Abstract The aim of this article is to explore the link between different notions of co‐production. It seeks to emphasise the underlying politics of co‐production in the sense of who defines co‐production, especially in relation to initial decisions concerning which specific policy areas are deemed suitable for codesigning, cocreating, or codelivering with services users or local communities. We argue that the rejection of co‐production by government may inflame political resentment and reconfirm negative pre‐existing attitudes about “the establishment.” This is particularly problematic when politicians have promoted the rhetoric of “inclusive governance,” “sharing power,” or “delegating power” but then reject the co‐productive claims emerging from such statements. The study contributes to existing work by analysing what happens when co‐productive structures are terminated or when public protests demand the reinstitutionalisation of those relationships. We make this contribution by presenting findings from an ethnographic case study involving street trees in a large English city. We suggest these specific findings have a broader relevance.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.