The limit of Public value for Westminster system

Sumber Gambar: https://www.shutterstock.com-1716057019

Ditulis: Fatkhuri

Introduction

Public value is a concept which has captured the attention of many scholars with regard to public service management. The public value concept expresses a way of thinking about the significance of public service to society. It conveys a new perspective on what public organisation and public officers actually do.

 

However, there is an argument that public value approach to public management is inappropriate for Westminster system of government. In line with this statement, I would argue that public value is not suitable for Westminster system due to the some structural problems which include hierarchy system, the strong of cabinet, the dominant of party control to the executive, ministerial control of officials and merit appointment of neutral officials. This essay will discuss these structural problems in detail. This paper will also describe strategies for how we might address the challenges of an increasing need for stakeholders’ involvement in policy and government process.

 

Understanding public value theory

Public value is perceived as post-bureaucratic and post-competitive. In this regard, public value management is introduced to overcome traditional bureaucracy which can result in the failure of government. Traditional bureaucracy has had a negative image which includes unresponsiveness toward people’s needs, inefficiency, government monopoly and an inability to achieve formal goals (O’Flynn 2007, p. 355). Public value is also intended to fill the gap of the New Public Management (NPM) which is perceived as following market mechanisms which emphasize competitiveness, efficiency and pro-individual interests.

 

The public value approach expands the public service to include a role for the citizen. It enables public managers to go away from market orientation versus the failure of government. To be precise, the distinction between the public value management and New Public Management (NPM) rests on the following characteristics. First, the paradigm of public value is the concept of collective inclination while New Public Management is more likely to be individualistic (O’Flynn 2007, p. 360). In addition, Public value describes ‘politically mediated expression of preference’, which is decided collectively while New Public Management (NPM) reflects the preferences of individual which can be aggregated to express what it is that the public want from government (O’Flynn 2007, p. 360).

 

It is a remarkable point that public value is not merely restricted by the role of government organisation. Instead, any organization can create public value. According to Alford and Hughes (2008), public value can be produced by ‘government organizations, private firms, nonprofits or voluntary organizations and service users’ (p. 131). Public value is not concerned with who produces services but it is a matter of who consumes it (Alford and Hughes 2008, p. 131). Accordingly, public value is more likely to focus on collective good, which differs from New Public Management (NPM).

 

Public value approach was introduced fourteen years ago when Moore’s book was published under the title   “creating public value: strategic management in government” (1995).  Public value challenges New Public Management (NPM) which relies on competitiveness, efficiency, and individual interests. As cited in Hefetz and Warner (2004), within New Public Management (NPM), public value was perceived to be absent in public services (O’Flynn 2007, p. 358). In addition, public value attempts to cope with the shortcomings of traditional model of bureaucracy. The traditional approach of public administration is described as a management by bureaucrats who are discouraged from using their thoughts about the appropriate principles of government and prevented officials from taking any activity to define them. In contrast, Public Value requires constructing ‘an alternative idea’ regarding how public official should think and act (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p. 406). In short, traditional bureaucracy emphasizes establishing the discipline of bureaucracy; new public management considers that the establishment of certain set systems of allocating contracts and money will contribute benefits, while Public Value management is keen on the role of ‘reflection, lesson drawing, and continuous adaptation’ (Stoker 2006, p. 49).

 

There are various definitions regarding the concept of Public Value. Firstly, as cited in O’Flynn (2005b), public value is defined as a ‘multi dimensional construct’ which expresses collective good to mediate the citizen’s preference through fair and trust process (O’Flynn 2007, p. 358). Secondly, Kelly at al. (2002) defined public value as value which is created by government by means of services, laws, regulation and other activities (Cited in O’Flynn 2007, p. 358). In this regard, public value focuses on problems such as performance, the quality of service, real outcome, and trust (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p. 407). Thirdly, as cited in Horner and Hazel (2005), public value is defined as the correlation of private value (shareholder return) (O’Flyyn 2007, p. 258). In this respect, citizens as considered as shareholders who obtain benefits such as education, health and security services from their tax payment. To get these advantages, society should take part in a democratic process. In doing so, citizens can engage in decision making process (e.g. consultation, survey and polling).

 

According to Stoker (2006), there are four propositions to define public value. The first is that public interventions are described by the pursuit of public value. Secondly, many stakeholders should be incorporated in policy process and government activity as they have legitimacy. In this regard, politicians and officials have a particular legitimacy because of the fact that government is elected, but there are other valid claims to legitimacy from among other groups that consist of ‘business partners, neighborhood leaders’, those who have adequate knowledge about services as professionals, and group or institution which are in a position of oversight as auditors or regulators. The third is an open-minded, relationships approach to the procurement of services which is framed by a commitment to the ethos of public service and finally, an adjustable and the approach based on learning to the challenge of public service delivery is needed (Stoker 2006, p. 47-49).

 

According to Moore (1994), there are two reasons why public value is important. First, government is considered as a referee who can set the rules by which between civil society and private economy can work efficiently or government as an institution can operate public services by smoothing some of the edges of free market capitalism. This argument lies in the fact that New Public Management (NPM) tends to neglect the society’s interest as whole because they are market orientated. Secondly, public value is a concept which is apparently ‘open-ended’ which invites managers to employ their imagination (Moore 1994, p.296). This notion teaches managers to lose the constraints of principles and mistake related to democracy and practices their own self-serving (Moore 1994, p. 296). In doing so, government (public managers) should create programs which emphasize public good rather than individual interest. For example, public value reflects daily government activities such as keep the street safe and clean, educate the children, and protect society from man-made and natural catastrophes which can affect future generations (Moore 1994, p. 296). Bearing this in mind, public value management differs from market management because within private organizations, managers should work based on individual customers needs which are not public oriented.

 

Taking this into account, the concept of public value management offers the intention to make public good for citizens by government.  Public value management is based on services to society rather than individual interest. Public managers must avoid free market administration which only benefits certain people. Public managers in public value play a significant role to ‘steer market’ process on the one hand, and stabilize both technical and political concerns to save public value on the other (O’Flynn 2007, p.358). Indeed, public value attempts to transform the public good into real activities or services in which no individual is neglected.

 

It is noteworthy that public value perceives politics as an obstacle. This is because political conflict, which can emerge at any time, can impede the service delivery of a public organisation. As cited in Moore (1995), Rhodes and Wanna point out that politics can prevent managers from exercising thoughts concerning the appropriate principles of government or enhancing interests in new ideas or increasing the delivery chain (2007 p. 411). Political conflict sometimes emerges due to the unresponsiveness of government toward society’s aspirations and conflict of interest among the elite. When conflict occurs, public managers should maintain a high level of awareness of society’s aspirations and use their imagination to respond that aspiration. Managers should be creative in finding ways to overcome existing challenges.

 

Moore (1994) points out that there are four components to assess public value management. First, the efficiency and effectiveness of mandate purpose should be achieved by manager. Secondly, professional standards can place yardsticks for the production of public sector. Thirdly, public value can be tackled by analytic techniques such as program evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, public value can be assessed based on stakeholders’ and customers’ satisfaction of governmental enterprises (Moore 1994, p. 297).

 

The inappropriateness of public value for Westminster system

 

Public value clearly has some advantages. The theory holds the public sector in high respect. Yet, it should be noted that public value is not suitable for Westminster system. There are several reasons for this argument.

 

First of all, public value is not able to be implemented in Westminster system because countries which adopt Westminster system use different political systems (parliamentary system). Some of the challenges include the existence of a dominant hierarchy of control, and the strong role of ministry and a tight authorizing regime which is supported by well-organized ‘two-party systems’ (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p. 407). However, Rhodes and Wanna (2007) argue that public value might work for the other type of government (e.g. America) in which much scope takes place for ‘policy entrepreneurs and policy brokerage, and policy actors must build coalitions of support to create development’ (p. 407). Accordingly, public value is appropriate for an alternative normative vision for other political systems such as American public managers who operate relatively antagonistic to state interference rather than in countries such as Australia, UK and New Zealand.

 

Secondly, public value is not appropriate in Westminster system because the definition of the ‘public manager’ is stretched way beyond its standard sense in the system of Westminster. Moore’s concept of public value encourages an agency or people to work for the government. This includes ‘elected, unelected and self-appointed actors including politicians, presidents, governors and mayors, political staff, commissioners and directors, senior civil servants, administrators, experts, supervising agents, judges, lobbyists and interest groups leaders, and even private managers’ (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p.408). Even though this is a comprehensive and expansive model, this can possibly become confused when it is applied to Westminster system. This is because the bureaucrats within Westminster system are rarely elected.  The political appointment of public officers is the exception, not the rule, in Australia, Britain and Canada. In the public value approach, politicians who are elected have a legitimate role in deciding the public interest based on the conventional norms of representative democracy, but officers who are non-elected do not share these roles (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p. 408).  In short, in Westminster system, the expected role of public managers refers merely to non-elected neutral administrators.

 

Thirdly, public value approach presupposes the primacy of management in which managers take for granted institutional environments which enable them to employ autonomy, initiative and entrepreneurialism. Management relies heavily on individual managers who operate a strategy which is ‘goal-oriented, legitimate and feasible’ (Rhodes and Wanna 2009, p. 163). More importantly, public managers should limit their personal interests by becoming internal lobbyists for certain strategies which are valuable. In addition, public managers offer ‘more formal channels’ through which the ideas of management concerning opportunities to make public value could be appropriately demonstrated.  However, this approach is not well-defined, particularly in terms of how capitalist officials are to employ their own moral scope in producing public value in which conflict takes place. In addition, it is not obvious what sort of the roles of political parties which can be played to manage conflict and identify policies. Furthermore, it is not apparent how public officers work with the political parties or how they will make contribution to their policy processes (Rhodes and Wanna 2007, p. 410).

 

How to address the challenges of increase involvement of stakeholders in policy and government process?

 

It is a fact that constructive and effective policy requires the involvement of many stakeholders within policy process. Despite the fact that public value does not fit with a Westminster system, in which there is little scope for sharing policy process with other stakeholders, allowing other communities and institutions in policy making process is still possible. Increasing participation for external groups contribute to positive outcome for the policy. This is because the more community or groups that engage in the policy process the more insights will be obtained. As a result, policy can be effectively made and implemented.

 

Grasping the different perspectives of external groups is necessary to the government’s need to consider policies and programs in order to make a beneficial contribution ‘on the ground’, as well as in controlling the risks which are associated with new initiatives (APSC 2009). Thus, the role of many stakeholders is important to create a good policy.

 

There are some strategies to improve the involvement of stakeholders in the policy and government process. Firstly, the increase of stakeholders’ roles within the policy process can be carried out by making collaboration with other agencies, institutions and communities. Collaboration is a pivotal point in order to share knowledge among other stakeholders with different backgrounds. Collaboration is a crucial step particularly when government encounter complicated issues which need to be overcome by variety of groups. This strategy is seen in both government practice and the literature as potential solutions to the perceived problems of New Public Management (NPM) (Alford and Hughes 2008, p. 136) which includes the characterization of citizens as clients, the emphasis on measurement of performance in unwarranted circumstances, the agenda of cutting government spending and enhancing the control of senior managers vis-à-vis politicians (Alford and Hughes 2008, p. 135). In this case, the involvement of other parties, either collectively or individually, also take responsibility to shape and deliver the responses needed (APSC 2009). For example, in Australia, the Australian Public Service (APS) uses this strategy with various stakeholders to deliver measures to address native disadvantage, while for other issues, the approach of a networking will be sufficient, (e.g. in directing on changes to regulation arrangements or taxation) (APSC 2009).

 

In addition, in the UK government, most departments currently agree that there should be collaboration between government and other institutions for skills and employment agenda. The UK government suggests that the collaboration between labour markets function at a sub-regional level is appropriate (Constable and Morris 2008). In its implementation, the Department of Work and Pensions’ ‘City Strategy Pathfinder’ scheme, create collaboration with the work of local authorities, government agencies and the private and voluntary sectors to address the links between low or no skills, unemployment and location in fifteen of the most deprived communities in the UK (Constable and Morris 2008).

 

Secondly, the improvement of stakeholders’ participation in the policy process can be carried out by a consultation agenda. A consultation program is crucial for certain areas such as policy development, program delivery and government regulation.

 

According to Cook (2002) there are three reasons why consultation is important. Firstly, consultation is a crucial agenda because it can be an effective media in order to gain feedback from society and other stakeholders about government services. In addition, consultation with other communities and institution is imperative because in consultation forum, these communities can evaluate policy process and outcome which can expectedly improve public services. Thirdly, consultation can be considered as an empowerment for the government to manage services (Cook 2002, p. 526) as this is a proper forum to find a new perspective and strategy to organize public services.

 

Consultation can be carried out with external stakeholders such as NGOs, industry stakeholders, and members of the public. All these groups can play a pivotal role in policy making process and government activity. For example, Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) conducts consultation which is performed by government with 9 stakeholders in the areas of policy, program and regulation. These nine stakeholders include industry stakeholders, tertiary education and research centres, other APS agencies, State and Territory Governments, local government, unions and members of the public (APSC 2009). It is important to note that the media for consultation is done through various ways such as using blogs, establishing a technology user group to allow stakeholders to share experience of developing and operating new technologies (APSC 2009). Based on Agency Survey (2007-2008), Australian Public Service conducted consultation with other different stakeholders in which 2/3 of all agencies reported consultation with at least one of the nine groups of stakeholders in all three areas (policy, program and regulation). Similarly, 65 % of agencies reported making some consultation with at least one of the groups on policy, with around one-third consulting more than five groups of stakeholders (APSC 2009).

Baca juga: E-Government: Strategi Meningkatkan Kualitas Pelayanan Publik

 

Concluding remark

To sum up, public value consists of some positive elements which encourage public service to go directly to citizens. Public value allows public managers to exercise their imaginations to conduct activities which encourage the public good. In doing this, public managers have to creatively find a strategy to meet the objective. More importantly, public managers should also disregard their personal interests as their roles should create programs which are valuable for the whole society. Thus, it is obvious that society will take advantage of the implementation of public value system.

 

However, public values are hard to implement in Westminster system. The main problem rests in the fact that Westminster system has a different political (parliamentary) system. Some of the characteristics of Westminster system include hierarchy system, the form of strong cabinet government; and the dominant of party control of the executive, the control of ministerial for officers and merit appointment of neutral officials. All these models are not compatible with public value as public value approach does not focus on dealing with majority party centralization and control.

 

It should be noted that the involvement of stakeholders is still possible. To address the challenges of an increasing need for stakeholder’s involvement in policy process, there are two strategies which can be carried out. First is making collaboration with some stakeholders, and second is by making consultation with various stakeholders. These two strategies are imperative in order to create a good policy. It is reasonable as the involvement of stakeholders can improve understanding of concept due to the shortcomings of experience, knowledge and skills which are encountered by government in policy making process. In addition, this strategy can improve the quality of policy thereby supporting good policy outcome as well.

 

REFERENCES

Alford, J., & O'Flynn, J. 2009, ‘Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings’, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 32, No. 3/4, pp. 171-191.

Alford, J., & Hughes, O. 2008, ‘Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management’, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 130-148.

Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) 2009, Working with government agencies and stakeholders’, Chapter 10, viewed 16 September 2009, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/stateoftheservice/0708/ten.htm>

Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) 2009, Inclusive and innovative government, Chapter 11, viewed 16 September 2009 <http://www.apsc.gov.au/stateoftheservice/0708/eleven.htm>

Constable, Susannah and Katy Morris 2008, Collaboration and local skills policy in the UK’, The Work Foundation, 7 April, viewed 16 September 2009 <http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/18074/print>

Cook, Dee 2002, ‘Consultation, for a Change? Engaging Users and Communities in the Policy Process’, Social Policy& Administration, Vol.36, No. 5, October, pp. 516–531.  

Moore, Markh 1994, ‘Public Value as the Focus of Strategy’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 53 No. 3, September, pp. 296-303

O'Flynn, J. 2007, ‘From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 353-366.

Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. 2007, ‘The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, No.4, pp. 406-421

Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. 2009, ‘Bringing the Politics Back In: Public Value in Westminster Parliamentary Government’, Public Administration, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 161-183

Stoker, Gerry 2006, ‘Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?’, The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36 no. 41, pp. 41-57.