Berlin

accenture

Berlin

Accenture Global Cities Forum

Exploring People's Perspectives on the Role of Government

Berlin


Contents

Summary 3

Observations from the Berlin Forum 4

Berlin’s principles of public value 5

Messages to government from people of Berlin 5

1 About the Accenture

Global Cities Forum 7

2 The individual’s relationship

with government 11

The user of public services 12

The citizen 13

The taxpayer 13

Tensions between the perspectives 14

3 Improving public value:

The quality of life in Berlin 15

General principles of public value in Berlin 16

Improving learning and education,

health and public safety 17

Future priorities for Berlin 19

Roles and responsibilities of different actors 20

4 Messages to government from

people of Berlin 23

5 Accenture Public Service Value

Governance Framework 25

6 How Berlin compares with

the other Global Cities 27

Appendix 29

The Accenture Global Cities Forum is an ongoing study into

how members of the public define “public value” and what

they expect of government. The Institute for Public Service

Value designed the first phase of the study as a series of

citizen panels in eight world cities: London, Sydney, Singapore,

Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. Each Forum

included 60 to 85 local residents randomly selected to represent

the city’s demographics—providing strong, qualitative insight

into what people think about government and public services

and how they judge public value.

Page 2 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Summary

On Saturday, September 15, 2007, 63 residents

of Berlin from all walks of life came together

to discuss the role of government in improving

the quality of their lives in the city.

This was the fourth of the Accenture Global Cities Forums

conducted by the Accenture Institute for Public Service

Value. These Forums are part of an ongoing global research

project to directly engage citizens 1 in discussion about

how governments can improve the social and economic

conditions of the people they serve. In 2007, we held

Global Cities Forums—conducted as daylong “deliberative

events”—in London, Sydney, Singapore, Berlin, New York,

Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. 2

During the Berlin Forum, participants discussed their

experiences with public services and their expectations

of government. In addition to listening to participants’

views, we wanted to engage them fully and challenge

their thinking to elicit a more informed debate about how

government could act to improve the quality of their lives.

An important objective of the project is to explore the

relationship between individuals and their government by

probing into the multifaceted and sometimes conflicting

expectations and demands people place on government

as citizens, users of services and taxpayers. So, in addition

to debate, discussion and some electronic polling, the

day involved a simulation session in which groups of

participants assumed these three roles and then debated

issues from the different perspectives. In Berlin, that

debate focused on three social outcomes that our research

showed are currently important to people in the city:

learning and education, health and public safety.

By the end of the day, through deliberation and roleplaying

activities, Berlin participants identified a set of

principles that they believe should guide the provision

of government services in the city and the production of

public value more widely. Taken together with analysis

of the findings from the seven other cities, Accenture

has formulated what we propose is a new governance

framework—a basis for strengthening the relationship

between people and their governments.

This report presents the detailed observations and findings

of the Global Cities Forum—Berlin. What follows is a

brief summary.

1 In this report, we use the word "citizens" to denote community

members, including those who are temporary residents.

2 The Global Cities Forums were conducted in this order across the eight

cities. The project was designed to be iterative, using logistical and

procedural findings from each event to inform subsequent events.

Page 3 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Observations from the Berlin Forum

Overall, participants at the Berlin Forum regard living in

the city positively. Berliners especially appreciate the city’s

green space, cultural opportunities, good infrastructure

and vibrant, multicultural character.

However, they also feel the government is falling short of

their expectations in a number of key areas. Participants are

particularly concerned about attracting more businesses to

the city to improve the economy and employment opportunities.

Public safety concerns also remain a key issue for many

residents—especially in the poorer districts of the city.

While participants recognize that the solution to these

problems requires action within and outside the public

sector, they feel that government bears the main

responsibility for tackling these priorities to improve quality

of life in Berlin. During the Forum, they argued the need for

government to demonstrate clearer leadership, characterized

by a strategic focus on sustainable solutions to social issues

rather than stopgap “solutions” that produce short-term

political gains. They expect elected leaders and civil servants

to consistently demonstrate integrity and keep the needs of

the city’s residents at the heart of policymaking and service

delivery. And they want their leaders to be role models for

citizens—supporting and rewarding individuals’ commitment

to improving their own lives and their neighborhoods.

Participants articulated fairly clearly what they expect

from government in their efforts to improve the social

and economic conditions in Berlin.

Participants expressed concern that nearly two decades

after the fall of the Berlin Wall, quality of life is significantly

worse for many people living in neighborhoods in the former

East Berlin versus their wealthier neighbors in the former

West Berlin. At the Berlin Forum, participants indicated that

government is not doing enough to address this imbalance.

In fact, some argued that current government policy tends to

exacerbate inequalities by prioritizing services for the people

in Berlin who are already well off. They believe this violates

the principle of solidarity (in German: Solidaritätsprinzip)—

perhaps the core foundation of the German welfare state.

In relation to education, participants are concerned about

varying educational standards across the federal states of

Germany and believe standards are significantly poorer in

Berlin than in more affluent states, such as Bavaria, Hesse

and Baden-Württemberg. They are also troubled by gaps in

educational standards within Berlin—again, between more

and less affluent districts. They fear that such disparity

could lead to a two-tiered society and view this as a key

area for government to address.

While Berlin Forum participants agreed that everyone should

have access to a basic standard of service, they found it

more difficult to decide whether the principles of equality

and equity should extend as far as providing a high standard

of service for all residents. This tension was particularly

strong in discussions about health services, as people posed

the critical question: Should everyone receive expensive

drugs and operations, or should the government merely

ensure a basic standard for all?

Forum participants noted that Berlin’s economy is relatively

weak—with an unemployment level that is high compared

to other major cities in Germany and the rest of Western

Europe. Thus, participants argued that the government

should consider the long term and invest more heavily

in education—in preschool education, schools and further

education—and work closely with businesses to make

Berlin a city of choice for new industries.

Page 4 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Participants strongly advocate early intervention and want

government to place greater emphasis on taking action in

the short term to prevent longer-term problems. For example,

they want more investment in education, building a better

foundation for children and young people to succeed later

in life. Similarly, they argued that there would be a marked

improvement in public health—and a resulting reduction

in the pressures on the health system—if the government

placed more emphasis on community education about

healthier living. They argued that this would lead to more

people taking responsibility for their own actions, which

is critical for improving individuals’ quality of life and

supporting the common good.

Participants believe that integration is a key social concern

that would benefit from earlier intervention and a longerterm

effort. They asserted that government should do more

to ensure that immigrants learn the German language and

way of living; immigrants would then be far more likely to

find good jobs and their children would be better equipped

to succeed in school. Likewise, people educated about health

and encouraged to lead healthier lifestyles may require

less medical treatment over the course of their lives.

Berlin Forum participants called for a new relationship

between people and their government. They want to know

how their taxes are being spent and to what result. They also

demand that government and public-service managers be

held accountable for their management of public funds and

face appropriate penalties for mismanagement or waste.

Underlying the call for transparency and accountability

is the desire for a greater flow of communication between

government and citizens. People in Berlin want government

to engage with them in new ways and involve them

in making core decisions that affect their daily lives,

neighborhoods and communities. In short, people at

the Berlin Forum want to be able to influence

developments far more than they can today.

“We should be a part of the decision-making process

as it is our money that’s being spent and I want to

know where it's going. The entire process should

be as transparent as possible.”

Berlin’s principles of public value

While they recognized that specific outcomes for different

service areas and the mechanics of service delivery will vary

greatly, Berlin Forum participants formulated a set of principles

that they believe are applicable to all public services, that

are essential to achieving improved outcomes, and that will

help to provide increased value for all members of the public.

The principles of public value are:

A long-term view

Berliners call for government to think long term and focus on

preventing future problems. The demand for prevention and

early intervention stems from a perception among participants

that policy changes often occur as “knee-jerk reactions” to

specific events rather than through strategic planning.

Connectedness/coordination

Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be

achieved through improved coordination between publicservice

providers and through better communication with

their customers.

Transparency and information

Greater transparency and regular, appropriate provision

of information would help citizens better identify with the

government and its processes. This would be the essential

foundation for a stronger system of accountability, which

Berlin Forum participants demand.

Equality and fairness

A fundamental principle should be that no one is

disadvantaged by social background or income. Participants

expect a basic standard of public service to be provided for

everyone, free of charge.

Customer focus

Services in a capital city like Berlin need to be adapted

to its population’s demands and lifestyle. People want

government to be more flexible about how, where and

when services are provided.

None of the principles are unique to Berlin; many of the

same ideas emerged in the other seven cities where we

conducted Forums. For example, all the cities placed a

strong emphasis on equality and fairness, as well as on

transparency and accountability. Like those in most of

the other cities, Berlin participants were also concerned

with customer focus. They emphasized the need for a

longer-term view in planning and delivering services—like

participants in Sydney, New York and Los Angeles—and the

need for more coordination between government agencies—

like those in London, Sydney and New York.

Messages to government from

people of Berlin

The debate and deliberations from the Berlin Forum

provide clear messages for government and those

managing public services.

Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service

planning and delivery.

To improve quality of life for Berlin residents, government

should include them in decision making and tailor services

to meet their needs, expectations and preferences.

Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term

future of the city.

Berliners regard the development of long-term, sustainable

solutions as critical to the future quality of life in their

city. They also see this as the most cost-effective way of

tackling Berlin’s social issues. Investing in education and

employment is fundamental to developing a sound economy

and improving quality of life.

Page 5 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Encourage people to take more personal responsibility

for achieving positive social outcomes.

Berlin Forum participants believe that more proactive

policies and future-oriented decision making depend on

educating, inspiring and empowering residents to take

personal responsibility for social outcomes. Government

officials need to show the way and act as positive role

models for others.

Help people to help themselves through investment in

education and job opportunities, and support businesses

in playing their part.

A good education can lead to better job opportunities and

a more competitive city. This is perhaps the most important

priority for people in Berlin. The government should invest

more heavily in education and consider measures to encourage

more businesses to establish themselves in the city.

Design and deliver public services to help reduce the gap

between the more affluent and poorer communities.

Residents of Berlin regard equality as a basic principle and

believe that more should be done to help poorer neighborhoods

and disadvantaged people. This is likely to require higher

levels of government spending in some areas and services

tailored to meet the needs of particular communities.

When considered in conjunction with the deliberative

findings and principles formulated in the other seven

cities, the Berlin principles of public value form important

components of what we believe is a new model for more

citizen-engaged governance. The Accenture Public Service

Value Governance Framework provides a means to clearly

articulate a relationship that is not only about voting

in elections or paying taxes—however important these

are—but also about genuine engagement of citizens in

their governance. The Accenture Institute for Public Service

Value Global Cities Forum presents strong evidence of

rising demand from citizens for a new relationship with

government built around:

Outcomes

Focusing on improved social and economic outcomes

Balance

Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness and common good

Engagement

Engaging, educating and enrolling the public as co-producers

of public value

Accountability

Clarifying accountability and facilitating public recourse

Public services are in fact the key mechanism through which

people interact with their governments. The value of those

public services, however, lies not simply in their quality

or efficiency, but in the actual improvements they produce

in the economic and social conditions of the people they

serve—the public. That “public value” is ultimately defined

by members of the public in their roles as users of public

services, citizens, taxpayers and voters.

Page 6 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


About the Accenture Global Cities Forum

The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value

initiated the Global Cities Forum research project

to examine more closely people’s relationship

with government.

We designed the Global Cities Forum as a series of deliberative

events with residents of eight world cities: London, Sydney,

Singapore, Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.

Each event brought together approximately 60 to 85 people,

randomly recruited by a professional agency to represent the

demographic profile of the city, to discuss what they want

from their governments.

A prime objective of the project is to elicit from citizens their

own views and definitions about the value that government

should bring to their lives. A principal role of government is

to protect and enhance the lives of its citizens—to provide for

the common good. Government does that largely through the

provision of public services. The value of those public services,

however, lies not simply in their quality or efficiency, but in

the actual improvements they produce in the economic and

social conditions of the people they serve—the public. In the

research and academic literature, this is often referred to as

“public value.” The purpose of our project is to ascertain how

the public defines public value.

However, the public does not speak with one voice; nor does

any member of the public have only one perspective on the

role of government. Each of us may have different and

sometimes conflicting ways of relating to government and

to public services. As users of public service, people want

the highest quality possible. As citizens, they have a vested

interest in services that promote social harmony, safety and

well-being, whether or not they consume these services

themselves. As taxpayers, however, they see clear limits on

the levels of public investment they are willing to support.

These three perspectives—all held, in one respect or another,

by each member of the public—can conflict, with individuals

changing their views depending on their needs and concerns

at any particular time.

Page 7 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


The public’s conflicting views of value

As context for the Global Cities Forum, we commissioned

Ipsos, as part of its Global@dvisor Survey, to question

1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held

Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project

(Great Britain, Australia, Singapore, Germany, the

United States, France and Spain). Our objective was to

ascertain the extent to which people in these countries

hold contradictory views about government and public

services as service users, citizens and taxpayers.

In our recent contextual survey of 1,000 residents of

Germany (see summary above), nearly half of respondents

said that the quality of their lives could be improved

“a lot” or “a fair amount”; 38 percent of respondents said

the “government” should contribute most to improving their

quality of life; yet while only 14 percent thought that public

services today were contributing “a lot” or “a fair amount”

to that improvement, only 40 percent would be prepared

to pay more to improve services, and only a small minority

of those would pay any more than a small amount.

Public managers face these kinds of contradictions every

day. Accenture set out to explore them and, in doing that,

find ways of helping members of the public recognize and

reconcile the different perspectives they bring to bear

on governments and public-service agencies.

We asked respondents to answer four questions:

1 How much do you think the quality of your life—in relation to issues such as personal

health, safety, learning, the cost of living, environment and so on—could be improved?

(Possible answers: a lot, fair, a little, none)

2 Again, thinking about these kinds of issues, which of the following do you think should

contribute most to improving the quality of life for the citizens of your country?

(Possible answers: government, business, not-for-profits, all citizens, you)

3 One purpose of public services is to maintain and improve the quality of people’s lives.

How much do you think public services are improving the quality of your life today?

(Possible answers: a great deal, a fair amount, a little, no difference)

4 To what extent would you be willing to pay more money to improve or expand public services?

(Possible answers: a great extent, some, small, would not pay)

In general, people did think that the quality of their lives could be improved and that government has a significant

role to play in helping make these improvements. Few thought current public service contributed much to improving

the quality of their lives, but few were willing to pay more taxes to improve public services. The responses in all

seven countries are contained in the appendix.

To do that, we worked with international market research

company Ipsos-MORI and its local offices in six countries

to design and conduct a series of large-scale, daylong

deliberative events around the world. We also worked with

OPM, a UK-based public-service development and research

company to design and conduct the pilot event in London.

The value of a deliberative approach is the ability to go

beyond people’s initial reactions to issues placed before

them. Rather than simply polling or surveying respondents,

deliberative methods provide a time and place where people

can gain information, exchange and discuss their views

and come to reasoned conclusions with other participants

on the questions being posed. This produces deeper, more

thoughtful responses to issues. It also exposes both the

processes through which people make such judgments and

the principles that underpin those judgments. In the case

of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value Global

Cities Forum, it provided a very rich picture of what people

think about government and public services and how

they judge public value.

Page 8 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


In each city Forum, we sought to engage with citizens

about their relationship with government and how social

improvements that provide real value to citizens can be

achieved. We designed the event to elicit responses to the

following questions:

• What are the most important social and economic conditions

that people face in their city, and what do they want their

governments to do to help improve these?

• How do they want government and public services to

relate to them, and what role do they see for others in

improving their social and economic conditions?

• How can government ensure that public organizations

deliver value to the public they serve?

• How do people want to be engaged in the design and

delivery of public services?

The deliberative event in Berlin

The Global Cities Forum—Berlin was held on Saturday,

September 15, 2007, as the fourth of the eight events.

It involved 63 Berlin residents randomly selected to

represent the city’s very diverse demography.

The day was divided into seven sessions, during which

we used a variety of research methods and techniques,

including electronic voting, role play, and facilitated

group and plenary discussions. The agenda included:

Session 1: Warm-up—electronic voting.

This session explored participants’ perceptions of what it

is like to live in Berlin. Using electronic keypads—a new

and entertaining experience for many—participants voted

on a number of questions about the city, the social issues

facing it, their expectations of government and the quality

of public services they receive. The results of their voting

appeared immediately on a “big screen” and prompted brief

commentaries from participants and facilitators.

Session 2: Discussion—“The role of government

in improving your life.”

Sitting in one of six groups of 10 to 12 people, participants

discussed their thoughts about the quality of life in Berlin

and their expectations of what government should be doing

to preserve and improve people’s quality of life in the city.

Session 3: Role-play exercise—“Understanding

what people want from government, from three

different perspectives.”

Working in the same small groups, participants were

assigned one of three perspectives—that of service user,

citizen or taxpayer. Each group was assigned one of the

three roles, with two tables of participants to each role.

We signified the roles with distinctively colored T-shirts

that participants slipped on: yellow for service users,

green for citizens and red for taxpayers. We asked each

group to assume their role to discuss their expectations

of government. They spoke first in general terms and

then—in smaller subgroups of three or four—talked about

expectations in relation to one of three social outcomes that

our research showed are currently important to people in

Berlin: learning and education, health and public safety.

We asked participants to develop a list of four or five

principles that they believed—from their particular roleplaying

perspective—should guide government action and

the provision of public services with respect to improving

that particular outcome. This session aimed to have participants

begin considering the principles of public value in their own

terms, but with only one perspective in mind.

Session 4: Role-play exercise and debate—“Drilling down

into outcomes for the specific issues.”

In this session, people changed tables and T-shirt colors

mixed. The subgroups of service users, citizens and taxpayers

came together to discuss the principles they had developed

in the previous session in relation to one of the three

outcome areas. Thus, each table had service users, citizens

and taxpayers talking about learning and education or

health or public safety (again, two tables of participants, this

time, focused on one outcome). Sticking to their designated

roles, participants shared and debated their views on the

principles of public value. Through this process, we and they

identified any tensions among user, citizen and taxpayer

expectations. After debate, compromise and agreement, the

session concluded with participants drawing together a top

set of five principles that reflect the integration of three

perspectives. These are the principles they believe need to be

adopted to address their expectations for their issue. In our

terms, this was their definition of public value for each of

the three outcomes.

Session 5: Reflection—“What have we learned from

our deliberations?”

In this session, we encouraged participants—out of role play

and without color-coded T-shirts—to reflect on their three

perspectives and what they had discovered about people’s

expectations of government. A vote on the extent to which

the different perspectives were easy or difficult to reconcile,

along with a group discussion of the reasons for this and

how the perspectives fit with individuals’ viewpoints, allowed

them to evaluate the success of this deliberative approach.

Session 6: Discussion—“Whose role is it, anyway?”

In this session, we asked participants to define the ideal

roles of government, other potential service providers

(including the private and nonprofit sectors), citizens more

widely and themselves personally in improving social and

economic outcomes in Berlin. Through discussions with

others at their tables, participants considered how these

idealized roles differ from the current situation in Berlin

and what they believe needs to change as a result.

Session 7: Voting and small-group discussion—“Priorities

for the future of Berlin.”

To conclude, we asked participants to respond again to some

of the same questions we posed in Session 1. The goal: to

gauge whether any views had changed. Participants then

looked to the future and discussed their key concerns about

living, working or studying in Berlin 10 years from now.

As a final task, we asked everyone to develop and write

on a postcard their own personal “message to government.”

Page 9 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Living in Berlin

Around the time of the Global Cities Forum (September 2007),

the new antismoking law had come into play, prohibiting smoking

in public buildings, hospitals, public transport and restaurants.

The federal states were yet to decide the date for implementing

the smoking ban and there was much debate about what seems

to be the right balance between citizens’ right to personal

choice versus government’s right to regulate behaviors.

In some areas of Berlin, there had been significant clashes

between right-wing and left-wing political activists, and many

residents were increasingly concerned about the support that

parties such as the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany)

have gained—especially among young people in eastern Germany.

Despite government effort to address the city’s serious budget

crisis, the public was concerned about the state of the economy

in the capital. Berlin’s unemployment rate was above average,

compared to Germany as a whole. The high rate had led to

the migration of educated young citizens and other qualified

workers to the western federal states, leaving behind those who

are older and less educated, less trained and less qualified.

The remainder of this report presents the findings from

the day. Section 2 presents the Berlin Forum participants’

views on the individual’s relationship with government. This

covers the three perspectives through which people relate to

government—service user, citizen and taxpayer—and examines

what people expect from government under different

circumstances. Section 3 explores participants’ expectations

of government in improving public value: the quality of life

in Berlin. This presents participants’ broad principles of public

value and the expectations placed on government—with

particular emphasis on learning and education, health and

public safety in Berlin. This section also sets out participants’

views on the roles and responsibilities of government and

other partners in improving public value for the people

of Berlin, both now and in the future. Section 4 presents

participants’ core messages for government and for those

Many people in Berlin believe that integration has failed

and that the system has let down immigrant groups. They

expressed increasing concern that many immigrant groups

tend to live in areas of Berlin that are not as clean, well-off

or safe as other areas of the city with fewer immigrants.

In the Berlin Forum itself, when asked to rate the city as a place

to live and work, two-thirds of participants rated it as having

above-average living and working conditions. Berliners appreciate

the city’s good infrastructure and diverse cultural opportunities,

and they are proud of its cosmopolitan character. The cost of

living—including housing—is relatively low. Consequently,

many people find that they can live comfortably in Berlin.

We asked participants to identify from a list the most

important social problems facing the city. As priorities

for improvement, they chose employment (28 percent)

and education (23 percent), followed by public safety (14

percent). Perhaps surprisingly, both health and immigration

were identified as key issues by only 7 percent of participants.

Nevertheless, health was identified as an area where the

government is struggling to address the demands of the

managing public services in Berlin. Section 5 draws

together our analysis of the deliberations at the Berlin Forum

and those in the other seven Global Cities Forum events.

This analysis led to the creation of a new model for citizenengaged

governance—what we call the Accenture Public

Service Value Governance Framework. Section 6 contains

comparative data, contrasting findings from the Berlin

Forum with those from the seven other cities that were

part of the Accenture Public Service Value Global Cities

Forum. Finally, the appendix provides figures that summarize

the results from three components of the research: the

electronic voting questions posed during the Forums;

the findings of the deliberations on public value; and the

data from the four questions included in the

Ipsos Global@dvisor Survey.

growing and aging population. The majority of participants

(59 percent) felt that government’s current efforts fall very

short of their expectations.

Similarly, participants were particularly critical of education

services, which 74 percent rated far below average. A major

concern in this area is the variance in educational standards

in different areas and what many feel is too narrow a focus

on academic attainment, rather than shaping the education

policy with broader learning and development goals in mind.

During the morning electronic voting session, we gave

participants a prompt: “By texting us in three words or less,

tell us how you feel about living and working in your city”.

Below are some of the responses:

“Good, multicultural” “Fantastic, trendy and lively”

“Exciting, hectic” “Loud, stressful, dirty” “Great”

“Fantastic art and culture” “Freedom, flexibility, fun”

“Reasonable cost of living, but poor employment

opportunities” “Open, free, tolerant”

Page 10 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


The individual’s relationship with government

The “individual in society” is a complex construct.

In relation to government and public services,

each individual assumes—variously or often

simultaneously—three overlapping roles: one as

service user, another as citizen and a third as

taxpayer (or payer of charges). Each of these

different roles comes with its own expectations

and demands, and the three may not always sit

comfortably together. Yet all three come into

play as the individual thinks about what he

or she demands from government.

With the Berlin Forum participants, we wanted to examine

what, specifically, it means to be a user of services, a citizen

and a taxpayer. What does looking at these different

perspectives, with their differences and tensions, tell us

about what people want from government? Can developing

clearer understandings of the multifaceted and sometimes

conflicting expectations and demands the public places

on political leaders and public-service managers provide

a basis for improving public service and, ultimately,

social and economic outcomes?

In this section, we outline what we learned from

Berlin Forum participants about their relationship with

government from each of these three perspectives.

Page 11 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


The user of public services

In Berlin, the user of public services is primarily concerned

with having access to high-quality services that meet their

individual needs.

Service users look to government and service providers to:

• Provide access to services tailored to their personal needs

• Offer greater flexibility and choice

• Deliver services with a strong customer service ethos

• Communicate how funds are being spent, and reassure

the public that money is being spent appropriately

Forum participants taking on the perspective of service

users were very vocal in their expectations of government

and public services.

In the role of service users, participants talked about the

kinds of services they expect government to provide and how

they feel these could be delivered. Discussions tended to focus

on service quality, availability and reliability. Participants also

focused on the need for choice and services that are flexible—

that is, tailored to their own personal needs.

Participants felt that to deliver on these expectations,

government and public-service managers should do much

more to understand the needs and preferences of the

people they serve.

Accustomed to high levels of customer service from

businesses, Berlin Forum participants have a strong sense

of entitlement and see themselves as paying customers

(regardless of whether or not the specific public service

is funded via a “user pay” or “general taxation” system).

Indeed, 93 percent of participants agreed that public

services should treat users more like customers. They believe

the city’s public services could be improved substantially,

and that government should be more willing to ask users’

opinions and tailor services accordingly.

Users do not necessarily expect government to offer a

broader range of providers to choose from. Rather, choice

is about having more options for how and when to access

services; in particular, they expect more online services

and longer hours of operation.

Importantly, improvements in customer care are as much

about changing cultures as specific, concrete measures,

such as extending hours or implementing new information

systems. Participants called for government and publicservice

managers to emphasize customer service to their

staffs through induction and training programs and in

the way they reward and manage performance.

Many Berlin Forum participants talked about how they

have wasted time and effort finding out where to go or

with whom to speak to handle a specific query. They feel

the system is difficult to “navigate” and want more, and

more effective, signposting of services and improved

information about what they are entitled to receive.

Many participants feel that public services are currently

falling short on basic principles of customer care. An example

that one woman gave was of services that closed their

doors to people on the spurious grounds that there was

not enough time to deal with everyone in the queue.

“They throw you out and say, ‘We’re full,’ but they’re

still open for another hour.”

Finally, participants seek reassurance that taxes are being

allocated and spent appropriately in areas that they personally

view as priorities. And they felt that they—as users—would

become more empowered to argue their point if they better

understood how priorities are set and public funds are spent.

Page 12 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


The citizen

Among Berlin Forum participants, citizens’ goals for improved

social and economic conditions revolve around the socially

desirable concepts of equality and fairness, without special

treatment for any groups.

Citizens look to government to:

• Provide services that are accessible to all who need them

• Deliver positive outcomes for the entire society from

taxes paid by citizens

• Focus on improving the city as a whole and build

an environment of opportunity and support that

benefits everyone

• Foster a culture of collaboration where citizens are

encouraged and empowered to help achieve improvements

for themselves as individuals and for Berlin as a whole

Forum participants assuming the perspective of the citizen

found it relatively straightforward to articulate their

expectations to government and public services—possibly

because the principle of solidarity is particularly strong

in the German history of the welfare state.

Arguing from the citizen point of view, participants expect

government to focus on equality of opportunity, with no

favoritism toward particular groups or individuals. Many

feel this is particularly important in relation to education

and health. They argue that government needs to address

inequalities in educational standards across Germany (between

different federal states), as well as within Berlin (between

different districts). They think no one should be disadvantaged

because of income, social class or type of health insurance.

“Everyone should have support and equal access to

health standards and services, which also includes

prescription drugs. Once I saw an old man running out

of the pharmacy, crying. He was not able to pay for his

medicine as he probably could not afford the additional

payment for a prescription.”

Participants are concerned that public spending has not

always taken into account the principle of equality. As

citizens, for example, they feel that Berlin has recently spent

too much on government buildings, security for state visits

and amenities for public officials—things that benefit only

a small minority who are already relatively well off.

“They build a daycare center for the government employees’

children but not nursery schools for the rest of the people.”

Citizens acknowledge that efforts to improve social and

economic conditions are not just the responsibility of

the government and that citizens ought to accept more

responsibility and become more civic-minded. However, they

expect the government to support them in this by fostering

this sense of personal responsibility and collective spirit and

by motivating people to show more respect and concern for

others. Citizens look to government to support or initiate

public information campaigns (in print, via TV and on the

radio) on issues, such as healthy living and combating

right-wing radicalism.

They also look to politicians to lead such campaigns and

be explicit about how people should behave. As public

figures, politicians and senior officials should also set a good

example personally; that includes demonstrating concern for

all of society and not just seeking personal advantage, such

as increases in their allowances.

“Doing good is not supported, not rewarded, most of the

time not even publicized. But doing good is important in

order to strengthen the feeling of togetherness and also

personal motivation.”

The taxpayer

The Berlin taxpayer is primarily concerned about value

for money. Taxpayers place a great deal of importance on

efficiency, but like service users, they want to know their

money is spent on the right issues. In other words, they

demand greater accountability for how their taxes are

used and to what effect.

Taxpayers are looking to government to:

• Use resources efficiently and provide value for money

• Link public spending explicitly to results

• Be transparent about processes and spending, so that

residents can hold government accountable

• Provide opportunities for greater participation in

setting priorities for public budgets

From the taxpayer perspective, participants said they expect

public services to operate in ways that consistently produce

the best value for their money. In contrast to the user and

citizen (who are primarily concerned about quality and access),

taxpayers’ chief concern is the total level of taxation, which,

in their view, should be kept as low as possible.

Rather than asking for cutbacks in certain areas to deal with

new priorities—which they feel could be unrealistic—taxpayers

seek ways to improve efficiency. Participants believe that

faster decision-making processes and implementation are

important measures in this regard, along with reducing

bureaucracy to create a leaner system.

However, in their role as taxpayers, participants found it

tricky to define concrete efficiency gains. They realized

that they have relatively little idea of how public money is

allocated and used. This prompted many to demand greater

transparency about government budgeting and spending.

Page 13 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Taxpayers want to know how their taxes are being used;

they insist on clear explanations of the rationale for publicspending

priorities; they expect government to link public

spending more explicitly to results for individuals and

communities; they want financial reports or statements of

public spending to be published in forms that “ordinary”

people can readily understand; and they want reassurance

that monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that

public funds are spent efficiently and effectively.

Taxpayers also called for greater public participation in decision

making—for example, allowing people to choose (by voting)

between different ways that taxes could be spent.

“If I pay taxes, I also want the right to participate

in decisions.”

Even so, they recognize that this may cause tensions: What

one wants as a taxpayer might be quite different from what

one wants as a citizen or service user. If government polled

people on spending alone, some argued, there is risk that

people’s choices may not allow for sufficient investment to

protect the public good or that spending may cease in some

areas where benefits might be less obvious (but still important).

A few days after the Berlin Forum, there was to be a vote

on whether or not to introduce parking fees in the main areas

of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf, which had been experiencing

significant traffic and parking congestion. This vote prompted

one resident of the area to reflect on the different viewpoints

as a taxpayer and as a user.

“I’ve not decided what to vote for yet. As a taxpayer,

I should vote ‘yes,’ as it creates revenue, but as a user

I should vote ‘no’ instead, as it also affects me.”

Tensions between the perspectives

Interestingly, compared to Berlin participants, Forum participants

in other parts of the world (such as Sydney and New York

City) were less inclined to accept that the differences in

citizen, user and taxpayer expectations could lead to very

different, and at times conflicting, demands on government.

In contrast, Berlin Forum participants acknowledged that

their different priorities and demands could lead to tensions,

which government and public-service managers need to

reconcile in their efforts to meet everybody’s needs—users,

citizens and taxpayers alike.

During the course of the day, they realized that the demands

they were placing on government might sometimes be

unrealistic. But they also argued that many of their demands

would lead to improved social outcomes for everyone, whichever

way you looked at it. To this extent, what the participants

representing the three different perspectives wanted would

often complement rather than conflict with each other.

Nevertheless, some tensions between perspectives—including

control versus civil liberties—emerged. Participants as

users and taxpayers believe that government controls are

necessary to make people act in particular ways and obey

the law. Citizens did not always agree with this. They

pointed out that greater controls might discourage personal

responsibility because such controls suggest that personal

well-being and social results are the responsibility of the

government rather than its citizens.

In relation to the issue of public safety in Berlin, the gap

between control and civil liberties was particularly difficult

to bridge. For example, citizens argued strongly for little or

no use of camera surveillance or fingerprinting. On the other

hand, some users asserted that these measures helped people

to feel safer. Taxpayers also supported the measures, arguing

that there is a direct link between such safety measures and

a reduction in costs associated with criminal prosecutions.

Another point of contention was privilege for certain groups

versus equal treatment for all. Participants debated whether

gifted children should receive special support, such as

extra schooling. One user had a persuasive argument,

with which other users agreed: “If we support and invest

money in gifted children and pupils, we will receive bettereducated

and skilled citizens and employees that the whole

society will profit and benefit from.” Citizens and taxpayers

disagreed—the former on the grounds of the principle of

equality (they felt it was important to focus on supporting

the weakest groups in society before dealing with the

privileged) and the latter on the basis of cost.

Also discussed was universal service provision versus

user pays. This tension was particularly strong in the area

of health care. All agreed that everyone in society should be

entitled to a basic level of service. The debate centered on use

of public funds for higher-quality and more expensive services.

Taxpayers argued for a “user pays” system, at least for some

services, in which government funds a basic level of service

but people have to pay for anything above this basic provision.

They argued that anything more would be too expensive.

Users and citizens disagreed, arguing that the system should

be funded sufficiently to provide high-quality health care for all.

Some users pointed out that individual circumstance should

also be taken into account. An example they gave was of

people who experience side effects from a more “economical”

drug but not from another, more expensive one. These users

also worried that drugs available as part of a basic level of

health care provision might be of low quality. Citizens simply

took the line that equally high standards of care should be

provided for all people in society without regard to cost.

There was also the question of whether any groups in society

should get preferential treatment, given that public funding

is a finite resource. Some taxpayers argued that in relation to

health care, for example, young people ought to take priority

over old people. A number of citizens countered with the view

that all sectors of society have an equal right to a high standard

of health care, and public funding must bear the cost.

“As a taxpayer, I must say that an old person should not

receive a new hip.”

Page 14 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Improving public value:

The quality of life in Berlin

An important aim of the Accenture Institute for

Public Service Value Global Cities Forum research

project is to enable participants to identify the

key dimensions of public value for the residents

in each city and to explore ways of enhancing

public value in the future.

In this section, we examine Berlin Forum participants’ input

about what government and public services should always

do to achieve outcomes that truly benefit residents of Berlin.

These are their general principles of public value. We have

derived these from their collective discussions—as users,

citizens and taxpayers—about the outcomes that are highly

important to residents of Berlin: learning and education,

health and public safety. We look in detail at each of those

three outcomes as discussed by Berlin Forum participants and

then present participants’ view about who should be doing

what to improve social and economic conditions in Berlin.

Page 15 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


General principles of public value

in Berlin

Principle 1: Long-term view

Berlin Forum participants call for government to think long

term and focus on preventing future problems rather than

reacting to events that have already happened. They believe

that prevention and early intervention, including encouraging

people to change their behavior, is the best approach to

tackling social problems in a sustainable and strategic way.

People feel that the government should initiate public

campaigns aimed, for example, at promoting a healthy

lifestyle, preventing illness or bringing up children properly:

“That’s everything: things like healthy food, how to swim,

how to ride a bike properly, everything you can think of

that will lead to greater knowledge and to better behavior.”

There is a general perception among participants that policy

changes occur too often as “knee-jerk reactions” to specific

events. They argue that only by taking a strategic approach

will good social outcomes be achieved in the long term.

For instance, to have enough health care professionals

to meet Berlin’s future needs, more must be trained now.

This may cost more in the short term but makes economic

sense in the longer term.

“If we have less qualified people working in the health

care sector, we’ll have gaps in medical care and supply

in the future. I mean, it is already the case: We don’t

have enough skilled personnel.”

Principle 2: Connectedness/coordination

Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be

achieved through improved communication and coordination

between public-service providers and better communication

with their customers. They also believe that greater flexibility,

responsiveness and speed in decision making would lead to

improved efficiency.

Some Berlin Forum participants related how they have had

to provide the same type of information to a number of

different agencies and public-service staff. They argued that

this is a waste of time (for themselves and for the public

servants) and, in some situations, can be a great source of

distress. Forum participants felt that much more could be

done to utilize new technologies and improve collaboration

between agencies and departments so that information

systems are comprehensive and up to date.

“The communication between different levels within

public services and also between government and public

services must be improved so that information isn’t lost,

and time and effort is saved for all. This also means that

there should be as few people for one task as possible

to prevent time or effort lost due to any interpersonal

conflict. The communication process is then clear and

information is not lost somewhere in the process.”

Principle 3: Transparency and information provision

Forum participants very much want to understand and be

part of the processes by which decisions are made about

public-service provision, especially where those decisions

affect them directly. Indeed, they view being informed and

having a say on matters that affect them as fundamental

elements of a transparent political process. It matters

most to them in relation to issues such as the availability

and quality of preschool care and primary schools in their

neighborhood, the building of streets and housing, and

facilities for young people.

They regard transparency and information provision as

important aspects of developing a citizenry that identifies

with the government and its ways of working and who

feel they are treated fairly.

“People want to understand laws, facts, figures and actions.

Then you can also identify much more easily with the

system and the society as a whole … and of course you

are willing to follow certain instructions and principles

when you’re informed.”

Page 16 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Principle 4: Equality and fairness

Participants expressed a strong concern that people should

not find themselves at a disadvantage because of social

background, income or the neighborhood in which they live.

The principle of equality, participants agreed, helps to

ensure the greater integration of all groups into society,

particularly immigrants and other groups at risk of social

marginalization. They call for the government to take the

needs of socially disadvantaged people into account when

developing policies, particularly in core services such as

education. In Berlin, this approach will help overcome what

many participants perceive to be an inequality in school

standards between neighborhoods, particularly those with

larger immigrant populations who are falling behind.

Principle 5: Customer focus

Almost all of the participants (93 percent) feel that public

services should treat people more like customers, and they

raised this subject many times throughout the day. Harking

back to the principle of transparency and information

provision, participants often commented that the two

principles could not be separated.

“I pay for them and then it should be self-evident that

I’ve got a right to get in touch with them. I just want

a feeling of being treated as a customer. For example,

the opening hours should be longer.”

Improving learning and education,

health and public safety in Berlin

Delivering greater public value is about improving the social

and economic conditions for the residents of Berlin. During

the Forum, and particularly during the role-play sessions, we

asked participants to focus on three specific areas, and to

discuss, in practical terms, what would need to happen in

each of these areas to improve their own quality of life—that

is, to achieve improved outcomes. In doing so, they identified

a core set of “public value principles” that they expect

government decision makers and public-service managers to

consider as they work toward achieving these outcomes.

Learning and education

Defining public value: Learning and education

Berlin residents believe that high-quality education for all,

regardless of social background, is a fundamental right.

High standards in preschool education, schools and adult

education are important, as are nonacademic qualifications.

In this vein, participants view investment from companies

into apprenticeships and traineeships as important

mechanisms for learning.

Forum participants want to see:

• Everyone living in Berlin having access to

high-quality education

• Government taking action to avoid those from

disadvantaged backgrounds falling behind

• Their priorities and needs being taken into account

in the design of educational strategies

• Education and learning institutions adopting the successful

development of the labor market as one of their major—

and more explicit—goals

• Teachers getting more recognition for their important work

Many participants are critical of the government in the area

of learning and education in Berlin. In the voting session

of the forum, three-quarters said that government “did not

exceed their expectations” in this area.

In relation to education, Berlin Forum participants believe

that equality of opportunity is one of the most important

principles that government should consider when seeking to

achieve social outcomes. Participants spoke of the need for

schooling and employment opportunities for people from all

social strata. They thought, for instance, that children from

socially disadvantaged groups should get free books and

other materials.

“It would not be fair if children don't have books and

materials because their parents are [less well off].

Materials and nursery school should be free.”

Participants expect the same high standards across all

federal states and across all of Berlin's districts, so that

children whose families moved could “switch” schools

without falling behind and so that no neighborhood,

however poor, would have failing schools.

“The education standards should be the same in every

federal state. At the moment you cannot move where you

want to, even if you find a job somewhere else, because

you don’t know if your children will manage at school.”

Many cited what they perceive as a widening gap between

elite or private schools in well-off districts (usually those

with mostly German national inhabitants) and “underdog”

schools in poorer districts (often those with a high

proportion of immigrants).

One woman was unsure whether she should send her child

to the local public school or to a private school. She said

she would not normally choose private schooling, but she

believed that the public school would have lots of immigrants

and that the level of education there would, therefore, be

poorer because it would have to concentrate on helping

children whose first language was not German: “I think public

schools need more support and investment… then I wouldn’t

need to send my child to a private school, which of course also

costs money. Normally I would always opt for a public school.”

Page 17 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


“They should invest in schools; we have so many ‘loser

schools’ which should be supported and integrated.”

Participants recognize that education outcomes require

the consistent involvement not just of schools and other

education institutions but also of pupils and parents themselves.

They feel that government should do more to involve parents

and pupils in the design of education policies and the

management of education services.

“We don’t need leisure facilities for young people

somewhere where no one uses them. The need should

be identified first, by asking the citizens, teachers

and parents.”

Many highlight the contribution of appropriate and highquality

education services to the quality of life for Berliners

in general, and to a stronger economy in the future, noting

that companies will only locate themselves in Berlin if

there are enough skilled workers there. Most were keen to

see educational services developed with such longer-term

outcomes in mind. For example, participants argued for an

expansion in foreign-language teaching in schools because

they consider language skills as increasingly important

in the global economy.

Among Berlin Forum participants, there is a general sense that

teachers’ status in Germany is not high enough, given the

important role that educators play. Many participants said they

want to find ways of giving teachers increased recognition.

“Teachers should receive more recognition and deserve

more credit for the job they do. It really is a tough

job that is very important and valuable.”

Health

Defining public value: Health

Berlin residents believe that a good standard of basic

health care should be available to everyone, regardless

of age or social background. They see this as fostering

a healthier population in the long term while making

certain that no one in society is left behind.

In particular, Forum participants want government

to ensure that:

• A high-quality basic health care system is accessible to all

• Policies focus on preventing social problems in the long

term by encouraging people to change their behavior

and live healthier lives

• Bureaucracy is kept to a minimum

Participants consider health care critical for society and

recognize that good-quality care affects individuals’ chances

in other areas of their lives, such as succeeding in the workplace.

This again affects broader social well-being. By ensuring

people are healthier longer, they can lead more active lives,

work better and, therefore, contribute to the economy.

Equality is considered paramount, and participants want

a basic health care system provided to all and at a good

standard. People regard this as part of the government’s

duty of care for its people, and the majority of participants

believe that there should be no difference in the basic care

that is provided for patients with private health insurance

and those without.

“The state has a duty to care for the socially disadvantaged,

so basic care should be provided, as should prevention

programs to educate people about healthy living,

food and so on.”

The main area of contention for participants was over

how much of the health care system should be assured

for all citizens. Most think that only basic care should

be universally provided, and that individuals should pay

for “extras” or to have their own choice of treatments or

medical professionals. Only a minority believe that the

government should provide high-level health care for

everyone, regardless of cost.

“When it comes to non-medical questions, for example

whether one has a single room in a hospital, it is not

the government’s duty to pay for that. Everyone should

decide and bear the costs themselves.”

Prevention is another important principle for participants

seeking improved health outcomes. Most believe that

government should act to change people’s behavior in the

short term to achieve long-term goals. They see information

provision—especially through public campaigns about

healthy behavior—as a vital starting point. People recognize

that achieving behavioral change will require them to take

greater responsibility for their own behavior and even to try

to influence the behavior of others.

Finally, some participants thought that there is room for

significant efficiency gains and improvements in the customer

experience by streamlining the current health care system.

For example, participants believe it is difficult and confusing

to understand precisely what health coverage is offered by

the relatively large number of health insurance companies.

They feel this system—where private health insurance

finances a large part of the total health care budget—should

be reviewed to make it less cumbersome for people to

choose their care package.

Page 18 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Public safety

Defining public value: Public safety

Residents of Berlin want to reduce crime figures, but they

also regard a greater feeling of being safe as an important

social outcome.

In order to achieve this greater feeling of safety in their city,

participants believe it is important that:

• Police and emergency services are able to respond quickly

to residents’ needs

• Policymaking in the area of public safety is undertaken

with long-term goals in mind

• A balance is achieved between governmental controls

and civil liberties

• People are treated equally before the law

When asked to indicate their experiences of public-safety

efforts, half of participants said (in the voting session) that

the government’s actions fall short of their expectations in

improving public safety in Berlin. They feel government and

public-service providers could do more to reduce general

crime figures, deal with low-level crime (including vandalism

and graffiti), tackle right-wing radicalism and reduce the

feeling of being unsafe in some parts of Berlin.

One woman mentioned that a friend of hers no longer uses

public transport during the evening or at night as she has

been attacked several times. She believes that the attacks

are due to her friend being black and sees hate crimes

specifically and public safety generally as important areas

for improvement in Berlin.

“There are many people in Berlin who don’t have the courage

to use public transport during evenings or at night.”

Forum participants considered it vital that public-safety

services—in particular, emergency services—are able to

respond quickly to their needs. Today, this is not always the

case. One participant gave the example of being kept “on

hold” when he phoned the police in an emergency.

“Response times should be quicker; administration

must be speeded up.”

“Loopholes should be ‘closed’ faster; the system

should react more quickly.”

Participants generally regard prevention as an important

principle in achieving public safety outcomes. Many

participants tie this to moral, ethical or social standards

and looked to education as a means of strengthening these

standards. They believe this will help to prevent crime

from escalating in the medium and long term. Some spoke

about how several neighborhoods had turned into “problem

districts” and made a connection between this and what

they see as a general decline in moral standards.

“The differences between neighborhoods are very great.

Zehlendorf is nice, but Kreuzberg is awful. Drugs are

openly dealt at the Cotti and the police look the other

way. Kreuzberg has a bad image, bad schools.”

There was much debate on the balance that needs to be

struck between upholding individual freedoms and using

controls to help improve public safety. Participants demand

improved public safety in general and see a role for controls

(such as surveillance cameras) in helping to achieve this

outcome. However, they also stress the importance of civil

liberties. Much could be achieved, some participants feel, by

considering the role of the police in local communities, who

can be law enforcers and points of contact. They believe that

police presence on the streets has been wrongly reduced in

recent years and demand an increase—especially in more

disadvantaged districts. Participants asserted that this would

help lower crime rates, thereby creating a better sense

of safety in those communities.

“(The police) have always acted not only to enforce

security, but also as a point of contact for people in

the neighborhood. This also leads to a better atmosphere,

to a de-escalation in crime rates and aggression,

at least if the police act as citizens among citizens.”

Finally, participants are convinced of the importance of

treating everyone equally if improved outcomes in the

area of public safety are to be achieved. They call for the

government to ensure that everyone has equal rights,

for instance, in criminal proceedings.

“Everyone should receive the same treatment before the

law. It is not fair that someone who can afford a better

lawyer has better chances and gets a lesser punishment.”

Future priorities for Berlin

We asked participants about their concerns regarding living,

working or studying in Berlin 10 years from now.

Participants in the Berlin Forum feel that in the future, the

city will face many of the same challenges it faces today.

They regard education, employment and health as their top

priorities for the future, followed closely by living costs and

infrastructure. A lack of investment in Berlin contributes

to a current lack of job opportunities, but participants are

relatively optimistic that this situation will improve.

Participants remain concerned that Berlin will become a twotiered

society, in which good health care and education might

increasingly be available only for those who are better off. They

are concerned that increased social tensions and inequalities will

result. The importance of health care in their list of priorities is a

reflection of Berlin’s aging population and the growth in demand

for residential nursing homes and well-equipped hospitals.

Participants are doubtful that their desired outcomes could

be achieved in the future, seeing that there are likely to be

important tradeoffs to be made. In health, for example, meeting

their demands for higher-quality services, equality of treatment

and universal access will be expensive. Although technology

may facilitate some gains, higher standards can be achieved

only if there is also a greater investment in staff.

“If the tendency of reducing staff numbers in public

services such as schools, hospitals and the police goes

on, I doubt that we will have a better quality of

anything in the future.”

Page 19 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Roles and responsibilities

of different actors

While much of the discussion at the Berlin Forum

concerned the role of government in delivering economic

and social outcomes, it was clear from discussions and

from the results of the voting sessions that participants do

not think government has the sole responsibility. Indeed,

people feel that many other actors should have greater

involvement in the future (see chart). While people still

considered government to take the lead, others—including

business, the voluntary sector and individuals—are

expected to have roles, as well.

In this section, we look at how participants viewed the

respective roles of each of these actors in improving social

conditions—that is, achieving positive social outcomes.

Government

Participants argue that government has the central role in

achieving social outcomes. Although some expressed concerns

about government’s ability to do this to the level they expect,

the majority of participants (84 percent) wish to see government

assume an even greater level of involvement in the future.

Participants argue that only the government can provide

the framework and general conditions to enable change and

produce positive outcomes. Certainly it has the main role in

delivering public services but, more than this, participants

argued that government should also be motivating, enabling

and educating the others—private businesses, voluntarysector

agencies and citizens—to play stronger parts in

achieving social outcomes.

At the same time, participants indicated that government

and public services should not “invade” people’s lives.

The government’s involvement should be balanced against

people’s need to control their own lives. Most participants

agreed this was not always an easy balance to strike.

Participants characterize government’s role in four ways:

director, enabler, controller and regulator, and role model

and educator.

Director

Berlin Forum participants see government as the highest

authority, elected as representative of the people and with

the power, know-how and resources to define the legal and

social framework for policymaking and public-service provision.

“It’s the basis; it provides the basic structure, the

responsibilities and duties for us. It defines the

governing values and principles.”

Because of its central role, government must guide and

instruct the other actors, steering their actions to ensure

improved social outcomes.

Enabler

Government should not concentrate all responsibilities in

public-service providers and their managers. It must also

help other actors to fulfill their roles in delivering social

outcomes. For example, the government and public services

should find better ways to support private-sector companies

that want to invest in the city.

“Companies, new ones in particular, get no support.

It takes ages until you have your authorizations, and

entrepreneurs just have a bad position.”

Controller and regulator

Forum participants say they want government to be more

assertive about monitoring and enforcing services, practices,

laws and outcomes. They do not mean that government should

create more laws (which would merely hinder efficiency),

but rather that it should enforce existing laws consistently.

“We have so many laws, but they’re taken for granted, not

implemented, not used. That’s something the government

should not only encourage but also control.”

Government should also be more forceful in regulating

the activities of public-service providers. Participants think

government should provide better incentives for managing

resources well and achieving good social outcomes, as well

as imposing penalties for poor management.

Role model and educator

Many participants believe that, as the principal stakeholder

in improving the quality of life in Berlin, government should

act as a role model, aiming to motivate others to be more

involved in society. If government publicly and actively sets

a good example, citizens will be more likely to follow that

example and live by society’s laws and standards.

It is also the responsibility of government to educate

people about society, or at least to provide people with

opportunities to become educated. Through such education,

citizens will understand better how their society works and

would, therefore, be more inclined to act in its best interests.

Page 20 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Business

Berliners believe private companies have a duty to help

address social issues and feel that businesses could play

greater roles. However, participants are cautious about

allowing the private sector too much influence over policy

and politics, especially compared to the voluntary sector

and individual citizens. They noted a need for continuous,

careful scrutiny over government’s dealings with businesses.

“Politics and business must be strictly separated.

Politicians sitting on the board of directors of

companies and so on can always lead to bias

or even corruption... scandals."

“Government must be free and independent from

companies’ lobbyists.”

As a better way to involve the private sector, participants

suggested encouraging companies to engage in acts of

corporate social responsibility. Indeed, participants call

for far greater commitment to social issues on the part of

businesses, arguing that it is people, as employees, workers

and consumers, who keep the economy going. They believe

firmly that private-sector entities have a general responsibility

to work for the good of society as a whole—for instance, by

investing some of their profits back into society.

“This is future investment. The company makes a profit

from highly skilled workers, the entire society profits

by gaining better support and services, and so on.”

“When they profit from public transport, they have the

responsibility to play a role in it…ensuring that public

transport is safe, for example.”

Other ways that participants want businesses to be involved

in achieving social outcomes were:

• Investing in research and development for health care

products and drugs

• Making use of apprenticeships and vocational traineeships

(both companies and society as a whole benefit from

having a well-educated and skilled workforce)

• Investing in health care campaigns and in childcare

provision for their employees

• Sponsoring universities—for instance, providing grants to

pay for tuition fees and professorships (this came with the

caveat that businesses should not be allowed too great an

influence over institutions of higher education)

• Sponsoring preschool, primary and secondary schools

• Acting as an advisor to government and

public-service agencies

The voluntary sector

Most participants believe that voluntary organizations

already play a constructive and significant role in achieving

positive social outcomes. And while 48 percent of participants

voted in favor of seeing the sector become even more

engaged in social issues, 47 percent were satisfied with

its current level of involvement.

Berlin Forum participants thought that the voluntary sector’s

main role is to support the government in public-service

delivery and to help motivate individuals to participate

in collective action.

The voluntary sector is able to help government deal with

problems in the delivery of public services, especially local

services, by providing quick, efficient and flexible support

where government agencies are unable to do so. Participants

gave examples—including volunteer firefighters, churches that

support poor or homeless people, charities working in the area

of health care or social rehabilitation, and private institutions

that deal with drug abusers, homeless people or the hungry.

“They (voluntary-sector agencies) are involved in the areas

of health care, youth, education, everything…The state

doesn't have enough money, so (voluntary organizations)

try to deal with the deficits of the government.”

But, while participants agreed that it is beyond government’s

means to handle all social problems on its own, they are not

keen to see it rely on the voluntary sector too much: This, they

feel, would “smack of government shirking its responsibilities.”

Indeed, in that respect, some regard an expanded role for

the voluntary sector as a negative outcome.

The second major role that participants identified for

the voluntary sector was motivating individual citizens.

Many think voluntary organizations play an important

part in creating a sense of togetherness and cooperation—

encouraging people to identify with their communities

and providing a platform for people to demonstrate social

commitment by helping others.

Page 21 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Citizens and me

According to Berlin Forum participants, citizens can and

should take responsibility for their own behavior, as well as

for helping to improve outcomes for their local communities

and society as a whole. In their discussions, participants

identified many ways in which they personally might

contribute to improved social outcomes. Such involvement

runs the gamut and includes engaging in politics by voting

or by taking direct action; undertaking voluntary work in

schools or helping neighbors; behaving responsibly by acting

as role models for their children; and showing a positive

attitude toward social engagement.

When asked what “taking responsibility for one’s own behavior”

means to them, participants talked about fulfilling one’s duty

to obey the law, living a healthy life, acting in accord with

social values and standards, and seeking out opportunities

for personal social development. Some also believe that

citizens have a role to play in reducing the burden on public

services—for example, by going to the doctor only when

necessary or helping to make their communities safer.

“If we had a neighborhood watch, this would also be

on a voluntary basis, supporting the community spirit

and also unburdening the police.”

Some participants want citizens to participate more actively

in debates about what should happen in their neighborhoods

and where tax money should be invested. The more people

are able to participate in local community decision making,

the greater the encouragement to become more active citizens.

“We all are responsible for our neighborhoods and also

ourselves. Everyone should try to act in a social and

ethical way, which also means taking responsibility

for one’s health and education.”

“Like the ‘citizens’ vote we had during the last election

in Berlin: We don’t need voting for all kinds of political

issues, but we do when it comes to our neighborhood or

questions everyone benefits or suffers from—this

also applies to education or health issues.”

“Everything you say is valid for the role of ‘me.’ A citizen’s

role doesn’t exist; it makes no sense. It’s me that acts,

and citizens viewed together are just several ‘me’s.’”

Many participants found it challenging to differentiate

between “me as a citizen” and “me as an individual.”

Nevertheless, when asked about the degree of involvement

that citizens and they personally should have in improving

society, it was clear that participants draw a distinction

between what all citizens should do and what they

personally should do. While 75 percent of participants

said that all citizens should be more involved in planning

and delivering public services in the future, a much lower

proportion (42 percent) were willing to agree that they,

personally, should be more involved.

While some participants are motivated to be involved in

social issues—for example, by taking part in voluntary

organizations or in activities to improve their neighborhood—

others believe they already do enough or feel that the main

responsibilities should be borne by government and publicservice

providers. Still others see relatively few opportunities

to get more involved and cited a lack of support and the

absence of positive role models as contributing factors.

“I am involved in voluntary work. I care for disabled

people, which is really an interesting job with many

responsibilities, and I think everyone can do something,

either in the neighborhood or wherever.”

Page 22 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Messages to government

from people of Berlin

One of the strongest findings to emerge from

the Berlin Forum is that residents value the

opportunity to have their say on the future

of their city. Yet there are currently very few

avenues available for them to do so. In light

of this, the overwhelming majority of Berlin

Forum participants reported that they enjoyed

taking part in the event and genuinely valued

the opportunity to voice their views on public

services in the city.

The deliberative approach was successful in allowing people

from very different backgrounds and generations to exchange

ideas, learn from each other and develop a more informed and

balanced view of the role of government. Participants in Berlin

stated that, due to the growing diversity of the city, there was

an increasing sense of difference. Some reported never going

to certain parts of town or mixing with different communities.

The Forum therefore allowed participants to talk to people

they would otherwise never have met about issues that are

important to them all.

The Forum also provided participants with a chance to

understand what they had in common with a diverse range

of other people and to see that, despite their differences, they

are all part of the same society. As one participant said, the

Forum showed him that “there are lots of people that think

like me and want the same things from our city.”

By the end of the day, many participants acknowledged that

they had found it comforting to learn that others feel the same

way they do and that this realization had given them greater

confidence to voice their opinions on public services and get

involved in community matters in the future. Many felt the

Forum helped them to better understand different viewpoints,

enriched their own opinions and attitudes, and left them

with a broader and more reasoned perspective on their city.

“This morning, I was very tired and didn't really want

to come. But I am so glad I did. I learned a lot and

I really enjoyed listening to what other people feel

about our city.”

While Berlin residents have many issues they would like to

raise with government, the following are the key, consistent

messages that arose from the discussions at the Berlin Forum.

Page 23 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service

planning and delivery.

Berlin residents want public services to be designed with

the citizen in mind. Participants asked for longer opening

hours, friendlier staff, better communication, support and

explanations, greater administrative flexibility and

decreased bureaucracy.

However, developing more citizen-oriented services is not

a one-way street. People expect to participate in policy

decisions and to have the opportunity to influence publicservice

operations. This will require government and

public-service managers to develop more open channels

of communication, operate more transparently and

provide evidence that policies and practices are really

being developed with and for citizens.

“Closeness to citizens must be developed. They should

hear what we say and view us as customers, as clients.”

Making government more transparent will develop people’s

trust in public services and encourage them to take greater

“ownership” of the city’s challenges and look for solutions.

Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term

future of the city.

Many of the problems facing Berlin require long-term solutions

and a greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention.

This shift means that government and public-service managers

should play a more educative and facilitative role in society.

In the area of health, for example, this means educating

people to live healthy lives by, for instance, educating

children from preschool school onwards about healthy living,

ensuring schools provide healthy food and increasing taxes

on unhealthy products. In education, it means working

closely with parents and other service providers to support

children in a more holistic way and respond to special needs

before “things go wrong.” And in public safety, it means

finding ways to ensure long-term confidence in a police

service that interacts with local citizens and is responsible

for more than just control and punishment. People see these

measures as an investment in a better future—an investment

that will also lead to efficiency savings through better

public-service planning.

Encourage people to take more personal responsibility

for achieving positive social outcomes.

The desire for more proactive policies and future-oriented

decision making includes empowering citizens so that they can

take personal action to help achieve social outcomes. A starting

point is for the government and public-service managers to act

as positive role models by behaving in a civic-minded manner.

Launching media campaigns to help change behavior, speaking

openly about how people are expected to behave within society

and giving awards to people for exceptional social commitment

are all measures that will encourage people to assume more

personal responsibility.

Help people to help themselves through investment in

education and job opportunities, and support businesses

in playing their part.

Education and employment are the top two issues for Berliners.

A good education can lead to better job opportunities, higher

living standards and, ultimately, the sustainability of the city.

Participants argued that education can strengthen the city’s

competitiveness and is also the way to develop a culture of

citizen engagement. Residents, therefore, demand greater

investment in the educational system, providing higher

standards for gifted and less-gifted children alike.

“Education comes first, then work and then profit:

not vice versa. Our children are our future.”

However, ensuring people have the skills is not enough:

Government must also ensure they have the opportunities

to use these skills. People want the government to act

to reduce Berlin’s high unemployment rate by enhancing

investment opportunities (through monetary incentives

and other benefits) to attract more businesses to the city.

Design and deliver public services to help reduce

the gap between the more affluent and poorer

communities.

Berlin residents regard equality as one of the most basic

principles. They define this as equal chances for everyone,

regardless of social background. But this does not necessarily

equate to equal treatment. Berlin Forum participants

acknowledged that in some cases, a fair service may be one

tailored to meet an individual’s or a community’s needs.

Ultimately, residents expect government to do more to help

poorer neighborhoods and disadvantaged people in Berlin.

This includes increasing government spending in some areas

and tailoring services specifically to meet the needs of

poorer communities.

“Everyone should have the same opportunities regardless

of their social, ethnic or financial background. If problems

occur, people need support and help according to

their needs.”

Page 24 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Accenture Public Service

Value Governance Framework

The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value

Global Cities Forum was conducted in eight cities

around the world: London, Sydney, Singapore,

Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.

Accenture Accenture Public Service Public Value Service Value

Governance Governance Framework

Framework

Public

Government GovernmentService

Value

Outcomes

Accountability

Balance

Outcomes

Accountability

Engagement

Balance

Public Citizen Citizen

Service Service User Service User

Value Taxpayer Taxpayer

Engagement

Although we designed and conducted all eight Forums similarly,

and used a similar deliberative approach in each, many

differences emerged between the views of the participants

in Berlin and those of other Global Cities. But there were

also many similarities. (Comparisons of the main findings

in the eight cities are included in the appendix.)

People everywhere are proud of where they live—some more than

others, of course—but they also all see a need for improvement

in the social and economic conditions of their cities.

While they see government as the main driver of change,

they want a bigger say in making their cities better places to

live. Everywhere, participants feel their governments are not

doing enough to listen to their views. They also expect their

governments to offer more opportunities to involve them in

the process of setting priorities and planning and delivering

improvement in their cities.

These views are not new or surprising. Although we know

that many people want—or say they want—a bigger say and

role, we see little being done to engage them and little effort

on their part to be engaged. Instead, we see a plethora of

“doorstep opinion” polls and a rather complacent notion

of elections as the main forum for people to have their say.

But as one New York participant declared, and as participants

in each Forum echoed, “Elections are not enough!”

The outcome of the deliberations, personal learning and

findings of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value

Global Cities Forum confirms that people want to become

more engaged in their own governance. Sure, they have

many other important things to do, and daylong forums

with other local residents are a luxury of time that few

could afford on a regular basis. But when people need

help or support or information or wish to register praise

or complaint, they do not want to wait until government

pollsters come to them to speak about it. Nor do they want

to wait until election day. And the paradox of all of this

in the 21st century is that we have the know-how and

technology to facilitate better everyday public engagement.

Page 25 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


We analyzed the Berlin principles of public value in conjunction

with the deliberative findings and principles formulated in the

other seven cities and found strong evidence of people around

the world wanting more from the ways in which they currently

engage with their governments. As a product of that analysis,

we formulated what we believe can be a model for a more

active relationship between people and their governments.

The Accenture Public Service Value Governance Framework

represents a more publicly engaged model of governance,

one that truly connects people—in all their roles—with those

whom they elect to lead their governments and to shape

and direct their public services. Derived from the common

concerns and ambitions of all groups of participants and the

principles of public value that they defined, the framework

is built around four components:

Outcomes—Focusing on improved social and

economic outcomes.

The purpose and mission of public-service provision should

be concentrated on the actual improvements that those

services can produce in the economic and social conditions—

such as health, learning and education, and public safety—

of the people they serve, not simply on the amounts of

services produced or on economic efficiency.

Balance—Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness

and common good.

People are insisting that government should tailor service

provision to meet the wide range of different needs across the

population. At the same time, government must be mindful that

narrow or unconsidered applications of “choice” and “fairness” can

actually widen gaps between those who are able to take advantage

of the benefits of greater choice and those who are not.

Engagement—Engaging, educating and enrolling

the public as co-producers of public value.

The educative and enabling roles of government are vastly

under-used. People can be helped to clarify their own

perceptions of government through regular consultation

and engagement; to learn how to make the best use of

government resources through better and more easily

accessible information; and to contribute as partners

to improving social and economic outcomes.

Accountability—Clarifying accountability and facilitating

public recourse.

People are demanding much greater clarity and accountability

from government, especially with regard to tax expenditure

where the absence of easily accessible information fuels

perceptions of waste and inefficiency. The public—as service

users, taxpayers and members of the wider community—also

are seeking consistent and accessible means to remedy

problems with government when they occur.

These components provide meaning and a language with

which to clearly articulate a relationship that is about

genuine engagement of people in their governance, not one

that is only about voting in elections or paying taxes—as

important as these things are.

In the case of Berlin, our understanding is that some aspects

of the four components are in place:

Explicit outcome-focused public policy is regarded with a

great deal of interest and increasing frequency in Germany.

However, the focus currently is more ad hoc than systematic.

Moreover, outcomes are mostly articulated at a political level

and in a political context, rather than embedded in how

government manages public-service operations and delivery.

However, a number of recent initiatives have been started

at the municipal, state and federal levels.

At the municipal level, for example, the Kommunale

Gemeinschaftsstelle (KGSt), Germany’s largest local

government association, which comprises approximately

1,600 municipalities and cities, has initiated a project called

“Measures-based management—outcomes and outputs in

municipal budgets" (“Die Kommune mit Kennzahlen steuern:

Wirkungen und Leistungen im neuen Haushalt"). At the state

level, progress has been made toward introducing balanced

scorecards that include a greater focus on results and wider

societal outcomes. Finally, initiatives such as the Federal

Ministry of Interior’s and the Bertelsmann Foundation’s study

on Strategic Management (“Strategische Steuerung für den

Staat—Internationale Ansätze im Vergleich”) are helping to

build the foundation for strengthening outcome-oriented

management at the federal level.

Mechanisms to balance the extension of choice with the

safeguarding of the common good are more systematic.

As a rule, both in policy and in administration, this is

achieved on a case-by-case basis, though it is unclear the

extent to which citizens’ expectations, preferences and risks

are taken into account. Greater understanding of citizens’

perspectives about the tensions between individual service

and equity, such as those articulated in the Berlin Forum,

could help government proactively address the diversity of

citizens’ needs and provide deeper insight to more effectively

formulate responses, such as targeted preventative measures

to improve health outcomes.

However, traditionally, the engagement of citizens—apart from

elections—is limited to formal processes such as feedback

mechanisms at the service-delivery level. Over the past

decade, the government has sought to put more emphasis

on civic engagement, but these efforts have not always been

sustained in terms of extended openness toward actively

involving citizens in decision-making processes.

Regarding clearer accountability, many municipalities, as

well as some state and federal level departments, have begun

to introduce management systems geared toward creating

greater transparency and avenues for public recourse. This

includes introducing performance management in public

services; however, compared to many other developed countries,

Germany is in a relatively early stage of introducing performance

management or aligning it with other management processes

such as strategy formulation, implementation and budgeting.

We believe that governance in the 21st century must engage

people in all their roles as active co-producers of public value.

The payoff can be a strengthened and mutually supportive

relationship between people and their governments. Without

such a social compact, we risk contributing to disenchantment,

cynicism and poor public service. With the public fully engaged,

we have the potential for better lives for us all.

Page 26 of 39 Back Contents Next

Print Close


How Berlin compares

with the other Global Cities

Participants at the Berlin Forum were very

positive about their city: Almost two-thirds of

participants rated it above average as a place to

live and work. While this figure was higher than

in the other European cities—London, Paris and

Madrid—it was lower than all the other cities

outside of Europe. And fewer people rated Berlin

as “world class” than in any other Global City.

Berlin participants were particularly concerned about

the need to improve the economy and, more specifically,

employment opportunities in the city. This was voted

as the most critical issue by 28 percent of Berlin Forum

participants. Education was also highlighted as a key

concern (with 23 percent of the votes), followed by public

safety (14 percent), which was seen as a problem particularly

in the poorer districts of the city. In contrast to the other

cities, employment and education were voted the top two

issues only in the Berlin Forum, whereas cost of living

and health ranked fairly low as areas of concern for Berlin

participants. In fact, Berlin returned by far the lowest

rating for cost of living (13 percent) as a key concern.

In general, Berlin Forum participants are satisfied with

their public services (60 percent). However, only 4 percent

rated them as “very good” or “excellent,” compared with 40

percent in Madrid, 34 percent in Singapore and 27 percent

in Sydney. But as in many other cities, when considering

particular services, Berlin participants were more critical.

For example, three in four believe the government falls a

long way short of expectations in education—making them

the least satisfied with education versus the other cities

where the issue was discussed (Sydney, Singapore, New York,

Los Angeles and London). Similarly, 59 percent said health

services fell below their expectations, a figure on par with

Sydney but below that of London and Los Angeles.

Although they saw room for a great deal of improvement

in public services, Berlin Forum participants had little

inclination to pay more in the form of taxes or user charges.

Only 8 percent agreed that they would be prepared to pay

more in taxes, compared to 34 percent in Sydney, 33 percent

in Los Angeles and 29 percent in New York. Similarly, only

19 percent advocated additional user charges for those who

could afford it, less than any other city apart from Paris.

Participants in Berlin were more inclined than those in any

other city to think that the government should give primary

consideration to quality of service for users (above the broader

good of society and the amount of tax paid) as they plan and

deliver services. At the same time, the voting results show

that more than any other city, participants in Berlin want to

see government deliver services to everyone equally rather

than targeting those with the highest level of need.

Page 27 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


In defining their aspirations for public services, Berlin Forum

participants shared many of the same values as those in other

cities. For example, they placed a strong emphasis on equality

and fairness, transparency and accountability, and customer

focus. But they were also concerned with efficiency, like those

in Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles, and the need for a longerterm

view in planning and delivering services, like those in

Sydney, New York and Los Angeles.

Participants in Berlin discussed improvements in three specific

social and economic conditions: health, learning and education,

and public safety. While they shared many of the same

aspirations as those in other cities where these same issues

were discussed, there were also differences.

On health, for example, Berlin participants valued easily

accessible, high quality care, as did those in all the other cities

where health was discussed (London, Sydney, Singapore and

Los Angeles). Like participants in London and Los Angeles,

they also put a strong emphasis on equality of provision, and

like those in London and Sydney, they articulated the need

to take a longer-term view and focus more on preventative

care. However, Berlin participants seemed more concerned

about efficiency than those in London, Sydney or Los Angeles;

less worried about choice than those in Los Angeles; less

interested in connectedness of service provision than those in

London; and less focused on financial access than those

in Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles.

Like participants in London, Sydney, New York and Los Angeles,

Berlin participants were concerned with the broader social

and economic impact of education, and specifically the positive

impact that good education services have on improving

the strength of the economy and overall quality of life.

Participants in all these cities sought improvements in the

quality of education. Berlin participants also highlighted

fairness and equality as an important principle, as did

participants in London, Sydney and New York. Participants

in Berlin, London and Singapore also sought more flexibility

in education programs. But Berlin participants were less

concerned with the need for a broad curriculum than those

in London, Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles; less focused on

accountability than those in New York; less worried about

efficiency than those in Los Angeles; and less concerned

about the need for increased investment in the educational

system than those in Sydney.

In the area of public safety, participants in all the cities

in which this was discussed articulated the importance of

fairness and balance. In the case of Berlin, for example,

this meant a balance between governmental controls and

maintenance of civil liberties. Like those in Paris, Madrid and

London, Berlin participants also saw a need for connected

services—particularly as a means of encouraging crime

prevention. And like those in all other cities but Paris, they

placed great emphasis on the quality of service, specifically

the need to ensure that emergency services respond quickly

to their needs. However, Berlin participants were less

concerned about accountability and community involvement

than those in New York and less focused on efficiency

than those in Paris and Madrid.

In Berlin, participants were more inclined to vote for a larger

role for government in addressing future priorities: 84 percent

wanted to see more involvement from government, a figure

lower than that of Sydney and Madrid but higher than all

the other cities included in the Forum. However, people in

Berlin were among the least inclined of all the cities to see

a larger role for themselves as citizens in addressing future

priorities. Only 75 percent called for greater involvement of

citizens compared to 98 percent in New York, 96 percent in

Los Angeles and 95 percent in Madrid. Even so, participants

were comparatively positive about the private sector, with

79 percent agreeing they should have a bigger role; only

Madrid participants (85 percent) were more positive about

the role of the private sector.

The appendix contains figures that provide a summary

of the results from three components of the research: the

electronic voting questions posed during the Forums; the

findings of the deliberations on public value; and the data

from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos

Global@dvisor survey.

Page 28 of 39 Back Contents Next

Print Close


Appendix

Page 29 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Results from electronic voting at the Global Cities Forum

The following figures present the results from the electronic voting questions posed during the eight Forums. Results for London are not

available for some of the questions as the London Forum was a pilot and some of the voting questions changed after that first event.

How do you rate your city as a place to live and work?

Very Poor Fairly Poor Average Fairly Good World Class

London

Sydney

Singapore

Berlin

New York

Paris

Madrid

Los Angeles

2 7 33

39

19

11 9

4

2 6

2 5

10

6

21

26

20

33

40

31

52

44

52

46

41

7 18

53

22

0% 20 40 60 80 100

49

29

23

18

14

15

What are the three most important social issues facing you and your city today?

And what are the three main priorities for making the city a great place to live and work 10 years from now?

1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place

Issue London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles

Cost of Living

Health

Housing

Employment

Education

Public Safety

Ease of Transport

2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017

Page 30 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Environment

In cases where two results of the same color are shown, there was a tie


How good are public services in your city?

London*

Sydney

Very Good Fine Poor+

Singapore

Berlin

New York

Paris

Madrid

Los Angeles

56 44

33 40

14 52

40 56 4

32 54

47 45

28 32

43 47

0% 20 40 60 80 100

* The question in London was “Overall do you agree that people in the city get good quality services?: Strongly agree,

agree, disagree, strongly disagree.”

What should be the most important consideration for government in planning and delivering public services?

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0%

What is good for society as a whole

The amount of tax I pay

43

23

Sydney

34

41

33

26

30 28

40

The quality of service users receive

42

34

36 37

35

36 35

32 32

28

30

27

29

Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles

43

27

14

10

8

How should governments fund improvements in services?

Governments should impose user charges to pay for improvements

Governments should raise taxes in order to pay for improvements

Page 31 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

London

Sydney

Singapore

Berlin

New York

Paris

Madrid

Los Angeles

79

85

75

48

57

52

57

65

69

67

53

44

52

52

38

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Disagree Agree

6

8

10

12

19

22

30

29

29

27

34

40

39

33

51


In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services

exceed or fall short of your expectations?

London

The chart omits neutral responses

In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services

exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations? 12

London

In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14

The chart omits neutral responses

what extent do public services

exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations?

72

12

10

London

In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14 what extent

The chart

do public

omits

services

neutral responses

100 80 60 40 200%

20 40 60 80 100

exceed or fall short of your expectations?

Fall short of expectations 52 12

Exceed expectations

72 10

London

Sydney

100 80

58

60 40 200%

14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 52

63

72

12

7

10

Exceed expectations

Sydney

100 80

58

6051

40 200%

4

14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of

72

expectations 63

60

710

13

Exceed expectations

Sydney

100 80 6051

100 80 60

40

40

Fall

Fall

short

short

of

of

expectations

expectations 63

60

20

20

0% 4

0%

20

20

7

13

The chart omits neutral responses

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Exceed

Exceed

expectations

expectations

Sydney

Singapore

100 80

51

60 40 20

4

0% 20

The chart omits neutral responses

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 63

37

60

7

15

13

Exceed expectations

Singapore

100 80

51

60 40 20

4

5 0% 20

The chart

40 51

omits neutral responses

60 80 100

Fall short of expectations

60 37

24

13 15

29

Exceed expectations

Singapore

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

Fall

Fall

short

short

of

of

expectations

expectations 37

20

20

24

5 0%

0%

20

20

15

The chart omits neutral responses

40 51

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Exceed

Exceed

expectations

expectations

29

Singapore

Berlin

100 80 60 40 20

5

0% 20

The

The

chart

chart

omits neutral responses

51 omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 59

37

24

2

15

29

Exceed expectations

Berlin

100 80 74 60 40 20

5

0% 2 20

The chart 51 omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 59

50

24

2

11

29

Exceed expectations

Berlin

100 80 74

100 80

60

60

40

40

Fall

Fall

short

short

of

of

expectations

expectations 59

50

Berlin

New York74

100 80 60 40

Fall short of expectations

59

50

50

20

20

20

0% 2

0%

2

2

0%

2

20

20

11

20

11

The chart omits neutral responses

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Exceed

Exceed

expectations

expectations

The

The

chart

chart

omits

omits

neutral

neutral

responses

responses

40 60 80 100

Exceed expectations

New York74

100 80 60 4032 20

2

0% 1420

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 50

82

50

2

0

11

Exceed expectations

New York

100 80 60 4032 100 80 60 40

Fall

Fall

short

short

of

of

expectations

expectations 50

82

New

Paris

York

32

100 80 60 40

Fall short of expectations 54

50

82

20

20

20

0%

0%

2

0

0%

2

3

0

1420

20

14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Exceed

Exceed

expectations

expectations

The

The

chart

chart

omits

omits

neutral

neutral

responses

responses

40 60 80 100

Exceed expectations

Paris

100 80 60

32

4033 200%

14

20 23

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 54 3

Exceed expectations

Education

Safety

Education

Health

Safety

Education

Health

Safety

Education

Transport

Health

Safety

Education

Transport Health

Health

Education

Transport

Health

Education

Transport

Secure retirement

Health

Education

Education

Secure Health retirement

Health

Education

Secure retirement

Health

Education

Secure

Health

retirement

Health

Education

Education

Health

Health

Safety

Education

Health

Safety

Education

Health

Education

Safety

Education

Safety

Education

Safety

Housing

Safety

Education

Housing

Safety

Education

Safety

Housing

Safety

Transport

Safety

Berlin

100

74

80

51

60 40 20

2

4

0% 20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 59

60

50

2

11

13

Exceed expectations

New York

100 80 74

80 60

40 Fall short of expectations 50

50

20

0% 2

0%

2

20 11

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Exceed expectations

Singapore New York

100 80 60

32

40 200%

14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 50 37

82

2

0

15

Exceed expectations

New York

100 80 60 40

32

20

5

0%

14

20

The chart 51 omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 50

82

24

2

0

29

Exceed expectations

Paris

100 80 60 40 4032 20 0% 14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 54

82

3

0

Exceed expectations

Paris Berlin

100 80 60

33

40 200%

23

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 59 54

71

23

5

Exceed expectations

Paris

100

74

80 60 40

33

20

2

0% 20

23

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 54

71 50

3

5 11

Exceed expectations

Los Angeles

100 80 60 33

40 20 0% 23

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 60

71

8

5

Exceed expectations

Los New Angeles York

72

100 80 60 40 20

4

0% 20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 60 50

65

2 8

9

Exceed expectations

Los Angeles

100 80

72

60

32

40 200%

4 14

20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 60

82 65 0

8

9

Exceed expectations

Madrid

100 72

80 60 40 20 4

0% 20

The chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 65

26

9

32 Exceed expectations

Madrid Paris

100 80 60

32

40 200%

20

The

34 chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 54 26

29

3

32

38

Exceed expectations

Madrid

100 80 60

33

40

32

20 0%

23

20

The

34

chart omits neutral responses

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations

71

26

29 5

32

38

Exceed expectations

100 80 60 32

40 20 0% 20 34

40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 29 38

Exceed expectations

Los Angeles

The chart omits neutral responses

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations 60 8

Exceed expectations

72 4

65 9

100 80 60 40 200%

20 40 60 80 100

Fall short of expectations Exceed expectations

26 32

Education

Education

Health

Health

Safety

Education

Education

Safety

Safety

Education Secure retirement

Housing

Safety Education

Education

Housing Health

Safety

Safety

Housing

Transport

Safety Health

Environment

Transport Education

Safety

Environment Safety

Transport

Education

Environment

Health

Education

Transport

Health Safety

Education

Transport Housing

Health

Safety

Transport

Environment

Safety

Transport

Environment Transport

Safety

Transport Environment

Environment

Page 32 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Madrid

32 34

The chart omits neutral responses

Transport

Education

Health

Transport

Safety

Environment


Public services’ focus on short-term versus long-term concerns

Sydney

Singapore

Berlin

New York

Paris

Madrid

Los Angeles

Public services make for a fairer society

(% agreeing with statement)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0%

How services are presently focused

How services should be focused

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Respond to

long-term concerns

76

82

79

78

62

62

58

73

42

45

47

53

43

33

29

28

26

69

London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles

7

8

64

11

16

20

20

19

29

28

48

The chart omits neutral responses

47

45

47

50

56

Respond to

short-term concerns

76

71

Public services’ focus on targeted versus universal services

Page 33 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Sydney

Singapore

Berlin

New York

Paris

Madrid

How services are presently focused

How services should be focused

Los Angeles

82

75

69

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Deliver to

everyone equally

65

66

55

44

39

46

49

45

29

22

6

5

16

15

17

25

28

33

31

34

32

25

I am satisfied with the way in which public services understand my needs

(% agreeing with statement)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0%

27

15

61

28

41

The chart omits neutral responses

40

48

Deliver to those with

the highest levels of need

London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles

9

29

37

8


In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?

London

In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?

London 23

In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?

75

69

92

London 23

In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 7075 80 90 100

69

London

Sydney

0% 10

Sydney

0% 10

Sydney

0% 10

0% 10

23

20

23

20

20

20

30

30

30

30

37

37

40

40

40

40

50

50

50

50

60

60

60

60

7075 69

72

7075 72

70

70

80

86

80

86

79

80

80

86

92

90

92

90

92

90

90

100

100

100

100

Sydney

Singapore

0% 10

Singapore

0% 10

Singapore

0%

0%

10

10

20

20

20

20

30

30

30

30

37

37

40

40

40

40

50

50

50

50

60

59

60

57

59

60

57 60

59

67

67

72

70

72

70

70

70

79

80

86

79

80

79

77

80

80

90

90

90

90

100

100

100

100

Singapore

Berlin

0% 10

Berlin

0% 10

Berlin

0%

0%

10

10

20

20

20

20

30

30

30

30

40

40

40

40

47

47

50

50

50

50

57 60

59

57 60

60

60

67

67

77

70 80

84

77

79

70 80

84

77

75

79

70

70

80

80

84

90

90

90

90

100

100

100

100

Berlin

New York

0% 10

New York

0% 10

New York

0% 0% 10 10

20

20

20 20

30

30

30 30

40

40

40 40

47

47

50

50

55

50 5055 60

60

60 60

67

67

67

75

79

70 80

84

75

72

79

70 80

75

72

70 70 80 80

90

90

90 90

100

100

98

100 100

New

Paris

York

0% 10 20 30 40 5055 60

59

67

72

70 80 90

98

100

98

Paris

0% 10 20 30 40

53

5055 60

58

59

70 80 90 100

69

Government

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Government

Citizens

Business

Business

Not-for-profit

Not-for-profit

Citizens

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Government

Citizens

Business

Business

Not-for-profit

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Government

Citizens

Business

Business

Not-for-profit

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Not-for-profit

Government

Berlin

0% 10 20 30 37 40

47

New York

0% 10 20

30 40

47

Singapore New York

0% 10 20 30 40

New York

0% 10 20 30 40

Paris

0% 10 20 30 40

Berlin Paris

0% 10 20 30 40

Paris

0% 10 20 30 40 47

Los Angeles

0% 10 20 30 40

New Los Angeles York

0% 10 20 30 40

Los Angeles

0% 10 20 30 40

Madrid

0% 10 20

30 40

Paris Madrid

0% 10 20 30 4044

Madrid

0% 10 20 30 40

44

0% 10 20

30 40

44

Los Angeles

0% 10 20 30 40

0% 10 20 30 40

72 79

50 60 70 80 90 100

75 79

79

84

50 60 70 80 90 100

67

5055 60

59 67

67

75

72

70

72

80 90 100

98

50

5557

60

67

70

72

77

80 90 100

98

50

55

53

60

59

70 80 90 100

98

50

53

58

60

59

70

74

80

84

79

90 100

50

53

58

60

59

70

7475

80 90 100

50

58 60 70 80

80

90 100

68

74

50 62 60

67

68

70

72

80

80

90

96

100

5055 62

60

68

70 80

80

90 100

9698

50 60

62 60 70 80 85

90 92

96

100

50 60 70 80 90 100

53

59

85

92

95

50 58 60 70

74

80

85

90

92

95

100

50 60 70 80 90 100

50 60 70 80

80

90 100

50 60 70 80 90 100

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Government

Citizens

Business

Not-for-profit

Citizens

Page 34 of 39 72

Business

Back Contents 85 Next Print Close

Madrid

44

62

68

92

95

96

Government

Business

Not-for-profit

Citizens

Government

Business

Not-for-profit


Results of the deliberations

These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.

Principles of public value: All public services

Equality

and fairness

Transparency and

accountability

Customer focus

and flexibilty

Efficiency/

value for money

Connectedness

and coordination

Long-term outlook

Focus on

immediate results

Accessibilty

Choice

Social conditions discussed in each of the Global Cities

Learning and

education

Health

Public safety

Ease of transport

Environment

Affordable living

Security in

retirement

London

London

Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles

Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles Total

6

5

5

4

2

1

1

Principles of public value: Health

Long-term outlook/

prevention

Efficiency/value

for money

Connectedness

to other services

Page 35 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Equality of

provision

Quality of care

Accessibility

Choice of service

Financial access

Transparency

London

Sydney Singapore Berlin Los Angeles


Results of the deliberations continued

These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.

Principles of public value: Learning and education

Equality of

provision

Quality of

education

Flexibility, including

lifelong learning

Accountability

Efficiency/value

for money

More investment

in education

Wider socioeconomic

impact

Broad curriculum

London

Sydney Singapore Berlin New York

Los Angeles

Principles of public value: Public safety

Page 36 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Fairness and

balance

Reduction in crime

and fear of crime

Quality of service/

responsiveness

Community

involvement

Accountability

Efficiency

Connectedness to

other services/

prevention

London

Berlin New York Paris Madrid


Global survey

The following charts provide a summary of the results from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos Global@dvisor survey.

The survey questioned 1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project.

Question 1: How much could the quality of your life be improved?

In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment

Australia

France

Germany

Great Britain

Singapore

Spain

United States

51

39

40

36

36

32

14

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

A little / None A lot / Fair amount

Question 3: How much are public services improving the quality of your life today?

Australia

France

Germany

Great Britain

Singapore

Spain

United States

82

76

75

70

64

66

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Very little / Not at all A great deal / A fair amount

The chart omits responses of "Don't know"

42

14

19

22

27

26

34

49

56

61

60

64

64

68

86

Question 2: Who should contribute most to improving the quality of life for citizens?

In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment

All citizens Government Business You personally Not for profits

100

Page 37 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0%

44 45

3 2 3

Australia

48 47

41

38

6

2 1

The chart omits responses of "Don't know"

6

3 3

44 41

4 3 3

44 44

4 3 3

France Germany Great Britain Singapore Spain United States

29

58

7

2 2

Question 4: To what extent would you be willing to pay more tax to improve public services?

Australia

France

Germany

Great Britain

Singapore

Spain

United States

91

79

72

73

62

61

60

54

23

4 5 5

100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100

Not at all / A small extent A great deal / Some extent

The chart omits responses of "Don't know"

4

16

20

24

31

36

36


Project team More information

The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value

team was: Greg Parston, Julie McQueen, Lisa Larsen,

Philip von Haehling, Rob Coffey, Claudia Ribeiro

The Accenture Germany team was: Holger Bill,

Diana Heinemann, Klaus Goez, Jens Bolle,

Yasmine Dessouky, Bernd Gerbaulet, Michael Pitsch’s

The Ipsos Germany project team that conducted the

Global Cities Forum—Berlin and contributed to analysis

was: Janet von Rossem, Ina Hildebrandt, Maria Herrmann,

Nadine Enders, Stephanie Stukenberg, Teresa Stahl,

Thomas Kühn, Heike Hofer, Andrea Meixner, Sonja Mahnhardt

The Ipsos MORI (UK) global project management

team was: Bobby Duffy, Debbie Lee Chan,

Anna Pierce, Emily Gray, Rea Robbey

Visit www.accenture.com/globalcitiesforum to use the

interactive map to connect to any of the eight cities for

a highlight of that city's findings and key messages for

government. You can also take the Global Cities Forum

survey, look through the photo gallery, watch videos of

citizens from some of the sessions and connect with

an expert from the Institute for Public Service Value.

For more information about the Accenture Institute

for Public Service Value Global Cities Forum, e-mail

institutepublicservicevalue@accenture.com

Page 38 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close


Copyright © 2008 Accenture

All rights reserved.

Accenture, its logo, and

High Performance Delivered

are trademarks of Accenture.

About the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value

The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value is dedicated to promoting high performance

in public service delivery, policy-making and governance, through research and development

on the creation of public value. The institute undertakes and commissions relevant research;

produces publications on good practice in public service; develops practical methods of applying

the concepts of public value; and presents events to bring together and promote discussion

among public managers and stakeholders in the government, academic, nonprofit and private

sectors. Its home page is www.accenture.com/publicservicevalue.

About Accenture

Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company.

Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and

business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture

collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments.

With 178,000 people in 49 countries, the company generated net revenues of US$19.70 billion

for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007. Its home page is www.accenture.com

Page 39 of 39 Back Contents Print Close

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines