Co-production is regarded as a way to actively involve vulnerable citizens with public service delivery. However, there are several critical aspects that may lead to the unexpected exclusion of this group by public organizations, which have been insufficiently addressed hitherto. On the basis of a dissertation research, these critical aspects are analyzed for three phases of co-production. In the first phase, self-selection and organizational selection may lead to the exclusion of vulnerable citizens. In the second phase, a lack of commitment of the user and organizational support increase the chance of early discontinuation of co-production by vulnerable citizens. Finally, in the evaluation phase, it is likely that disadvantaged citizens attribute potential success of co-production to themselves and do not reward the public service provider for this. This has the possible consequence that there is no recognition for the added value of co-production, which may lead to less co-production that involves vulnerable citizens in the future.

When scientific values like objectivity, validity and reliability are inadequate for designing research that enables society’s capacity for dealing with unstructured problems, which values or criteria should we use for designing adequate knowledge practices? Based on the articles in this special issue we answer this question by analysing the methods researchers have used for selecting stakeholders, knowledges, synthesis, context and outcome in new knowledge practices. Although a common language for comparison and documentation is lacking, the analysis provides recommendations for better designing interaction between scientific and other practices. The most important message however is that we need a designated platform for exchanging and evaluating experiences and discussing methods and the outcomes they yield.

This contribution argues that self-organization is uneven: it emerges more in certain groups, sectors and geographical areas than in others. While the number of cooperatives has increased, their overall impact remains rather limited. Although the government rhetorically embraces cooperatives, in practices it is often hesitant or reluctant to lend support. Politicians are often ‘on a mission’ to promote startup companies and to obtain contracts or competitive advantages for large corporations. What if cooperatives would receive the same kind of support?

Healthcare cooperatives are not only attractive to citizens, but they also seen by managers as a source of inspiration and as a means to provide care efficiently. This raises the question of how health cooperatives evolve and which relationship with governments is appropriate for them. The aim of this article is examine the state of the art regarding the rise and development of health cooperatives. This development depends on the degree to which health cooperatives are able to overcome cultural, legal and financial obstacles. Health cooperatives seems to be more promising and stable if they succeed in determining their own course, show that they can realize their aims themselves and while learning to work together with others.

In his much praised book on mayors, Benjamin Barber argues it’s up to cities to address the world’s most acute problems. These include wicked problems such as climate change, terrorism, poverty and trafficking of drugs, weapons and humans. Cities are not only excellent problem solvers, they are also given a prominent role in innovation and economics, democracy and citizenship, and more recently domestic care. Complicated, wicked and thus knowledge intensive problems are stacking up at the local level. But where to get the appropriate knowledge to tackle these issues?

In this closing article we summarize the results of the individual articles of this themed issue and draw common lessons. With regard to cities as living labs, we conclude that three challenges need more attention: (1) unclear or contradictory goals and expectations, (2) organizational confusion, and (3) the lack of institutional links. Based on these, we offer a number of recommendations for research and practice in public administration.

The city is hot: solutions to the world’s everyday problems are increasingly sought at the local level. Local administrations are handed more responsibilities through decentralizations and much is expected of the pragmatic skills of mayors. A great deal of hope is directed at the self-organizing abilities of cities, which can be seen as laboratories for social change and improvement. In this themed issue we will critically review these high expectations of cities and the local level. Can cities live up to these expectations, and at what point does ‘hope’ become ‘hype’? This introductory article mainly focuses on the concept of living labs, which are presented as an accessible, innovative and pragmatic way to address social issues in neighbourhoods.