Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T19:52:24.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Volunteering Always Voluntary? Between Compulsion and Coercion in Co-production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Piret Tõnurist and
Laidi Surva
Piret Tõnurist*
Affiliation:
Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
Laidi Surva*
Affiliation:
Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
*
piret.tonurist@ttu.ee
laidi3011@gmail.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Governments are increasingly eager to involve citizens in co-production of services. They are seen as a substitution or a supplementary resource in service delivery. Citizens’ involvement relies heavily on their motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic drivers) to partake in co-production. Taking note from prior debate in the volunteerism literature, the article ties volunteer motivation to the process of co-production and citizen–state interaction. Here the state has contrastive options to motivate citizens’ behavior varying between compulsion and coercion. The question is how states’ increased engagement and interaction with volunteers affects volunteer motivation and free choice, the main characteristic of volunteerism. To exemplify this, we analyze the motivation behind state engagement in different forms of co-production: volunteering in rescue and police services and in a volunteer program for the unemployed in Estonia. We conclude that using citizens in co-production is rife with controversies that influence the very nature of volunteerism.

Résumé

Résumé

Les gouvernements souhaitent de plus en plus impliquer les citoyens dans la co-production de services. Ils sont perçus comme des ressources de substitution ou supplémentaires pour la prestation de services. L’implication des citoyens dépend largement de leur motivation (facteurs intrinsèques et extrinsèques) à collaborer à la production. S’inspirant de débat antérieur tiré de littérature existante sur le bénévolat, l’article fait un lien entre la motivation des bénévoles et le processus de co-production et l’interaction de l’État avec le citoyen. L’état jouit ici d’options contrastantes pour motiver le comportement des citoyens, de la compulsion à la coercition. La question est la suivante : comment l’engagement accru des États et l’interaction avec les bénévoles influencent-ils la motivation de ces derniers et leur liberté de choix, la principale caractéristique du bénévolat? Pour exemplifier ce concept, nous analysons la motivation derrière l’engagement de l’État dans diverses formes de co-production: le bénévolat observé dans les services de sauvetage et de police et celui d’un programme bénévole pour chômeurs en Estonie. Nous concluons que l’appel aux citoyens aux fins de co-production soulève de nombreuses controverses qui influencent la nature même du bénévolat.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Regierungen sind vermehrt darum bemüht, Bürger in die Gemeinschaftsproduktion von Dienstleistungen miteinzubeziehen. Sie werden als Ersatz bzw. eine zusätzliche Ressource für die Dienstleistungsbereitstellung betrachtet. Die Involvierung der Bürger hängt stark von ihrer Motivation (intrinsische und extrinsische Anreize) zur Teilnahme an einer Gemeinschaftsproduktion ab. Unter Berücksichtigung einer früherern Debatte in der Literatur zur ehrenamtlichen Arbeit verbindet dieser Artikel die Motivation der Ehrenamtlichen mit dem Prozess der Gemeinschaftsproduktion und der Interaktion zwischen Staat und Bürger. Der Staat verfügt hier über kontrastierende Optionen, die zwischen Druck und Zwang variieren, um das Verhalten der Bürger zu motivieren. Die Frage ist, wie sich die erhöhte Involvierung des Staates und seine Interaktion mit den Ehrenamtlichen auf deren Motivation und freie Entscheidung, das Hauptmerkmal der ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit, auswirken. Zur Veranschaulichung analysiert man die Motivation für das Eingreifen des Staates in verschiedenen Formen der Gemeinschaftsproduktion: die ehrenamtliche Arbeit im Rettungs- und Polizeidienst und in einem ehrenamtlichen Programm für Arbeitslose in Estland. Man kommt zu dem Schluss, dass der Einsatz von Bürgern in der Gemeinschaftsproduktion mit Kontroversen gespickt ist, die den wesentlichen Charakter der ehrenamtlichen Arbeit beeinflussen.

Resumen

Resumen

A los gobiernos cada vez les entusiasma más implicar a los ciudadanos en la coproducción de servicios. Son vistos como una sustitución o como un recurso suplementario en la entrega de servicios. La implicación de los ciudadanos se basa enormemente en su motivación (impulsores intrínsecos y extrínsecos) para participar en la coproducción. Tomando nota de debates previos en el material publicado sobre el voluntariado, el artículo relaciona la motivación del voluntario con el proceso de coproducción y la interacción ciudadano-estado. En este caso, el estado tiene opciones contrastivas para motivar el comportamiento de los ciudadanos que varían entre la compulsión y la coerción. La pregunta es cómo el aumento del compromiso y la interacción de los estados con los voluntarios afecta a las principales características del voluntariado: la motivación de los voluntarios y la libre elección. Para ejemplificar esto, analizamos la motivación subyacente al compromiso estatal en diferentes formas de coproducción: voluntariado en servicios de rescate y policiales y en un programa voluntario para los desempleados en Estonia. Concluimos que la utilización de ciudadanos en la coproducción está plagada de controversias que influyen en la propia naturaleza del voluntariado.

Chinese

Chinese

政府越来越渴望让公民参与志愿服务的合作。在提供服务的过程中,他们被视为是的替代者或补充资源。市民的参与严重依赖他们参加合作的动机(内在和外在驱动因素)。注意到在志愿服务文献中之前所进行的讨论,这篇文章将志愿者的动机与合作过程和市民-国家互动联系起来。在这里国家具有对照性的选择,来激发市民在强制和强迫情况下的不同行为。问题是国家深入的参与以及与志愿者增强的互动,如何能影响志愿者的动机和自由选择,这才是志愿服务的主要特征。为了举例证明这一点,我们分析了不同形式合作中国家参与背后的动机:救援和警察服务中的志愿服务在以及爱沙尼亚针对失业者的志愿项目。我们得出结论:在合作中使用市民会充满争议,这种争议会影响志愿服务的本质。

Japanese

Japanese

政府は、急速に協働のサービスにおいて市民と関わろうとしている。政府は、サービス提供のための補助的リソースもしくは代替として見なされている。市民の関与は協働に参加する動機(組み込みと外因的な推進力)に大きく依存している。ボランティア文献における従来の議論を用いて、本論文では協働・市民の相互作用のプロセスをボランティアの動機と結びつける。強制と支配の中で市民の行動に動機を与える対照的なオプションを提示する。問題は、どのように国家による関与の増加とボランティアとの相互作用が、ボランティアの動機と自由選択、ボランティア活動の主な特徴に影響を与えるかである。具体例としては、様々な協働の形態において国家事業の背景となる動機づけを分析する。エストニアの失業者の救済、警察のサービス、ボランティア・プログラムのボランティアを提示する。市民の協働ではボランティア活動の本質に影響を与える論争が出ていることが分かった。

Arabic

Arabic

الحكومات حريصة على نحو متزايد لإشراك المواطنين في الإنتاج المشترك للخدمات. ينظر إليهم على إنهم بديل أو مورد إضافي في تقديم الخدمات. إشراك المواطنين يعتمد بشكل كبيرعلى دوافعهم (العوامل الجوهرية والخارجية) للمشاركة في الإنتاج المشترك. بأخذ ملاحظات من النقاش السابق في أدب التطوع، المقالة تربط دافع المتطوع لعملية الإنتاج المشترك وتفاعل المواطن والدولة. هنا أن الدولة لديها خيارات تقابلية لتحفيز سلوك المواطنين تتراوح بين الإكراه والقسر. السؤال هو كيف زيادة الدول المشاركة والتفاعل مع المتطوعين يؤثرعلى دافع المتطوعين وحرية الاختيار، السمة الرئيسية للعمل التطوعي. لتجسيد هذا، نحن نحلل الدافع وراء إنخراط الدولة في أشكال مختلفة من الإنتاج المشترك: العمل التطوعي في خدمات الانقاذ والشرطة وفي برنامج المتطوعين للعاطلين عن العمل في إستونيا. نستنتج أن إستخدام المواطنين في الإنتاج المشترك هو الذي ينشر الخلافات التي تؤثرعلى طبيعة العمل التطوعي.

Keywords

Co-productionVolunteeringCompulsionCoercionGovernmantality

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2017, pp. 223 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agu-Kruusmaa, D. (2014). Vabatahtlike motivatsioon siseturvalisuse tagamisel politsei- ja päästevaldkonna näitel. Master thesis. Estonian Academy of Security Sciences.Google Scholar
Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Saksida, T. (2015). Committed to whom? Unraveling how relational job design influences volunteers’ turnover intentions and time spent volunteering. Voluntas, 26(6), 2479–2499. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9526-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34(1), 32–56. doi: 10.1177/0095399702034001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery. Managing with external providers. London: Palgrave Macmillan doi: 10.1007/978-1-137-00724-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baines, D. (2004). Caring for nothing work organization and unwaged labour in social services. Work, Employment & Society, 18(2), 267–295. doi: 10.1177/09500172004042770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beehr, T. A., LeGro, K., Porter, K., Bowling, N. A., & Swader, W. M. (2010). Required volunteers: Community volunteerism among students in college classes. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 276–280. doi: 10.1080/00986283.2010.510965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T., Stoker, G., Jones, T., Loeffler, E., & Roncancio, M. P. (2015). Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 47–68. doi: 10.1177/0020852314566009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1111/puar.12465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudney, J. L. (1990). Expanding the government-by-proxy construct: Volunteers in the delivery of public services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19, 28–315.10.1177/089976409001900403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudney, J. L., & Kellough, J. E. (2000). Volunteers in state government: Involvement, management, and benefits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 111–130. doi: 10.1177/0899764000291007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, A., De Boer, L., & McNamara, K. T. (2001). Community choice between volunteer and professional fire departments. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 26–50. doi: 10.1177/0899764001301002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, B., & Fiorillo, D. (2012). Why without pay? Intrinsic motivation in the unpaid labour supply. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(5), 659–669. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2012.05.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., & Myers, C. K. (2010). Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11), 911–920. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chum, A., Mook, L., Handy, F., Schugurensky, D., & Quarter, J. (2013). Degree and direction of paid employee/volunteer interchange in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(4), 409–426. doi: 10.1002/nml.21072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. (2005). New labour’s citizens: activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned? Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 447–463. doi: 10.1177/0261018305057024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Ridge, R. (1992). Volunteers’ motivations: A functional strategy for the recruitment, placement, and retention of volunteers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 333–350. doi: 10.1002/nml.4130020403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collom, E., Lasker, J. N., & Kyriacou, C. (2012). Equal time, equal value: Community currencies and time banking in the US. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27. doi: 10.1007/s12115-003-1014-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikenberry, A. M. (2007). Philanthropy, voluntary association, and governance beyond the state giving circles and challenges for democracy. Administration & Society, 39(7), 857–882. doi: 10.1177/0095399707306189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EUIF (2015). Statistics on the inflow of active measures and participants in active measures. Tallinn: Unemployment Insurance Fund.Google Scholar
Fiorillo, D. (2011). Do monetary rewards crowd out the intrinsic motivation of volunteers? Some empirical evidence for Italian volunteers. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(2), 139–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2011.00434.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallant, K. A. (2011). Feelings of obligation related to volunteering as serious leisure within a communitarian framework. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
Gaston, K., & Alexander, J. A. (2001). Effective organisation and management of public sector volunteer workers: police special constables. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(1), 59–74. doi: 10.1108/09513550110387075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazley, B. (2013). Predicting a volunteer’s future intentions in professional associations: A test of the Penner Model. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1245–1267. doi: 10.1177/0899764012453207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handy, F., Mook, L., & Quarter, J. (2008). The interchangeability of paid staff and volunteers in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(1), 76–92. doi: 10.1177/0899764007303528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haski-Leventhal, D., Meijs, L. C. P. M., & Hustinx, L. (2009). The third-party model: Enhancing volunteering through governments, corporations and educational institutes. Journal of Social Policy, 39(1), 139–158. doi: 10.1017/S0047279409990377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haß, R., & Serrano-Velarde, K. (2014) When doing good becomes an “affaire d ‘état“. Voluntary services in Germany. Retrieved January 10, 2015 from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/Copenhagen2014/HassSerrano_voluntary_servic.pdf.Google Scholar
Henderson, A., Brown, S. D., Pancer, S. M., & Ellis-Hale, K. (2007). Mandated community service in high school and subsequent civic engagement: The case of the “double cohort” in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(7), 849–860. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9207-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinsberg, H., Mahlapuu, K., Mikko, E., Ohvril, A., & Urm, T. (2012). Organiseeritud vabatahtliku tegevuse kommunikatsiooni strateegia 2012-2014. Praxis: Tallinn.Google Scholar
Hotchkiss, R. B., Unruh, L., & Fottler, M. D. (2014). The role, measurement, and impact of volunteerism in hospitals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 1111–1128. doi: 10.1177/0899764014549057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am? Volunteer turnover and the politics of self actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 236–255. doi: 10.1177/0899764008328183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L., & Meijs, L. (2011). Re-embedding volunteering: In search of a new collective ground. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), 5–21. doi: 10.1332/204080511X560594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, M. (2013). Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27–54. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, G., Douglas, F., & Chamberlain, E. (2008). Compulsory volunteering: Using service learning to introduce occupation to occupational therapy students. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(1), 38–40. doi: 10.1177/030802260807100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. H., & De Tavernier, W. (2016). Active ageing: Prospects and pitfalls in the case of voluntarism among Danish seniors. In Scabini, E. & Rossi, G. (Eds.), L’allungamento della vita: Una risorsa per la famiglia, un’opportunità per la società—A resource for the family, an opportunity for society (pp. 185–205). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar
Jerome, L. (2012). England’s citizenship education experiment: State school and student perspectives. London: A&C Black.10.5040/9781350091207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452–472. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiranek, P., Kals, E., Humm, J. S., Strubel, I. T., & Wehner, T. (2013). Volunteering as a means to an equal end? The impact of a social justice function on intention to volunteer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(5), 520–541. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2013.768594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31–49. doi: 10.1080/00220380410001673184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstam, V., Tomek, S., Celen-Demirtas, S., & Sweeney, K. (2015). Volunteering and reemployment status in unemployed emerging adults a time-worthy investment? Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 152–165. doi: 10.1177/1069072714523248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreutzer, K., & Jäger, U. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661. doi: 10.1177/0899764010369386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. J., & Brudney, J. L. (2009). Rational volunteering: A benefit-cost approach. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29(9/10), 512–530. doi: 10.1108/01443330910986298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lember, V. (2015). Externalization of public services and the third sector: Taking stock of the Estonian local governments’ experiences. In De Vries, M. & Nemec, J. (Eds.), The new public management in transitional countries. Brussel: Bruylant.Google Scholar
Machin, J., & Paine, A. E. (2008). Management matters: A national survey of volunteer management capacity. London: Institute for Volunteering Research.Google Scholar
Manatschal, A., & Freitag, M. (2014). Reciprocity and volunteering. Rationality and Society, 26(2), 208–235. doi: 10.1177/1043463114523715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, E. C., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal gains in civic development through school-based required service. Political Psychology, 26(3), 413–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00424.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, L., Farrell, E., Chum, A., Handy, F., Schugurensky, D., & Quarter, J. (2014). Individual and organizational factors in the interchangeability of paid staff and volunteers: Perspectives of volunteers. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(2), 65–85.10.22230/cjnser.2014v5n2a187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539–1570. doi: 10.2307/3006184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Foundation of Civil Society (NFCS). (2015). Kodaniku algatuse institutsionaliseerumine Eestis 2014. Retrieved March 19, 2015 from http://www.kysk.ee/failid/Upload/files/KUAK%2014%20raport.pdf.Google Scholar
Netting, F. E., Nelson, H. W. Jr., Borders, K., & Huber, R. (2004). Volunteer and paid staff relationships: Implications for social work administration. Administration in Social Work, 28(3–4), 69–89. doi: 10.1300/J147v28n03_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netting, F. E., O’Connor, M. K., Thomas, M. L., & Yancey, G. (2005). Mixing and phasing of roles among volunteers, staff, and participants in faith-based programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(2), 179–205. doi: 10.1177/0899764005275204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, M., & Wallace, M. (2007). Perspectives on leading volunteers in the not-for-profit sector. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 12(2), 70.Google Scholar
O’Meara, P., Tourle, V., & Rae, J. (2012). Factors influencing the successful integration of ambulance volunteers and first responders into ambulance services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 20(5), 488–496. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01055.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G., Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2013.796260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S. W. (2013). Using volunteers in policing: A force field analysis of American supervisors. The Police Journal, 86, 289–306. doi: 10.1350/pojo.2013.86.4.630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochester, C., Paine, A. E., Howlett, S., & Zimmeck, M. (2010). Volunteering and society in the 21st century (Vol. 1998). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan doi: 10.1057/9780230279438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seippel, Ø (2002). Volunteers and professionals in Norwegian sport organizations. Voluntas, 13(3), 253–270. doi: 10.1023/A:1020389409852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, T. (2015). Co-production in relation to citizen and professional engagement. In Invited lecture for the Workshop ‘Co-production in Public Services: Design and Innovation’, organized by the University of Edinburgh, June 17th 2015.Google Scholar
Stirling, C., & Bull, R. (2011). Collective agency for service volunteers a critical realist study of identity representation. Administration & Society, 43(2), 193–215. doi: 10.1177/0095399711400046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, M. L. (2004). Suppressing volunteer firefighting. Regulation, 27(4), 12–13.Google Scholar
Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10(1), 59–64. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surva, L., Tõnurist, P., & Lember, V. (2016, in press). Co-production in a network setting: Providing an alternative to the national probation service. International Journal of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tõnurist, P., & De Tavernier, W. (2016). The welfare state in flux: Individual responsibility and changing accountability relations in social services. In Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (Eds.), The ashgate research companion to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Torre, L. H. (2007). Citizen sourcing in the public interest. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 3(1), 45–134.Google Scholar
Uus, M., Hinsberg, H., Mänd, T., & Batueva, V. (2013). Vabatahtlikus tegevuses osalemine Eestis 2013. Tallinn: Poliitikauuringute Keskus Praxis. Retrieved March 19, 2015 from https://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/vabatahtikus_tegevuses_osalemine_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Valeau, P., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Gatignon Turnau, A. L. (2013). A study of the relationships between volunteers’ commitments to organizations and beneficiaries and turnover intentions. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 45(2), 85–95. doi: 10.1037/a0027620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eijk, C., & Steen, T. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 28–46. doi: 10.1177/0020852314566007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volunteer Forum. (2014). Sotsiaalvaldkonna vabatahtliku tegevuse foorumi kokkuvõte.Google Scholar
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, J., & Smith, J. (2003). Out of the generosity of your heart: are we creating active citizens through compulsory volunteer programmes for young people in Australia? Social Policy and Administration, 37(7), 772–786. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9515.2003.00371.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, J. (2014). The rise of the special constabulary: are forces getting value for money from their voluntary officers? An empirical study in Avon and Somerset police. Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 87(1), 29–40. doi: 10.1350/pojo.2014.87.1.649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012). Volunteer decisions (not) to leave: Reasons to quit versus functional motives to stay. Human Relations, 65(7), 883–900. doi: 10.1177/0018726712442554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W. (2013). Does compulsory volunteering affect subsequent behaviour? Evidence from a quasi experiment in Canada. Retrieved January 27, 2015 from http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/cms-socsci/socsci/economics/documents/old-files/CVpaper_long.pdf.Google Scholar
Yap, S. Y., Byrne, A., & Davidson, S. (2011). From refugee to good citizen: A discourse analysis of volunteering. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(1), 157–170. doi: 10.1093/jrs/feq036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, D. K., Jensen, J., & Youngs, G. A. (2014). Volunteer fire chiefs’ perceptions of retention and recruitment challenges in rural fire departments: The case of North Dakota, USA. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 11(3), 393–413. doi: 10.1515/jhsem-2013-0103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar