What Is the Public Value of Government Action? Towards a (New) Pragmatic Approach to Values Questions in Public Endeavours

Abstract

There has been a resurgence of interest in values in recent public administration research, based on two distinct arguments. For different reasons, neither approach is likely to secure a robust normative basis for public endeavours. These reasons are assessed, using an alternative body of theory rooted in contemporary social theory that we term, 'new pragmatism'. New pragmatic ideas are deployed to critique the divorce of values from facts; the abstraction of values from concrete situations; the anthropocentric foundation to social choice; the poorly developed understanding of the process of governance, with its inherent pluralism; and the seeming reluctance to articulate principles of political discourse.This article provides a multi-faceted critique of current thinking on the value of public actions and the desired attributes of public servants. It uses the insights of a body of social theory inspired by Science and Technology Studies to launch this critique. One body of theory is therefore used in a constructive criticism of the propositions of another. The object of the critique is a rapidly growing but internally complex body of research into public values and their mode of production. The argument begins with a brief résumé of the recent turn to values in public administration research and the many reasons for that. Two distinct strands in thinking on public values and their production are then briefly described. The argument proceeds to question the universal qualities of public values as proposed by leading theorists in this field and explores the continuing instabilities posed to values by facts. It is contended that this basic instability is only poorly addressed by multiplying the numbers of these public values to ensure that diverse situations are addressed. The value constellations that result from this are then beset by internal contradiction. The conception of those public situations is itself incomplete, since it excludes non-human entities like machines or information systems. These problems are most evident when values are mobilized to understand public decision systems, as Moore's (1995Moore's ( , 2000 influential Strategic Triangle seeks to do. Three significant problems with this Strategic Triangle are discussed and a conceptual alternative is outlined, which emphasizes the organizing centrality of evaluative principles in social debates about the work of governments. The discussion opens with an assessment of the extent of a purported turn to values in public administration thinking. THE TURN TO VALUESPublic administration research appears to be witnessing a 'turn to values'. There are two distinct strands to this turn, however, which are more than semantic: work on public values (in the plural);

Valuation in Welfare Markets : The Rule Books, Whiteboards and Swivel Chairs of Care Choice Reform

“…West & Davis (2011) suggest that such research should rest on three pillars: (1) 'A re-engagement with questions of the right and the good, but in ways that collapse the established division between epistemology and philosophy'; (2) 'A realism that understands action as meaningful within networks of both human and non-human actors in practical situations'; (3) 'The search for an approach to valuing that respects a plurality of values, but avoids the relativism of critical sociological approaches.' (West & Davis, 2011, p. 228) …”

How to manage ICTs mediated co-production: a Public Value Perspective

“…Citizens through elections elect the parliament and local councils in order to represent their aspirations and needs. At this first stage, public managers interact with the political sphere to understand what public value should be delivered through a service [17,43]. Politicians formally indicate and authorize the public value that should be delivered through policies and regulations that address and limit the action of public managers [43][44][45].…”

“…The switch from private to public value has implications for the strategic planning of an organization because the service has to satisfy a collective need and not an individual need. Moore (1995) has proposed a framework called the "Strategic Triangle" to help public managers to plan an organizational strategy for their organization and to produce a public service that could deliver public value [17,20,39]. The most recent researches about the "strategic triangle" have expanded its explanatory power without affecting its original structure that still indicates three main dimensions of the organizational strategy that a public manager should consider to ensure that the service produced really delivers public value [40][41][42].…”

“…The research builds on the strategic triangle of Moore [16][17][18][19][20] and on the concept of assemblage to provide a comprehensive framework that includes all the dimensions that public managers should consider when they are planning the organizational strategy of their organizations. The framework is then applied to explain the organizational strategy behind Transport for London (TfL) that uses an Open Data platform to co-produce the information service about public transportation in London.…”

Urban politics and the social practices of critique and justification

“…Conceptions of worth are structured into assemblages -termed 'orders of worth' -of 20 ordered values and principles in relation to conceptions of worth and common good, which actors draw upon during social interaction (West and Davis, 2011). They are intrinsic to processes 'of calculation, of rationality, of values' (Stark, 2009: 22), since they are 'the way in which one expresses, embodies, understands, or represents other people' (Boltanski and Thevenot, 2006: 132).…”