3.Stoker, G. (2006), Public Value Management A New Narrative of Networked Governance, The American Review of Public Administration, vol 36, num 1 (pp 41-57).pdf

Description The American Review of Public Administration DOI: 10.1177/0275074005282583 2006; 36; 41 The American Review of Public Administration Gerry Stoker Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: On behalf of: American Society for Public Administration can be found at: The American Review of
of 18
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Transcript The American Review of Public Administration DOI: 10.1177/0275074005282583 2006; 36; 41 The American Review of Public Administration  Gerry Stoker Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?   The online version of this article can be found at:   Published by:   On behalf of:   American Society for Public Administration   can be found at: The American Review of Public Administration Additional services and information for Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations  at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on March 13, 2009 http://arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from   10.1177/0275074005282583The American Review of Public AdministrationStoker / Public Value Management Public Value Management A New Narrative for NetworkedGovernance? Gerry Stoker University of Manchester, United Kingdom The aim of this article is to clarify the nature of the management style most suited to the emer-gence of networked governance. The paradigms of traditional public administration and newpublic management sit uncomfortably with networked governance. In contrast, it is argued thepublic value management paradigm bases its practice in the systems of dialogue and exchangethatcharacterizenetworkedgovernance.Ultimately,thestrengthofpublicvaluemanagementisseentorestonitsabilitytopointtoamotivationalforcethatdoesnotsolelyrelyonrulesorincen-tives to drive public service practice and reform. People are, it suggests, motivated by theirinvolvement in networks and partnerships, that is, their relationships with others formed in thecontextofmutualrespectandsharedlearning.Buildingsuccessfulrelationshipsisthekeytonet-worked governance and the core objective of the management needed to support it.  Keywords:  public value management; networked governance; management paradigms T he emergence of networked governance begs a question of the nature of an appropriatemanagement response. Networked governance, as other contributors to this volumemake clear, requires the state to steer society in new ways through the development of com-plex networks and the rise of more bottom-up approaches to decision making. Establishedinstitutional forms of governance appear under challenge, and new forms of governanceappear to be emerging. Networked governance is a particular framing of collective decisionmaking that is characterized by a trend for a wider range of participants to be seen as legiti-matemembersofthedecision-makingprocessinthecontextofconsiderableuncertaintyandcomplexity. The pressure is on to find new ways to collaborate as the interdependence of arange of individuals and organizations intensifies.The arrival of networked governance implies a different way of working for politicians aswell as public sector managers or administrators. At the level of practice, as Kettl (2002)argues, “Public managers need to rely on interpersonal and interorganizational processes ascomplements to—and sometimesas substitutes for—authority” (p. 168). They need, amongother things, to manage through networks, to be open to learning in different ways, and todraw in resources from a range of sources. But this article argues that they need somethingmore. They need a vision of an alternative paradigm, an overarching framework in which toput their new practices. Without a more general theory of public administration for net- 41 American Review of Public Administration Volume 36 Number 1March 2006 41-57© 2006 Sage Publications10.1177/0275074005282583http://arp.sagepub.comhosted at Initial Submission: April 25, 2005Accepted: June 30, 2005  at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on March 13, 2009 http://arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from   worked governance, public administrators and other actors are less able to characterize thenature of emerging systems in the management of public services and programs, much lessevaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these changes. Drawing together a range of ideasthat are coming to the surface, this article seeks to formulate a new paradigm to guide publicservantsintheirnetworkedgovernanceroles.Thepublicvaluemanagementparadigmoffersa broad framework in which to comprehend the management challenge posed by networkedgovernance.The initial aim of the article is to specify the nature of the public value management para-digmincontrastwithitshistoricalantecedentsandcontinuingcompetitors,traditionalpublicadministration and new public management, particularly in its market-oriented version. Thepublic value management paradigm presents the achievement of public value as its coreobjective.Publicvalueismorethanasummationoftheindividualpreferencesoftheusersorproducers of public services. The judgment of what is public value is collectively builtthrough deliberation involving elected and appointed government officials and key stake-holders. The achievement of public value, in turn, depends on actions chosen in a reflexivemanner from a range of intervention options that rely extensively on building and maintain-ing networks of provision. Networks of deliberation and delivery are central features of thisgovernance approach. For the public value management paradigm, the understanding of thepublic interest, the nature of the public service ethos, the role of managers, and the contribu-tion of democratic processes stand in contrast to traditional public administration and newpublic management.The second half of the article compares the normative implications of public value man-agementtoitsalternatives.Managementapproaches,tojustifytheclaimtoparadigmaticsta-tus,havetobeabletoofferanswerstothemajorquestionsthatsurroundtheprovisionofpub-licservice.Howisefficiencyachieved?Howisaccountabilitymaintained?Howareissuesof equity addressed? A paradigm needs to have an answer to these questions to provide a pub-liclydefendableplatformtowhichitsfollowerscanappeal.Traditionalpublicadministrationand new public management have recognizable answers to offer, and the issue for the newcontender is whether it can match their achievement. It needs to have the capacity to meetwhatGoodin (1996) describesasthepublicity principle, namely,thatinanargument inpub-lic, it would be possible to present reasoned arguments as to the appropriateness and virtuesof the position presented by the paradigm. Public value management has a distinctiveunderstanding of the challenges of efficiency, accountability, and equity.Traditional public administration predates new public management, which in turn pre-dates public value management. Each of the latter two paradigms has to some degreeemerged asaresponse to theshortcomings of itsantecedents. For example, newpublic man-agement is to some extent a response to the administrative inefficiencies associated with tra-ditional public administration, whereas public value management has been a response, atleast in part, to the narrowly utilitarian character of new public management. 1 Although thetransition from traditional public administration through new public management to publicvalue management has elements of the familiar thesis, antithesis, and synthesis format, therelationship between the paradigms is more confusing and complex. Previous arrangementshavenotgivenwaytoafinallyformednewperiod.Indeed,inWesterndemocracies,manyof the trappings of traditional public administration still live on, and it is new public manage-ment that can claim to be the main challenger to that approach. The period of transition iscomplex given that it is driven by reform initiatives that are not entirely coherent and where 42 The American Review of Public Administration  at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on March 13, 2009 http://arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from   new ways of working run alongside features of administration and management that wouldhave graced earlier periods.Reform processes that involve a competition between management paradigms or a com-plex unfolding of reform paradigms, one on top of the other, are often fraught with difficul-tiesbecauseunderlyingtheapproachesaredifferentunderstandingsofhumannatureanddif-ferent values attached to the achievement of various outcomes. Debates are not technicaldisputes about what works best, although they are often framed in those terms. They areaboutdifferencesaroundthefundamentalunderstandingofhumanmotivationthatnarrativesimplyandthedesirabilityoftheemphasisplacedontheoftencompetingvaluesofefficiency,accountability, and equity.Another source of conflict and confusion within debates is that each of the managementparadigmscontains certaintensions thatarecentralinitsoperation and arerecognized inthenarrative.Thisissueisafocusfordiscussionintheconcludingsectionofthearticle.Tensionscan be observed in the way that different management paradigms attempt to balance thedemands of a legitimate political process and effective management. As such, the publicvaluemanagementparadigmdoesnotprovideapanaceabutratheradifferent,ifflawed,res-olution of a complex of issues to guide the reform of public services and functions. Beyond Traditional Public Administration andNew Public Management: Searching for Public Value Claims that a new paradigm is emerging in any sphere of social and political study arerightly treated with skepticism. In part this is because nothing is ever entirely new, and therealwaysareconnections to thepast.Theoverarching aimof thisarticleisto help establish thedefining features of a new kid on the block, a management that defines its task more broadlythandopreviousparadigmsandachievesmanyofitspurposesthroughadynamicofnetwork governance (Kelly & Muers, 2002; Perri 6, Leat, Seltzer, & Stoker, 2002).Table1contrastskeyfeaturesoftraditionalpublicadministrationandnewpublicmanage-ment against the emerging public value management paradigm. The next three subsectionsexplore the features of each in a little more detail. It would be neat if the evolution of tradi-tional public administration through new public management to public value managementfellintothefamiliarthesis,antithesis,andsynthesisformat.Thereareelementsofsuchapat-tern to be observed, but the relationship between the paradigms is more confusing and com-plex.Initsdefinitionofthepublicinterest,approachtoservicedelivery,andcommitmenttoapublic service ethos, the new public value management paradigm does blend together fea-tures of traditional public administration and new public management. However, in its keyobjectives,attitudetodemocracy,andideasabouttheroleofpublicmanagers,itgoesbeyondeither of the previous paradigms into territory that marksaclearbreak with past understand-ings of the way that governmental actors, both official and elected, should behave. Traditional Public Administration Traditionalpublicadministrationprovidesaparticularsetofsolutionstothechallengesof governance. It draws heavily on a Weberian perception of the world. In Weber’s politicalthought, three institutions are seen as essential to coping with the complexity of modernityand delivering order to the governance process. They are political leadership, party, and Stoker / Public Value Management 43  at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on March 13, 2009 http://arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks