Fairville - Barriers and Emerging Pathways to Scaling Co-production: A perspective from the Fairville Labs

This resource is a Work Package 5 (WP5) deliverable for the Fairville programme, titled “Barriers and Emerging Pathways to Scaling Co-production: A perspective from the Fairville Labs”. It is published by Fairville and authored by Alessio Kolioulis and Barbara Lipietz (University College London), with support from Manon Bleuzen, and contributions from Dominique Nalpas and Chloé Verlinden, drawing on inputs from the Fairville Labs.

The report captures early-stage (around month 17 of the programme) lab perspectives on what makes co-production practices “scalable” in cities, and what blocks or enables that scaling. It frames scaling as moving beyond isolated pilots so that collaborative, grassroots–state practices can be recognised, consolidated, and in some cases routinised within urban governance and planning. The report emphasises a plural, process-based understanding of scaling “in, to and beyond the city”, including horizontal, vertical and trans-local dynamics.

A central message is that scaling is not a single pathway. Through engagement with the labs, at least four dimensions emerge: consolidation (deepening and stabilising impact and partnerships), expansion (growing reach), multiplication/replication (new initiatives inspired by pilots), and institutionalisation (embedding co-production into instruments, routines and policy). The report argues that different labs may prioritise different dimensions depending on context, actors and time horizons.

Barriers to both co-production and scaling are grouped into three locations: within the state, within civil society/community groups, and at the interface between them. State-side barriers include fragmented responsibilities (e.g., across municipal, regional and operator levels), outdated or inappropriate legislative frameworks, limited funding for participation, shifting party politics and political cultures, and problems of transparency and accountability. The report also notes corruption/clientelism as a barrier discussed across contexts.

Within communities, the report highlights fragmentation and exclusion (including socio-economic, ethnic, tenancy-status and other divides), information and knowledge gaps, and financial constraints that limit sustained participation. Examples include the costs of participation (time and income constraints), gender norms restricting public engagement in some contexts, and the marginalisation of specific groups such as Roma communities in certain areas.

At the interface, the report points to misrecognition of residents as legitimate “city-makers”, low trust between communities and public authorities, and the technical nature of planning language and procedures as exclusionary. Divergent organisational cultures—vertical, rule-bound administrative logics versus horizontal community organising—are presented as a recurrent source of tension, especially where collaboration is perceived as a threat or power grab.

Opportunities are often presented as the “flip side” of barriers: political shifts that open space for experimentation; mobilisation that builds cohesion and coalitions; and knowledge co-production practices that legitimise resident expertise (including community-led data and mapping). From the comparative analysis, four emerging pathways are summarised: scaling through consolidation; through growth/expansion/replication; through mobilisation and coalition building; and through upscaling/institutionalisation so co-production becomes routine in governance.

The report stresses that “one size does not fit all” and that scaling strategies must be tailored to each lab’s opportunity structures and objectives. It positions future WP5 work (Task 5.1 continuing to month 36, with Tasks 5.2 and 5.3) as the space where lab-specific pathways will be co-developed, alongside cross-cutting work on institutionalisation instruments and on communities of practice to support learning, advocacy, and wider transfer across cities.