9780230_249042_00_Plm.

qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page vii

Contents

List of Tables and Figures xi

Preface and Acknowledgements xii
Notes on the Contributors xv

1 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times 1

John Benington and Mark H. Moore
The core ideas associated with Moore’s Creating Public Value 3
The neo-liberal context in which Creating Public Value was
initially conceived 7
The increased relevance of public value for public managers
facing an age of austerity and systemic change 11
The academic debates surrounding public value 16
How will this book move the public value debate forward? 20

2 From Private Choice to Public Value? 31

John Benington
Introduction 31
From private choice to public value? 32
Networked community governance 34
Public goods, public choice and public value 41
Conclusion 49

3 Privates, Publics and Values 52

Colin Crouch
Linking private and public 54
Relationships among the realms: implications for the
private/public distinction 61
Towards public value 66

4 Creating Public Value: The Theory of the Convention 74

Noel Whiteside
Introduction 74
The theory of the convention and the creation of public value 75
Securing retirement income: public value and pension reform 81
Conclusion 85

vii
9780230_249042_00_Plm.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page viii

viii Contents

5 Greening Public Value: The Sustainability Challenge 89

Mark Swilling
Introduction 89
Beyond disciplinary apartheid 90
Sustainability challenges – an overview 93
Development states as public value 99
Towards sustainable public value 106
Conclusion 110

6 Public Value, Deliberative Democracy and the Role of

Public Managers 112
Louise Horner and Will Hutton
Tackling the democratic deficit 116
The delivery paradox 116
Managing public expectations 117
Mechanisms for increasing responsiveness 118
How can public managers deliver public value? 119
Authorization 120
Public value creation 122
Measurement – the importance of democracy 123
The argument from public value – responsiveness to refined
preferences 125

7 Choice and Marketing in Public Management: The Creation

of Public Value? 127
Robin Wensley and Mark H. Moore
Introduction 127
The idea of choice 128
A key definition: the role of the public manager 128
Customers and intermediaries 131
Marketing at both ends of the production process 133
Marketing obligations and restrictions as well as services
and opportunities 135
An example in community policing 137
The reality of choice 139
A final question 142

8 Public Value from Co-production by Clients 144

John Alford
Introduction 144
Defining public sector clients 145
The necessity of client co-production 146
What induces clients to co-produce? 150
Conclusion: the terms of the exchange 157
9780230_249042_00_Plm.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page ix

Contents ix

9 Framing The Production of Health in Terms of Public Value:

Lessons from the UK National Health Service 158
Jonathan Q. Tritter
Introduction 158
A public value framework 158
Background context 160
Defining a value mission 160
The doctor–patient relationship: changing responsibilities 163
Patient and public involvement in health 163
Building a community-led Health Service 167

10 Public Value Through Innovation and Improvement 171

Jean Hartley
Introduction 171
The public value context of innovation and improvement 171
When does innovation contribute to or detract from
public value? 174
Managing risk and reward in the pursuit of public value 180
The politics of innovation to create public value 183

11 Sustaining Public Value Through Microfinance 185

Guy Stuart
Introduction 185
The public value of microfinance 187
Sustainability and the creation of public value for all
the poor 192
Subsidies through technical assistance: the Cooperative
Development Foundation, Andhra Pradesh, India 195
Creating a separate delivery channel: Mann Deshi Mahila
Bank, Maharashtra, India 197
Cross-subsidization: the Grameen Bank, Bangladesh 199
Conclusion 200

12 Redefining ‘Public Value’ in New Zealand’s Performance

Management System: Managing for Outcomes while
Accounting for Outputs 202
Richard Norman
Outcomes as wish lists 204
Overemphasizing outputs 205
New efforts to focus on outcomes 206
Reconciling outputs and outcomes 208
Conclusion 210
9780230_249042_00_Plm.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page x

x Contents

13 Effective Supply and Demand and the Measurement of

Public and Social Value 212
Geoff Mulgan
Developing a model of public value 215
Social value: effective demand and effective supply 217
Horizons in time 218
Public value in the built environment 220
Lessons for social and public value 223

14 Learning, Social Inequality and Risk: A Suitable Case for

Public Value? 225
Bob Fryer
Personal troubles and public issues 225
Beyond unitary measures 226
Aspects of public value 226
The personal problems and public issues of learning 228
Learning and skills: some British evidence 230
Social class, educational inequality and meritocracy 232
Social change, risk and learning 238
Conclusion 242

15 Public Value in Education: A Case-Study 244

David Winkley
First steps 244
Innovation and continuous improvement 247
Outcomes and evaluations 248
The evolution of culture 250
Leadership 252
The wider challenge 253

16 Conclusions: Looking Ahead 256

Mark H. Moore and John Benington
Changes in the context of governance and public service 256
The re-emergence of the social consciousness of
interdependence 259
From government to governance 261
The enduring relevance of public value money 261
Increasing legitimacy by linking politics and administration 263
Recognizing public value: measuring government performance 265
Innovation in programmes and institutional design 270
Calling a public into existence: administrative politics and
community consultation 272
Conclusion 274

Notes 275
Bibliography 280
Index 304
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 1

Chapter 1

Public Value in Complex and

Changing Times

JOHN BENINGTON AND MARK H. MOORE

Public value and related concepts like the public good, the public
interest, and the public realm have been actively debated within polit-
ical philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks. However, the
stimulus for the current debate about public value within the field of
public management was Mark Moore’s seminal book Creating Public
Value: Strategic Management in Government (Moore 1995). Thinking
about public value has since moved well beyond its origins in neo-
liberal American discourse of the 1990s, and is now at the forefront of
cross-national discussion about the changing roles of the public,
private, and voluntary sectors in a period of profound political eco-
nomic, ecological, and social change. This chapter traces that intellec-
tual journey, mapping out the key ideas and debates surrounding the
concept of public value, and suggesting ways in which it may provide a
compass bearing and a clearer sense of direction for strategic thinking
and action by public policymakers and managers, under conditions of
complexity and austerity.
Moore’s initial aim in 1995 was to build a conceptual framework for
public sector managers to help them to make sense of the strategic
challenges and complex choices they faced, in a similar way to which
notions of private value had provided strategic purpose for private
sector managers. He developed this framework through years of
engagement with public managers from the USA and around the world
who took part in executive programmes at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy
School of Government. One of his goals was to develop a conceptual
framework that would be practically useful to public managers doing
their jobs, and to encourage strategic thinking and entrepreneurial
action to tackle complex problems in the community.
This book, published 15 years later, aims to develop and to sharpen
both the theory and the practice of ‘public value’ in a very changed
context from the one in which Creating Public Value was written – a
new climate in which there is a widespread sense of political economic

1
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 2

2 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

ecological and social crisis. Over the intervening years public value has
emerged as an increasingly powerful idea in both academic and policy
circles, internationally (especially in the UK, Europe, the USA,
Australia and New Zealand, and more recently in South and sub-
Saharan Africa). There is a growing sense that it is an idea whose time
has come – that public value thinking and action may help to make
sense of the very complex changes and tough challenges now facing
governments and communities in a period of profound political eco-
nomic and social restructuring.
The idea of public value has attracted particularly high-level atten-
tion in the public policymaking and practitioner communities, often
as part of wider debates about public service reform and improvement
(Benington 2007). It has been discussed and used by literally thou-
sands of managers from the public and voluntary sectors on courses at
Harvard, Melbourne and Warwick Universities, at the Australia and
New Zealand School of Government, and at the UK’s National
School of Government. Public value frameworks have also been tested
and applied in practice by many public sector organisations. For
example, in the UK, ‘public value’ has been used by the British
Broadcasting Corporation as a core argument for renewal of its
charter as a public body funded by licence fee, and in its assessment of
the value of specific radio and TV programmes, by the UK chancellor
of the exchequer in his 2008 budget speech; by the National Health
Service Institute of Innovation and Improvement in its search for mea-
sures of health outcomes; by the Department of Culture Media and
Sport, as part of the evaluation framework for their policies and pro-
grammes; and in a wide range of policy reports and discussions within
the Audit Commission, the Further Education service, the Scottish
government, the Welsh Assembly government, and the Trades Union
Congress.
The debate about public value within the academic community has
been emerging more slowly, but has now erupted vigorously and
controversially in several academic conferences and journals (notably
in the Australian Journal of Public Administration, in Public
Administration, and in a special issue of the International Journal of
Public Administration). Critique and development of public value
theory is emerging from the points of view of ecology (Swilling 2007),
economics (Hutton et al. 2007), philosophy (Morrell 2009), political
science (Stoker 2005; Rhodes and Wanna 2007; Gains and Stoker
2009), and public administration and public management (Alford and
Hughes 2008; Benington 2007, 2009; Kelly et al. 2002; Mulgan 2009;
Talbot 2009).
This book aims both to contribute to and to shape this burgeoning
academic and policy debate by providing:
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 3

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 3

• First, critical analysis and further development of the theory sur-

rounding public value, and its relationship to related theories of
public policymaking and strategic management.
• Second, the testing of this conceptual framework in its application
to key policy issues and complex cross-cutting problems facing pol-
icymakers and managers in the public and voluntary sectors.

The book aims both to open up the theoretical debates and critiques
surrounding public value, and also to explore and test out the ideas in
their application to a number of specific policy themes and service
areas.
This first chapter introduces the debate in five main ways:

• Summarizing the core ideas associated with Mark Moore’s book

Creating Public Value.
• Reviewing the history and the neo-liberal context in which public
value ideas were first developed in the 1990s.
• Analysing the very different political economic and social context,
and the more complex challenges facing governments and commu-
nities, in the first decades of the twenty-first century, and the ways
in which public value concepts may help to make sense of them.
• Reviewing the main academic debates surrounding public value.
• Highlighting the ways this book will move both the theory and the
practice of public value forward.

Each of these 5 issues will now be explored in turn.

The core ideas associated with Moore’s Creating Public

Value
The ideas developed by Mark Moore in Creating Public Value in the
USA in the 1990s challenged the then orthodox thinking about three
key issues:

• The role of government in society – seen by Moore not just as a

rule-setter, service-provider and social safety net, but potentially as
a creator of public value and a pro-active shaper of the public
sphere (politically, economically, socially and culturally)
• The roles of government managers – seen by Moore not just as
inward-looking bureaucratic clerks, and passive servants to their
political masters, but as stewards of public assets with ‘restless
value-seeking imaginations’, who have important roles to play in
helping governments to discover what could be done with the
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 4

4 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

assets entrusted to their offices, as well as ensuring responsive ser-

vices to users and citizens.
• The techniques needed by public managers – seen by Moore not
just as procedures to assure consistency and reliability of routines
in government organizations (important as these can be), but also
as the means to help governments to become more adaptable to
changing material and social conditions, and to changing needs and
political aspirations. Creating Public Value drew attention to the
role of public managers in orchestrating the processes of public
policy development, often in partnership with other actors and
stakeholders, in ways which try to ensure that good choices are
made in the public interest, and which legitimate, animate, and
guide the subsequent implementation, in order to improve out-
comes for the public.

It is arguable that Creating Public Value spent less time defining

public value in theoretical terms than in operationalizing it in prac-
tical terms. (The current volume aims to reverse this imbalance and
to tackle the questions of both theory and practice more fully.) Three
of the key ideas developed by Moore (partly in the book and more
fully in his executive teaching) to conceptualize and operationalize
public value are the strategic triangle, the authorizing environment,
and the use of state authority. Each will be summarized and dis-
cussed briefly.

The strategic triangle

The strategic triangle is a framework for aligning three distinct but
inter-dependent processes which are seen to be necessary for the cre-
ation of public value:

• Defining public value – clarifying and specifying the strategic goals

and public value outcomes which are aimed for in a given situation
• Authorization – creating the ‘authorizing environment’ necessary to
achieve the desired public value outcomes – building and sustaining
a coalition of stakeholders from the public, private and third
sectors (including but not restricted to elected politicians and
appointed overseers) whose support is required to sustain the nec-
essary strategic action
• Building operational capacity – harnessing and mobilizing the oper-
ational resources (finance, staff, skills, technology), both inside and
outside the organization, which are necessary to achieve the desired
public value outcomes

The strategic triangle thus suggests that strategies to create public

9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 5

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 5

value must satisfy three tests. First, they must aim convincingly at cre-
ating publicly valuable outcomes (see below for a fuller definition of
what this might mean). Second, they must mobilize sufficient autho-
rization and be politically sustainable – that is, gain ongoing support
from key political and other stakeholders. Third, they must be opera-
tionally and administratively feasible – that is, supported by the neces-
sary finance, technology, staff skills and organizational capabilities
needed to create and deliver the desired public value outcomes (Moore
1995:71). This is shown in Figure 1.1.
Each of these three factors is strategically important, but of course,
they are rarely in alignment, and public managers have to strive con-
stantly to bring them in to alignment and to negotiate workable trade-
offs between them:

Thus, if the most valuable thing to do is out of alignment with

what the key players in the authorizing environment will find
acceptable, the manager can either seek to persuade the key players
to move their position, or revise the value-proposition so that it is
more in line with their wishes, or some combination of the two.
Similarly, if a more valuable purpose is not achievable with the
currently available operational capabilities, then the manager has
to tailor the purpose accordingly. This entails more than just a
resigned acceptance of political or operational constraints. (Alford
and O’Flynn 2009)

Figure 1.1 The strategic triangle of public value

The Authorizing
Environment

Public Value
Outcomes

Operational
Capacity
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 6

6 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

The authorizing environment for the creation of public value

Public managers clearly need a strong mandate from elected politicians
and from their line managers, in order to do their job. This mandate
can come from the legislation and/or the policies that the agency has
been set up to implement; or from the roles the public manager has
been appointed to perform; or from the job description which they
have been given to carry out. However, while these formal mandates
from above are necessary, they may not be sufficient to achieve the
desired public value outcomes. In order to achieve those goals it may
also be necessary to win the support of other individuals, organizations
and stakeholders, and to create a broader-based authorizing environ-
ment. Public policymaker and manager may have to create a network
of partners and stakeholders, and to negotiate a coalition of different
interests and agencies (from across the public, private, voluntary and
informal community sectors) to support them in achieving their goals.
This has to mobilize sufficient authorization to achieve the desired
public value outcomes, but does not necessarily imply a complete con-
sensus by all parties. Indeed the creation of public value does not
require support from all agencies (‘just enough’ support to achieve the
desired outcomes is sufficient). It will also sometimes involve conflict
with other organizations with other interests and priorities, or with
those that are wedded to the status quo.
The authorizing environment is therefore conceptualized as a place
of contestation where many different views and values struggle for
acceptance and hegemony. Conflicts of ideology, interest and emphasis
are often not fully resolved by elected politicians within the formal
democratic process, but may be passed on unresolved for public man-
agers to do the best they can, to resolve the ambiguities in practice at
the front line (Hoggett 2006). In this kind of situation, the knowledge
and judgement of professional public managers may be courted by the
public as legitimating assets in addition to the mandate of politicians.
Public managers may therefore have to try to bring several parts of the
authorizing environment together in a coalition in order to strengthen
the overall legitimacy and support for the policies and programmes
they are proposing or administering.

The use of state authority in the creation of public value

Creating Public Value also included a reminder that a defining feature
of government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force
in a society, and that it uses this capacity routinely in its operations.
Government makes things happen partly through the use of govern-
ment money and legislation, and partly through the use of government
authority. The fact that government authority is often engaged has
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 7

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 7

huge implications for government activity. On the one hand, it changes

the basic normative framework that can be used to evaluate govern-
ment operations; once government authority is engaged, we have to be
concerned about the fairness with which the authority is used, as well
as its efficiency and effectiveness. On the other hand, when govern-
ment authority is used in encounters with individual citizens, it changes
the nature of the encounters in a profound way. A citizen who is
stopped by the police, or required to pay taxes, or to pay a fine for
polluting a river, cannot easily be seen as a customer. The point of this
kind of encounter is not to please or delight the client in the transac-
tion! And it is not to hope for more encounters of the same type –
public managers don’t aim for ‘repeat business’ of this kind, but for
less business!
This is a very different kind of encounter and different kind of rela-
tionship with the public from that typical in the private market.
Instead of receiving services, the client gets an obligation. Instead of
trying to satisfy the client, the goal is to encourage compliance with the
obligation, and in doing so, to be sure that rights are protected and
duties imposed in a just and fair way. This use of state authority means
that the creation of public value clearly has some very distinctive and
different features from the creation of private value.
Having summarized some of the key ideas in Mark Moore’s original
book Creating Public Value we now turn to critically examine the
context of neo-liberal ideas within which it was written in America in
the early 1990s.

The neo-liberal context in which ‘Creating Public Value’

was initially conceived
Creating Public Value was written in the USA in the early 1990s at a
time when powerful political, economic and social forces were bearing
down on governments in advanced industrial societies, and challenging
their standing as important, value-creating social institutions. Far from
being seen as institutions essential for the safeguarding of individual
and collective wellbeing and the assurance of social justice, govern-
ments were increasingly portrayed (particularly in the USA and UK) as
obstacles to economic and social progress – an unproductive sector
feeding parasitically off the value supposedly being created largely in
the private sector. Ronald Reagan famously alleged that ‘government is
not the solution; government is the problem.’ The Reaganite/
Thatcherite solution, then, was to shrink government.
Along with the diminution of government as an institution went the
diminution of the collective as an idea. The effort to liberate individ-
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 8

8 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

uals from oppressive political, social and economic conditions was seen
to have reached its apotheosis in the triumph of political liberalism on
the one hand, and market-guided capitalism on the other. The idea
that individuals were ultimately the most important arbiters of value
was celebrated and institutionalized in the commitment to representa-
tive democracy on the one hand, and to private markets guided by
individual consumer choices on the other. The difficulties of making
collective choices through democratic political processes – long under-
stood to be time-consuming and frustrating at best, and prone to
various kinds of corruption at worst – were argued to be theoretically
problematic as well. If it was not easy for a collective to make a deci-
sion that could produce the public good efficiently then would not it
make sense to minimize the number of choices that had to be made by
the collective? In short, many in the West lost confidence in democratic
politics as a device for forging a coherent ‘we’ from a diversity of indi-
vidual interests. Many lost confidence in government’s ability to advance
public purposes, without corruption or self-serving motives blunting
both the efficiency and effectiveness, and the justice and fairness, of
governmental operations.
As confidence in the public sphere as a definer and producer of
public value was challenged, confidence grew in the importance of
market mechanisms as devices for meeting individual choices and
social needs. Neo-liberals tried to expand the domain of individual
choice – partly by shrinking the size and scope of government, so that
more choices about how to use resources would be guided by individ-
uals acting through markets rather than by collectives acting through
government, but also by trying to give more room to individual choices
in activities that were financed by government. Governments were to
encourage competition among providers of government financed ser-
vices. All this was in accord with Margaret Thatcher’s stated belief that
‘there is no such thing as society’, and that individual and family inter-
ests are primary.
While the attack on government as an institution, and on collective
decision-making, shrank the public sphere, these efforts could not, in
the end, do away with government completely. There remained impor-
tant production, service delivery and regulatory functions that govern-
ment still had to perform to promote economic prosperity, maintain
social cohesion, and to advance the cause of justice as it was encoded
in constitutions and laws. Public managers still had to make decisions
about how to spend the collectively owned assets that had been
entrusted to them, and there were strong pressures to improve the core
managerial processes of government. Again, because of increased con-
fidence in all things private, many thought that improved public man-
agement could be achieved by importing techniques from the private
sector into the public sector. Thus, government agencies were encour-
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 9

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 9

aged to adopt a customer focus in delivering services to individuals

defined as consumers. They were also encouraged to improve the mea-
surement of their results, and to adopt ‘pay for performance’ methods
to motivate both frontline workers and higher-level managers to work
harder and smarter, and to be more accountable to users of their ser-
vices.
Creating Public Value was written at least in part as a response to
these pressures for changes in the ways that people thought about gov-
ernment and its relationship to the wider society, and also about what
constituted effective public management. The argument in Creating
Public Value included the idea that citizens could debate the role of
government in society, and contribute to deciding which individual cir-
cumstances and social conditions they wanted to treat as a collective
public responsibility to be managed by government, and which they
wanted to treat as a private responsibility to be managed by individ-
uals through market relationships. Creating Public Value did not start
with any fixed idea about the substantive content of government’s
responsibilities. It accepted the claim that government needed to
improve its operations; and that this could include not only changing
the size and scope of government as described above but also shifting
the model to one in which government could pay for things to be pro-
duced, but not necessarily produce them itself. It also emphasized the
potentially important role of innovation as a way of increasing the effi-
ciency, effectiveness and responsiveness of government organizations.
Thus, it accepted the criticism that government had been insufficiently
flexible, innovative or creative, either in responding to changing citi-
zens’ aspirations about what they wanted from government or in
finding ways to produce the results that citizens wanted in a more effi-
cient and effective way.
Creating Public Value also accepted the idea that there was much to
be learned from the private sector about how to manage large produc-
tion organizations successfully. It gave particular attention to corpo-
rate strategy, and the idea that large organizations had to continually
re-position themselves in the complex, dynamic, changing environ-
ments in which they found themselves. Just as the private sector execu-
tive had to keep an eye focused on changing market conditions, so the
public sector executive had to keep their eye on changing political, eco-
nomic and social conditions that might create new or different political
demands. Just as a private sector executive had to be searching contin-
uously for new technological breakthroughs which they could use to
improve the performance of their organization, so a public sector
manager had to be searching continuously for innovative ways to
accomplish their objectives efficiently and effectively.
In all these ways, the argument of Creating Public Value went with
the flow of ideas which we now associate with ‘the new public manage-
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 10

10 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

ment’ (Hood 1991) – looking for a more responsive, more innovative,

more effective government. But there were other ways the book stood
firm with tradition against the claims of the new public management.
The most important of these was the commitment to the idea that
the proper arbiter of public value is society as a whole acting as best as
it can through the imperfect processes of representative government.
What makes something publicly valuable is partly that a public values
it. And a public is something different from the simple aggregation of
individual consumer interests. Furthermore, it might even be a bit dif-
ferent from the views of the ‘government of the day’ – although the
views of elected and appointed officials will always carry the most
weight in defining the public value to be pursued by government.
Creating Public Value thus did not yield to the idea that individuals
are the only arbiters of value. It took direct issue with Margaret
Thatcher’s dismissal of the idea of a society that could become articu-
late about its interests as a collective.
Creating Public Value also gave a lot of attention to the structures
and processes that called public managers to account for their actions.
It developed the concept of an ‘authorizing environment’ that is as
important to public managers as a ‘market environment’ is to private
managers. Just as customers within the private market are ultimately
the ones who call private sector managers to account, by deciding
whether or not to buy the particular product or service offered for sale,
so stakeholders in the political authorizing environment (primarily, but
not only, democratically elected representatives) are ultimately the ones
who call public managers to account, by deciding whether or not to
continue to support their efforts to produce a particular public service
and/or conception of public value.
At one level, there was nothing particularly new in these observa-
tions about the importance of politics and public engagement in public
administration and public management. Woodrow Wilson had tried to
define the proper relationship between political representation and
authorization on the one hand, and efficient public administration on
the other (by making a distinction between policymaking and adminis-
tration, and by giving politicians principal authority in the domain of
policymaking, and public administrators principal authority in the
domain of administration). However this distinction proved to be intel-
lectually incoherent and practically unsustainable. But no one had
taken the next difficult step of developing a set of ideas about how we
could understand and improve the relationship between politics and
administration, and between politicians and administrators, if it was
neither accurate nor realistic to think of these as two completely dis-
tinct and separate arenas.
Creating Public Value plunged into this confused debate by focusing
the attention of both policymakers and public managers on the norma-
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 11

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 11

tive and practical importance first of defining the value outcomes to be

achieved for the public, and second of building ‘legitimacy and
support’ for governmental action. In many ways, this was the opposite
side of the coin of ‘accountability.’ One could say that public managers
should be accountable for their actions to the public as well as to
elected politicians. But one could also say that increased accountability
also gave them increased legitimacy and support. And that they would
be more effective in creating valuable outcomes for the public if they
found ways to build stronger legitimacy and wider support from the
public and other stakeholders for what they were doing.
Creating Public Value explored some of the important sources of
legitimation for public managers. Political mandate is one important
kind. But so is the law. And so is professional knowledge and technical
expertise. And there might even on some occasions be a kind of moral
legitimacy created by public managers and professionals reminding
society and its representatives of important values that are being put at
risk by actions that are politically supported, have legal sanction, and
would likely work technically, but fail to protect or promote founda-
tional moral values.
So Creating Public Value addressed questions associated both with
traditional public administration (for example the relationship between
policymaking and administration, and the sources of authorization for
public managers), and also with the new public management (for
example entrepreneurship, innovation and the need to focus outwards
on users and communities as well as upwards on elected politicians
and government). Creating Public Value problematized these issues in
a way which responded to the complexities they posed in practice for
public managers, and offered a number of concepts to help make sense
of and manage the dilemmas – for example, the strategic triangle, the
authorizing environment, and the use of state authority (discussed
earlier in this chapter).

The increased relevance of public value for public

managers facing an age of austerity and systemic
change
In this section we recognize and analyse the profound changes in the
political economic and social context which have been taking place
since Creating Public Value was written over 15 years ago. We argue
that public value thinking and action is now even more relevant in
helping to make sense of the new complexities and tough challenges
facing governments and communities, and public policymakers and
managers.
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 12

12 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

Changes in the context for public services

The profound structural changes taking place in the ecological, polit-
ical, economic, technological and social context pose major questions
for governments and public managers.
The global economic and financial crisis of 2009 acted as a catalyst
for a radical review of government roles and responsibilities. The pres-
sure to be ‘doing more with less’ has become stronger as public sector
spending comes under intense scrutiny and is expected to decline
sharply in real terms over the next few years. In this context more
effective leadership across the whole public service system is increas-
ingly seen as one of the most powerful ways of reducing transaction
costs between stand-alone organizations, and of improving efficiency,
performance and productivity through collaboration across the whole
public sector. Part of that leadership may include re- framing the ques-
tions not just in terms of financial inputs and operational outputs but
in terms of public value outcomes which add benefit for users, citizens
and communities (Benington and Hartley 2009).
Previous experience, in both the private and the public sectors, of
managing periods of economic recession and financial cutback suggests
that this is also an opportunity to review all activities and processes
within the public value chain, and to identify those points at which
value is being added, where it is being destroyed and where it is stag-
nating. The concept of the public value chain (developed more fully in
Chapter 2) is useful in identifying the activities and processes of pro-
duction and co-production of public service, and in focusing on how to
add public value at various stages in the process. This can lead to some
radical conclusions – in some cases redistributing resources to the front
line of the organization (for example school classrooms, hospital wards
and neighbourhood communities) where public value is often co-
created between public professionals (for example teachers, nurses,
police) and users, families, communities, partner organizations and
other stakeholders.
However, the benefits of public value thinking and action do not
derive solely from the current economic crisis, far-reaching though this
is in its implications for governance and public management. Human
society is in the throes of an even more fundamental restructuring of
the global ecological, political-economic, technological and social
context. This includes climate change and an impending peak in the oil
supply; rapid exponential growth in information and communication
technologies; the emergence of an electronically networked society;
globalization of the economy, of financial markets and of culture; a
gradual shift of political and economic power away from the USA and
the Anglo-Saxon North, towards China, India and Latin America in
the South; a decline in the manufacturing base in northern countries; a
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 13

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 13

rise in importance of the service sector (which now provides over two-
thirds of GDP in the UK for example); the consequent shrinking of the
traditional industrial working class, and the rise of the middle and pro-
fessional classes; a dramatic increase in population and in the number
of households; the ageing of the population, with people in the North
living much longer, and fewer people of working age and in work to
support them; greater diversity of needs, a rise in expectations, a
decline in deference to hierarchy and authority, and the emergence of
the ‘critical consumer/ citizen’.
The scope and scale of these structural, system-wide changes
arguably requires a Copernican revolution in our basic paradigms for
governance and public service. Benington suggests in Chapter 2 that
public value can help to interpret and shape those new paradigms.
Whereas traditional public administration assumes a context of relative
political economic and social stability, and whereas new public man-
agement trusts the logic of free market competition, public value recog-
nizes the complexity, volatility and uncertainty in the environment.
While the landscape and contours of government and public manage-
ment are changing, and the maps are no longer as accurate or useful,
public value may offer a compass to provide a sense of direction and
destination to take us through the surrounding fog.
In this changing context, citizens and communities are increasingly
confronted by a whole series of complex cross-cutting problems (for
example ageing and community care; child protection; climate change;
crime and the fear of crime), for which there are no simple technical
solutions – and indeed where there is no clear or settled agreement
about either the causes of the problems or the best ways to address
them. These complex, cross-cutting and often contested issues have
been described by John Stewart as ‘wicked’ problems, and by Ron
Heifetz as ‘adaptive’ problems – ‘wicked’ or ‘adaptive’ problems of this
kind being seen increasingly to require a kind of response from govern-
ments qualitatively different from that which they extend to ‘tame’ or
‘technical’ problems (Heifetz 1994; Stewart 2001; Grint 2005).
Traditional public administration assumes that the needs and prob-
lems to be addressed by governments are fairly straightforward, and
that the solutions are known and understood. New public management
assumes that needs and wants will be expressed and satisfied through
the mechanism of market choice. The public value framework,
however, starts from a recognition that the needs and problems now
facing citizens, communities and governments are complex rather than
simple, ‘wicked’ rather than ‘tame’, and diverse rather than homoge-
neous. And while previous patterns of governmental intervention have
not been notably successful in resolving these problems, better solu-
tions and responses are not yet known or understood. Governmental
policies and programmes have therefore to be developed in a more pro-
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 14

14 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

visional and reflexive way – often involving extensive dialogue between

government and the public and other stakeholders about both the
nature of the problems to be addressed and the strategies to tackle
them.
The rise in people’s aspirations and expectations, and their desire for
services that are customized to meet their needs, means that the public
are increasingly vociferous about what they want and do not want.
Interactive information and communication technologies open up
greater access to knowledge and information and to the opportunity to
influence decision-making through electronic networks. There is less
deference towards authority and towards top-down solutions offered
by the paternalistic state, which is associated with traditional public
administration.
There is also a growing recognition that the individual consumer
choices offered through new public management (NPM) and its com-
petitive markets do not and cannot provide adequate responses for
complex cross-cutting problems like care for an ageing population, or
violence in the home and on the streets. The public value framework
encourages managers to move beyond the language of market ‘wants’
into the more difficult question of what the public most ‘values’, and
what adds value to the public sphere – including challenging the public
to make painful choices and trade-offs between competing priorities
(Kelly et al. 2002).
Traditional public administration assumes that the state will be the
main provider of public services, and new public management assumes
that the market will be the provider of first choice, with the state as a
safety net of last resort. On the other hand, Benington’s ‘networked
community governance’ framework (outlined in Chapter 2) recognizes
that the interdependencies between the state and the market mean that
watertight distinctions between the two are no longer accurate or real-
istic. Benington also argues in Chapter 2 that in addition to the state
and the market, civil society is an important and often neglected third
sphere of activity and source of public value creation. Indeed the most
valuable outcomes for the public can often best be achieved by har-
nessing the commitment and resources of all three spheres, state, market
and civil society, jointly behind specific shared ‘public value’ goals.

The need for new paradigms

The above changes in the political economic and social context, and
the complex cross-cutting problems now facing citizens and communi-
ties, require governments and public managers to develop new para-
digms to make sense of the new context, and to guide strategic
thinking and action. The new paradigms may include thinking about
government and public services less as machines or structures and
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 15

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 15

more as ‘complex adaptive systems’ (for example the language of cul-

tures and organisms rather than of levers and cogs).
Public value thinking and action includes the capacity to analyse and
understand the interconnections, interdependencies and interactions
between complex issues, and across multiple boundaries:

• Between different sectors (public, private, voluntary and informal

community).
• Between different levels of government (local, regional, national,
supranational).
• Between different services (for example education, health, housing,
policing, social security).
• Between different professions involved in tackling a common
problem.
• Between political and managerial and civic leaderships and
processes
• Between strategic management, operational management and
frontline delivery.
• Between producers and users of services (in new patterns of ‘co-cre-
ation’ between producers, users and other stakeholders outside the
governmental system).

Public value concepts and tools like the strategic triangle, the autho-
rizing environment and the public value chain help to make sense of
this complex new pattern of polycentric networked governance (see
Chapter 2 by Benington; Benington 2006a), and to strengthen the
capabilities necessary to think and to act effectively along several dif-
ferent dimensions, often simultaneously:

• Horizontally – between different sectors, organizations, disciplines,

professions stakeholders, and partners.
• Vertically – along all the links in the value chain, from policy
design in Westminster and Whitehall right through to service
‘delivery’ or engagement at the front line in local neighbourhood
communities – with movement in both directions, from top to
bottom, bottom to top, and middle upwards and downwards.
• Diagonally – across the decision-making networks, linking together
political leaderships, strategic managers, operational managers,
frontline delivery staff, users and communities.

This requires a radically different approach to policy development

and public management, with a need to link policy to implementation,
and strategy to operations, in an end-to-end process which can deliver
greater public value – through practical action on the ground at the
front line with communities.
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 16

16 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

The complex cross-cutting problems facing citizens, communities and

governments also require different patterns of leadership to create
public value outcomes – leadership which can address the interconnec-
tions between issues, negotiate coalitions between different stake-
holders, orchestrate inter-organizational networks and partnerships,
harness disparate resources behind a common purpose, and achieve
visible and measurable outcomes with and for citizens, communities
and other stakeholders. This involves the exercise of leadership outside
and beyond the organization, often through influence rather than
through formal authority, in addition to leadership of and inside the
organization (Benington and Hartley 2009).
Leadership of this kind has to resist the pressure from followers to
act as a god or guru who can provide magical solutions to complex
problems, and instead has to persuade stakeholders to accept that they
themselves are part of the whole system, and therefore part of the
problem, and to engage in the painful process of grasping difficult
nettles, working though problems, and adapting thinking and behav-
iour (Heifetz 1994; Benington and Turbitt 2007).
Public value concepts like the strategic triangle, the authorizing envi-
ronment, the public value chain and the focus on outcomes for the
public sphere can all help public managers to make sense of these
issues, and to reframe problems more clearly so that they can act more
decisively and effectively.

The academic debates surrounding public value

Mark Moore’s book, the full title of which is Creating Public Value:
Strategic Management in Government, was written mainly as a contri-
bution to public management theory and practice. Indeed the ideas
were initially developed not primarily from academic theory or desk
research, but out of a long process of interactive teaching and engage-
ment with public managers. Once the book was published the ideas
were tested and developed further, mainly through debate and prac-
tical application by public managers in their workplaces, and by
teachers on courses for public managers, for example at Harvard,
Melbourne and Warwick Universities.
As with so many theories of management, the academic debate about
public value has lagged well behind the emerging practice. Apart from
a few lone voices most academics appear to have been seduced by the
apparent dominance of neo-liberal ideology during the 1990s, and
have remained fixated on retrospective interpretations of the new
public management – failing to notice that practitioners were already
not only grappling with a much more complex set of problems than
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 17

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 17

NPM could explain or resolve, and but also searching for new frame-
works of explanation and action.
Very belatedly, academic debate has finally begun to catch up with
the frontiers of practice, and academic interest in public value (as an
alternative both to traditional public administration and to new public
management paradigms) is now mushrooming. Some of this is frankly
little more than the following of fashion (Talbot 2009) , but there are
also signs of serious analysis of public value from the point of view of
several different disciplines (philosophy, psychology, political science,
ecology and management science), and of different countries, traditions
and cultures (Anglo-Saxon; Australia/New Zealand; continental
Europe and Africa).
One important critique comes from philosophy, and focuses on tra-
ditional though contested questions about virtue, the public good and
the source of values. The main writers on this theme at present are
from the USA and continental Europe and one of their preoccupations
is with defining and categorizing public service values (notice the
plural) and exploring public value failures (cases where public service
values have been breached). Some of this literature is concerned with
establishing hierarchies of public values or constellations of competing
values (Bozeman 1987; Bozeman 2002, 2007; Kernaghan 2003;
Bozeman and Sarewitz 2005; Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007) This liter-
ature on public values (in the plural) seems to have originated quite
independently of the debate about public value (in the singular), but
there is now some cross-referencing between the two previously sepa-
rate literatures (for example, Davis and West 2008; Van der Wal and
Van Hout 2009). Critical accounts of public value are emerging from
the perspective of philosophical theories of virtue and the public good,
linked to political-economic questions of governance, power and
control (Morrell 2009), and also from philosophy linked to social
theory, particularly Latour’s actor-network theory and the ‘new prag-
matism’ associated with Boltanski and Thevenot 1999 (West and Davis
2010). Both schools argue, in different ways, the importance of seeing
questions of value not in abstract terms but in their embodiment and
enactment in material situations and technologies, and in political and
daily practices.
Another stream of commentary on public value is based in psy-
chology. For example, Meynhardt (2009) argues for a notion of the
public as

a necessary fiction. The public is inside. The ‘public’ – psychologi-

cally speaking – is an individually formed abstraction generated on
the basis of experiences made in daily practices, analytical insight,
and all sorts of projections as to complex phenomena.
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 18

18 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

Similarly, Meynhardt argues:

if we cannot assume the derivation of values from some objective

basis (for example natural right) and further do not restrict values
to a normative constitution or the like (such as a religious text) …
one promising candidate is basic needs theory in psychology … In
this view we gain a structure for value content that is closely linked
to psychological theory building. (p. 204)

The most robust and critical debate about public value, however, has
erupted within political science, and is focused around a series of arti-
cles in the Australian Journal of Public Administration. Rhodes and
Wanna (2007) mount a frontal attack on Moore’s Creating Public
Value, asserting that it is confused or wrong about seven sets of issues.
They argue, first, that it is unclear whether public value ideas are based
on normative or empirical reasoning; second, that it embraces too
broad and loose a definition of the public manager; third, that it is not
applicable to Westminster-style democracies, where there is a sharper
distinction between the roles of elected politicians and appointed man-
agers, than in the US and other systems; fourth, that it assumes too
benign a view of public managers and public organizations – and
ignores the ‘dark side’ of the state’s regulatory activity, and the asym-
metrical power relations between state officials, clients, citizens and
other interest groups; fifth, that it gives a dangerous primacy to entre-
preneurial public managers in shaping the content of policies and pro-
grammes, at the expense of elected politicians and political parties;
sixth, that it defers too much to private sector models of management
and fails to acknowledge the very different goals and accountabilities
of public management within a democratic political framework; and
seventh, that it downgrades the importance of party politics, and raises
public managers to the status of Platonic guardians and arbiters of the
public interest, instead of recognizing that public value is highly con-
tested territory, in which competing and conflicting interests can only
be negotiated between elected politicians through the democratic polit-
ical process (Rhodes and Wanna 2007).
John Alford responds to Rhodes and Wanna’s critique with an
equally sharp rejoinder (Alford 2008). He accuses Rhodes and Wanna,
first, of wilfully misrepresenting Moore’s arguments, and uses detailed
quotations from Creating Public Value to support this; second, of
holding on to outdated and discredited textbook theories of the sepa-
ration between politics and administration; and third, of misunder-
standing the complex interplay between politicians and public
managers in generating policy and in developing innovative pro-
grammes to respond to changing public needs, and to create public
value (Alford 2008).
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 19

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 19

Finally, Rhodes and Wanna respond to Alford’s criticisms in two

further astringent articles in the same journal (Rhodes and Wanna
2008; 2009). In the first, they start by reiterating that Mark Moore’s
conception of public value does not transplant from American govern-
ment to Westminster parliamentary government:

the hierarchy of a strong executive with disciplined political parties

and neutral public officials is markedly different from the divided
executive, weak party system, and elected or partisan public offi-
cials of the USA. Cabinet ministers are visible and interventionist.
They are not just one among many competing actors. They are the
pre-eminent actor. So, to urge officials to build coalitions inside
and outside government to legitimise ‘their’ initiatives on public
value may well be understandable in the pluralist, fragmented
American government but it is dangerous in [Westminster-style
and] Australian parliamentary government. (pp. 367–70)

Leading on from this, their second argument is a reassertion of the

primacy of politics over administration, and of politicians over public
managers, in governance. Their third argument is that public value is a
utopian concept and ignores the dark side of government – including
at times spying, unlawful imprisonment, interrogation and torture. The
second rejoinder repeats some of the above arguments but adds a series
of case-studies of this dark side, to illustrate their contention that
Moore’s concept of public value is based upon an overly benign view
of governmental organizations and of the role of public servants as
‘platonic guardians’ (Rhodes and Wanna 2009).
The Rhodes, Wanna, Alford debate raises an important set of ques-
tions which are addressed fully in the chapters which follow. At this
stage it should just be noted that some British political scientists have
engaged with public value thinking in an equally questioning but less
polarized and simplistic way. For example Stoker explores the poten-
tial of public value as a framework to make conceptual and practical
sense of the new patterns of networked governance (Stoker 2006;
Gains and Stoker 2009) and as an alternative paradigm to new public
management.
However, the most fundamental critique of current conceptions of
public value come from ecology. In Chapter 5, Swilling asks whether and
how the public value approach can face up to the challenge of sustain-
able resource use, and can it be greened? His conclusion is that a public
value approach can potentially offer a new paradigm for sustainable
governance and public management if it can move beyond the ‘triple
bottom line’ approach, which essentially sees sustainable development as
a point where the economic, social and environmental spheres (often
depicted as interlocking circles) overlap. Swilling argues that this
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 20

20 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

approach locks one into a language of trade-offs, with each sphere

retaining its own respective logic (an economy driven by markets, society
glued together by welfarism, and the environment protected by conserva-
tionism). A systems approach offers an alternative perspective that essen-
tially sees these spheres as embedded within each other. Following the
logic of institutional economics, the economy is embedded within the
social-cultural system, and, following ecological economics, both are
embedded within the wider system of ecosystem services and natural
resources. The result, Swilling argues, is a way of thinking about sustain-
ability as the organizing principle for an expanded ‘complex systems’
conception of public value that encompasses all three spheres.
Thus the academic debate about public value has moved well beyond
the fields of public administration and strategic management where it
originated, and is now at the centre of lively interdisciplinary debates
about the purposes and roles of government within a rapidly changing
ecological, political-economic and social context; about the changing
relationships between state, market, civil society and the ecosphere,
and about the nature of the contract being renegotiated between citi-
zens, communities and governments.

How will this book move the public value debate

forward?
This book is being published at a critical conjuncture in the above
developments, and aims to move the debate about public value sub-
stantially forward in both the academic and policy communities.
We aim, in the following chapters:

• To sharpen the definition of public value (which is currently in

danger of being used like an aerosol, sprayed around widely but
hazily, with misty meanings which can indicate different things to
different people).
• To expose the public value concept to critical questioning, with
contributions from sceptical as well as neutral and committed
points of view, and providing a forum for debate and contest.
• To draw on perspectives from practitioners (politicians and policy
advisers and public managers), as well as academics.
• To analyse public value from several different disciplinary perspec-
tives (for example ecology, economics, history, management, phi-
losophy, political science, organizational psychology, social policy,
sociology).
• To highlight and elaborate the political, economic, social, and eco-
logical dimensions of public value.
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 21

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 21

• To encompass perspectives from a range of different countries,

contexts, continents and cultures (for example the UK, Europe,
USA, Australia and New Zealand and Africa).
• To test the application of the public value concept in relation to
key policy arenas (including education, health, pensions, the built
environment).
• To grapple with the question of how to assess or measure public
value.

We build on and extend the initial definition of public value offered

in Creating Public Value (Moore 1995), as a framework for thinking
about strategic management in the public sector. We aim to address
the following key questions, among others:

• What is the difference between public and private value?

• How does public value relate to other concepts such as the public
sphere, the public interest, the public good, or public goods?
• What do we mean by value and how do we judge it?
• How and where and by whom is public value created?
• How would we recognize it and assess it?
• What are the implications of differing political, economic, social
and cultural contexts for public value creation?
• What contribution to public value creation is made variously by
the state, market and civil society?
• How do power and politics shape the contested discourses about
public value?
• How far are competition and/or collaboration necessary or useful
for public value creation?
• What are the conditions for co- creation of public value?
• How does public value relate to other management frameworks
like ‘best value’, ‘value for money’, ‘value management’?
• Under what conditions can innovation and improvement in public
services add to public value?
• How can public value be measured or evaluated?

The chapters within this book aim to progress both the theory and
the practice of public value, in the following ways:
In Chapter 2, John Benington builds on Mark Moore’s ideas in
Creating Public Value, but transposes them into an alternative frame-
work which starts with the public and the collective as the primary
units of analysis, rather than with the private and the individual. As
noted earlier in this chapter, Moore’s ideas were developed initially in
the USA in the early to mid 1990s, at the height of the dominance of
neo-liberal ideology. Neo-liberal perspectives promoted and privileged
conceptual models based on individual consumers within a private
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 22

22 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

competitive market (where the state is seen as an encroachment upon,

and threat to, individual liberty), over models based on communal citi-
zens within a public democratic state (within which individual liberties
have to be protected). Benington argues that public value can best be
understood and achieved within the notion of the ‘public sphere’ – a
democratic space which includes, but is not coterminous with, the
state, within which citizens address their collective concerns, and
where individual liberties have to be protected. This leads him to
define public value not just in terms of ‘what does the public most
value?’ but also ‘what adds value to the public sphere?’ The tension
between these two perspectives (the first emphasizing dialogue and
engagement with current users, citizens, and communities; and the
second emphasizing the longer term public interest and future genera-
tions of citizens yet unborn) is explored further in Chapter 2.
Benington argues that this reformulation of public value – as part of
a deliberative process, embedded within a democratic public sphere
within which competing interest and contested values can be debated
and negotiated – provides a strong conceptual framework to guide a
newly emerging paradigm of ‘networked community governance’
(NCG) – similar to the ways theories of public goods provided the
rationale for ‘traditional public administration’ (TPA), and public
(rational) choice theory provided the conceptual framework for ‘new
public management’ (NPM). This also helps to address some of the
concerns expressed by Rhodes and Wanna about the interrelation-
ships, in public value creation, between political, managerial and civic
processes.
In Chapter 3, Colin Crouch examines the question of the public
sphere further by developing a historical, philosophical and sociolog-
ical perspective on the complex interchanging meanings of public and
private over time. He analyses three different meanings of private and
five different meanings of public, and argues that private and public
should be seen as end points on a continuum rather than as alterna-
tives. Crouch argues that states within the polity should not be equated
solely with the public, and firms within the market should not be
equated solely with the private, but that each should be seen as a par-
ticular combination of both the public and the private. Most impor-
tantly, he develops a typology to explore three realms in which public
and private are linked (the state, the firm and religious organizations)
and he identifies the last of these three as the key arena within which
crucial value questions are formulated and articulated.
In Chapter 4, Noel Whiteside challenges the currently dominant neo-
liberal market paradigm in which the public good is identified as a col-
lective consequence of the pursuit of personal interest. Whiteside offers
instead a model to underpin public value, drawing on the French
theory of ‘the convention’. She argues that in both private and public
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 23

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 23

sectors, and in the relationships between state and market, collective

coordination mechanisms are needed to enable individuals and soci-
eties to make choices that secure their objectives. Such mechanisms
must command universal respect; they are embedded in conventions of
economic action that form the foundations of public value. However,
for coordination to be effective, its mechanisms need to be internalized
by all social actors. Efficiency depends not just on external ‘top-down’
regulation by government, but on careful negotiation with key partici-
pants, allowing deliberations that both explain mechanisms and iden-
tify possible future problems. Here, negotiation acts not merely to
create compromise, but as the means whereby new systems can be
absorbed and understood by all, removing or reducing the uncertain-
ties that prevent participation. She thus argues that public value cre-
ation depends less upon market competition, or state command and
control, than upon efficient coordination – and highlights the role
played by confidence and trust in securing this and, conversely, the
damage done by uncertainty. Uncertainty may provoke distrust and
non-participation, sometimes leading to the breakdown of economic
systems.
In Chapter 5, Mark Swilling starts by agreeing with John Benington
(see Chapter 2) that neither traditional public administration (TPA)
nor neo-liberal new public management (NPM) are adequate frame-
works to make conceptual or practical sense of the complex challenges
facing societies and governments now and in the future. Swilling also
highlights a third governance model (the strong, interventionist ‘devel-
opmental state’ espoused by several rapidly developing countries like
Singapore), but criticizes all three models for their failure to compre-
hend that unsustainable development poses the greatest threat to the
processes of both private and public value creation that we as a human
species face:

Traditional Keynesian economics and so-called ‘developmental

states’ in developing countries have ignored ecological realities.
Neo-liberal philosophies have allowed market forces to ransack
global resources for the benefit of the billion or so people who
make up the global middle and upper class that enjoys an ecolog-
ical footprint that is far greater than their fair share of global
resources.

Swilling attempts to synthesize insights from the new institutional

economics, ecological economics and a public value approach to gover-
nance, in order to arrive at a tentative conception of ‘sustainable public
value’.
In Chapter 6, Louise Horner and Will Hutton discuss two key issues
where public value perspectives may help policymakers and managers
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 24

24 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

to address and resolve current dilemmas in public services – the ‘demo-

cratic deficit’ and the ‘delivery paradox’. Tackling the democratic
deficit depends upon recognizing the user of public services not only as
a consumer who seeks what is good for her/himself, but also poten-
tially as a citizen who seeks what is good for the wider society. Horner
and Hutton offer several case-studies of public participation in public
services (for example, citizens’ juries, citizens’ panels) and active user
involvement in service design and delivery, as examples of ‘inclusive
management,’ in which public managers not only exercise professional
judgment but also seek to maximize public participation. Here,
accountability is not only to elected politicians, but also to the public,
to local communities, to service-users and other stakeholders. In this
way, public value perspectives encourage public managers to under-
stand the plurality of the publics they serve, and the public outcomes
they are employed to achieve, as well as to fulfil the wishes of elected
governments.
Horner and Hutton also discuss the ‘delivery paradox’, whereby the
quality of public services is improving in many ways but measures of
public satisfaction are declining. They question the usefulness of ‘satis-
faction’ as the primary criterion for measuring the value of public ser-
vices and explore the feasibility of developing practical measures of
performance that go beyond economic outputs or value for money,
and also take into account wider public value outcomes like equity and
security. Horner and Hutton then discuss each of the three processes
highlighted by Mark Moore’s strategic triangle – recasting them
slightly as authorization, creation and measurement of public value.
In Chapter 7 Robin Wensley and Mark Moore analyse the concep-
tual and practical dilemmas surrounding notions of marketing, cus-
tomers and choice in the public sector. They explore the ways in which
even where individual choice seems to be offered in the public sector
there is almost always also a concern not just with satisfaction of the
individual’s needs as a ‘customer’ but also with promotion or regula-
tion of the individual’s responsibilities as a ‘citizen’, and also with the
benefits and costs to the citizenry in general – the value added or sub-
tracted to the public sphere. They also discuss the role played both by
private firms and by governments in shaping individual choices and
behaviours – and the boundary between responsible social marketing,
and intrusive, even subliminal, manipulation.
In Chapter 8, John Alford focuses on the concept of co-production
which is a key feature in value-creation in public and voluntary ser-
vices. Alford focuses on a specific type of co-producer; the client of a
government organization. Whereas contractors, community organiza-
tions, other government agencies and volunteers are more analogous to
suppliers of services to a public sector organization, clients appear to
be more like consumers, who receive services from it. The idea that
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 25

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 25

they are also suppliers of co-productive effort is therefore counterintu-

itive at first sight. Alford notes that clients of public organizations
differ from their private sector counterparts in that they are sometimes
non-fee-paying beneficiaries of state services (for example welfare), and
sometimes unwilling clients or ‘obligatees’. Sometimes they are
required to pay not with money but with changed behaviours. Alford
then looks in some detail at what may induce clients to co-produce
public value; a combination of willingness and ability. Willingness can
be encouraged by incentives, material rewards, and non-material
rewards. Ability to co-produce can be influenced by two types of initia-
tive – by the producer, to simplify their systems for working with their
clients, and by the user, to increase their knowledge and capabilities to
engage with the organization. Alford examines several case-studies of
co-production with clients, which suggest that in some cases (for
example: services for the long-term unemployed; completing tax
returns) public and voluntary organizations are completely dependent
upon their clients to co-produce the service. Public value creation is
therefore a relational concept, in which the value chain is highly depen-
dent upon creating productive relationships with actors (for example
clients) who are outside the boundaries and outside the control of the
organization itself.
In Chapter 9, Jonathan Tritter also explores the concept of co-pro-
duction of public value, but extends this beyond individual clients
(health service patients in this case) to include the wider ‘public’ and
other organizations and stakeholders with an interest in improving
health outcomes. Tritter uses Moore’s public value ‘strategic triangle’
to look at the ways clarification of a clear public value mission can be
used as a basis not only to negotiate authorization of the mission by a
wide range of partner organizations, but also to unlock their resources
and to harness these behind that mission. Thus the lead organization is
given the opportunity to access resources from other organizations that
share a common value mission. This differentiation between leadership
of the value mission and the provision of resources provides the basis
for a distinctive form of collaboration between different organizations
and actors.
In Chapter 10, Jean Hartley examines why, how and under what
conditions innovation and improvement in public and voluntary ser-
vices may add to, or subtract from, value in the public sphere. Her
chapter aims to contribute to the understanding of public value in two
ways – first, by examining how innovation and improvement may con-
tribute to the achievement of public value; and second, by using the
prism of innovation and improvement to illuminate some aspects of
the theory and practice of public value. Hartley distinguishes conceptu-
ally between incremental improvement and step-change innovation,
and explores in some detail the varied relationships which may occur
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 26

26 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

between innovation and improvement outcomes – improvement com-

bined with innovation; improvement without innovation; innovation
with no improvement; neither innovation or improvement. She uses
each of these four scenarios to analyse the conditions under which
public value may be added or subtracted, and argues that a key factor
is alignment, and active engagement, between the organization or
interorganizational network and its external environment, including
users, citizens and communities – one test of fitness for public purpose.
Hartley concludes that public value has to be created without the
benefit of hindsight, and it sometimes requires political and managerial
judgement as to whether a particular policy or strategy will achieve the
sought-after outcomes. Therefore, the question, ‘How can public value
be measured for any innovation or improvement?’ can never be finally
answered, but requires continuous review and commitment over time.
In Chapter 11, Guy Stuart tests the relevance of a public value per-
spective, and the usefulness of the strategic triangle in particular, to
addressing the dilemmas surrounding microfinance. He argues that the
public value framework provides a useful way of understanding the
hotly debated question over whether microfinance institutions (MFIs)
should focus on financial sustainability, defined as revenue from cus-
tomers exceeding the costs of service provision, or make their primary
goal efforts to broaden their outreach to serve the poorest of the poor.
He concludes that the public value framework makes two distinct but
related contributions to this debate. One is to broaden the definition of
sustainability to encompass revenues and benefits not generated
through direct service provision. The framework makes this contribu-
tion via the concept of public value in and of itself – that there is a
legitimate collectivity for whom an MFI manager can produce value.
The second contribution is to place the debate about whether MFIs
should be in the business of creating public value, in particular ful-
filling a mandate to serve the poorest of the poor and not just the poor,
in the context of the strategic questions facing MFI managers. It gives
us a ‘manager’s eye view’ of a thorny public policy question. In addi-
tion the public value framework helps to encompass the social rela-
tions of microfinance as well as the financial flows. Fairness and
accountability in the processes and relationships of microfinance can
be seen to promote the effective production of public value, as well as
give it legitimacy in the eyes of the authorizing environment. The case-
study of microfinance thus helps to extend the public value framework
by linking the production process more closely to the legitimation
process – MFIs gain competitive advantage through their adherence to
fairness and accountability in delivering financial services.
In Chapter 12, Richard Norman draws on the New Zealand govern-
ment’s experience since 1986 to discuss another of the key concepts
within the public value management framework – a focus on outcomes
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 27

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 27

which add value for the public, and for the public sphere. Norman
shows that there was a deep scepticism about outcome measures in the
radical redesign of the New Zealand public sector in the late 1980s,
which was carried forward under both the Labour government of
1986–90, and the National government of 1990–1999. In contrast to
the major effort involved in specifying outputs and creating cost
systems to track them, outcome goals and targets were left as the
responsibility of politicians to articulate in rather general utopian
terms.
However, concerns about the impact of a single-minded focus on
outputs accumulated during the 1990s. The reliance on contracts and
output measures had led to a checklist mentality where managers deliv-
ered only those things that were specified in the formal performance
measurement system; and public sector managers were increasingly
uneasy about the undue emphasis on measurable and auditable results.
Effectively, the focus on outputs benefited those public services where
the final output is also an outcome – productivity gains were more
easily reported in areas like tax administration, passports, land titles,
employment placements and company registration, while services
which involved long-term processes such as health, social welfare and
education struggled to demonstrate measurable increases in outputs, at
least in the short term. These concerns prompted the incoming 1999
Labour-led government to review the performance management
system, and to introduce ‘strategic intent’, organizational capability
and outcomes, as a focus for public service work. Although problem-
atic both in terms of conception and implementation, managing for
outcomes is envisaged as a cycle of continuous improvement, a self-
assessment tool – not solely an accountability mechanism – for direc-
tion-setting, planning, implementation and delivery, and review.
In Chapter 13, Geoff Mulgan grapples with similar dilemmas in the
measurement of public value outcomes. He acknowledges that better
metrics do not by themselves deliver better outcomes. He reviews the
various methods which try to monetize public value, some of them
based either on what people say they would pay for a service or
outcome (‘stated preference methods’), or else on the choices people
have made in related fields (‘revealed preference’). Other monetizing
methods he examines try to adjust the cost of public services with ref-
erence to quality, or to compare public policy actions by estimating the
extra income people would need to achieve an equivalent gain in life
satisfaction. Mulgan argues however that paying too much attention to
monetary equivalence can lead to bad decisions. The different methods
used to assess value can generate wildly different numbers; they often
miss out what people turn out to value most, and can thus be unreliable.
Mulgan aims to develop a more sophisticated approach to thinking
about value by analysing what really matters to the public. He reviews
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 28

28 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

a range of methods for trying to make sense of value in this wider

social dimension, including cost–benefit analysis; welfare economics;
environmental economics; social accounting (including quality adjusted
life years); ‘value added’ measures in education; and social impact
assessment methods, which try to capture direct and indirect impacts
of an intervention, and which can be used to justify preventive actions
now that will save money on remedial action later.
Mulgan argues, however, that all measurements of complex effects
are inherently difficult. Social science is not robust enough to make
hard predictions about what causes will lead to what effects. An even
more fundamental problem is that these analytic methods presume that
everyone agrees on what counts as valuable. But in many of the most
important fields for government action – like childcare, crime preven-
tion or schooling – the public are divided over values as well as value.
This is why the economic models for thinking about public goods and
externalities, though informative, are often inadequate to the real
choices faced by policymakers and out of sync with public attitudes
and politics.
He outlines an alternative approach based on the assumption that
something should be considered valuable only if citizens – either indi-
vidually or collectively – are willing to give something up in return for
it. Sacrifices can be monetary (that is, paying taxes or charges); they
can involve granting coercive powers to the state (for example in
return for security), disclosing private information (for example in
return for more personalized services), and/or giving time (for example
as a school governor) or other personal resources (for example
donating blood). Some idea of ‘opportunity cost’ is essential for
judging public value. He describes how value arises from the interac-
tion of supply and demand for public goods and services and sets out
the principles underpinning a set of tools now being used in the UK
health service to guide investment decisions.
In Chapter 14, Bob Fryer investigates the relationship between the
‘personal troubles’ and ‘public issues’ of learning and its capacity to
furnish people with the wherewithal to survive and/or thrive, in
today’s complex and turbulent ‘risk society’. Drawing on sociological
research and thought, Fryer focuses particularly on the persistent and
distorting influences of social class in Britain on learners’ opportuni-
ties to engage equitably in learning and to succeed, especially for
those people from family and neighbourhood backgrounds most
threatened by economic and social turbulence. He makes the case for
adopting an ‘enhanced’ public value frame of reference so as to assess
learning from a broader and deeper perspective than can readily be
provided by conventional indicators of successful learning. He sug-
gests that this needs to grasp the subtle and pervasive ways learning
opportunities are influenced (and often distorted), and learners’
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 29

John Benington and Mark H. Moore 29

potential shaped (and often constrained), by the contexts and cultures

in which learning is embedded, both immediate and global. Such a
framework has to show how public value can be better realized, by
giving a clear and critical voice to learners, to potential learners and
to those striving professionally and organizationally to serve them
better. Finally, a full approach to public value must recognize the key
role that learning can play, in the lives of both individuals and com-
munities, in holding out the promise not just of personal improvement
and progression, but also of social emancipation and participation in
change.
Chapter 15 is an extended case-study by David Winkley, of an
attempt to generate public value in one primary school in a disadvan-
taged inner-city area of Birmingham in the UK, over a period of more
than 20 years. Winkley’s practice as head-teacher embodies and enacts
many of the themes we have been exploring in previous chapters,
bringing them alive as public value praxis. He sees the school as a
living organism, made up of teachers, pupils, parents and families,
closely networked with a wide range of other agencies and actors in
the neighbourhood, and embedded within the diverse cultures of the
multiracial local community. He sees the job of the school to engage
critically with those cultures, to challenge and to shape thinking and
behaviour both within the school and within the local community, and
actively and continuously to promote questioning, learning, self-reflec-
tion and improvement.
Winkley generated within the school a strong focus on public value
outcomes, and a culture of personal, organizational and community
development and measurable improvement over a 20-year period. This
unusual concern with both processes and outcomes (inspiration and
challenge combined with measurement and impact) is reflected in his
chapter. Winkley thus brings public value theory alive, both as an
innovative way of thinking and as a challenging form of praxis, for
public managers at the front line.
Moore’s Creating Public Value, published in 1995, begins with a dis-
cussion of the challenges facing the local librarian in a prosperous
suburb of Boston in the USA. This book, published 15 years later,
closes with a discussion of the challenges facing a school head teacher
in a disadvantaged inner city area of Birmingham in the UK. What
these two public managers have in common is a commitment to using
their position as public managers not only to look upwards to the gov-
ernment organizations which employ and mandate them, and not only
to look inwards to the organizations they manage, but also to look
outwards to the local communities they serve. The American librarian
and the British head-teacher both search for ways to add value not
only for their immediate public, in the short term, but also to add
value to the wider public sphere, in the longer term.
9780230_249042_02_Ch1.qxd 18/10/10 3:58 pm Page 30

30 Public Value in Complex and Changing Times

Finally, in Chapter 16, Mark Moore and John Benington weave

some of the threads of the book together, and look forward to the
future. They begin by addressing two key concerns that will continue
to challenge theorists and practitioners of public value.
First, to what extent are the principles of public value still relevant to
the world we now inhabit and seek to improve?
Second, what are the important conceptual and practical difficulties
that continue to frustrate those who would like to apply the principles
of public value creation to particular concrete tasks?
They highlight a number of incipient trends and themes which have
been addressed in the previous chapters of this book, including:

• The revival of a recognition of government as a value-creating

institution.
• The re-emergence of a consciousness of interdependence within
society.
• The necessity of social institutions to constrain individuals and
individualism.
• The recognition that public value can often only be co-created
between producers and users of services, and with other partners
and stakeholders.
• The specific challenges of ‘calling a public into existence’ in order
to create public value.

In attempting to grapple with these wider questions we clearly move

well beyond the roles envisaged for public managers within the frame-
work of either traditional public administration or new public manage-
ment. Public value aims to provide both a conceptual framework to
interpret the complex new patterns of networked governance and to
shape a new paradigm for public management, and also a managerial
framework to help practitioners to make sense of the new challenges
they face and to find clearer ways to lead and manage through the con-
tradictions.
All this leads us to conclude that public value, in theory and in prac-
tice, is likely to have an enduring value for both academics and practi-
tioners, in helping both to make sense of the complexity of a
fast-moving and volatile world, and to guide more effective action in
changing and uncertain times.
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 304

Index

Abrahamson, E. 175, 178 Barnet Community Health Council

Accountability 11, 24, 26–7, 39, 41, 165
74, 113, 118–20, 122, 132, 134, Barrow, C. 214
135, 137, 143, 164, 166, 178, 185, Bastian, H. 164
187, 189, 190, 200, 202–4, Bauman, Z. 240, 241, 242, 243
206–11, 227, 250, 265 Baumgartner, S. 107
Actor network theory 17 Beck, U. 32, 38, 91, 239, 241
Adaptive problems 13 Becker, H. 156, 214
Administrators 10, 228 Behn, R. 172
Aghion, A. 102 Beneficiaries 25, 73, 133, 161, 193,
Albury, D. 172, 178, 181 228, 240
Alderson, W. 132 Benington, J. 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
Alford, J. 2, 5, 18, 19, 24, 25, 39, 46, 21, 22, 23, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 44,
132, 144, 145, 146, 269 48, 92, 93, 112, 114, 174, 181,
Alignment 5, 26, 175–7, 179 226, 272
Allison, G. 178 Benn, C. 234
Alm, J. 152, 156 Bentley, T. 43
Altschuler, A. 172 Beresford, P. 166
Amann, C. 98 Berkes, F. 91
Aquinas, T. 66 Bessant, J. 173, 176, 178
Arato, A. 35, 36 Best value 21
Arendt, H. 260, 273 Black, A. 60
Argyris, C. 175 Blackburn, R. 83
Aristotle 44, 70 Blau, M. 146, 154, 209
Ashby, W. 38 Blau, P. 145
Atkinson, T. 212 Blinder, A. S. 75
Aucoin, P. 202 Blond, P. 33
Audit Commission 2, 172, 173 Bloom, H. 154, 155, 277
Austerity 1, 11, 84 Boaz, A. 46
Australia and New Zealand School of Boltanski, L. 17, 78
Government 2 Bonoli, G. 83
Authorizing environment 4–6, 10–11, Boston, J. 203
15, 16, 26, 119, 120, 125, 158, Boyne, G. 146
159, 161, 163, 168–9, 177, 185–7, Bozeman, B. 17, 215
190, 192–4, 197, 201, 270 Braithwaite, T. 153
Ayres, I. 153 Bringezu, S. 97, 107
Brinkerhoo, M. 92
Badgley, C. 97 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Bagchi, A. 101 2, 115, 121, 123–4
Baggott, R. 164 British Heart Foundation 141
Bandura, A. 153 Brown, K. 173, 182
Bardach, E. 153 Brudney, J. 144

304
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 305

Index 305

Bruni, L. 70 Climate change 12, 13, 73, 95, 96,

Bryan, S. 164 109, 219, 220, 261
Built environment, the 21, 97, 108, Coalition 4, 6, 16, 19, 33, 37, 205,
220–1 270
Burns, T. 171 Coercion 54–8
Co-development 227
Commission for Architecture and the Cohen, J. 35–6
Built Environment (CABE) 220 Collaboration 12, 21, 25, 32, 40, 54,
Cabinet Office 43, 46, 215 57, 158–60, 162, 167, 253
Civil servants 263–5 Collins, K. 60
Castells, M. 32, 91 Communities 2, 3, 11–16, 20, 22, 24,
Centre for Urban Policy Research 93 26, 29, 31–3, 35, 37, 39–40, 47,
Chang, H. 100, 103, 109 50, 79, 81, 97, 118, 138, 150, 160,
Charity 66–7, 69, 188 162, 165, 167, 169, 180, 221, 226,
Charlesworth, G. 122 235, 240–1, 243, 257–8, 261, 265,
Chesborough, H. 172 268–71
Chibber, V. 100, 101 Community policing 137
Chitty, C. 234 Competing values 17, 49
Choice 1, 4, 8, 13–14, 22–4, 28, 32, Complex adaptive system 15, 40,
34, 37, 41, 44–5, 49, 69, 74, 76–7, 91
79, 84, 118, 123, 127–8, 130, Considine, M. 151
139–43, 152, 164, 166–7, 178–9, Consumer 8–10, 13, 21, 24, 31–2,
181, 194, 215–16, 219–23, 229, 35, 37, 42, 44–6, 74–5, 80, 83,
253, 254, 259, 260, 263, 264, 98–9, 112–15, 119, 121, 123,
265 125–6, 127–8, 132, 135, 137, 142,
Christensen, C. 176, 179 144–5, 147, 164, 166–7, 217, 219,
Church 37, 55, 57–60, 62–9, 72, 275 272
Citizen 4, 7, 9, 12–14, 16, 18, 20, 22, choice 8, 14, 74, 127, 164
24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40, Contractual obligations 59
45, 47, 61, 70, 79, 83, 90, 92, 112, Convention, theory of 22–3, 75–81
113, 115–16, 119, 121, 122, 123, Cooley, M. 44
126, 129, 130, 133–5, 137–9, 142, Cooper, R. 32
144–5, 158, 160–1, 166, 172, 176, Copernican Revolution 13
181, 182, 183, 211, 213, 215–17, Co-production contracts
219, 224, 227, 255, 257–62, 264, Costanza, R. 107
266, 268, 272–5 Cost–benefit analysis 28, 49, 114,
Citizen-centred services 34 214–16, 250
Citizenship 24, 31, 33, 53, 56, 103, Creating Public Value 1, 3–11, 16,
144–5, 157, 166, 229 18, 21, 29, 31, 256, 270
Civil society 14, 20–1, 33–9, 46, Creativity 32, 103, 105, 110, 241
70–2, 103–5, 160, 212, 272, 276 Crisp, R. 164
Clark, G. 82, 83, 155 Croft, S. 166
Classical economics 44 Cross-cutting problems 3, 13–14, 16,
Client 7, 24, 42, 113, 130–3, 139, 39–40
145–8, 150, 153–7, 190, 208–9, Crouch, C. 22
264, 272 Culture 12, 15, 17, 21, 29, 33, 47,
co-production 144–6, 149–50 49–50, 99–101, 115, 121, 162,
obligation 7, 113–14, 134, 145–6, 178, 233, 238, 242, 247, 249–53,
273 256, 268–9, 272
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 306

306 Index

Customer 7, 9, 10, 24, 26, 34, 39, 61, Distance learning 230, 254
69, 79–80, 121, 128, 130–41, 145, Dobereiner, D. 97
157, 176, 181–2, 186, 189–94, Dolan, P. 213
198–200, 217, 260, 277 Dolton, P. 151
Domestic orders of worth 79, 80, 86
Dabbs, C. 165 Donahue. J. 144, 146
Daly, H. 107 Dore, R. 81
Davis, G. 17 Dougherty, D. 181
Deakin, N. 36 Douthwaite, R. 107
Deci, E. 155 Doyal, L. 44
Deliberative democracy 35, 101–2, Dresner, S. 94
106–9 Dunblane massacre 38
Deliberative process 22, 31, 113, 2 Dunphy, D. 179
64 Dupuy, J.-P. 79
Delivery paradox 24, 115–16, 119 Durkheim, E. 59
Delphi techniques 49
Demery, L. 217 Eagleton, T. 251
Democracy 8, 35, 64, 101, 115–16, Early modern period 60, 68
123, 142, 145, 165, 182, 223, Ecology 2, 17, 19, 20
229–30, 257, 259, 263–4, 273–4 Education 2, 15, 21, 27, 28, 32, 33,
Democratic deficit 24, 113, 115–16, 39, 45–9, 102, 105, 123, 125,
119, 125 140–2, 147–9, 180, 206, 212, 214,
Democratic politics 8, 258, 272, 274 217, 219, 222, 229–39, 242–3,
Denis, J. 181 247, 254–5
Department for Communities and Educational Priority Areas (EPAs)
Local Government 33 233
Department for Education and Skills Effectiveness 7–9, 47, 119, 122, 146,
230, 234 150, 183, 231, 257
Department for Innovation, Universities Efficiency 7–9, 12, 23, 75–6, 87, 107,
and Skills 172 117, 125, 128, 141, 159, 173–4,
Department of Culture, Media and 179, 183, 207, 217, 250, 257
Sport 2 Ekeh, P. 146
Department of Health 160, 161, 165, Elected politicians 4, 6, 11, 18, 24,
166, 169 49, 86, 120, 137, 223, 263, 264,
Department of Scientific and Industrial 265, 271
Research 202 Eleven-Plus examination 232
Depletion of natural resources and Eliot, T.S. 44
ecosystems 89, 92–8, 102, 106 Employment 27, 32, 45, 50, 109,
Developing countries 23, 42, 89, 99, 146, 148, 153–5, 157, 205, 208–9,
100, 106, 108–9, 171, 185, 202 213, 229–30, 235–6, 239
Developmental state 23, 89–90, Endogenous growth theory 102
99–106, 109–10 Erhlich, P. 91
Dewey, J. 273 European Union 88, 92, 103, 106,
Dialogue 14, 22, 31, 40, 44–5, 48, 230
68, 71, 90, 102, 183, 251, 253 Evans, P. 100–103, 109
Diamond, J. 94 Exchange value 44, 52
DiMaggio, P. 178
Dimensions of value 20, 44–5, 174, Fabian political economy 41
183, 214, 216, 230 Fabian Society, The 234
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 307

Index 307

Fairness 7, 8, 26, 50, 123, 146, 153, Gough, I. 44

185, 187, 200, 264, 266, 268 Governance model 23, 99
Faith and state 57, 81 Governance structure 191
Feinstein, L. 236 Government
Feldberg, G. 166 authority 129
Fererra, M. 84 global 261
Ferguson, C. 191 networked 258
Ferlie, E. 202 managers 3, 36, 129–30, 133, 135,
Financial Services Authority 83 209, 263, 265, 268–9, 271
Financial sustainability 26, 185–6, performance 128, 134, 204, 258,
192, 199 265
Finn, D. 151, 154 policy 13, 36, 74, 109, 160, 163,
Fischer-Kowalski, M. 94, 97, 98, 249
102, 107 representative 8, 10, 40, 116, 123,
Floud, J. E. 232 257
Flyvbjerg, B. 214 Grabosky, P. 152
Folke, C. 91 Grameen Bank 195, 199
Fordism 239 Gramsci, A. 35
Formalization 188–90 Granovetter, M. 37
Fox, A. 155 Gray, W. 152
Frances, J. 39 Greenfield, S. 164
Frankel, J. 100 Greenhalgh, T. 173
Frant, H. 156 Gregory, R. 202, 205
Free market 13, 64 Grigg, P. 227
French Revolution 64–5, 69 Grint, K. 13
Frey, B. 153 Grogger, J. 148, 151, 154
Financial Reporting Standards (FRS) Guilds 60
88 Gunningham, N. 152
Fryer, B. 28
Further education 2, 227, 230, 233 Haberl, H. 94, 97, 102, 107
Habermas, J. 35, 44
Gaebler, T. 157, 166 Haggard, S. 100
Gains, F. 2, 19 Hall, P. 81
Gala-Sinha, C. 198–199 Hallberg, P. 70
Gallopin, G. 91, 97, 107 Halsey, R. 232–3, 238
Gelb, S. 103 Hamann 103
Giddens, A. 41 Hampden-Turner, C. 210
Global economic crisis 12, 84–5, 87, Handler, J. 151, 277
257 Hargadon, A. 174
Global economy 95, 101, 103, 105, Harriss, E. 109
108, 259 Harris-White, B. L. 109
Global financial markets 12, 82–7 Hartley, J. 12, 16, 25–6, 171–3, 175,
Global resources 20, 23, 89, 92–3, 178, 181, 182, 270
96, 98, 102, 106 Harvard University 2, 16, 100
Global warming 46, 92, 95–6, 110 Hasenfeld, Y. 151
Globalization 12, 73, 81, 103, 229, Hattingh, J. 92
240 Havel, V. 71
Goldthorpe, J. 237, 238 Hayek, F. 42, 58, 60
Gottschalk, P. 155 Heath, A. 234
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 308

308 Index

Hegel, G. L. 64–5, 71 Johnson, T. 213

Heifetz, R. 13, 16, 50, 184 Jones, D. 177
Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools Jørgensen, T. 17
(HMI) 268
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Kagan, R. 153
(HMRC) 149, 277 Kanneganti, S. 196
Herzberg, F. 154 Kant, I. 68
Hierarchies 17, 34–5, 37, 39–40, Kaufman, H. 100, 210
78–82, 86, 235 Keane, J. 36
see also Domestic orders of worth Kelly, G. 2, 14, 43, 48, 212, 227
Hine, R. 104 Kennedy, A. 163
Hinrichs, K. 84 Kennedy, H. 233
Hirsch-Hadorn, G. I. 91 Kennedy School of Government 1
Hirschman, A. 37 Kernaghan, K. 17
Hobbesian state of nature 52 Kettl, D. 144, 146, 202
Hoggart, R. 251 Key results areas 204
Hogget, P. 32 Keynesian economics 23, 45, 89–90,
Holding environment 50 99, 110
Hood, C. 10 Khandker, S. 187
Horner, L. 23–4 King, D. 147
Howitt, P. 102 Kinsey, K. 152
Hudon, M. 194 Kiser, L. 144
Hughes, O. 2, 208 Klein, R. 166
Human Development Report 1998 Klerman, J. 151
95, 97–8 Knight, F. H. 77
Husock, H. 148 Knowledge economy 100, 102, 229
Hutton, W. 2, 23–4
Labour Force Survey 235
Improvement 2, 21, 25–7, 29, 32–5, Labour market programmes 148,
47, 50, 74, 116–18, 125, 127, 128, 152
137, 171–80, 182–3, 207, 213, Labour value 44–5
228, 231, 233, 241, 243, 244–5, Lamfalussy process 87
247, 252, 265, 270, 272 Lasch, C. 32
of public services 49, 171–2, 174 Le Grand, J. 42, 45
Industrialism 64 Leadership 12, 15–16, 25, 49, 103,
Innovation 9, 11, 21, 25–6, 32, 40–1, 108, 115, 159, 162, 167, 169, 179,
50, 64, 76, 99, 103–5, 108–9, 184, 210, 230, 252–3, 256, 261–3,
171–80, 182–3, 241, 247–8, 250, 272
263, 269–72, 274 skills 230, 252
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) 217 Lean management 173, 177
Institute of Public Policy Research Learning 28–9, 32–3, 47, 50, 109,
74 125, 159, 167, 175, 178, 181, 182,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 149 225–43, 247, 249, 251, 254, 261,
Involvement 164–5 279
Learning and Skills Development
Jackson, P. 215 Agency 227
Jacob, J. 92 Leavis, F. R. 44
Jas, P. 176 Lee, C. 100
Johanson, R. 164 Leftwich, A. 100, 101, 102
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 309

Index 309

Legitimacy 6, 11, 26, 67–8, 77, 86, Markets 8, 12, 14, 20, 34, 35, 37, 39,
116, 119–21, 124–6, 138–9, 159, 40, 54, 58, 59, 64, 65, 67, 74–6,
162, 185, 217, 232, 238, 258–259, 80–8, 105, 128, 167, 174, 190,
261–7, 269, 271, 273 194, 200, 217, 219, 253
Levi, M. 152, 153, 156 Marquand, D. 32
Lévi-Strauss, C. 146, 256 Martin, R. 232
Lifelong learning 229 Marx, K. 65, 71
Listhaug, O. 217 May, P. 152
Local government 33, 38, 39, 46, Mbembe, A. 100
105, 115, 121–2, 161, 167, 222, McCallum, A. 163
264 McKillop, D. 191
Lockerbie air disaster 38 Mead, L. 147
Long, S. 149 Mebratu, D. 94
Lorig, K. 163 Medieval period 58–62, 65, 275
Lousada, J. 32 Melbourne University 2, 16
Lovelock, J. 96 Merton, R. 209
Loyalty 34–5, 37–9, 58, 62, 63, 67, Metcalfe, R. 213
81 Meynhardt, T. 17
Luttwak, E. 240 Michalopoulos, C. 154–5, 277
Lynn, L. 173 Microfinance 185–9, 192–4,
Lyons, M. 33, 38 198–201
institutions (MFIs) 26, 185–6,
Madeley, J. 104 189–94, 199–201
Major, C. 227 Mignolo, W. 100
Management, public sector 1, 8–19, Millar, J. 151
21–4, 30, 89–90, 92, 100, 111, Mills, C. W. 225, 227, 232, 238
112, 206, 208, 210, 256, 272, Mkandawire, T. 105
274 Modern welfare state 60
Manager Moghul period 61
educational 161 Monarchies 60, 62–3
government 3, 36, 129–130, 133, Monbiot, G. 97
135, 263, 265, 269, 271 Monetary estimation 52
line 6 Montaigne, M. 255
middle 209 Moore, M. H. 1, 3–5, 21, 24, 30, 31,
public 1–16, 18–20, 23–4, 27, 36, 43, 44, 48, 112, 119, 123, 145,
29–30, 37, 41, 45, 49, 106, 111, 158, 172, 177, 185, 215
112–26, 128–9, 134, 139, 149, Moran, M. 172
158, 172, 177, 182, 193, 205, Morin, E. 91
263, 267–8, 274 Morrell, K. 2, 17
Mann Deshi Mahila Sahakari Bank Mulgan, G. 2, 27–28, 48, 114, 172,
198 212
Market-based systems 78, 86–7
Market behaviour 76, 81, 86 National Audit Office 172
Market choice 13, 69 National Bank for Agriculture and
Market relationships 9 Rural Development 197–8
Marketing 24, 79–80, 83, 102, National Health Service 33, 118, 160,
127–8, 130, 132–6, 139–40, 162–9, 180–1, 223, 269
142–3 National Health Service Institute of
social 24, 139–40, 142 Innovation and Improvement 2
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 310

310 Index

National Institute of Adult Continuing 176–7, 179–81, 184, 202, 204–11,

Education 235 212–13, 216–17, 219, 226–7,
National Pension Savings Scheme 83 232–6, 247–9, 252–3, 258, 262,
National School of Government 2 264–9
Neo-liberalism 89, 99, 105, 110 Outputs 12, 24, 27, 47–9, 116, 122,
Networked community governance 156–7, 172–3, 184, 202–11, 212
14, 22, 31, 34–39, 41
New Labour 27, 74, 87, 160, 206, Paradigm 19, 22, 30, 31, 34, 75, 208,
254 237
New Public Management (NPM) 11, Parks, R. 144
13–19, 22–3, 30, 32, 34–5, 41, Parsons, T. 59, 163
112, 114, 125, 202 Patel, J. 181
Newman, J. 178 Patient involvement 164, 168
NHS R&D Forum Research Pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) system 148
Governance Working Group 164 Pensions 21, 81–7, 140, 219
Nicolescu, B. 91, 110 pension schemes 77, 82, 85
Nobel Prize 100, 105 Pensions Commission 83
Non-governmental organizations state-funded 75, 77, 81, 84
(NGOs) 217, 219 Perfecto, I. 97
Nordhaus, W. 219 Performance management 27, 119,
Norman, R. 26–7, 203, 205 137, 210–11
North, D. 59, 102 frameworks 123–5, 209
Performance measurement 113, 120,
Obligation 7, 54, 57, 59, 64, 68, 75, 124
82, 88, 113, 129, 132–3, 135, 136, system 27, 139
139, 145–9, 154, 245, 260, 262, Petrie, M. 205
269, 273 Pezzoli, K. 94
encounters 43, 260, 269 Pillay, D. 105
O’Day, J. 251 Pitt, M. 187
Offer, A. 220 Placemaking 33
O’Flynn, J. 5 Police 7, 59, 87, 118, 125, 131, 138,
Ofsted 249 267–8, 270
O’Neill, J. 151 Policy-maker 1, 3, 6, 10, 23, 28,
Open systems 109, 172 36–7, 41, 113, 115–17, 121, 167,
Operational resources 4 182, 215, 241
Operationalization 4 Political and managerial judgement
Opportunity cost 28, 216 26, 179
Orenstein 87 Political leaders 15, 49, 103, 106,
Organisation for Co-operation and 202
Economic Development (OECD) see also elected politicians
163, 230 Political leadership 15, 49
Organizational capacity 162, 178, Political mandates 245
180 Political realm 54, 59
Orleans 152, 156 Political science 2, 17–18, 20, 62
Osborne, S. 157, 166, 173, 182 Politicians 6, 10, 18–20, 27, 116,
Outcomes 4–6, 11–12, 14, 16, 24–7, 121–3, 177, 179, 182, 184, 202–4,
29, 41, 46–9, 74–9, 84, 93, 96, 214, 217, 228–9, 237
115, 116, 122–4, 133, 139–40, Polity 22, 53–5, 58–9, 61, 63–5, 67,
151, 154–5, 157, 167, 172–3, 70–1, 78, 80, 276
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 311

Index 311

Powell, W. 178 Public involvement 33, 158, 163–7,

Power 12, 17–18, 21, 28, 45–6, 55–8, 269
60–1, 63, 65, 67, 71–2, 74, 78, 96, Public leadership 103, 261–2, 272,
99, 100, 110, 118, 126, 128, 136, 274
157, 167, 170, 182, 186, 208–10, Public Management Foundation 217
214, 215, 232, 235, 237, 253, 257, Public management model 114, 202
264, 265, 271, 273 Public management systems 206
Practitioners 16, 20, 30, 44, 45, 70, Public managers 1–16, 18–20, 23–4,
162, 256 27, 29–30, 37, 41, 45, 49, 106,
Prager, J. 144, 146 111, 112–26, 128–9, 134, 139,
Praxis 29 149, 158, 172, 177, 182, 193, 205,
Preferences 263, 267–8, 274
revealed 27, 114, 212–13, 222 Public participation 24, 45, 75, 163
stated 27, 114 Public policy 4, 26–27, 90, 92, 128,
Pretty, J. 104 172, 186, 201, 213, 225, 227,
Price, C. 220 230–2, 236, 266, 276
Primary care trusts 160 Public professionals 12, 45
Private and public, meanings of 22, Public realm 1, 43, 45–6, 49, 50, 64,
53 70, 92, 220, 257, 276
Private appropriation of state property Public satisfaction 24, 47, 115–16,
70 125
Private competitive market 31, 38, Public sector membership 239
40, 45 Public service 10, 12–14, 17, 21, 24,
Private market 7, 10, 32, 35, 37, 39, 27, 33, 36–7, 39–40, 42–3, 45–7,
45, 49, 109, 121, 259 49, 58, 60, 62, 74, 112–25, 128,
mechanisms 259 132, 143, 144, 146, 171–2, 174,
Private sector and innovation 104, 177–83, 202, 205–6, 208, 212,
174, 178, 180 216–17, 222, 225, 250–51, 253,
Private value 1, 7, 21, 44, 127–8, 269–70, 276
145, 150, 157, 188, 193 obligations 245
Problem-solving 40, 270 organizational development 49
Profession 68 personalization 33, 141
Psychology 17, 18, 20, 142, 178, 250 reform 2, 35, 39, 41–2, 49, 227
Public, a/the 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, values 17
21–2, 24, 27–8, 30, 31, 43, 44, 53, Public sphere 3, 8, 14, 16, 21–2,
56, 61–2, 66–73, 112–23, 125–6, 24–5, 27, 29, 31–3, 35, 42–50, 55,
138, 146, 161, 164, 166, 169, 58, 90, 93, 96, 109–11, 171,
175–6, 182, 213–17, 220, 222, 173–8, 181, 183–4, 257, 259, 265
229, 260, 263, 272–4 Public support services 32
Public accountability 74, 134, 227 Public value
Public authorities and crisis 38–39 authorization 4–6, 10–11, 24–5,
Public choice theory 44, 49 50, 119–22, 124, 126, 163, 262,
Public funding of microfinance 187 272
Public good 1, 8, 17, 21–2, 43, 53, chain 12, 15, 16
58–9, 64, 75, 182, 222 co-creation 12, 21, 30, 39, 45, 46,
Public goods 21–2, 28, 32, 34, 41, 48–9, 227
45, 49, 62, 105–6, 109, 215 definition of 4, 20–1, 31, 42–4, 67,
Public interest 1, 4, 18, 21, 22, 31, 69, 92, 114–15, 126, 170, 171,
43, 49, 65, 70, 116 206, 209–10
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 312

312 Index

Public value – continued Reserve Bank of India 197–8

dimensions of 20, 44–45, 174, 183, Revealed preference 27, 114, 212–13,
214, 216, 230 222
measurement of 24, 27, 122–6, 267 Revi, A. 99
monetize 27, 114, 212–13 Rhodes, R. 2, 18, 19, 22, 84
outcomes 4–6, 12, 16, 24, 27, 29, Riccio, J. 151
46–8, 167, 173, 226, 236, Risk society 28, 32, 38, 91, 239–40,
264–5, 268–9 242
stream 48 Robinson, M. 177, 189
sustainable 23, 90, 93, 106, Rodrik, D. 100, 109
110–11 Roman Empire 58, 61, 71, 275
when it is created 48, 263, 265 Roth, J. 152, 156
where it is created 21, 47, 175, 270 Rothstein, R. 254
who creates public value 12, 21, Rutherford, S. 189, 193, 199
46, 48, 122, 144, 175, 193, 265, Ruthven, O. 189
270
Public/private scale 22, 52, 55, 73 Saksvikrønning, T. 183
Public–private partnerships 74 Salais, R. 80–1
Purchase and output model 206 Samuelson, P. 41
Putnam, R. D. 37 Sang, B. 165
Sarewitz, D. 17
Qualifications and Curriculum Saunders, T. 152
Authority 248 Schick, A. 202, 205
Quality-adjusted-life-years (QUALYs) Schmahl, W. 82
122 Schmolders, G. 152
Questionnaire data 164, 246 Scholten, P. 214
Quiggin, J. 219 Scholz, J. 152–3, 156
Schools 33, 130, 145, 161, 167, 169,
Raine, J. 178 214, 217, 230, 233–7, 249, 254,
Ramanathan, K. 202 267–8, 270
Ranson, S. 145 Schroeder, D. 177
Rashman, L. 178, 181 Schumpeter, J. 174
Rawls, J. 273 Schwartz, R. 152, 156
Raynham, P. 183 Scott, G. 145, 148, 171–2, 202, 204
Reagan, Ronald 7, 259 Scottish Government 2
Realm of markets 54 Sebstad, J. 187
Realm of values 54, 57, 62, 66, 68–9 Sen, A. 100, 102, 109, 276
Recession 12 Sennett, R. 32, 43–44
see also economic crisis Service encounters 260
Rees, W. 97 Service sector 13, 174, 238
Reformation 63 Sharp, E. 144
Regulation 23–4, 34–8, 42, 65, 75, Sheffrin, S. 152
80, 83, 87, 89, 103, 109, 142, 143, Simons, R. 210
153, 164 Single European currency 82
Relationships between innovation and Skelcher, C. 176, 178
improvement 174–5, 179 Skills strategy 230–1
Religion 44, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, Smith, A. 60
66–72 Sneddon, C. 94, 107
Requisite variety 38 Snodgrass, D. 187
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 313

Index 313

Snow, C. 90–1 Talbot, C. 2, 17

Social accounting 28, 214 Tame problems 13
Social capital 37, 45, 115, 236, 239, Tax 7, 36, 76, 86, 102, 129–31, 140,
243 142, 148–9, 152–3, 156–57, 161,
Social class 28, 232–5, 242 214, 221, 277
Social contract 52 Technical problems 13
Social frameworks 79 Tertiary learning 242
Social justice 7, 41, 50, 77, 80, 87, Thatcher, Margaret 83, 259
257, 266 The Times newspaper 254
Social mobility 226, 229, 234 Thevenot, L. 17, 78–80
Socialism 64, 101 Third Way 41, 160
Solomon, L. 60 Third sector 4, 104, 227, 271
Soskice, D. 81 Three nodes of networked governance
Spicer, M. 152, 156 35
State Services Commission (SSC) Tidd, J. 172–3, 176–7, 179
206–7 Time magazine 96
Stace, D. 179, 205 Timmins, N. 74
Stakeholders 4–6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, Top-down governance 14, 23, 101,
16, 24, 25, 30, 41, 45, 46, 50, 98, 182
108, 123, 125, 133, 139, 169, 177, Trade-offs 14, 20, 43, 48, 92, 164,
178, 180, 182, 184, 223, 224, 247, 223–4, 227
267, 271 Trades unions 46, 86, 87, 104, 120,
Stalker, G. 171 238
State, the 14, 18, 20–3, 28, 31, Trades Union Congress 2
33–41, 45–6, 54–8, 60, 62–73, Traditional public administration 11,
74–8, 80–8, 90, 92, 102–4, 129, 13–14, 17, 22–3, 30, 32, 34, 41
132, 140, 161, 215, 253, 257, 259, Treasury, New Zealand 202–4, 207
275 Treasury, The UK 84, 85, 218
authority 4, 6–7, 11, 130, 140, 142 Triest 152
Stern, N. 219 Triple bottom line 19, 92, 110, 220
Stewart, J. 13, 145 Tritter, J. 25, 163, 165
Stiglitz, J. 100, 105, 109 Trust 23, 37–40, 54, 57, 75–83,
Stock Exchange 59 86–8, 103, 153–4, 191, 217, 227,
Stoker, G. 2, 19 248–9
Storper, M. 81 Turbitt, I. 16
Strategic intent 27, 206, 232 Turbo-capitalism 240
Strategic results areas (SRAs) 204–5
Strategic triangle, the 4–5, 11, 15–16, Uncertainty 13, 23, 32, 43, 74, 76–7,
24–6, 119, 159, 177, 185–6, 193, 83, 219, 239, 243
199, 262, 265, 267 Unemployed 25, 50, 146–8, 151–2,
Stuart, G. 26, 196 154–6, 277
Supply and demand 28, 217–18 Unger, R. 41
SureStart scheme 233 United Nations, including associated
Sustainability science 90 programmes 95, 98, 108
Sustainable development 19, 46, 89, UNESCO 230
91–2, 94, 96, 107 Universities 104, 230, 233, 235, 237,
Sutton, R. 174 242
Swilling, M. 2, 19–20, 23, 100 Upton, S. 202–3
Swingen, J. 149 Utterback, J. 179
9780230_249042_20_Indx.qxd 18/10/10 4:21 pm Page 314

314 Index

Vallgårda, S. 164 Wanless, D. 163

Value chain 15, 25, 46, 99, 103, Wanna, J. 2, 18–19, 22
108–9, 119, 227 Warwick University 2, 16, 278
see also public value chain Watson, R. 95, 96
Value for money 21, 24, 80, 125, Weaver, D. 151
160, 166, 212 Weber, M. 109
Value, shareholder 70 Welfarism 20, 92, 99
Values 6, 11, 14, 17–18, 22, 28, 31, Welsh Assembly Government 2
32, 43–4, 49–50, 52, 55, 57, 59, Wensley, R. 24, 135
62–6, 68–9, 71–2, 78–9, 92, 115, West, K. 8, 17, 36, 44, 63
117, 122–3, 141, 156, 180, 183–4, Westminster 15, 18–19, 87
210–11, 213, 215–16, 218, 220–1, Whitaker, G. 144
227, 232, 236–7, 239, 245, 249, Whitehall 15, 86
251, 266, 270, 272, 276 Whiteside, N. 22, 80–1, 276
Van Breda, J. 110 Whitson, K. 235
Van de Ven, A. 182 Wicked problems 13
Van der Wal, Z. 17 Wildavsky, A. 211
Van Hout, E. 17 Wilde, Oscar 224
Van Kersbergen, K. 66, 275 Williams, R. 241
Vanclay, F. 214 Wilsden, J. 43
Vincent, J. 151, 152 Wilson, J. 155, 205
Vipond, R. 166 Wilson, Woodrow 10
Virtue 17, 75, 78, 80, 84, 87, 88, Winkley, D. 29, 49
174, 215, 246 Winter, S. 152
Voluntary organizations see entry Wittrock, B. 70
below Womack, J. 177
Voluntary sector 1–3, 36, 46, 50, 62, Workforce 161, 231, 238, 241
66, 70–1, 160, 162, 167, 264, 267 World Bank 82, 92, 100, 103, 105,
Volunteer 24, 69, 144, 276 230
Von Hippel, E. 182 World Commission on Environment
Von Krogh. C. 182 and Development 93–4
Vos, P. 164 World Wildlife Fund 89, 94

Wackernagle, M. 97 Yong, R. 106

Wallschutzky, I. 152 YouGov 87
Walras, L. 59 Young, M. 232, 236–8
Walrasian abstraction 59 Young Foundation, The 212, 220