An examination of the relationship between citizenship orientations and the way public leisure services are produced

Abstract

Fostering citizenship is often regarded as a salient rationale for the delivery of public leisure. Consequently, the adoption of a consumer metaphor to describe the recipients of public leisure services is viewed disparagingly by many leisure scholars. As such, in the literature, a dichotomy has been created between citizens and consumers. Each distinction reflects a certain relationship between recipients of services and government. The emphasis of the citizen distinction is problematic, though, because it is placed exclusively upon social citizenship. Moreover, the consumer paradigm is presented as something completely distinct from citizenship. Further exploration of the literature reveals that citizenship is composed of social, political and civil dimensions (Marshall, 1992). Thus, to imply that citizenship is absent from the role of a consumer is misleading. More appropriately, citizenship orientations are likely strengthened or weakened by the way public services are produced. When the state produces services directly it does so with the intent to deliver social benefits to the community. The role of the state producer is paternalistic, so decision making relies on professional judgement to def me the public good. Citizens, though, are typically restricted to using services without much of a role in organizing or planning them. Alternatively, under privatization, a private contractor deliberately creates an arm's length relationship with the public in order to persuade them to consume services. As consumers, citizens are encouraged to forsake the public good for their own self-interest, and their ability to shape policy is limited. Finally, under co-production, public leisure services are produced jointly by the state and its citizens with the intent to build social capital. Decision making relies upon community input to negotiate the public good. Thus, the state facilitates the provision the resources necessary to assist citizens with service delivery. Private initiative is encouraged as means of addressing social needs. In theory, then, exposure to a particular model of service production influences citizenship orientations. Though theoretical analyses of this issue have appeared in the leisure literature, there is a decided absence of empirical research. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to examine citizenship orientations and their relationship with the way public leisure services are produced. Responses for the study were gathered from individuals who were exposed to direct provision, privatization or co-production. Because citizenship was the defining variable in the study, a reliable and valid scale, called the Citizenship Profile scale, was constructed to measure social, civil and political citizenship orientations. At the time of this study, no scale had been designed with such a purpose in mind. A survey design was then employed to test empirically whether exposure to different models of service production fostered certain citizenship orientations in respondents. In sum, it was discovered that political and social citizenship orientations differed between those exposed to coproduction and privatization. Moreover, the way public leisure services were produced appeared to have a greater effect on social and political citizenship than did the activities in which respondents participated. Fμially, there appeared to be no discernable relationship between civil citizenship orientations and bias in favour of and exposure to different models of service production. Put briefly, this research provides empirical evidence in regard to the relationship between the way public leisure services are produced and citizenship orientations. Moreover, the findings give policy makers, elected officials and public administrators insight into the potential implications for citizenship of adopting a distinct model of service production.