Public Value Positive Ethics for Australian Local Government新

《Public Value Positive Ethics for Australian Local Government新》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Public Value Positive Ethics for Australian Local Government新（21页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Journal of Economic and Social PolicyVolume 14Issue 2 Special Edition on Local Government and Local Government Policy in AustraliaA让icle 78-23-2011Public Value: Positive Ethics for Australian Local GovernmentBligh Grant Josie FisherFollow this and additional works at: http:/epubs.scu.edu.au/jespReco

2、mmended CitationGrant, Bligh and Fisher, Josie (2011) PublicValue: Positive Ethics for Australian Local Government, Policy: Vol. 14: Iss.2, Aiticle 7.Available at: http :/ / epubs.scu.ed u.au/ jesp/ voll 4/i ss2/7Journal ofEconomic and SocialePublications(SCU is an electronic repository administered

3、 by Southern Cross UniversityLibrary. Its goal is to capture and preserve the intellectual output ofSouthern Cross Universityauthors and researchers, and to increase visib 山 ty and impact through open access to researchers around the world. For further information please contact epubs(scu.ed u.au.Pu

4、blic Value: PositiveEthicsfor Australian Local GovernmentAbstractThe challenges confronting Australian local government are typically problematised in terms of either economic sus比 nability and efficiency, or thedemocratic deficitresultant from amalgamations.Comparatively little attention has been p

5、aid to a justification oflocal government a皿ed at reinforcing its岭 血acy ag皿 st reform processes initiated by other tiers of government. In an attempt to rectify如 s deficit,this paper explores the applicability of Mark Moores (1995) theory of Public Value to Australian local government. We argue that

6、 despite Rhodes and Wannas (2007) objections to the applicability of Moores theory to Westminster political systems, Public Value provides both an accurate sociological heuristic and a normative theory of politics and public sector management for Australian local government.KeywordsLocal government;

7、 public value, strategic management theory.Cover Page FootnoteAddress for correspondence: Bligh Grant, Centre for Local Goverrunent, University of New England,Ar皿dale, NSW, 2351. Email: bgrantS(un e .ed u .auThis articleis available in Journal of Economic andSocial Policy: http:/ / epubs.scu.edn.a/u

8、jesp/ voll4/ iss2/7Grant and Fisher: Public Value: Positive Ethics for Australian Local GoverrnnentIntroductionAustr汕 an local government has been subject to continual refo皿 processes in the post World War II period. This reform has been characterised using two historical/jurisdictional perspectives

9、. Firstly, Kelly, Dollery and Grant (2009) identified three generations of federal intervention by consecutive federal Labor governments: A nation-building phase under Chifleys Commonwealth Department for Post-war Reconstruction and Development (CDPWRD), in which regional economic development, overs

10、een by councils, was perceived as necessary for national strategic interests; a paternalist phase conducted by the Whitlam government of 1973-75, in which federal largesse spread to local councils; and under subsequent Hawke and Keating governments, a self sufficiency phase in which local government

11、 was conceptualised primarily within a framework of regional economic development.Coinciding with the third phase of federal intervention have been intensive reform efforts by state and territory governments across all jurisdictions. In particular, structural reform has reduced the number of council

12、s and representatives (Grant, Dollery and Crase, 2009). Further, significant reform processes have failed to address the expansion of the functional ambits of councils (Dollery, Wallis and Allan, 2006) while managerial roles and organisational procedures have been professionalised and reformed (Mars

13、hall, 2008). Moreover, there have been significant attempts to incorporate community participation into council strategic plans through revisions to local government Acts across all jurisdictions (Aulich, 2009).However, despite these long-run interventions by federal government and intensive reform

14、programs by state governments, Australian local government still faces challenges. While the problems of fmancial sustainability on the one hand (see, for example, Dollery, Crase and Byrnes, 2006) and a growing infrastructure backlog on the other hand (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2006) have been the foc

15、us of government investigation and policy-making at the levels of federal and state government, as well as the focus of significant scholarly attention (see, for example, Dollery, Byrnes and Crase, 2008) comparatively little effort has been given over to an explicit consideration of the efficacy, or

16、 legitimacy of local government as a form of politics and administration. Aside from providing an account of changes to the institutional forms of local government (Aulich, 2009; Marshall, 2008) as well as a consideration of how different conceptions of democracy are reflected in local government ar

17、rangements (Dollery and Grant, 2011; Hearfield and Dollery, 2009) arguably, efforts aimed at examining and indeed bolstering the overall ethical legitimacy of local government in Australia1Published by ePublications SC U, 2011Journal of Economic and Social Policy, Vol. 14, lss. 2 2011), An. 7have no

18、t been forthcoming. Rather, this legitimacy is implied in accounts of structural reform processes, with some reference to the principle of subsidiarity appearing in the literature (for an exception, see Brown, 2002).This seems surprising for three reasons. First, it is possible that an account of th

19、e legitimacy of local government may be of strategic use by advocates of the sector when attempting to defend it from sweeping reform processes introduced by state and federal governments, or when attempting to galv皿se community support for local initiatives. Second, seminal contributions in the lit

20、eratures of both public economics (Tiebout, 1957) and more specifically, fiscal federalism (Oates, 1972) have advanced powerful defences of sub-national government (for an overview, see Dollery, Crase and Johnson, pp. 42-59). These arguments could be more frequently deployed to reinforce a defence o

21、f Australian local government. Third, recent work in the English political context has attempted to provide an ethical account of local government as opposed to one that is anchored in the expediency of local government for central government. Chandler (2008, p. 356) distinguished between expedient

22、and ethical justifications of local government thus:By an expediential justification is meant those arguments that value an activity or institution only to the extent that it serves the purposes of another institution or activity A direct ethical justification is, as used here, one which values an i

23、nstitution or activity because it fulfils a morally desirable purpose in itself regardless of its value to other organisations.W 血 e Chandler (2008, p. 356) noted thatAn expediential justification may nevertheless have an ethical value - for example, in the efficient provision of a range of services

24、 - he clarified the consequences of a direct ethical justification for local government:If there is a direct ethical justification for the existence of local government irrespective of the needs of the state, then the state has noe血 cal justification for interfering in the activities of local govern

25、ment as they apply to their ethical raison detre but must respect its integrity and morally legitimate activities Chandler (2008, p. 356).Chandler thus made a very strong claim for non-interference by (in the English case) central government. Nevertheless, the outstanding feature of Chandlers overal

26、l approach is the tension between (a) expedient justifications of local government on the one hand and (b) ethical justifications of local government on the other. As we have seen, this tension mirrors that found within dominant2http:/epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol14/iss2/7Grant and Fisher: Public Value:

27、 Positive Ethics for Australian Local Goverrnnentapproache s to systemic problems in Australian local government (Dollery and Grant, 2011; Grant, Dollery and Gow, 2011).This paper seeks to overcome this methodological dualism - which is also,necess血 y, a normative dualism - by constructing an argume

28、nt for the legitimacy of local government grounded in Mark Moores (1995) theory of Public Value.1 M oor e s theory has been the subject of considerable controversy at the level of theory (see, for example, Stoker, 2006; Rhodes and Wanna, 2007; Wallis and Gregory, 2009). Moreover, Public Value has be

29、en discussed as an empirical phenomenon in a diverse array of contexts (see, for example, Spano, 2009; Weihe, 2008). Nevertheless, it has not been considered in the specific context of Australian local government.加 s seems surprising since, as Moore (1995: x切 noted in the Acknowledgements to the Cre

30、ating P ublic Value, the theory derived from teaching public sector managers at the Kennedy Business School at Harvard University, many of whom were from sub-national governments. Secondly, and perhaps as a consequence of the former, many of the hypothetical examples Moore (1995) deployed in the cou

31、rse of setting out his theory came from local (municipal) government. Thirdly, Public Value has been explored and defended in the context of English local government by Stoker (2006) who has equated it to his own theory of Networked Community Governance. In this context, following Moore (1995) and S

32、toker (2006), we are interested in how Public Value can assist in maintaining and indeed increasing the legitimacy of Australian local government.The remainder of the paper is divided into three main parts. The following section presents an account of Moores (1995) theory, distinguishing between an

33、exemplary meaning of Public Value on the one hand and a theoretical account on the other. In part three the claim by Rhodes and Wanna (2007) that Public Value reinstalls public managers as Platonic guardiansof the public sector, or more prosaically that it sheets home too much authority to managers

34、in Westminster democracies, is examined. Part four of the paper argues that while these objections may be applicable to national and state governments, Public Value would appear particularly suited to Australian local government. The paper concludes with a consideration of the ethical implications f

35、or public sector1 For the purposes of this discussion, we have capitalisedPublic Value to denote that we are referring to the contesta ble) concept ftrst developed by Moore (1995) thereby 山stin即 shing it from more prosaic uses of the phrase. Moreover, we have refrained from using an acronym (forex 皿

36、 ple, PV or NPV) as these have been deployed by some writers only, and as such are initiative of their understandings and development of the term (see, for example, Stoker, 2006)3Publishedby ePublicationsSCU, 2011Journal of Economic and Socia l Policy, Vol. 1 4, lss. 2 2011), An. 7managers and how P

37、ublic Value informs a reinvigorated account of Australian local government.Defining Public ValueSimple Account of Public ValueIn its initial development the idea of Public Value appears relatively simple. Moore (1995, p. 13-20) depicted a city librarian who is faced with the problem of the library w

38、here she works being used as a de facto after-school childminding facility for latch-key children. In the example, the librarian s initial reaction is to stop this use of the library occurring, because the library is not a childminding facility. This response is based upon what Moore labelled the im

39、portant doctrine mandating that the librarians actions are prescribed by statute: The librarian is obliged to exercise an adnnn1strat1ve/bureaucratlc mindset, downwa rd, toward the reliable control of organisational operations, rather than either outward, toward the achievement of valuable results,

40、or upward, toward the achievement of re-negotiated political mandates (Moore, 1995, p. 17).Yet Moore explores this scenario further. In her deliberations, (Moore s librarian is gendered) the librarian conceives of other strategies leading to alternative outcomes: She (a) thinks the presence of the l

41、atch-key children can be used as a justification for sourcing more funds for the library; she also (b) conceives of a user-pays system for parents using the library as a child-minding facility; (c) consulting the community about the use of the library occurs; as does (d) the idea of calling for volu

42、nteers to help with child-minding. The librarian also (e) contemplates restructuring her own organisation in order to accommodate the 啦 ldren. Moore s point is that m nna 伊 rung outside an administrative/bureaucratic mindset, the librarian can encourage and, indeed, bring to fruition a situation whe

43、re the p blic resources she is custodian of are more valued, i.e.: more thoroughly appreciated and used by a broader spectrum of the community, while at the same time responding to a need the community has for after school care. Moore (2005, p. 15-16) argued that we miss out on the Public Value mana

44、gers can create if they do not exercise this imagination , or entrepreneurial spirit . Indeed, Moore suggested that many public managers think like this anyway, thus it is foolish to discourage them from so doing.Yet acting this way is problematic precisely because the library is a public facility a

45、nd the librarian a public manager. In a public sector context, there exists no justification for managers acting this way; we assume they are the mere servants of public policy. Contra this view, Moore sought a justification for managers not4http:/epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol14/iss2/7Grant and Fisher:

46、Public Value: Positive Ethics for Australian Local Goverrnnentmerely exercising their imagination, but acting upon it without turning to the polity for authorisation and acting upon it all the time as the most important and valuable part of their job. Moore (1995) attempted to arrive at a general co

47、ncept of Public Value that could provide the basis for managerial behaviour in conditions where a plurality of values exists due to (a) different ideas about what is valuable, and (b) the fact that these perspectives are context-dependant.Theoretical Account of Public ValueTo construct this theory,

48、Moore (1995, p. 28) commenced with the proposition that the aim of managerial work in the public sector is to create public value just as the aim of managerial work in the private sector is to create private value . However this equivalence extends only so far: Moore pointed out that while public an

49、d private organisations are similar in that they both produce goods and services, public organisations also use authority - to tax, but also to impose other kinds of costs upon individuals - in order to achieve their goals. Consequently, for Moore (1995, p. 29) public managers arent merely assessed

50、on the basis of the goods and services produced, they must also be able to show that the results obtained are worth the cost forgone in producing the desirable results.According to Moore the question of to whom this demonstration ought to be made is relatively straightforward. Whereas in the market

51、consumers exercise their sovereignty by volunt 扛 ily choosing particular products, thereby demonstrating preferences for particular outcomes, so in the political arena citizens choose representatives. This correlation is by no means absolute: individual voluntary choice does not control the politica

52、l system . However, Moore argued that representative democracy is as close as we can come to replicating the mechanism of the market In selec 血 g our representatives we are selecting particular kinds of outcomes and the value encapsulated therein.However, over time both the sites we have developed a

53、s legitimate places for justifying public action and the mechanisms we have for measuring the worth of this action have proven problematic. According to Moore (1995, p. 31-38), the political realm is prone to corruption. Further, to attribute to the bureaucracy the characteristic of politically neut

54、ral competence is dangerously nai:ve. Moreover, particular social scientific techniques, such as program evaluation and benefit-cost analysis, while offering both ex ante and post-facto analysis, have inherent methodological biases. Any attempt to authorise and assess public action based upon custom

55、er satisfaction of citizens is flawed because although some goods will be valued by the majority of citizens, others will not see these goods as5Published by ePublicationsSCU, 2011Journal of Economic and Social Policy, Vol. 14, lss. 22011), An. 7desirable (a good criminal justice system, is hardly d

56、esirable for career criminals, for example).At this impasse, Moore (1995, p. 38) made an important claim about his concept of politics and the relationship of this concept to both administration and the activity of individual managers:Politics remains the final arbiter of public value just as privat

57、e consumption decisions remain the final arbiter of private value. Public managers can proceed only by finding a way to improve politics and make it a firmer 驴 ide as to what is publically valuable. That is why political management must be part of our conception of what public managers do.The primar

58、y point is that managers are central to the political process. W血 e 血 s normative account of managerial behaviour may appear to prescribe for managers abox seatin terms of decision-making, Moore (1995, p. 37) emphasised that they always operate in a context defined by three features. First, as bundl

59、es of fixed and variable assets, all public organisations are limited in their capacities. Moreover, managers cannot dispose of public assets in the way that an individual or private corporation can dispose of their private property. On the contrary, they must provide legitimating narratives about t

60、he use of these assets. In this sense, the actions of managers are determined by theorganisational contextin which they find themselves. Second, managers are constantly interacting with what Moore (1995, p. 37) referred to as theauthorising environment, wi 血 n which there is significant disagreement

61、 about the deployment of public assets. Politicians do not explicitly consent to all actions of public managers; nevertheless, authorisation is a constant ethical presence. Finally, while particular processes within organisations will be producing outputs (goods or services) it is up to the manager

62、to search for value-making opportunities within this context.Moore (1995, pp. 48-50) emphasised that Public Value is derived not only from public sector outputs, but also from the authorising of these outputs. He also asserted that disagreement about governmentsactions is akin to a market mechanism,

63、 but with three differences: Citizens arespending their freedom as well as their money by authorising government to act on their behalf(Moore, 1995, p. 48); they are buying a product for everyones benefit according to a political view of what is desirable for society, and they are buying whole enter

64、prises rather than individual products. Points of disagreement areresolved by a continuing political/administrative process that holds these principles in tension and adapts to changes in political demand or policy tension (Moore, 1995, p. 49). The overall efficacy of organisations is often challenged yet these6http:/epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol14/iss2/7