Is “We” Singular? The Nature of Public Value

Abstract

Since publication two decades ago, Moore's theory of public value has become a significant concept in public administration, especially for teaching public managers. A feature of the theory is that public value is assessed by arbiters. These arbiters include a "public as a whole," which is a disembodied singular entity that is different from the sum of its parts. The idea of arbitration by a public as a whole is critically examined by considering its possible sources, comparison with individualistic bases for arbitration (especially democratic discourse), and exploring the implications of arbitration by the public as a whole. The conclusion is that the public as a whole is an unsuccessful concept which does not assist the theory of public value and which creates significant practical problems for practitioners by understating the degree of ambiguity that is inherent in the pursuit of public value.

Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services

“…This is because public services are increasingly provided by a plethora of organizations, not all public (in fact very few public, for services on the right side of Laing's (2003) spectrum). The danger, however, comes from leaving public value behind, as none of these paradigms consider the difference between public and private valueunsurprisingly, they focus on the latter whereas the formerstillhas a pivotal role in understanding the public sector and the provision, consumption and leadership in public services (Prebble 2016(Prebble , 2018Crosby and Bryson 2018;Hartley, Parker, and Beashel 2019). We contend that, on balance, the value co-creation paradigms is more beneficial than damaging to us at this point in the field's development.…”

Leading and recognizing public value

“…This is less appropriate for considering leadership for public value where issues may be contested and where inter‐organizational networked governance prevails. This conceptualization of leadership in the context of agonistic pluralism means that in creating public value, leadership can and will be exercised by a range of actors (Crosby et al ) who aim or claim to represent the public or particular publics (Hartley and Benington ; Prebble ). Leadership with political astuteness becomes highly relevant in this context.…”

Public Value Governance: A Framework

“…Like Prebble (2018), this framework is oriented to the position that accountability mechanisms should primarily focus on being accountable to individuals, as it is their cognitive perception of outcomes that constitutes public value (Meynhardt 2009;Moore 2014). Collective action evaluation and accountability mechanisms should be accountable to individuals, but may be accountable for a variety of things beyond the degree to which the outcome matches the individual preferences and values of the individual (in the spirit of Bardach and Lesser 1996).…”