Posted: February 28th, 2023

ARTICLE ANALYSIS

 

The article analysis should include these follow elements:

• Executive summary – What are the key points of the journal:

  Thesis/Purpose – What is the article trying to achieve?  What is the articles main point?
  Who is the Audience?

  Who is the article written for:
  How does that influence how the article is written?

  Methodology:

  How is the Thesis/Purpose of the article achieved?

  What evidence is offered?
  How was the information gathered?

  Survey?
  Research?
  Database Mining?
  Real life experience?

  How was the information/data analyzed

  Content Analysis
  Statistical Analysis
  Narrative

• Relevance:

  If you were a public administrator how would you use the information?

  Would it help you identify a problem?
  Would help you select a policy option?
  Would it help you implement a policy option?
  Would it help you evaluate a policy?

 

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New
Public Management

Author(s): John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby and Laura Bloomberg

Source: Public Administration Review , JULY/AUGUST 2014, Vol. 74, No. 4
(JULY/AUGUST 2014), pp. 445-456

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24029426

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24029426

John M. Bryson
Barbara C. Crosby
Laura Bloomberg

University of Minnesota

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public

Administration and the New Public Management

Anew public administration movement is
emerging to move beyond traditional public
administration and New Public Management.

The new movement is a response to the challenges of

a networked, multi-sector, no-one-wholly-in-charge
world and to the shortcomings of previous public

administration approaches. In the new approach
values beyond efficiency and effectiveness—and

especially democratic values—are prominent.
Government has a special role to play as a guarantor

of public values, but citizens as well as businesses
and nonprofit organizations also are important as
active public problem solvers. The article highlights

value-related issues in the new approach and presents

an agenda for research and action to be pursued if the
new approach is to fulfill its promise.

Creating public value is a hot topic for both public
administration practitioners and scholars (Shearer
and Williams 2011; Van der Wal, Nabatachi, and

de Graaf 2013). Why is that? What is going on? We
believe the answer lies with the continuing evolution
of public administration thinking and practice. Just

as New Public Management supplanted traditional
public administration in the 1980s and 1990s as the
dominant view, a new movement is underway that is
likely to eclipse it. The new approach does not have

a consensually agreed name, but many authors point
to the need for a new approach and to aspects of its
emergence in practice and theory (e.g., Moore, 1995,
2013, 2014a; Boyte 2005; Stoker 2006; Bozeman
2007; Kettl 2008; Alford and Hughes, 2008; Osborne
2010; Talbot 2010; Denhardt and Denhardt 2011;

Fisher 2014; Kalambokidis 2014). For example, Janet
and Robert Denhardt’s (2011) excellent and widely
cited book The New Public Service captures much of

the collaborative and democratic spirit; content; and

governance focus of the movement.

While efficiency was the main concern of traditional

public administration, and efficiency and effectiveness

are the main concerns of New Public Management,
values beyond efficiency and effectiveness are pursued,

debated, challenged, and evaluated in the emerg
ing approach. In this regard, the emerging approach
reemphasizes and brings to the fore value-related
concerns of previous eras that were always present,
but not dominant (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011;

Rosenbloom and McCurdy 2006). This renewed
attention to a broader array of values, especially to
values associated with democracy, makes it obvious

why questions related to the creation of public value,

public values more generally, and the public sphere
have risen to prominence. This essay highlights some
of the key value-related issues in the new approach

and proposes an agenda for the future. First, we
outline what we believe are the main contours of the

emerging approach. Next, we clarify the meaning
of value, public value, public values, and the public
sphere; discuss how they are operationalized; and
summarize important challenges to the concepts. We
then discuss how public value and public values are
used in practice. Finally, we present an agenda for
research and action to be pursued if the new approach
is to fulfill its promise.1

An Emerging View of Public Administration
Public administration thinking and practice have
always responded to new challenges and the short
comings of what has come before (Kaufman 1969;
Peters and Pierre 1998). Table 1, which builds on
a similar table in Denhardt and Denhardt (2011,

28 — 29), presents a summary of traditional public
administration, the New Public Management, and the
emerging approach. The new approach highlights four

important stances that together represent a response

to current challenges and old shortcomings. These
include: an emphasis on public value and public
values; recognition that government has a special role

as a guarantor of public values; a belief in the impor
tance of public management broadly conceived, and

of service to and for the public; and a heightened

emphasis on citizenship and democratic and col
laborative governance. These concerns, of course, are

not new to public administration, but their emerging

combination is the latest response to what Dwight

Symposium
Introduction

John M. Bryson is McKnight

Presidential Professor of Planning and

Public Affairs at the Humphrey School of

Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

He wrote Strategic Planning for Public

and Nonprofit Organizations, and co

wrote with Barbara C. Crosby Leadership

for the Common Good. He received

the 2011 Dwight Waldo Award from the

American Society for Public Administration

for “outstanding contributions to the pro

fessional literature of public administration

over an extended scholarly career.”

E-mail: bryson001@umn.edu

Barbara C. Crosby, associate professor

at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs,

University of Minnesota, has taught and

written extensively about leadership and

public policy. She is author of Leadership

for Global Citizenship and co-author

with John M. Bryson of Leadership for

the Common Good. Former academic

co-director of the University’s Center for

Integrative Leadership, she has conducted

training for senior managers of nonprofit,

business and government organizations in

the U.S. and abroad.

E-mail: crosb002@umn.edu

Laura Bloomberg is associate dean at

the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at

the University of Minnesota. Her teaching,

research and publications focus on U.S.

education policy and administration,

cross sector leadership, and program

evaluation. Previously she was an urban

high school principal and executive director

of the University’s Center for Integrative

Leadership. She worked with former U.S.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to launch

the global Women in Public Service Project.

E-mail: bloom004@umn.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 4, pp. 445-456. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

D01:10.1111/puar.12238.

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 445

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Waldo (1948/2007) called the periodically changing “material and
ideological background.” Whether the new approach can live up to
its promise—and particularly its democratic promise—is an open
question we explore later.

Traditional Public Administration

Traditional public administration (Waldo 1948/2007; Stoker 2006)
arose in the United States arose in the late 1900s and matured

by the mid-twentieth century as a response to a particular set of

conditions. These included the challenges of industrialization,
urbanization, the rise of the modern corporation, faith in science,

belief in progress, and concern over major market failures. Mostly

successful experience with government responses to World War I,
the Great Depression, and World War II helped solidify support for

traditional public administration and built strong trust in govern
ment as an agent for the good of all. In its idealized form, politics

and administration were quite separate (Wilson 1887). Goals were
determined in the first instance by elected officials and only second

arily refined by technical experts in response to political direction.

Government agencies were the primary deliverers of public value

through the way they designed and implemented politically defined
objectives (Salamon 2002). Efficiency in government operations
was the preeminent value. Citizens were viewed primarily as voters,
clients, or constituents. Of course, traditional public administra
tion in practice was always more deeply enmeshed in politics than

its idealized form would suggest (Waldo 1948/2007; Denhardt and
Denhardt 2011, 6-7), and government agencies were themselves
prone to failure (Wolf 1979).

New Public Management
After a long gestation period, the New Public Management (Hood
1991) became the dominant approach to public administra
tion in the 1980s and 1990s. In the U.S. the change was marked
by Osborne and Gaebler’s (1992) best-selling book Reinventing
Government and the Clinton Administration’s National Performance

Review (Gore 1993). New Public Management arose out of a con
cern with government failures, a belief in the efficacy and efficiency

of markets, a belief in economic rationality, and a push away from

large, centralized government agencies toward devolution and
privatization.

In New Public Management, public managers are urged to “steer,
not row.” They steer by determining objectives, or what should be
done, and by catalyzing service delivery, or how it should be done

(rowing), via their choice of a particular “tool” or combination of

tools (e.g., markets, regulation, taxes, subsidies, insurance, etc.) for

achieving the objectives (Salamon 2002). Markets and competi
tion—often among actors from different sectors—are the preferred

way of delivering government services in the most efficient and

effective way to recipients seen as “customers,” not citizens. Public

managers should be empowered and freed from constrictions so that

they can be “entrepreneurial” and “manage for results.” In practice,

of course, managers often face the worst of circumstances in which

they are accountable for results, but not allowed to manage for

results (Moynihan 2006).

While the challenges that prompted traditional public adminis
tration and New Public Management have not disappeared, new
material conditions and challenges have emerged. They center on

how to govern, not just manage, in increasingly diverse and complex
societies facing increasingly complex problems (Kettl 2002; Osborne
2010; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). Natural disasters, failures of

large parts of the economy, unevenly effective health care and edu

cational systems, a stagnant middle class, deepening inequality, and

bankrupt communities offer recent examples that have challenged
not just governments, but businesses, nonprofits, and civil society

generally. In the U.S., these challenges are occurring at a time of

historic distrust of a broad range of institutions (Gallup 2014).

The Emerging Approach
The responses to these new challenges do not yet constitute a
coherent whole, but the outlines of a new approach are becom
ing clear in, for example, Janet and Robert Denhardt’s (2002;
2011) widely cited framework called the New Public Service, but
also in Gerry Stoker’s (2006) public value management, Barry
Bozeman’s (2007) managing publicness, Stephen Osborne’s new
public governance (2010), and political theorist Harry Boyte’s and
colleagues’ (Boyte 2011) new civic politics.. These scholars draw on
different theoretical and epistemological foundations than tradi
tional public administration or New Public Management. Citizens,
citizenship, and democracy are central to the new approach, which
harkens back to Dwight Waldo’s (1948/2007) abiding interest in a
democratic theory of administration. The approach advocates more
contingent, pragmatic kinds of rationality, going beyond the formal
rationalities of Herbert Simon’s (1997) “administrative man” and

microeconomics’ “economic man.” Citizens are seen as quite capa
ble of engaging in deliberative problem solving that allows them

to develop a public spiritedness of the type de Tocqueville saw in
the 1830s American republic when he talked about the prevalence
of “self-interest rightly understood” (de Tocqueville 1840/2002;
Mansbridge 1990).

Scholars arguing for the new approach see public value emerging
from broadly inclusive dialogue and deliberation. The conversation
includes community members from multiple sectors because, as
Beck Jorgensen and Bozeman (2007, 373-374) note, “public values
and public value are not the exclusive province of government, nor

is government the only set of institutions having public value obli
gations, [though clearly] government has a special role as guarantor
of public values.” This aspect of the approach has many precursors,
including for example, the work of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom
(Ostrom 1973; Ostrom and Ostrom 1971), which also provides
important underpinnings for understanding networked and col
laborative governance (McGinnis and Ostrom 2012; Thomson
and Perry 2006). The approach encompasses what Boyte (2011,
632-633) terms “public work,” meaning “self-organized, sustained
efforts by a mix of people who solve common problems and create

things, material or symbolic, of lasting civic value,” while develop
ing civic learning and capacity as part of the process. This work can

engage many different kinds of people, including public-spirited

managers from across sectors and citizens. Citizens thus move
beyond their roles as voters, clients, constituents, customers, or poll

responders to becoming problem-solvers, co-creators, and gover
nors actively engaged in producing what is valued by the public

and good for the public (De Souza Briggs 2008). Budd (2014) cap
tures the importance of work in general for the creation of public

value, and the special role that labor unions have often played in its
creation.

446 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Table 1 Comparing Perspectives: Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management, and the Emerging Approach to Public Administration

Dimension Traditional Public Administration New Public Management
The Emerging Approach to Public Administration (e.g.,
Denhardt and Denhardt’s [2011] New Public Service)

Broad Environmental and Intellectual Context

Material and ideo- Industrialization, urbanization, rise of Concern with government failures, Concern with market, government, nonprofit and civic
logical conditions modern corporation, specialization, distrust of big government, be- failures; concern with so-called wicked problems;

faith in science, belief in progress, lief in the efficacy and efficiency deepening inequality; hollowed or thinned state;
concern over major market failures, of markets and rationality, “downsized” citizenship; networked and collaborative
experience with the Great Depression devolution and devolution governance; advanced information and communication
and WWII, high trust in government technologies

Primary theoretical Political theory, scientific management, Economic theory, sophisticated Democratic theory, public and nonprofit management
and epistemologi- naive social science, pragmatism positivist social science theory, plus diverse approaches to knowing
cal foundations

Prevailing view of Synoptic rationality, “administrative Technical and economic rationality, Formal rationality, multiple tests of rationality (political,
rationality and man” “economic man,” self-interested administrative, economic, legal, ethical), belief in public
model of human decisionmakers spiritedness beyond narrow self-interest, “reasonable
behavior person” open to influence via dialogue and deliberation

The Public Sphere or Realm

Definition of the Determined by elected officials or techni- Determined by elected officials or What is public is seen as going far beyond government,
common good, cal experts by aggregating individual prefer- though government has a special role as a guarantor of
public value, ences supported by evidence of public values. Common good determined by broadly in
public interest consumer choice elusive dialogue and deliberation informed by evidence

and democratic and constitutional values

Role of politics Elect governors, who determine policy Elect governors, who determine “Public work,” including determining policy objectives via
objectives policy objectives; empowered dialogue and deliberation; democracy as “a way of life”

managers; administrative politics
around the use of specific tools

Role of citizenship Voter, client, constituent Customer Citizens seen as problem-solvers and co-creators actively
engaged in creating what is valued by the public and is
good for the public

Government and Public Administration

Role of government Rowing, seen as designing and imple- Steering, seen as determining Government acts as convener, catalyst, collaborator;
agencies menting policies and programs in re- objectives and catalyzing service sometimes steering, sometimes, rowing, sometimes

sponse to politically defined objectives delivery via tool choice and partnering, sometimes staying out of the way
reliance if possible on markets,
businesses and nonprofit organi
zations

Key objectives Politically provided goals; implementation Politically provided goals; Create public value in such a way that what the public
managed by public servants; monitor- managers manage inputs and most cares about is addressed effectively and what is
ing done via bureaucratic and elected outputs in a way that ensures good for the public is put in place
officials’ oversight economy and responsiveness to

consumers

Key values Efficiency Efficiency and Effectiveness Efficiency, effectiveness, and the full range of democratic
and constitutional values

Mechanisms for Administer programs through central- Create mechanisms and incentive Selection from a menu of alternative delivery mechanisms
achieving policy ized, hierarchically organized public structures to achieve policy based on pragmatic criteria; this often means helping
objectives agencies or self-regulating professions objectives especially through use build cross-sector collaborations and engaging citizens

of markets to achieve agreed objectives
Role of public man- Ensures that rules and appropriate Helps define and meet agreed Plays an active role in helping create and guide networks

ager procedures are followed.. Responsive upon performance objectives; of deliberation and delivery and help maintain and
to elected officials, constituents, and responsive to elected officials enhance the overall effectiveness, accountability, and
clients. Limited discretion allowed to and customers; wide discretion capacity of the system. Responsive to elected officials,
administrative officials allowed citizens, and an array of other stakeholders. Discretion

is needed, but is constrained by law, democratic and
constitutional values, and a broad approach to account
ability

Approach to Hierarchical, in which administrators are Market-driven, in which aggre- Multi-faceted, since public servants must attend to law,
accountability accountable to democratically elected gated self-interests result in out- community values, political norms, professional stand

officials comes desired by broad groups ards, and citizen interests
of citizens seen as customers

Contribution to the Delivers politically determined objec- Delivers politically determined Delivers dialogue and catalyzes and responds to active citi
democratic process tives and accountability; competition objectives; managers determine zenship in pursuit of what the public values and what is

between elected leaders provides over- the means. Skepticism regard- good for the public. No one sector has a monopoly on
arching accountability. Public sector ing public service ethos; favors public service ethos; maintaining relationships based on
has a monopoly on public service ethos customer service shared public values is essential

Sources: Adapted principally from Denhardt and Denhardt (2011, 28-29); with further adaptations from Stoker (2006, 44; Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers 2002), and Boyte
(2011).

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 447

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

In the new approach, government agencies can be a convener,

catalyst, and collaborator—sometimes steering, sometimes row
ing, sometimes partnering, and sometimes staying out of the way.
In addition, the way government’s key objectives are set changes.
In traditional public administration, elected officials set goals and
implementation is up to public servants, overseen by elected offi

cials’ and senior administrators. In New Public Management elected
officials still set goals. Managers then manage inputs and outputs
in a way that ensures economy and responsiveness to customers.
In contrast, in the new approach both elected officials and public

managers are charged with creating public value so that what the

public most cares about is addressed effectively and what is good

for the public is pursued. This change for public managers raises
obvious questions of democratic accountability, an issue to which
we turn later. On the other hand, the change is essentially simply a

recognition that managers have always played an important role in

goal setting because of the advice they give to elected officials and

the need to act in the face of often ambiguous policy direction.

As noted, in the emerging approach the full range of democratic and
constitutional values is relevant. Policy makers and public managers

are also encouraged to consider the full array of alternative delivery

mechanisms and choose among them based on pragmatic criteria.
This often means helping build cross-sector collaborations and

engaging citizens to achieve mutually agreed objectives (McGuire
2006; Agranoff 2006; Fung 2006). Public managers’ role thus goes
well beyond that in traditional public administration or New Public
Management; they are presumed able to help create and guide net
works of deliberation and delivery and help maintain and enhance
the overall effectiveness, capacity, and accountability of the system.

The nature of discretion also changes. In traditional public admin
istration, public managers have limited discretion; New Public
Management encourages wide discretion in meeting entrepreneurial
and performance targets. In the emerging approach, discretion is
needed, but is constrained by law, democratic and constitutional

values, and a broad approach to accountability. Accountability
becomes multi-faceted, and not just hierarchical (as in traditional

public administration) or more market-driven (as in New Public
Management), since public servants must attend to law, community
values, political norms, professional standards, and citizen interests
(Mulgan 2000; Dubnick and Frederickson 2010; Romzek, LeRoux
and Blackmar 2012). In the emerging multi-sector collaborative
environment, no one sector has a monopoly on public service ethos,

although government plays a special role; in addition, there is less

skepticism about government and a less strong preference for mar
kets and customer service.

Finally, in this emerging approach public administration’s contribu
tion to the democratic process is also different. In both traditional

public administration and New Public Management managers are
not very directly involved in the democratic process, viewed mainly

as elections and legislative deliberation. In contrast, in the emerging

approach government delivers dialogue and catalyzes and responds
to active citizenship in pursuit of what the public values and what is

good for the public. The extent to which it is possible for dialogue
and deliberation to do so in practice remains unclear, however, in

systems that favor elites and are stacked against ordinary citizens
(Dahl and Soss 2014).

The emerging approach is partly descriptive of current and emerging
practices, partly normative in its prescriptions regarding the role of
government and public managers, and partly hopeful as a response
to the challenges posed by a “changing material and ideologi
cal background.” In contrast to traditional public administration

and New Public Management, however, the emerging approach
often looks ambiguous, unevenly grounded theoretically, relatively
untested, and lacking in clear guidance for practice. Yet, what else

can one expect in a shared-power, multi-sector, no-one-wholly
in-charge world (Cleveland 2002; Crosby and Bryson 2005)? Old
approaches have their own problems and the new approach is still

emerging. One thing is clear, however, and that is the fundamental
importance in the emerging approach of understanding what is
meant by public value, public values, and the public sphere. Progress

must be made on clarifying, measuring, and assessing these concepts

if the new approach is gain added traction.

Value, Public Value, Public Values and the Public Sphere
The dictionary definition of value as “relative worth, utility, or

importance” of something (Merriam-Webster 2014; accessed online
April 1, 2014) leaves open a number of questions that have troubled
philosophers for centuries, and reappear in the current debate over

public values, public value, and the public sphere. These questions
concern at least the following: (1) whether the objects of value are
subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world;
(2) whether value is intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational; (3) whether

something is valuable for its own sake or as a means to something
else; (4) whether there are hierarchies of values; (5) who does the

valuing; (6) how the valuing is done; and (7) against what criteria
the object of value is measured. We return to these questions as we
discuss four major contributions to the public value literature and in
our conclusions.

The public value literature distinguishes among: (1) public values,
which are many (e.g., Van Wart 1998; Bozeman 2002, 2007; Beck
Jorgenson and Bozeman 2007; Meynhardt 2009; Andersen et al.
2012); (2) creating public value defined as producing what is either
valued by the public, is good for the public, including adding to
the public sphere, or both, as assessed against various public value
criteria (Benington and Moore 2011; Stoker 2006; Alford 2008;
Alford and O’Flynn 2009); and (3) the public sphere or public realm
within which public values and value are developed and played out
(Benington 2011).

Barry Bozeman on Public Values
Bozeman (2007, 17), a leading voice in the public value literature,
focuses on the policy or societal level. He writes, “A society’s public

values are those providing normative consensus about: (1) the rights,

benefits, and prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not)

be entitled; (2) the obligations of citizens to society, the state, and

one another; and (3) the principles on which governments and poli
cies should be based.” Although public values in a democracy are
typically contested, a relative consensus is discernible from consti

tutions, legislative mandates, policies, literature reviews, opinion

polls, and other formal and informal sources (Beck Jorgensen and
Bozeman 2007).

What Bozeman terms public values failure occurs when neither the

market nor the public sector provides goods and services required

448 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

to achieve public values, which are operationalized in terms of a set
of eight criteria, e.g., political processes and social cohesion should
be sufficient to ensure effective communication and processing of
public values; and sufficient transparency exists to permit citizens
to make informed judgments (Bozeman 2002, 2007; see also
Kalambokidis 2014). Public value creation is the extent to which

public values criteria are met, where these are some combination
of input, process, output, and outcome measures. Public values
for Bozeman thus are measureable, although clearly there can be

disagreements about how the values are to be conceptualized and
measured. One implication is that analysts, citizens, and policy
makers should focus on what public values are, and on ways in

which institutions and processes are necessary to forge agreement

on and achieve public values in practice (Davis and West 2009;
Moulton 2009; Jacobs 2014; Kalambokidis 2014).

Note that Bozeman’s approach is both positive, when he asks what
the normative consensus on values is, and normative, when he

argues that public values failures should be corrected. Note, too,
that Bozeman (2007) is silent on the role of the nonprofit sector

and, to a lesser extent, on the public sphere more generally; on the
rights, responsibilities, or weights to be given to non-citizens; and

on the role and importance of power in contests over public values.
Regarding the effects of political power, Jacobs (2014) believes that
in the U.S. context Bozeman severely underestimates the extent of

dissensus, the disproportionate influence of affluent citizens and

organized interests, and the extent to which governing structures
favor inaction and drift.

Mark Moore on Creating Public Value
Whereas Bozeman focuses on the policy or societal level, Mark
Moore (1995, 52-55), another important voice in the literature,
focuses on public managers. He, too, is concerned about devaluing
of government and public managers in an era of economic individu
alism and market ascendency, and he initially conceived of public

value as the public management equivalent of shareholder value.
He seeks both a persuasive rhetoric and an approach to discern
ing, championing, and achieving public value—or what he calls
creating public value. Public value primarily results from government

performance, so his view of public value creation in this early book
is narrower than in much of the later literature.

Moore believes that citizens want from their governments some
combination of the following that together encompass public
value: (1) high-performing service-oriented public bureaucracies,
(2) public organizations that are efficient and effective in achieving
desired social outcomes, and (3) public organizations that operate
justly and fairly, and lead to just and fair conditions in the society

at large. While Moore’s definition of public value is vaguer than

Bozeman’s, it highlights reasonably specific public values: efficiency,

effectiveness, socially and politically sanctioned desired outcomes,

procedural justice, and substantive justice. Like Bozeman, Moore’s
definition of public value can encompass input, process, output, and
outcome measures.

Moore (2014a) develops the philosophical foundations of his
approach to public value as a prelude to establishing what he calls
“public value accounting.” He makes three assertions: First, a public
collectively defined through democratic processes is the appropriate

arbiter of public value when collectively owned assets of government
are being deployed. Second, collectively owned assets include not
only government money, but also state authority. Third, assessing
the value of government production relies on an aggregation of
costs and benefits broadly conceived; but also on collective deter
minations concerning the welfare of others, duties to others, and

conceptions of a good and just society. Moore (2013, 2014b) uses
these philosophical premises to develop a public value account. On
the benefit side is the achievement of collectively valued outcomes,

while on the cost side are the costs of using public authority and
collectively owned assets.

Moore argues that public managers should use the strategic triangle

(1995, 22-23). Strategy must be (1) aimed at achieving something
that is substantively valuable (i.e., must constitute public value);

(2) legitimate and politically sustainable; and (3) operationally and
administratively feasible (see also Alford and O’Flynn 2009). Moore
“equates managerial success in the public sector with initiating and

reshaping public sector enterprises in ways that increase their value

to the public in both the short and the long run” (1995, 10), which
requires a “restless, value-seeking imagination” (Benington and
Moore 2011, 3).

Moore is speaking primarily to current and prospective public
managers in a democratic society and secondarily to their elected
leaders. Like Bozeman, an implication of Moore’s work is the need
for a healthy democracy with supporting institutions and the proc

esses necessary to forge agreement on and achieve public values in
practice.

For Moore, like Bozeman, public value generally refers to objective
states of the world that can be measured. Also like Bozeman, Moore

sees public value as extrinsic and also intrinsic to the functioning

of an effective democratic polity. Again, like Bozeman, something
being evaluated may be deemed to hold inherent value or may

be seen as a means to something else. Unlike Bozeman, Moore
does assume a hierarchy of values in which public organizational
effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, justness, and fairness in the

context of democratic governance are prime values. For Moore, ulti
mately elected officials and the citizenry do the valuing, but public
managers also play an important role. The valuing can be shown via
the public value account.

Rhodes and Wanna (2007) in particular have criticized Moore and
his supporters. Not clear, they say, is whether their approach is “a

paradigm, a concept, a model, a heuristic device, or even a story…
[As a result,] it is all things to all people” (408). They believe Moore
downplays the importance of politics and elected officials, overly

emphasizes the role of public managers, and trusts too much in

public organizations, private sector experience, and the virtues of
public servants (409-412).

Alford (2008; see also Alford and O’Flynn 2009) mounts a spir
ited defense of Moore and offers refutations of each of Rhodes and

Wannas points, ffe emphasizes Moore’s strategic triangle that sees

the authorizing environment as placing “a legitimate limit on the
public managers autonomy to shape what is meant by public value”
(177). Alford also believes Rhodes and Wanna operate out of an
“old” public administration paradigm that draws a sharp distinction

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 449

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

between politics and administration and thus ignore the fact that
political appointees and civil servants often have considerable leeway
to influence policy and decisions.

Dahl and Soss (2014) also level sharp criticism at Moore’s concep
tion of creating public value. In their view, by posing public value

as an analog to shareholder value, seeing democratic engagement in
primarily instrumental terms, and viewing public value as some

thing that is produced, Moore and his followers actually mimic
the very neoliberal rationality they seek to resist and run the risk of

furthering neoliberalism’s de-democratizing and market-enhancing
consequences. Public managers might unwittingly be agents of
“downsizing democracy” (Crenson and Ginsberg 2002). The cau
tions Dahl and Soss raise are serious and should be addressed by

those seeking to advance the public value literature.

In addition, Jacobs (2014) believes Moore’s hopeful view of public
management can be Pollyannaish, at least in the U.S., given sharply

divided public opinion on many issues, intensely partisan poli
tics, the power of organized interests, and the many veto points

built into governance arrangements. Clearly, public managers are
constrained in a democratic society—and rightly so—but there are
also many examples of enterprising, public value-producing activi
ties that demonstrate public managers can in fact be active agents

in creating public value. The public value literature thus will need
to explore much further the conceptual, political, organizational,

managerial, and other limits on public managers seeking to create
public value in particular circumstances.

Timo Meynhardt on Public Value
Timo Meynhardt (2009, 206), in an important but far less well
known approach, believes that public value is constructed out of
“values characterizing the relationship between an individual and

‘society,’ defining the quality of the relationship.” The relationship’s

quality is assessed subjectively by individuals, but when there is

inter-subjective weight attached to these assessments, they become
objective and might reach Bozeman’s requirement of a reasonable
normative consensus. Meynhardt believes that public value is for
the public when it concerns “evaluations about how basic needs of
the individuals, groups, and the society as a whole are influenced in
relationships involving the public” (212). Public value is also about
value from the public, when it is “drawn from the experience of the
public.” Public value for Meynhardt, too, can refer to input, process,
output, and outcome measures.

Meynhardt posits four basic dimensions (or content categories)

of public value closely connected to a widely cited psychological

theory of basic needs (Epstsein, 1989, 1993, 2003) and related
to categories in traditional welfare economics. The categories are:
moral-ethical, political-social, utilitarian-instrumental, and hedon
istic-aesthetical. The “value” an individual attaches to an experience
is based on how well the experience satisfies his or her basic needs

as assessed against these dimensions. Note that the assessment is

a subjective, emotional-motivational, and valenced reaction to an
experience of some sort involving the “public,” such as an encounter

with a government program, an election, or visit to a public space.

Inter-subjectively equivalent assessments are a broad measure of

the extent to which public value has been created or diminished.

To summarize, Meynhardt (2009, 212) sees public value creation

as: situated in relationships between the individual and society;
founded in individuals; constituted by subjective evaluations against
basic needs; activated by and realized in emotional-motivational
states; and produced and reproduced in experience-intense practices.

In contrast to Bozeman and Moore’s approaches, Meyhnardt’s is
non-prescriptive; is far more psychologically based; and emphasizes
more the interpénétration of public and private spheres. Unlike
the other two authors, he pays little attention to the institutions

and supra-individual processes involved in public value creation.
However, like Bozeman and Moore, Meynhardt also sees public
value as measurable, in his case against the dimensions he outlines.

John Benington on the Public Sphere
Beyond public values and creating public value, there is the

public sphere. John Benington (2011) sees the public sphere as “a
democratic space” (31) that includes the “web of values, places,
organizations, rules, knowledge, and other cultural resources held

in common by people through their everyday commitments and
behaviors, and held in trust by government and public institu

tions.” It is “what provides a society with some sense of belonging,
meaning, purpose and continuity, and which enables people to
thrive and strive amid uncertainty” (43). Like Dewey (1927/1954),
he believes that the public is not given, but must be continuously
constructed. Public value is necessarily contested, and is often estab

lished through a continuous process of dialogue. For Benington,
the public sphere is thus the space—psychological, social, political,
institutional, and physical—within which public values and public
value are held, created, or diminished. Public value includes what

adds to the public sphere. While Benington himself is committed

to democracy, note that his extended definition of the public sphere

can apply to other forms of government.

Operationally, for both practitioners and scholars, determining who

and what the “public” is can be problematic (Frederickson 1991).
Nonetheless, Meynhardt (2009, 205) sees the “public” is an “indis
pensable operational fiction necessary for action and orientation in a
complex environment.” In other words, as complexity increases the
more “the public” becomes a social construct “necessary for acting,
but hard to pin down” (204).

In practical terms, the public may already be known, may need
to make itself known, or may need to be created. For example,

Moore’s normative approach requires public managers to look to
their “authorizing environments” for direction, although they may

conclude that the public can be best served by working to change
aspects of the authorizing environment. Moore also asserts that
elected officials and the citizens (often via elections) are the arbiters

of public value (1995, 38), even when political decision making
is deeply problematic on moral grounds. In democratic societies,
citizens and managers can challenge these questionable decisions,
but not ignore them (54—55). For Dewey (1927/1954), a public
is “created” when citizens experience the negative consequences
of situations beyond their control (resulting, for example, from

market or governmental activities). In other circumstances, public
administrators may need to “call a public into being” (Moore
2014a), for example, when designing and managing a public
participation process (Fung 2006; Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006;
Nabatchi 2012).

450 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Public values scholars look to a variety of sources for evidence of

what the “public” is, wants, or is good for it. Sources include, for
example, literature reviews, legislation, rules and regulations, and
opinion polls (Beck Jorgensen and Bozeman 2007; Bozeman 2007;
Jacobs 2014). Meynhardt (2009, 2014), as noted, relies on psycho
logical theory to derive the dimensions against which public values
can be assessed; he has developed and published results from the

use of psychological questionnaires based on this work. Moulton
(2009) looks to “public values institutions,” which can be of three
types, with the three types presumed to differentially affect how

public values are realized in practice. Regulatory institutions are
legally sanctioned and can establish rules, surveillance mechanisms,
and incentives to influence behavior. Normative-associative institu

tions help create expectations or norms that influence social life

via prescriptive, evaluative, or obligatory guidance. Finally, cultural
cognitive institutions help create shared conceptions of the nature of

social reality and the frames used to create meaning. The three kinds
of institutions are analytic constructs and can and do overlap in
practice. Andersen, et al. (2012) look to archetypal forms of govern
ance to derive the content of public values; the forms are hierarchy,

clans or professions, networks, and markets.

How Public Value Relates to Other Concepts
Part of public value’s importance is that it encompasses and goes
beyond several other venerable concepts that highlight the proper

ends and means of government and broader public action. Among
these are the public interest, the common good, public goods, and
commonwealth. Public interest originally was associated with the
state, not with the public sphere more generally (Gunn 1969), and
thus typically refers to the reasons for, or consequences of, govern

ment action (Alexander 2002, 226-227). Beyond that, attempts
to operationalize the public interest have proved difficult (Sorauf

1957; Mitnick 1976), although not necessarily in the case of apply
ing relatively clear public laws and regulations to specific decisions
(Alexander 2002). Vagueness and difficulties of operationalization
also plague related terms such as the common good.

Public goods refers to production of non-rival, non-excludable
goods and services. Public value differs in three ways: First, it

includes remedies to market failures beyond inadequate provision of
public goods, along with the institutional arrangements that make
the remedies possible. This fits clearly with Bozeman’s (2007) view.
Public goods are outputs and public value includes the outcomes
made possible by public goods. This fits well with Moore’s (1995)
view. Finally, public value has value for the valuer, which accords
well with Meynhardt’s (2009) approach.

Probably commonwealth comes closest to capturing the meaning of
public value, since the term originally meant “common well-being.”

In the U.S. from the colonial era through the World War II era, as

Boyte (1989) points out, commonwealth meant two things. First, it
meant a republican or democratic government of equals concerned
with the general welfare and an active citizenry throughout the year.

Second, the term “brought to mind the touchstone, or common

foundations, of public life—the basic resources and public goods
of a community over which citizens assumed responsibility and

authority” (4-5). Thus, while similar to public value in meaning,
commonwealth is not the same. The identification with a repub
lican or democratic government narrows the definition, while the

common foundations of public life are more closely related to the
idea of the public sphere.

How the Ideas of Creating Public Value and Policy-Level
and Societal Public Values Are Used in Practice and
Research

The different strands in the public value literature clearly can be

linked. Specifically, Moore’s managerially focused idea of creating

public value involves producing what the public values or is good
for the public, the merits of which can be assessed against a set of

more specific public values. These can include Bozeman’s and others’
societal or policy-focused public value criteria, Meynhardts’ psycho
logically focused criteria, Benington’s idea of enhancing the public
sphere, and other important values in the public administration
field and literature. All may or should be considered when assessing
value creation in specific instances.

Uses of the Creating Public Value Idea in Practice and Research
The idea of creating public value has been used as a paradigm, rhet
oric, narrative, and kind of performance (Alford and O’Flynn 2009,

178-185). Stoker (2006) has proposed “public value management”
as a new paradigm better suited to networked governance than tra
ditional public administration or the New Public Management. He
is thus moving beyond Moore’s primary focus on public managers at
the top of a public bureaucracy delivering services or obligations to

a focus on networked inter-organizational and cross-sector relations
and governance.

Stoker makes the case that traditional public administration and
New Public Management are not up to the job of managing in a
networked public environment, but he only vaguely considers how
leaders and managers in specific instances would achieve efficiency,
accountability, and equity, along with broader democratic values
(Williams and Shearer 2011; O’Flynn 2007). Nor does he explain
how leaders and managers should cope with a democracy having
problems with low voter turnout, divided government, compet
ing organized interests, and competing conceptions of what public
value might be in any situation (Davis and West 2009; Jacobs
2014).

Critics of public value argue that it has been used as a rhetorical
strategy to protect and advance the interests of bureaucrats and
their organizations (Roberts 1995). The criticism unquestionably
has merit in particular cases. As noted above, Dahl and Soss (2014)
also highlight the potential of public value rhetoric to undermine
democratic processes. Smith (2004, 68—69), however, believes
that a “focus on public value enables one to bring together debates
about values, institutions, systems, processes and people. It also

enables one to link insights from different analytical perspectives,

including public policy, policy analysis, management, economics,
and political science.” Similarly, Fisher (2014) offers a narrative
that contrasts an oppositional approach to public decision mak
ing (public-private, black-white; right-wrong; mine-yours) with an

“opposable” or integrative approach wherein public managers can
link seemingly unrelated, or contradictory, and sometimes para
doxical constructs to achieve a higher level of public value across

sectors. The stories managers create thus can be self-serving rheto

ric, but also can be a public-regarding story about what should be,
or has been, created.

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 451

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Finally, as performance, public value can serve as a performance
measurement and management framework. A key advantage
of the public value idea is that there is no single bottom line
(Kalambokidis (2014). Moore (2013, 2014a, 2014b), for example,
proposes that managers look at costs and benefits, but also at less
tangible aspects when they assess public value creation. Bozeman
(2002; 2007) and Talbot (2010) argue for using a variety of public
value criteria to discern how much public value has been created

or diminished. A focus on public value also stimulates attention to

the long-term viability and reliability of public investments (Fisher
2014).

A number of governments have made explicit or implicit use of the
public value framework. Kernaghan (2003), for example, exam
ines the values statements of four Westminster-style governments;

each contains a range of values beyond efficiency. The “joined-up

government,” “whole-of-government,” and collaborative governance
initiatives that developed in many countries in response to the frag
mentation caused by New Public Management were about coordi
nation and also about recovery and pursuit of public values beyond

narrowly defined results and efficiency (Christensen and Ltegreid

2007). Unfortunately, some of these efforts have used excessively

narrow interpretations of public value. For example, the British

government under Tony Blair made explicit use of public value as
a way of thinking about performance, but operationalized Moore’s

strategic triangle by focusing on services (for operational capabil
ity), outcomes (for public value), and trust and legitimacy (for
the authorizing environment) (Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers 2002).
Accenture consultants Cole and Parston (2006) further dimin

ish the meaning of public value. Their approach just repackages
existing approaches to performance measurement and management
under a different label (Afford and O’Flynn 2009, 185). Dahl and
Soss’s (2014) cautions about the ease with which the public value
approach can be hijacked for purposes not intended by its principal
authors is on clear display.

The various approaches to creating public value can be used
positively or normatively—and have been. Williams and Shearer
(2011, 1374) observe, however, that “the most striking feature is
the relative absence of empirical investigation of either the norma
tive propositions of public value or its efficacy as a framework for
understanding public management.” They do note, however, some
exemplary studies. For example, O’Toole, Meier and Nicholson
Crotty (2005) found in a large-N study of Texas school superintend
ents that the superintendents saw the points of Moore’s triangle as

constitutive of their roles. And Meynhardt and Metelmann (2009)
in a study of the German Federal Labor Agency also found evidence

that middle managers think in much the same way as Moore’s pub
lic value entrepreneurs would.

Uses of Policy-Level and Societal Public Values in Practice and
Research

Policy-level and broader public values have also been used in a

variety of ways. For example, public values feature prominently in

the approach Bozeman and his coauthors have developed called
“public value mapping.” The approach incorporates a broad range of
value considerations in policy decision-making processes by helping

(1) identify public values; (2) assess whether or not public value
failures have occurred; (3) map relationships among values; and (4)

graphically represent relationships between public value failures and
market failures (Welch, Rimes, and Bozeman 2014). The approach
has been used primarily in the science and technology field (e.g.,
Bozeman and Sarewitz 2011), but increasingly in other fields
(Bozeman and Moulton 2011, i367).

Meynhardt (2014) has developed a public value assessment instru
ment called the public value scorecard (not to be confused with
Moore’s 2013, 2014b public value scorecard). The scorecard is an
aggregated summary based on individuals’ rankings of the value of
something related to the public along the dimensions mentioned
earlier—moral-ethical, hedonistic-aesthetical, utilitarian-instru

mental, and political-social—as well as a fifth dimension related to
financial performance (Meynhardt 2014). The scorecard has been
used in a variety of situations for both formative and summative

purposes.

Andersen, et al. (2012) have developed a third instrument for
assessing public values that relies not on public value criteria or

psychological assessments, but instead on what they call “organi
zational design principles” derived from four archetypal modes of

governance (hierarchy, clan, network, and market) (717). For each
of the four they articulated the role of public organizations, role of

citizens, organizational context, control forms, and central values.
From these values they developed an instrument they tested on

Danish public managers by asking them to what extent the values
applied to their organizations. After a variety of analyses, seven
dimensions of public value emerged: the public at large, rule abid
ance, budget keeping, professionalism, balancing interests, efficient
supply, and user focus. Their work highlights tensions among the
values and the complexity of public managers’ values environments
(723-724).

Conclusions

Scholars and public professionals are making important theoretical,
practical, and operational strides in developing a new approach to
public administration as an alternative to approaches that preceded
it. They need to do more, however, before the new approach is

widely understood, appreciated, and used to advance important
public values underplayed by traditional public administration
and New Public Management. In this final section we offer some
tentative conclusions about where things stand and then outline an
agenda for research and practice.

Where Things Stand
While there clearly is an emerging new approach to public admin
istration, it does not have a consensually agreed name. Among the

various possibilities, however, the Denhardts’ (2011) label the New
Public Service certainly appears to be the leading contender based
on citations. Whatever the name, attention to issues of public value,

public values, and the public sphere are central to the new approach.

The concept of creating public value is popular within both aca
demic and practice settings (Williams and Shearer 2011). Even crit
ics note the broad interest in the idea among practitioners (Rhodes
and Wanna 2007). Similarly, Van der Wal, Nabatchi, and de Graaf
(2013) assert that the study of public values is gaining in impor

tance in public administration and may well be one of the field’s

most important current themes. Finally, for several decades scholars

452 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and political commentators have devoted increased attention to the

public sphere, including debates about the limits and role of govern
ment, the why and how of public engagement and active citizen
ship, and the need for a strengthened democracy.

This growing interest is in part due to the importance, urgency,
scope, and scale of public problems facing the world; the pragmatic
recognition that governments alone cannot effectively address many
of these problems; and a concern that public values have been and

will be lost as a result of a powerful anti-government rhetoric and

a host of market-based and performance-based reforms. Following

Dewey, the public value literature and the emerging approach to
public administration represent the products of a practitioner and

scholarly “public called into being” over these concerns.

In the emerging approach government clearly has a special role

to play as a creator of public value and guarantor of public values

and the public sphere, but in a market-based democracy, govern
ment is not the owner of all the processes and institutions having
public value potential or obligations (Peters and Pierre 1998). The
literatures on cross-sector collaboration, integrative leadership,
and networked governance are all responses to the new context, in

which public managers frequently must collaborate with nonprofits,

businesses, the media, and citizens to accomplish public purposes. A
major contribution of the public value literature is the way it draws

attention to questions about: (a) the public purposes that are or
should be served by organizations in all sectors, by intra- and cross

sector collaborations, by more general governance arrangements,
and by public leadership broadly defined; and (b) how public man
agers and leaders do and should accomplish these purposes. These
are important normative and research-related questions needing to
be pursued in the new context.

Of course, the concern with purposes and values is hardly new to

public administration; what is different are two different parts of the
context. The first is that traditional public administration and the

New Public Management—while they both have strengths—are not
up to the tasks of networked governance, leadership, and manage
ment when a variety of public values should be served, including,
but hardly limited to, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. The
second is the view that terms such as the public interest and com
monwealth are too narrow, other related terms such as the common

good are too vague, and the language of public value provides a
helpful way forward, as Jacobs (2014) suggests.

A Research and Practice Agenda
Right now the new approach is enmeshed in often vague defini
tions, conceptualizations, and measurements of public value and the

public sphere. While public administration scholars and practition
ers may ultimately agree on these public value-related matters, they
are unlikely to reach full consensus (Davis and West 2009). That

is not necessarily a bad thing. In order to make progress, however,

scholars should address the challenges to current formulations, in

part through further conceptual refinement, the development of

suitable typologies and measures, and rigorous empirical testing.
Research should attend to both subjectively held public values and

more objective states of the world; whether a specific public value

is intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational; whether something is a prime or

instrumental public value; whether there are hierarchies of public

values; who does the valuing; how the valuing is done; and against
what criteria the object of value is measured.

The public value literature does provide a broader sense of public
values than typically found in traditional public administration

and New Public Management. As the emerging approach to public
administration unfolds, the public value literature should be explic
itly incorporated, since the issues it addresses are so fundamental.

For example, too many performance measurement and management
regimes and models focus principally on efficiency and effective
ness directly related to the mission (Radin 2006; 2012; Talbot
2010; Moynihan et al. 2011), and disregard what Rosenbloom
(2007) terms non-mission-based values, such as equity, due process,
freedom of information, and citizenship development. As a result,

too many performance measurement and management schemes may
actually weaken public value creation (Kroll and Moynihan 2014).
Practitioners thus should work to ensure performance measure

ment and management approaches do include non-mission-based
values and at the very least do not diminish democratic engagement
and citizenship behavior. Rosenbloom’s (2007) contribution has
been noted. Moore (2013, 2014b) has also made a start on some

of these concerns with his proposed public value account, as does
Meynhardt (2014) with his very different public value account.

Bozeman and his colleagues’ public value mapping model also
makes a contribution. Similarly, public participation processes
can be designed to enhance democratic behavior and citizenship
(Natachi 2012; Bryson, et al. 2013). Finally, policy analysis as well
should include a broad array of values beyond its traditional focus

on efficiency, effectiveness, and sometimes equity (Radin, 2013).

Practitioners and scholars also should follow Australia’s lead, for

example, and draw attention to the expected and actual public value
created by policies, programs, projects, and other efforts (Kernaghan
2003). As Jacobs (2014) demonstrates in a U.S. context, the public
is “pragmatically liberal”; that is, the public is quite willing to sup
port particular public undertakings when the value is clear and the

cost is reasonable. Moore’s public value account offers a way of mak
ing the case in specific circumstances. Kalambokidis (2014) provides
practical advice on some of the ways in which this public value-clar

ifying work can be done in relation to fiscal and spending policy.

Given the complex networked and collaborative arrangements
practitioners now often find themselves in, they have a heightened
need to cultivate what Moore calls a “restless, value-seeking imagi
nation” in a democratic context; and public affairs scholars and
educators should help them in this effort. That imagination also
should incorporate attention to government’s special role in assur
ing concern for important values and standing firm against efforts

to diminish them (Dahl and Soss, 2014). Again, the need for
imagination is not new to public administration, where creativity,

innovation, and strategic thinking and acting have always found
a place (Osborne and Brown 2013; ffartley 2014; Bryson 2011).
Such imagination often involves bridging the politics-administra
tion divide (Gulick 1933; Appleby 1945), but also knowing when
to defer to elected officials (Afford, Hartley, and Hughes 2014). In

all these cases, public administrators have a special obligation to
turn their imaginations to enhancing democratic governance and

citizenship. As noted, policy analysis also can help foster imagina
tive responses and attention to the array of public values (Radin

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 453

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2012). Clearly, however, the public value literature should explore
much further the conceptual, political, organizational, managerial,
and other limits on public managers seeking to create public value
in particular circumstances.

Institutions and processes matter for the creation of public value,

the realization of public values, and the preservation and enhance

ment of the public sphere (Talbot 2010; Benington and Moore
2011; West and Davis 2011; Radin 2012; Dahl and Soss 2014;
Jacobs 2014; Moore 2014a; Kalambokidis 2014; Budd 2014). The
research on performance management regimes makes this clear.
Such regimes and the institutions and processes that produce and
sustain them and what the consequences are for public value should
be the focus of much additional work. The same is true of collabora

tive, networked governance processes. Work thus should continue

on linking managerial behavior attempting to create public value
with institutions and processes and policy-level and other important

public values related to democratic and collaborative governance
(Beck Jorgensen and Bozeman 2007).

Another part of that work is to bring in scholarship from other

fields to help enrich the conversation at a time when the public

administration can be viewed as too insular (Wright 2011). We look
forward to continued research and learning that will determine
whether the public value literature will override the challenges and

take a permanent place in the ongoing development of the field of
public administration scholarship and practice.

Notes

This introduction and the symposium articles stem from an international

conference on “Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power World”

at the University of Minnesota, September 20—22, 2012. The conference was

co-sponsored by three units of the University of Minnesota: the Hubert H.

Humphrey School of Public Affairs, the Carlson School of Management, and

the Center for Integrative Leadership. The Minnesota Humanities Center was a

cosponsor.

References

Agranoff, Robert. 2006. Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public

Managers. Public Administration Review 66(Supplement si): 56—65.

Alexander, Ernest R. 2002. The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to

Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Theory 1(3): 226—249.

Alford, John. 2008. The Limits to Traditional Public Administration, or Rescuing

Public Value from Misrepresentation. The Australian Journal of Public

Administration 67(3): 357-366.

Alford, John, Jean Harley, and Owen Hughes. 2014, forthcoming. Political

Astuteness as an Aid to Discerning and Creating Public Value. In Valuing Public

Value, edited by John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg.

Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, pre-publication

draft.

Alford, John, and Owen Hughes. 2008. Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase

of Public Management. The American Review of Public Administration 38(2):

130-148.

Alford, John, and Janine O’Flynn. 2009. Making Sense of Public Value:

Concepts, Critiques, and Emergent Meanings. International Journal of Public

Administration 32(3—4): 171-191.

Andersen, Lotte Bogh, Torben Beck Jorgensen, Anne Mette Kjeldsen, Lene Holm

Pedersen, and Karsten Vrangbadc. 2012. Public Value Dimensions: Developing

and Testing a Multi-Dimensional Classification. International Journal of Public

Administration 35(11): 715-728.

Beck Jorgensen, Torben, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public Values: An Inventory.

Administration & Society 39(3): 354—381.

Benington, John. 2011. From Private Choice to Public Value? In Public Value: Theory

and Practice, edited by John Benington and Mark Moore, 31—49. Basingstoke,

UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Benington, John, and Mark H. Moore. 2011. Public Value in Complex and

Changing Times. In Public Value: Theory and Practice, edited by John Benington

and Mark Moore, 1-20. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boyte, Harry. 1989. CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York: Free

Press.

Boyte, Harry. 2005. Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics.

Public Administration Review 65(5): 536-546.

Boyte, Harry. 2011. Constructive Politics as Public Work: Organizing the Literature.

Political Theory 39(5): 630—660.

Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do.

Public Administration Review 62(2) : 145-161.

Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic

Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Bozeman, Barry, and Stephanie Moulton. 2011. Integrative Publicness: A

Framework for Public Management Strategy and Performance. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 21 (Supplement 3): i363—i380.

Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. Public Value Mapping and Science

Policy Evaluation. Minerva 49: 1-23.

Bryson, John. 2011. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Th

Edition. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa M. Stone. 2006. The Design

and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the

Literature. Public Administration Review upplement 1): 44-55.

Bryson, John, Kathryn Quick, Carissa Schively Slotterback, and Barbara C. Crosby.

2013. Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review

73(1): 23-34.

Budd, John W. 2014. Implicit Public Values and the Creation of Publicly Valuable

Outcomes: The Importance of Work and the Contested Role of Labor Unions.

Public Administration Review 74(4): 506-516.

Christensen, Tom, and Per Lasgreid. 2007. The Whole-of-Government Approach to

Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review 67(6): 1059—1066.

Cleveland, Harlan. 2002. Nobody in Charge: Essays on the Future of Leadership. New

York: John Wiley.

Cole, Martin, and Greg Parston. 2006. Unlocking Public Value: A New Modelfor

Achieving High Performance in Public Service Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Cooper, Terry L., Thomas A. Bryer, and Jack W. Meek. 2006. Citizen

Centered Collaborative Public Management. Public Administration Review

66(Supplement si): 76—88.

Crenson, Matthew, and Benjamin Ginsberg. 2002. Downsizing Democracy: How

America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2005. Leadership for the Common

Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Dahl, Adam, and Joe Soss. 2014. Neoliberalism for the Common Good? Public

Value Governance and the Downsizing of Democracy. Public Administration

Review 74(4): 496-504.

Davis, Paul, and Karen West. 2009. What Do Public Values Mean for Public

Action? Putting Public Values in Their Plural Place. American Review of Public

Administration 39(6): 602-618.

Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2003. The New Public Service: Serving,

Not Steering, Third Edition. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

De Souza Briggs, Xavier. 2008. Democracy as Problem Solving. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

454 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1840/1969. Democracy in America. Edited by J. P. Mayer.

New York: Harper.

Dewey, John. 1927/1954. The Public &Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.

Dubnick, Melvin J., and H. George Frederickson. 2010. Accountable Agents: Federal

Performance Measurement and Third-Party Government. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 20(Supplement 1): il43—il59.

Epstein, Seymour. 1989. Values from the Perspective of Cognitive-Experiential

Self-Theory. In Social and Moral Values, edited by Nancy Eisenberg,

Janusz Reykowski, and Ervin Staub, 3—22. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Epstein, Seymour. 1993. Emotion and Self-Theory. In Handbook of Emotions,

edited by Michael Lewis and Jeanette M. Haviland-Jones, 313-326. New York:

Guilford Press Sons, Inc.

Epstein, Seymour. 2003. Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory of Personality. In

Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5, Personality and Social Psychology, edited by

Theodore Millon, Melvin J. Lerner, and Irvine B. Weiner, 159-184. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Fisher, Thomas. 2014. Public Value and the Integrative Mind: How Multiple

Sectors Can Collaborate in City Building. Public Administration Review

74(4): 457-464.

Frederickson, George. 1991. Toward a Theory of the Public for Public

Administration. Administration & Society 22(4): 395-417.

Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public

Administration Review 66(Supplement si): 66—75.

Gallup. 2014. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx;

accessed March 12, 2014.

Gore, Al. 1993. Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: The Report of

the National Performance Review. New York: Plume.

Gulick, Luther. 1933. Politics, Administration, and the New Deal. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 169(1): 55-66.

Gunn, John. 1969. Politics and the Public Interest in the Seventeenth Century. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Hartley, Jean. 2014, forthcoming. The Creation of Public Value through Step

Change Innovation in Public Organizations. In Valuing Public Value, edited by

John

Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Hirschman, Albert. 1982/2002. Shifting Involvements: Private Interests and Public

Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons. Public

Administration 69(1): 3-19.

Jacobs, Lawrence. 2014. The Contested Politics of Public Value. Public

Administration Review 74(4): 480—494.

Kalambokidis, Laura. 2014. Creating Public Value with Tax and Spending
Policies: The View from Public Economics. Public Administration Review

74(4): 519-526.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1969. Administrative Decentralization and Political Power. Public

Administration Review 29(1): 3-15.

Kelly, Gavin, Geoff Mulgan, and Stephen Muers. 2002. Creating Public Value: An

Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. Discussion on paper prepared

by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom.

Kernaghan, Kenneth. 2003. Integrating Values into Public Service: The Values

Statement as Centerpiece. Public Administration Review 63(6): 711-719.

Kettl, Donald F. 2002. The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration

for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Kettl, Donald F. 2008. The Next Government of the United States: Why Our Institutions

Fail Us and How to Fix Them. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Kroll, Alexander, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2014, forthcoming. Creating Public

Value Using Performance Information. In Valuing Public Value, edited

by John Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Mansbridge, Jane, ed. 1990. Beyond Self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

McGinnis, Michael, and Elinor Ostrom. 2012. Reflections on Vincent Ostrom,

Public Administration, and Polycentricity. Public Administration Review 72(1):

15-25.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We

Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review 66(Supplement si):

33-43.

Meynhardt, Timo. 2009. Public Value Inside: What Is Public Value Creation?

International Journal of Public Administration 32(3-4): 192-219.

Meynhardt, Timo. 2014. Public Value—Turning a Conceptual Framework into a

Scorecard. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and

Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Meynhardt, Timo, and Jorg Metelmann. 2009. Pushing the Envelope: Creating

Public Value in the Labor Market: An Empirical Study of the Role of Middle

Managers. International Journal of Public Administration 32(3-4): 274-312.

Mitnick, Barry M. 1976. A Typology of Conceptions of the Public Interest.

Administration & Society 8(1): 5-28.

Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, Mark H. 2013. Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Moore, Mark H. 2014a. Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical

Basis. Public Administration Review 74(4): 465-477.

Moore, Mark H. 2014b. Recognizing Public Value: Developing a Public Value

Account and a Public Value Scorecard. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John

Bryson, Barbara Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Moulton, Stephanie. 2009. Putting Together the Publicness Puzzle: A Framework for

Realized Publicness. Public Administration Review 69(5): 889-900.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a

Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77-89.

Moynihan, Donald P., Sergio Fernandez, Soonhee Kim, Kelly M. LeRoux, Suzanne J.

Piogrowski, Bradley E. Wright, and Kaifeng Yang. 2011. Performance Regimes

amidst Governance Complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory 21 (Supplement 1): il4l-il55.

Mulgan, Richard. 2000. Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept. Public

Administration 78(3): 555-573.

Nabatchi, Tina. 2012. Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing

Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review

72(5)(September-October): 699-708.

O’Flynn, Janine. 2007. From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic

Change and Managerial Implications. The Australian Journal of Public

Administration 66(3): 353-366.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the

Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Basic Books

Osborne, Stephen. 2010. The New Public Governance? New York: Routledge.

Osborne, Stephen, and Louise Brown. 2013. Handbook of Innovation in Public

Services. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Ostrom, Vincent. 1973. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration.

Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Ostrom, Vincent, and Elinor Ostrom. 1971. Public Choice: A Different Approach

to the Study of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 31(2):

203-216.

O’Toole, Laurence, Kenneth Meier, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2005. Managing

Upward, Downward, and Outward: Networks, Hierarchical Relationships and

Performance. Public Management Review 7{1): 45-68.

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 455

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Peters, B. Guy, and John Pierre. 1998. Government without Governance? Rethinking

Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2):

223-243.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A

Comparative Analysis; New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo

Weberian State.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Radin, Beryl. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.

Radin, Beryl. 2012. Federal Management Reform in a World of Contradictions.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Rhodes, R.A.W., and John Wanna. 2007. The Limits to Public Value or Rescuing

Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians. Australian Journal of Public

Administration 66(4): 406-421.

Roberts, Alasdair. 1995. ‘Civic Discovery’ as a Rhetorical Strategy. Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management 14(2): 291-307.

Romzek, Barbara S., Kelly LeRoux, and Jeannette M. Blackmar. 2012. Preliminary

Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors.

Public Administration Review 72(2): 442—453.

Rosenbloom, David H. 2007. Reinventing Administrative Prescriptions: The Case

for Democratic-Constitutional Impact Statements and Scorecards. Public

Administration Review 67(1): 28-39.

Rosenbloom, David H., and McCurdy, Howard E. Eds. 2006. Revisiting Waldo’s

Administrative State: Constancy and Change in Public Administration.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Salamon, Lester M. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. 1986. The Cycles of American History. Boston: Houghton,

Mifflin.

Simon, Herbert. 1997. Administrative Behavior, 4th Edition. New York: The Free

Press.

Smith, RFI. 2004. Focusing on Public Value: Something New and Something Old.

Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(4): 68-79.

Sorauf, Frank. 1957. The Public Interest Reconsidered. The Journal of Politics 19(4):

616-639.

Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked

Governance? American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41-57.

Talbot, Colin. 2009. Public Value—The Next “Big Thing” in Public Management?

International Journal of Public Administration 32(3-4): 167—170.

Talbot, Colin. 2010. Theories of Performance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomson, Anne-Marie, and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside

the Black Box. Public Administration Review Supplement): 19-32.

Van der Wal, Zeger, Tina Nabatchi, and Gjalt de Graaf. 2013. From Galaxies

to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Analysis of Public Values

Publications from 1969 to 2012. American Review of Public Administration.

Online. 23 May 2013.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 1998. Changing Public Sector Values. New York: Garland

Publishing, Inc.

Waldo, Dwight. 1948/2007. The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory

of American Public Administration. New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction Publihers

(originally published in New York by Ronald Press).

Waldo, Dwight. 1952. Development of a Theory of Democratic Administration.

Public Administration Review 46(1): 81—103.

Welch, Jennie, Heather Rimes, and Barry Bozeman. 2014. “Public Value

Mapping.” In Valuing Public Value, edited by John Bryson, Barbara Crosby,

and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pre-publication

draft.

West, Karen, and Paul Davis. 2011. What Is the Public Value of Government

Action? Towards a (New) Pragmatic Approach to Values Questions in Public

Endeavours. Public Administration 89(2): 226-241.

Williams, Iestyn, and Heather Shearer. 2011. Appraising Public Value: Past, Present

and Futures. Public Administration 89(4): 1367-1384.

Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly

2(2): 197-222.

Wolf, Jr., Charles. 1979. A Theory of Nonmarket Failure: Framework for

Implementation Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 22(1): 107-139.

Wright, Bradley E. 2011. Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field:

Assessing Its Relationship with Other Fields of Law, Management and Political

Science. Public Administration Review 71(1): 96-101.

Join Public Administration Review on Facebook

to find out more about issue updates and upcoming calls for papers

(http : //www. facebook. com/PAReview).

456 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

This content downloaded from
�������������73.73.162.206 on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:30:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

• Contents

p. 445

p. 446

p. 447

p. 448

p. 449

p. 450

p. 451

p. 452

p. 453

p. 454

p. 455

p. 456

• Issue Table of Contents

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Vol. 74, No. 4 (JULY/AUGUST 2014) pp. 435-550

Front Matter

PERSPECTIVE

Vision without Execution Is Hallucination [pp. 439-441]

In Seoul, the Citizens Are the Mayor [pp. 442-443]

A Simple Lesson about the Power of Collaboration [pp. 444-444]

SYMPOSIUM: EXPLORING THE VALUE OF PUBLIC VALUE

Symposium Introduction

Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management [pp. 445-456]

Perspective

Public Value and the Integrative Mind: How Multiple Sectors Can Collaborate in City Building [pp. 457-464]

Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis [pp. 465-477]

Commentary: “Public Value” and the Measurement of Government Performance: The Shift to Subjective Metrics [pp. 478-479]

The Contested Politics of Public Value [pp. 480-494]

Commentary: Value-Driven Public Policy Likely Requires Value-Driven Public Servants [pp. 494-495]

Neoliberalism for the Common Good? Public Value Governance and the Downsizing of Democracy [pp. 496-504]

Commentary: Public Value Governance or Real Democracy [pp. 504-505]

Implicit Public Values and the Creation of Publicly Valuable Outcomes: The Importance of Work and the Contested Role of Labor Unions [pp. 506-516]

Commentary: The Prospects for Labor’s Role in Redefining Public Values [pp. 516-517]

Commentary: The Paralysis of Analysis [pp. 517-518]

Creating Public Value with Tax and Spending Policies: The View from Public Economics [pp. 519-526]

Commentary: Is the Public Economics Toolbox Applicable to Budget Analysis? [pp. 527-528]

Book Reviews

Illuminating the East Again: The Rapid Modernization of South Korean Government [pp. 529-532]

Can Democracy Survive Democracy? [pp. 532-535]

Using Legitimacy as an Organizing Lens for Public Administration [pp. 535-539]

Regulatory Capture Recaptured [pp. 539-542]

Taking a Relational Turn in Leadership Studies [pp. 542-544]

Agencification [pp. 545-549]

Back Matter