This article investigates the effects of participation on performance assessment in government, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations that deliver public services. In addition to examining the impact of participation on public assessments of performance, we also test the perceived tradeoff between efficiency and participation, as well as the sectoral differences in the participation-performance relationship. We conducted a preregistered vignette experiment using the context of US nursing homes where various organizational information, including participation opportunities, and sector of operation (public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors) serve as key treatment manipulations. We find that participation plays a critical role in enhancing perceptions of organizations regardless of sectors, but government organizations may obtain greater benefits by pursuing participation, especially in improving public perception of bureaucratic effectiveness and efficiency. These findings suggest that participation is not only normatively desirable, but also practically beneficial for organizations. The findings from this study contribute to advancing our knowledge on public participation, sector differences, performance management, and public values.
Clinical Trial Registration
This research was pre-registered at the American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials (RCT ID: AEARCTR-0011918 and URL hidden for peer review).
AmirkhanyanA.RobertsF.MeierK. J.SongM. (2024). Examining attitudes toward public participation across sectors: An experimental study of food assistance. Public Administration, 102(4), 1604–1623. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12991
2.
AmirkhanyanA. A.CheonO.DavisJ. A.MeierK. J.WangF. (2019). Citizen participation and its impact on performance in US nursing homes. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019854172
3.
AmirkhanyanA. A.KimH. J.LambrightK. T. (2008). Does the public sector outperform the nonprofit and for-profit sectors? Evidence from a national panel study on nursing home quality and access. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(2), 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20327
4.
AndrewsR.Van de WalleS. (2013). New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Management Review, 15(5), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725757
5.
BaldwinE. (2020). Why and how does participatory governance affect policy outcomes? Theory and evidence from the electric sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz033
6.
BarnesC.MichenerJ.RainsE. (2023). “It’s like night and day”: How bureaucratic encounters vary across WIC, SNAP, and Medicaid. Social Service Review, 97(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/723365
7.
BozemanB.BretschneiderS. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037204
8.
BrunnerE. J.RobbinsM. D.SimonsenB. (2024). Citizen perceptions of public school efficiency: Evidence from the US. Public Management Review, 26(6), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2158211
9.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238
BurkeJ. P.ClearyR. E. (1989). Reconciling public administration and democracy: The role of the responsible administrator. Public Administration Review, 49(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/977340
12.
CarmanJ. G.FredericksK. A. (2008). Nonprofits and evaluation: Empirical evidence from the field. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(119), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.268
13.
ClarkJ. K. (2018). Designing public participation: Managing problem settings and social equity. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12872
DabholkarP. A.ShengX. (2012). Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: Effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. The Service Industries Journal, 32(9), 1433–1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.624596
16.
DachlerH. P.WilpertB. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392432
DongB.SivakumarK. (2017). Customer participation in services: Domain, scope, and boundaries. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 944–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0524-y
19.
FledderusJ. (2015). Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118
20.
GieseJ. L.CoteJ. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–22.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.
23.
HogreveJ.IsekeA.DerfussK. (2022). The service-profit chain: Reflections, revisions, and reimaginations. Journal of Service Research, 25(3), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211052410
24.
HvidmanU.AndersenS. C. (2016). Perceptions of public and private performance: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12441
JakobsenM.AndersenS. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094
27.
JoS. (2024). Democracy in and out of bureaucracy: Can participative management and public participation shape citizen satisfaction?International Public Management Journal, 27(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2281378
28.
JoS.MeierK. J. (2025). Public perceptions of the administrative values tradeoff: Bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Public Administration, 103(2), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13041
29.
JoS.NabatchiT. (2021). Different processes, different outcomes? Assessing the individual-level impacts of public participation. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13272
30.
LazonickW.O'SullivanM. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: A new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/030851400360541
31.
LehnB. M.CampbellD. C. (2015). Nonprofit performance: Accounting for the agency of clients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), 988–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014551987
32.
LeRouxK. (2009a). Paternalistic or participatory governance? Examining opportunities for client participation in nonprofit social service organizations. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01996.x
33.
LeRouxK. (2009b). Managing stakeholder demands: Balancing responsiveness to clients and funding agents in nonprofit social service organizations. Administration & Society, 41(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709332298
34.
LindenmeierJ.SeemannA. K.PotlukaO.von SchnurbeinG. (2021). Co-production as a driver of client satisfaction with public service organizations: An analysis of German day-care centres. Public Management Review, 23(2), 210–232.
35.
Martínez-CañasR.Ruiz-PalominoP.Linuesa-LangreoJ.Blázquez-ResinoJ. J. (2016). Consumer participation in co-creation: An enlightening model of causes and effects based on ethical values and transcendent motives. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(793), 793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00793
36.
MarvelJ. D. (2016). Unconscious bias in citizens’ evaluations of public sector performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu053
37.
MeierK. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/976648
38.
MeierK. J.DavisJ.XuX. (2023). Effectiveness, efficiency, and equity tradeoffs in public programs: A citizen experiment. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1462–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13690
39.
MeierK. J.SongM.DavisJ. A.AmirkhanyanA. A. (2022). Sector bias and the credibility of performance information: An experimental study of elder care provision. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13425
40.
MillerE. A.DohertyJ.NadashP. (2013). Pay for performance in five states: Lessons for the nursing home sector. Public Administration Review, 73(S1), S153–S163. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12060
41.
MustakM.JaakkolaE.HalinenA. (2013). Customer participation and value creation: A systematic review and research implications. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 23(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-03-2013-0046
42.
MutzD. C.PemantleR.PhamP. (2019). The perils of balance testing in experimental design: Messy analyses of clean data. The American Statistician, 73(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143
43.
NabatchiT. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009356467
44.
NabatchiT.LeighningerM. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. John Wiley & Sons.
45.
NadeemW.JuntunenM.HajliN.TajvidiM. (2021). The role of ethical perceptions in consumers’ participation and value co-creation on sharing economy platforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 169, 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04314-5
46.
National Library of Medicine. (2025). The national imperative to improve nursing home quality: Honoring our commitment to residents, families, and staff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK584657/
47.
NeshkovaM. I.GuoH. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur038
48.
NgoL. V.O’CassA. (2013). Innovation and business success: The mediating role of customer participation. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1134–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.009
49.
OkunA. M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Brookings Institution Press.
50.
ParkY. J.MatkinD. S. T. (2021). The demise of the overhead myth: Administrative capacity and financial sustainability in nonprofit nursing homes. Public Administration Review, 81(3), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13269
51.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
52.
PiatakJ. S.MohrZ. T.LelandS. M. (2024). Blame dynamics across the organizational hierarchy and sectors: How a staffing shortage and ownership shape blame for nursing homes in crisis. International Public Management Journal, 27(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2064022
53.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
54.
SalamonL. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government–nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1-2), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408701600104
Vega-VazquezM.Revilla-CamachoMÁCossío-SilvaF. J. (2013). The value co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision, 51(10), 1945–1953. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2013-0227
58.
ViningA. R.WeimerD. L. (2006). Efficiency and cost-benefit analysis. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 417–445). Sage.
59.
WangX.BryerT. A. (2013). Assessing the costs of public participation: A case study of two online participation mechanisms. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012438727
60.
WellensL.JegersM. (2016). From consultation to participation: The impact of beneficiaries on nonprofit organizations’ decision making and output. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21191
61.
YoungdahlW. E.KelloggD. L. (1997). The relationship between service customers’ quality assurance behaviors, satisfaction, and effort: A cost of quality perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 15(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(96)00097-6
