=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2797/paper12
|storemode=property
|title=The Use of Blockchain Technology in Digital Coproduction: The Case of Barcelona
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2797/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-2797
|authors=Evrim Tan,A. Paula Rodriguez Müller
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/egov/TanM20
}}
==The Use of Blockchain Technology in Digital Coproduction: The Case of Barcelona==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2797/paper12.pdf
The Use of Blockchain Technology in Digital
Coproduction: The Case of Barcelona
Evrim Tan*, A. Paula Rodriguez Müller**
*Katholieke Leuven Universiteit, Public Governance Institute, Evrim.tan@kuleuven.be
**Katholieke Leuven Universiteit, Public Governance Institute, anapaula.rodriguezmuller@kuleuven.be
Abstract: By creating an autonomous, transparent, and secure decentralized system, blockchain
technology enables the removal of intermediaries as trustees to be replaced by a peer-to-peer
based governance system. This feature upholds important implications to redesign the public
governance systems and co-production practices in a more transparent, efficient and effective
way. As a first use case example of the blockchain technology in a digital co-production process,
the city of Barcelona has initiated the Digital Democracy Data Commons (DDDC) project to
uses the blockchain and distributed ledger technology to share a petition with participants, sign
it with a mobile app and count the signatures in a cryptographically secure and completely
anonymous way. Through an in-depth case study, this paper analyzes how blockchain technology
can shape the coproduction processes and what possible roles can be assumed by citizens for the
use of these technologies in digital coproduction. In this paper, we created a novel analytical
framework to categorize possible roles imposed on coproducers in blockchain technology-based
systems. Our preliminary findings suggest that the compatibility with the legal framework, the
interoperability with existing institutions in data governance, and previous experiences and
established communities for deliberative and participatory processes are important on the design
-based digital coproduction
processes.
Keywords: Blockchain, Digital Coproduction, Distributed Ledger Technology
1. Introduction
Disruptive technologies are increasingly influencing the way coproduction provides value to society
and how coproduction processes are implemented. Governments around the globe are conceiving
of new ways to engage citizens in coproduction and collaborative efforts via disruptive technologies,
such as blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT). These efforts lie on the promises of
such technologies to increase trust in and security of transactions and reduce transactions cost (Foth,
2017; ITU, 2017). However, the existing literature is limited in empirical cases to show how
blockchain and DLT can shape the coproduction processes and what possible roles can be assumed
by citizens for the use of these technologies in digital coproduction.
Copyright ©2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
126 Ongoing Research
This paper aims to address this gap by focusing on the following research question: How can
blockchain and DLT shape citizen coproduction processes? A pilot of the Digital Democracy Data
Commons (DDDC) project in Barcelona, which applies DLT to engage stakeholders in a
participatory process will be studied in order to answer this research question. Through this case
study, the paper will outline a theoretical model to study the applications of blockchain and DLT in
digital coproduction processes. The remainder of the paper is structured as followed. Section 2
discusses the background of digital coproduction and the way blockchain and DLT can shape digital
coproduction processes. Section 3 presents the analytical framework, while Section 4 describes the
case and methodology. Section 5 outlines key findings. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Background
2.1. Digital Coproduction
The conception of coproduction fits in the New Public Governance paradigm that recognizes the
provision of public services as a model based on networks and inter-organizational relationships
(Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). In this article, we draw on the concept of coproduction by Brandsen and
Honingh (2016, p. 431):
Coproduction is a relationship between a paid employee of an organization and (groups of)
individual citizens that requires a direct and active contribution from these citizens to the work of the
organization.
Citizens can engage in the coproduction of public services in different stages of the delivery
process, including the public service design, public service delivery and execution, and public
service monitoring. Each stage, therefore, entails different roles both from the public service
provider and the citizen (Linders, 2012).
The ability to perform coproduction activities is seen to be increased by the implementation of
technological advances in the public sector (Fugini & Teimourikia, 2016; Johnston, 2010; Lember,
2017; Meijer, 2016; William, Webster, & Leleux, 2018). In that regard, digital coproduction often
corresponds to the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICT) in coproduction
processes. The adoption of ICT can affect coproduction by providing real-time access and exchange
coproduction processes with fully (or partly) automated processes (e.g. predictive policing). In this
vein, different technologies are strongly shaping coproduction processes and our understanding of
coproduction.
2.2. How Can Blockchain Shape Digital Coproduction?
Blockchain and DLT are a class of technologies, henceforth blockchain technologies (BCT), that
create a transparent, autonomous and decentralized data governance system that gives users
confidence that archived information has not been tampered with (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2018)
without the need of trustees to verify the genuineness of stored data.
Ongoing Research 127
We expect this feature of the BCT to have important implications for the coproduction processes
in public sector, because it allows the service users and stakeholders to directly shape their service
provision without a need of intermediary or administrator to validate or channel their input. BCT
can also increase the transparency, auditability and accountability of the information provided in
the coproduction processes and thereby builds trust in the coproduction processes. For instance,
BCT provides new ways of coproduction by allowing cities to create 'voluntary data repositories' of
citizens' personal data in order to co-produce new services. Moreover, BCT, as a communication
technology, can enable peer-to-peer public service delivery (Lember, et al. 2019) and a new
generation of democratic processes (Saldivar, et al. 2019).
However, there are some caveats and different technological features of BCT can have different
implications to the coproduction processes. First, choices of the system designers on the design of
the digital platform can affect the role of the coproducers and the scope of the coproduction
activities. BCT-based platforms can have permissionless/permissioned and public/private forms
(Miller, 2019). The choice between permissioned and permissionless systems calls for considerations
of several trade-offs and decisions to be made by policymakers and system designers. These trade-
off conditions are context-dependent and factors concerning organizational and technological
capacities, provider of technology services, area of application, interoperability with other data
platforms, and political preferences might determine the choice of decision-makers. Secondly, the
underlying consensus protocol and the associated incentive mechanism can alter the role of the
actors involved in the coproduction processes. Incentives are important to attract the validators that
contribute to the system with their time and resources (e.g. computing power and/or money). The
most common form of incentive mechanism is distributing tokens to the validators, which can hold
either a monetary value (e.g. Bitcoin) or another form of value for the beneficiary. However, using
tokens to motivate users to participate in coproduction processes may undermine the effectiveness
of coproduction processes or have negative repercussions (e.g. adverse environmental impact in
Proof of Work (PoW)- based systems).
Thirdly, BCT is not a monolithic technology and auxiliary technologies (e.g. tokens, zero-
knowledge protocols, smart contracts, etc.) integrated in the blockchain platform can alter the way
coproduction takes place. For example, through tokens and smart contracts, coproducers can enable
various voting features for coproduction processes and automatically execute ex-ante agreed rules
of transactions for service provision. At the same time, with zero-knowledge protocols, co-producers
can preserve their anonymity without undermining the validity of transactions in the blockchain
network. Depending on the applications (or decentralized applications), the scope and the
underlying features of coproduction in a blockchain platform may vary.
Fourth, the way decisions are implemented in the blockchain platform can impact the legitimacy
of coproduction. In blockchain governance, there are on-chain and off-chain decision-making
mechanisms. On-chain system brings the trade-off between efficient decision-making and transition
processes and risking destabilization due to the political dissonance. Off-chain system brings the
trade-off between enhancing the political consensus in the decision-making and transition processes
undermine the stability of the system (Finck, 2018).
128 Ongoing Research
The fifth caveat is related to the definition of the digital coproduction and concerns about to what
extent different acts of engagement using BCT can be classified as coproduction or co-creation. Veiko
et al. (2019) differentiate on the scope of activities associated with coproduction and cocreation based
on the level of engagement where activities concerning the service production correspond to
coproduction and the services at a strategic level correspond to cocreation. Moreover, they focus on
whether citizens provide direct and active input. Here direct refers to whether the input provided
by the citizens affects the services individually provided to them, and active refers to whether
citizens take part in the design or delivery of services. Yet, this definition has certain shortcomings
when applied to the user roles in a BCT-based system. The functionality of the BCT-based systems
rests upon the active engagement of the users in validation of the transactions. Even if the input of
the validators (be it random or selected nodes) can be rendered as active and direct according to the
aforementioned definition, their involvement is arbitrary and indiscriminate to the service provided
by the platform. In a way, they are passive service producers without holding an agency about the
scope of the services. Therefore, it is important to identify the different roles of the participants
engaging in BCT-based coproduction processes and whether they hold an agency in the services
provided by the system.
3. Analytical Framework
The literature of digital coproduction is still at its infancy, and only a few analytical frameworks are
ne
framework developed by Veiko et al. (2019) provides some coarse assumptions about the impact of
four categories of technology (i.e.sensing, communication, processing, and actuation) on motivation,
interaction, resources and decision-making processes and the co-
in coproduction. However, this coarse categorization has its shortcomings when it comes to the roles
of the BCT in coproduction processes. As mentioned earlier, BCT is not a monolith technology, and
varying applications and different underlying protocols of blockchain platforms may change the
implication of the technology concerning decision-
coproduction processes. Furthermore, it is difficult to position BCT only under one category of
digital technologies. BCT can be categorized as a processing technology- as rendered by the authors-
BCT allows users to control and verify the personal data and
thereby it allows an on-chain and off-chain engagement at a larger scale.
A second type of analytical model available in the literature focuses on the use and ownership of
data in the coproduction processes (Toots et al, 2017; McBride et al, 2018). For instance, Toots et al.
(2017) focus on barriers and drivers in the use of open data in digital co-production processes by
categorizing the institutional characteristics of the coproduction processes concerning the
technology, organizational structure, perception, attitudes and culture of stakeholders, and
regulative framework. This framework is useful to analyze the facilitating and debilitating
institutional factors in the use of open data in coproduction. However, in BCT-based systems, data
to the functioning of the system through their computing power and energy consumption, and
Ongoing Research 129
thereby the functionality and stability of the system rely on the continuous engagement of the
participants with the mining processes. This technical feature of BCT expands the impact of the
institutional framework on digital coproduction processes beyond the use of open data to a more
complex techno-social interaction. For instance, PoW-based systems are highly energy-consuming
processes1. Compatibility of the technology with regulations about CO2 emissions, rights to
forgotten or GDPR, and the cost of energy consumption for nodes are some additional institutional
factors that may affect the scope and the applications of BCT in coproduction processes. Therefore,
we infer that a functional analytical framework for the user roles in BCT-based coproduction
processes should align the user roles imposed by the technological features of BCT with the
institutional dimensions shaping the application of BCT in co-production processes.
As a first step, we developed an analytical model to assess the user roles in BCT-based co-
production (see Figure 1). In the construction of the model, we paid attention to matching three
dimensions with each other: (1) possible user roles identified by the BCT-based systems; (2) possible
citizen and state roles identified by the digital co-production/co-creation systems; and (3) a versatile
and evolutionary view on the role of BCT. Accordingly, we identified three stages in the use of BCT
in co-production processes.
Citizen-controlled information management: BCT is used to process personal data of citizens. In this
simplest form of BCT-based coproduction, a coproducer can have the role of data provider, verifier
and data user (Erhan et al., 2019). Coproducers can control and trace the personal data used in the
coproduction processes, verify the transaction as a node either in a permissioned or permissionless
system, and use the data for the creation of the public policies. In this mode of digital coproduction,
choices of public service organizations about the permission criteria to data infrastructure or
ownership of data infrastructure can affect the role of citizens or their representative organizations
in the coproduction processes. Nevertheless, citizens preserve the ultimate control of personal data
shared for coproduction processes. Therefore, we call this type of coproduction as citizen-controlled
information management.
Citizen-controlled public service design: In this mode, applications with smart contracts and digital
tokens are used to allow automated, self-enforced service decisions. In digital coproduction, citizens
through the use of the tokens can vote on the priority areas and criteria in public service provision
and automate the implementation through the use of smart contracts.
Citizen-controlled public service production: In the most advanced form of BCT-based co-production,
we expect the convergence of BCT with other digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI),
internet of things (IoT), or actuation technologies. In this mode, citizens can decide on the content,
extent and amount of the public service production. Depending on the combination of technologies,
citizens can provide tailor-made services for the specific needs of the communities or groups of
people. We expect in this stage, state to have limited or no involvement in public service provision
1 According to the Digieconomist, PoW-based Bitcoin mining consumes above 70.000 terawatt-hours per
year, comparable to the annual carbon footprint of Denmark and energy consumption of Austria.
(https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)
130 Ongoing Research
and instead to provide data or meta-data available in state-sources to contribute to the citizen-
controlled production processes.
Figure 7: Modes of BCT-based Coproduction
This framework will help us to categorize the roles imposed on the citizens in a BCT-based
system. We will expand our analysis later with the barriers and drivers identified by Toots et al
(2017) to understand the impact of institutional conditions on the use of open data on the BCT-based
co-production processes. The findings from the case study will allow us to refine and further develop
the proposed analytical framework.
4. Methodology
This study is designed as a single exploratory case study to examine how blockchain technologies
can shape citizen coproduction processes. A single exploratory case study is a useful design to gain
insights about a phenomenon that are thus far understudied or not understood, and to construct
new theory or generate propositions about the phenomenon (Yin, 1989). In this study, we will
the whole process of co- acy Data Common
of the EU funded DECODE project. DDDC uses BCT to share a petition with participants, sign it
with a mobile app and count the signatures in a cryptographically secure and completely
anonymous way.
We will collect our empirical data from secondary sources and expert interviews. We will gather
data from multiple sources of evidence (semi-structured interviews, technical reports and policy
reports, government documents) to triangulate conclusions and ensure higher levels of internal
validity. Furthermore, triangulation also helps to mitigate against subjectivity in the research and
thus strengthens the overall research design.
Ongoing Research 131
5. Preliminary Findings
Some preliminary key findings are shared below:
1) The case in Barcelona falls into the category of citizen-controlled public service design. The
pilot allows the control of the personal data by the people and creating an immutable and
transparent system. Each citizen of Barcelona receives a token for the use of services and
functionalities provided by the platform. Through tokens, citizens can vote on the proposals
for the municipality agenda on public services. The system operates through smart contracts.
2) Two possible pathways are being discussed on the governance of the DDDC. One option is
building a community around the application and creating a self-governance system around
the community. The second option is creating an institution for the governance. Whilst the
former option refers to a more decentralized system design, where the citizens control the data
structure, the second option leads to a more centralized system.
3) Several factors had been influential on the design choices with the platform and integration of
-government platform:
a) Need for legal framework: No personal data in the ledger is being transferred, which gives
direct control to citizens, but for further applications with BCT there is a need for a DLT
legal framework.
b) Interoperability: Interoperability of the technology with other administrative institutions
(e.g. Barcelona Data Office) is important. Further testing of the platform will focus on this
dimension.
c) Political leverage: Person in charge should have some political leverage. For this project,
d) Building the platform around a community: Building the technology around an existing
community is important for an easier transformation.
e) Path dependency: Previous practices with participative democracy (e.g. 50 men movement)
and digital governance (i.e. Decidim) had been influential in the prioritization of citizen-
empowering (or more decentralized) systems designs. Furthermore, the emerging business
culture in Barcelona in adopting smart city technologies since 2015, allowed the city to
cooperate with big corporations on the development of the technology.
4) There are some challenges ahead to scale up the project:
a) Technology itself does not create trust: If people do not understand the technology, it is difficult
to create trust only by the technical features of blockchain. Trusted parties/stakeholders
can assist in building trust about the technology.
b) Compatibility with existing legal/regulative framework: There are challenges with the current
legal framework especially concerning the right to be forgotten and the immutability and
transparency of the DLT system. It is possible that some challenges can be solved
technically (e.g. zero-knowledge protocol) but some decisions may need to be centralized.
Therefore, there may be a need for more complex governance systems (partially centralized,
partially through DLT or other decentralized systems). The environmental impact of the
PoW technology and its compatibility with the CO2 framework are other concerns and
reflect on the decisions with (de)centralization of the platform.
132 Ongoing Research
6. Concluding Remarks
DDDC pilot is a unique use case to understand the implications of the BCT in coproduction
processes. The case shows that BCT can create a pathway for citizen-controlled coproduction
processes where citizens control their own data used in service production, and collectively decide
on the policy priorities. However, there are various institutional, technological, social and
organizational factors that can affect the design choices of the decision-makers, and thereby the
application of BCT in the coproduction processes. In the case of Barcelona, the compatibility with
the legal framework, the interoperability with existing institutions in data governance, and previous
experiences and established communities for deliberative and participatory processes had been
system.
Further research is recommended to understand further the underlying factors affecting the choices
of decision-makers toward more decentralized systems in BCT-based coproduction.
References
Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C. & King, J. L. (2018). Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and
Research Agenda. Journal of the Association for Information, 19 (10), Art.1.
-production: The Contribution of Users and
Communities to Outcomes and Pu 1138.
Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and
Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas, 23(4), 1119 1138.
inguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual
435. doi:
10.1111/puar.12465.Distinguishing.
Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis
Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427 435.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465.Distinguishing
Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (Style ArticleReferences)
Coleman, S. (2000). Parliament in the Information Age: The Case of Westminister and Holyrood. In R.
Gibson & S. Ward (Eds.), Reinvigorating democracy? British Politics and the Internet (pp. 67-80).
Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Pub Ltd.
Erhan, M., Tarhan, A., & Ozsoy, A. (2019). A Conceptual Model for Blockchain-Based Software Project
Information Sharing. IWSM-Mensura.
Finck, M. (2018). Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Foth, M. (2017). Participation, Co-Creation, and Public Space. The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 21.
https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i4.139
Ongoing Research 133
Fugini, M., & Teimourikia, M. (2016). The Role of ICT in Co-Production of e-Government Public Services. In
M. Fugini, E. Bracci, & M. Sicilia (Eds.), Co-production in the Public Sector (pp. 119 139). Springer,
Cham.
Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and Managing eGovernment. London: Sage Publications.
ITU. (2017). Measuring the Information Society Report 2017 - Volume 1. In International Telecommunication
Union (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.3359/oz0303157
Johnston, E. (2010). Governance infrastructures in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70(SUPPL. 1), 122
128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02116.x
Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-
production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21 (11), 1665-1686.
Lember, V. (2017). The Increasing Role of Digital Technologies in Co-production. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, &
B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. London:
Routledge.
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in
the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446 454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2006). Evaluating how ePariticipation changes local democracy, eGovernment
Workshop 11 September 2006, Brunel University, West London.
McBride, K., et al. (2018). How does open government data driven co-creation occur? Six factors and a
Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.006.
Meijer, A. J. (2016). Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 29(6), 596 611.
Miller, A. (2020). Permissioned and Permissionless Blockchains. In S. Shetty, C. Kamhoua and L. Njilla (Eds.)
Blockchain for Distributed Systems Security (pp.193-204). Wiley.
Mingers, J. (1996). A Comparison of Maturana's Autopoietic Social Theory and Giddens' Theory of
Structuration. Systems Research, 13(4), 469-482.
Supported Cooperative Work. CSCW, 28, pp. 169 207. doi: 10.1007/s10606-018-9311-7.
Toots, M., McBride, K., Kalvet, T., Krimmer, R. (2017). Open Data as Enabler of Public Service Co-creation:
Exploring the Drivers and Barriers. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference for E-
Democracy and Open Government (pp.102-112). Krems, Austria: IEEE Computer Society
William, C., Webster, R., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated
citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23, 95 110. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065
Wolfram, D., & Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J., & Saracevic, T. (2001). Vox populi: The public searching of the Web.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 1073-1074.
134 Ongoing Research
About the Authors
Evrim Tan
Evrim Tan is a postdoctoral researcher at KU Leuven Public Governance Institute. His research focuses on
decentralization, blockchain governance, and public governance models. He is part of the academic advisory
board of INATBA, and member of the Belgian representatives for European Blockchain Service Infrastructure.
A. Paula Rodriguez Müller
A. Paula Rodriguez Müller is a doctoral researcher and teaching assistant at KU Leuven Public Governance
Institute. His research focuses on ICT-based coproduction, citizen engagement, channel choice and
democratic public values.