — they suppress program take-up and access — and that they are often the product of political choices rather than mere administrative accident. The analysis makes these hidden costs visible and traces who bears them.