Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

players to deliver public services 59 and a change from the language of customers to that ofcitizens. 60 The nub of the arguments underpinning public value management is that:public services can add value to society in the same way that private for-profit organisationscreate value for their shareholders and other stakeholders. By implication, public interventionshould be circumscribed by the need to achieve positive social and economic outcomes forthe citizenry. What is and what is not public value should be determined collectively throughinclusive deliberation involving elected and appointed government officials, key stakeholders61and the public.Public value is the shared value produced by governments for society as a whole through theservices it provides and the legislation it develops. “As a general rule the key things whichcitizens value tend to fall into three categories: outcomes, services and trust”. 62 In caseswhere governments are delivering services directly to individuals “both the citizenry and theclients consume value produced by government, but each receives a different type of value.The citizenry receives public value, whereas clients receive private value”. 63 It should beremembered that in a public value paradigm political processes are the “final arbiter of publicvalue just as private consumption decisions remain the final arbiter of private value”. 64It must also be kept in mind that:Information, consultation and active participation are not a replacement for governmenttaking initiatives or deciding. Government has a leadership role, and citizens expectgovernment to fulfill it – after all, that is why they voted it into office. The question, however,is less whether to lead than how to lead. 65This changing role for government requires a move from rowing to steering, underpinning theneed to broaden policy development beyond traditional closed public service processes:“governments cannot remain as firmly in control of the policy decision-making process asthey have in the past and at the same time continue to move toward a more facilitative orenabling role”. 66The impact of this changing approach to governance is reflected in the observations inCommunities@Work’s Submission that:59 Edwards, M. (2008) Participatory Governance. Corporate Governance in the Public Sector: An Evaluation of its Tensions,Gaps and Potential - Issues Paper No 6. University of Canberra, Canberra, p.2.60 Evans, M. (2009) “Gordon Brown and public management reform - a project in search of a 'big idea'?” Policy Studies.30(1): 33-51 p.35.61 ANZSOG Institute for Governance (2009) p.6.62 Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., and Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform.Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100416132449/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/public_value.aspx p.4.63 Alford, J. (2002) “Defining the Client in the Public Sector: A Social-Exchange Perspective” Public Administration Review62(3) pp.337-346, p.339.64 Moore (1995) cited by Alford, J. & O'Flynn, J. (2009) 'Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and EmergentMeanings' International Journal of Public Administration. 32(3) pp.171-191, p.177.65 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information,Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making. Paris, pp.22-23.66 Edwards, M. (2002) “Public Sector Governance — Future Issues for Australia”. Australian Journal of Public Administration.61(2):51–61. pp52, 57-58.Governing the City State: 62