Explore the vast range of titles available.

Questions of how best to define the ends, justify the means, and measure the performance of governments have preoccupied political economists for centuries. Recently, the concept of public value—defined in terms of the many dimensions of value that a democratic public might want to see produced by and reflected in the performance of government—has been proposed as an alternative approach. This article develops three philosophical claims central to the practice of public value accounting: (1) when the collectively owned assets of government are being deployed, the appropriate arbiter of public value is the collectively defined values of a \"public\" called into existence and made articulate through the quite imperfect processes of democratic governance; (2) the collectively owned assets include not only government money but also the authority of the state; (3) the normative framework for assessing the value of government production relies on both utilitarian and deontological philosophical frameworks.

Governance researchers are increasingly interested in how co-creation can contribute to promoting public value in contemporary liberal democracies. While many have already argued for the potential benefits of employing co-creation in government strategies aiming to enhance public value, few have considered the implications of such a strategy for public leadership. Drawing on recent strands of theory on leadership and management, we specify how public leaders can use co-creation as a tool to achieve policy goals, and we illustrate this specification by showing how politicians and public and non-profit managers perform the public leadership of co-created public value in Gentofte, Denmark and Minneapolis‒St Paul, USA. The main proposition is that this kind of public leadership does not only involve a strategic effort to engage, inspire and mobilise actors with relevant governance assets - including legitimacy, authority and capabilities - but also to align their understandings of what is valuable for the public.

This article raises a set of cautions regarding public value governance along two dimensions. First, it questions the common claim that public value governance poses a direct challenge to the economistic logic of neoliberalism. Second, although public value is often presented as a democratizing agenda, leading works sidestep foundational questions of power and conflict and advance prescriptions that are at odds with important democratic values. Without attending to these problems, the public value concept risks producing a new variant of neoliberal rationality, extending and strengthening the de-democratizing, market-oriented project that its proponents seek to overturn.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to map and scope a body of literature on the interplay between public value management (PVM) and digital transformation (DT), clarify the concept of PVM in DT, and identify knowledge gaps by using a scoping review methodology.Design/methodology/approachA scoping review was conducted, drawing on the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010). A total of 54 publications on the interplay between PVM and DT were selected for the final analysis from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions databases.FindingsWe found that PVM in DT is a relatively unexplored topic and that additional research is needed to focus on the role of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, especially in the context of local and regional governments. We also found that researchers have a limited conceptual understanding of PVM and DT.Originality/valueThis article makes two main contributions. First, although PVM and DT have contributed to public value research, our findings show a need for more systematic knowledge of these complementary but distinct approaches. Second, this study provides a valuable addition to the developing body of research using the scoping review methodology in PAM literature.

What value does information technology (IT) create in governments and how does it do so? While business value of IT has been extensively studied in the information systems field, this has not been the case for public value. This is in part due to a lack of theoretical bases for investigating IT value in the public sector. To address this issue, we present a conceptual model on the mechanism by which IT resources contribute to value creation in the public- sector organizations. We propose that the relationship between IT resources and organizational performance in governments is mediated by organizational capabilities and develop a theoretical model that delineates the paths from IT resources to organizational performance, drawing upon public-value management theory. This theory asserts that public managers, on behalf of the public, should actively strive to generate greater public value, as managers in the private sector seek to achieve greater private business value. On the basis of the review of public-value management literature, we suggest that the following five organizational capabilities mediate the relationship between IT resources and public value-public service delivery capability, public engagement capability, co-production capability, resource-building capability, and public-sector innovation capability. We argue that IT resources in public organizations can enable public managers to advance public-value frontiers by cultivating these five organizational capabilities and to overcome conflicts among competing values.

Purpose The relationship between citizens and government has been gradually changing from government centered to citizen centered. These changes can be understood from the public value perspective, which is a promising way to foster the use of electronic services (e-services) by citizens. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how key drivers for public value creation can enhance adopting electronic public services by citizens. The use of e-services as a basis for applying smart technologies is also discussed. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative study based on both a systematic literature review and a case study of an e-service provided by a Brazilian state government. Findings The study identifies that creating public value happens only after adopting e-services and that public value can be perceived directly by those who use the service or indirectly by the observation of people who have adopted it. A two-dimensional framework showing the direct and indirect factors that drive public value creation is proposed based on the data collection and literature review. Research limitations/implications The proposed conceptual framework remains untested and the data collection in the Brazilian context might be a limitation. Other studies could gather data based on the collective uses of e-services. Originality/value The framework can be used in other studies concerning public value creation. Public managers might consider its drivers when planning e-services as a way to link them to social, political and collective issues in addition to smart technologies.

The emerging field of public values helpfully focuses on the norms and government policies that serve the public interest, but its analysis neglects the barriers to actually creating public value in contemporary America. Chief among these barriers are contending strains of public beliefs and opinions, the disproportionate influence of affluent individuals and business and professional associations, as well as governing structures predisposed toward inaction and drift. This article contrasts the expectations of the public values field with research on American politics to identify barriers to advancing the public interest under current conditions. Although public values scholars offer an analysis of American public life that is inadequate, they do raise challenging questions about how a public-regarding agenda can be \"designed in\" to politics and policy. The article concludes by suggesting feasible reforms to improve the conditions for pursuing the public interest.

PurposeThis paper aims to generate new research directions at the intersection of accounting, whistleblowing and publicness: defined as the attainment of public goals, interests and values.Design/methodology/approachA problematising review is used to challenge and rethink the existing accounting and whistleblowing literature by incorporating readings from the public interest and public value literature. The paper draws on the work of Dewey (1927), Bozeman (2007) and Benington (2009) to open up new ways of theorising relations between accounting, whistleblowing and publicness.FindingsFirstly, the paper develops a public interest theoretical framework which shows whistleblowing is a public value activity that moves organisational wrongdoing into the public sphere where it is subject to democratic debate and dialogue required to reconcile the public's interests with what the public values. Secondly, this framework provides one answer to continuing questions in the literature of how to define accountings relationship to the public interest. Finally, the paper suggests this conceptual framework be used to stimulate debate on whether and how one should expand existing accounting and accountability knowledge boundaries to incorporate the broader social, political and moral concerns highlighted by whistleblowers acting in the public interest.Originality/valueAccounting and whistleblowing research has ignored the theoretical implications of whistleblowing in the public interest. The paper shows how accounting and accountability can respond to the challenges of a shifting and intangible public interest by providing a conceptual framework to guide current and future theoretical questions of how accounting is connected to the public interest.

PurposeThe principles of public value management (PVM) have greatly inspired public management practitioners and scholars, but the application of these ideas to the everyday practice and research of government has proven to be more difficult. This article formulates propositions for how the principles of PVM could affect one of the core processes of government: budgeting. These propositions can inspire practitioners and be tested by future researchers.Design/methodology/approachThe article identifies the core principles of PVM and applies these to the budgeting functions of the allocation, management and accountability of public money. This exploration leads to a first conceptualization of “public value budgeting” and generates 12 propositions about how budgeting will change and remain unaltered under the influence of PVM.FindingsThe central argument is that “public value budgeting” could promote more coordination and integration between public funds and community resources, more involvement of societal stakeholders in the budgetary process and more continuous tweaks and changes to the budget. At the same time, legislative vetoes, financial controls and debates about the best use of public money will remain an important feature of public budgeting.Originality/valueThe article forwards the first conceptualization of public value budgeting, connects the literatures on public value and public budgeting, and offers both a practical application of PVM to public budgeting as well as a concrete agenda for future research.

According to the framework rooted in public economics, governments can create public value by focusing tax and spending policies on remedying market failures and addressing concerns about fairness embodied in a social welfare function. By pursuing optimal tax and spending policies, governments navigate the omnipresent trade-offs between equity and efficiency. Of course, in practice, the process by which policies are adopted does not resemble the planner's problem in social choice theory. In addition, real fiscal policies do not look much like the recommendations that arise from the optimal tax literature. Governments operate in public choice environments that are not conducive to focused remedying of market failure, and they suffer from their own tendencies to fail to achieve their objectives. Nevertheless, many of the tools are in place to help the federal and state governments focus tax and spending in ways that can maximize public value.