Talk:Public value

Moore's 1995 concept of public value is interesting in that it seems to focus on the recognition and reward of public sector workers and the monetary value placed on their work and says very little about value to the public or publics of centrally designed and delivered services. The current entry emphasises Moore's concept rather than keeping up with a debate developing in the UK arond the concept of public value as being about the benefits public service interventions bring that are over and above the benefits to individuals.

DEMOS in the UK, through papers on Science and Public Value and Culture and Public Value has developed ideas of public value that focus on the benefits of publically funded activity for communities in arguments somewhat akin to ideas around multiplier effects used in the funding of European Social Fund programmes. The key principle is that public service activities, as they affect individuals, also affect families, groups and communities e.g. health care for a teacher with an HIV infection not only assists their well-being, but also enables them to provide educational benefits to their communities and wider social benefits if their experiences are valued and sustained through other social services. Moore's model is inevitably compromised by its focus on the provider rather than the context in which the service is provided.

This is the opening statement, I will be back to flesh it out with references to recent work and further examples.

It may also be helpful, in this discussion, to distinguish between shareholder and consumer values that are rarely active except in extreme situations and a public value which presumes engagement and social action(s).

Nigele1Nigel Ecclesfield 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the concept of methodological indivudualism in neoclassical economics? Is it not so that the concept of public value, whatever it is, attempts to overcome this indivualistic narrowness? There is a good quotation from J. Ruskin on this head in the Wikipedia entry on "Value (Economics)". My view is that it is necessary to illiminate in the "Public value" entry that the idea of public value (or worth)has many meanings (even since XIX c and before). Why only Mr.Moore views should hold monopoly over it? Artemenkov (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While, I don't think Prof. Moore's views should "hold monopoly" over this article, as the thoery is currently being developed and used, it stems from his seminal 1995 work, and he is regarded by public management and other academics as the contemporary founder of the theory.

i do agree that the entry over-emphasises Moore at the expense of more recent iterations and applications of the theoretical framework, however, we can forgive the originating author this, given the brevity of the article. Key public value concepts missing, which perhaps need explication include the strategic triangle, which explains the inter-relationship between the authorising, technical (resource) and delivery environments (i may not have got these three terms quite right); the central notion that public value is co-produced or co-created by the citizen and the intervention of the public service (eg educational value is essentially a product of the student's self-learning and the impact of the teacher and the learning environment). In my work, I am critical of both Moore's original focus on 'creation' of public value, and UK government (Cabinet Office) work which focuses almost universally on formal, government control of public value creation, because these fail to do two things. Firstly to explore and establish the fundamental nature of public value immanent in the public sphere (and actually in the social capital of individiuals and families). Secondly, that public value is created by individuals operating in the private/personal sphere; by private companies (operating within a sustainable and ethical framework) and by community and voluntary organisations of all kinds. Two other concepts need further exploration to help flesh out the theory. Firstly, that much public value is created simultaneously with individual value/capital (individuals benefit from education as a well as society), and often this mutual creation clouds our understanding of what is a public and a private good which impacts on our understanding of rights - this introduces the hybrid notion of shared value which is also related to emerging discourse on sustainability. Secondly, if there is a store of latent public value which the creation of public value adds to, then by the same token, negative and dislocating forces are operating to deplete the latent public value in processes which aren't always overt - eg UK public policy over the past 30 years has led to reductions in social mobility and increased inequality, which were not espoused policy outcomes, but have resulted from prioritising other areas of social and economic policy. There is also a pressing need to synthesise theoretical development of public value with that around sustainable development. Stan Kidd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.162.251 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)