Author
Listed:
- Victoria Cluley
- Steven Parker
- Zoe Radnor
Abstract
For public service managers and policy-makers, value is now a common buzzword and its creation or production processes represent common approaches to service delivery. Increasing numbers of academic studies argue that public value is overly optimistic and premised on overly positive ideals of universal benefit. Two new terms are proposed in this article that both critique current approaches to public value and also expand the concept to reflect the complex reality of public service practice: dis/value and public service ethos. Public service ethos represents the idealism associated with the public value and dis/value accounts for public value relationships and experiences that fall outside of this. These terms are intended to further the conceptualization of value and also translate theoretical development into a language that both reflects and can be used in public service practice.ABSTRACTThis article introduces two new terms to the public value lexicon: ‘public service ethos’ and ‘dis/value’. Both terms serve to progress the conceptualization of public value. ‘Public service ethos’ is used to refer to the prevailing assumption that the inclusion of service user voices in the delivery and improvement of public services creates individual and societal benefits (public value). ‘Dis/value’ refers to the public value relationships that fall outside of the public service ethos. Three service assemblages are used to exemplify this. These examples show that a theory–practice disjuncture is present, whereby the ‘public service ethos’ is not practicable based on its anthropomorphic focus and the consequent failure to recognize complexity. To overcome this, the authors draw on new materialist theory to reposition public value as a relational assemblage that can accommodate value in all combinations.
Suggested Citation
Victoria Cluley & Steven Parker & Zoe Radnor, 2021.
"New development: Expanding public service value to include dis/value,"
Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(8), pages 656-659, November.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:41:y:2021:i:8:p:656-659
DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1737392
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:41:y:2021:i:8:p:656-659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPMM20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.