Cross-Sectoral Relations in the Delivery of Public Services

Andrea Bonomi Savignon, Luca Gnan, Alessandro Hinna, Fabio Monteduro, Andrea Bonomi Savignon, Luca Gnan, Alessandro Hinna, Fabio Monteduro

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781787431720
• eBook ISBN: 9781787431911
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Affairs & Administration
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The complex and ever-evolving relationship between the public sector and civil society at large is high on the policy and political agenda for the transformation of administrative and socio-economic systems in most developed countries. In this context, citizen associations, private businesses and non-profit organizations play a crucial role as potential actors of collaborative governance arrangements for both the prioritization and direct provision of public interest services. These settings are increasingly seen as powerful policy tools by which States may not only address issues related to the expenditure constraints which, in the current public financial situation, contingently limit and condition the direct delivery of such services by public institutions. They are also viewed as an opportunity for a definitive shift from traditional models of public administration in the sense that policies may be better designed, articulated, and governed through a collaborative approach, while service provision could be enhanced in terms of proximity, representativeness and innovativeness. 

This book assesses these cross-sectoral relations across the public sector from a variety of contexts. Chapters consider public service design, public governance systems, philanthropy, housing policies, performance management and a number of other issues across national and comparative settings.

AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK TOWARD PUBLIC SYSTEM GOVERNANCE: INSIGHTS FROM VIABLE SYSTEMS APPROACH

Francesco Polese, Orlando Troisi, Luca Carrubbo and Mara Grimaldi

ABSTRACT

This study aims at rereading public governance (PG) and public value management (PVM) in the light of viable systems approach (VSA). Starting from the common points and the dissimilarities between the two theories, an integrated framework for pinpointing the key drivers leading to the emersion of public value co-creation in a public system conception of governance is elaborated. An overview on the emersion of PVM and PG is conducted in order to identify the main features of the new mindset. Then, VSA’s assumptions also are analyzed (with particular focus on their managerial implications) and then subdivided into four macro-areas.

The combination of the two theories allows recognition of four levers (with relative postulates) for fostering public value co-creation: (1) strategic selection of actors; (2) establishment of system and relational boundaries; (3) pursuit of the fit strategy-tactics; (4) system governance diffusion. From a theoretical point of view, the study provides suggestions for the creation of a public system theory of governance. Regarding managerial standpoint, revealing the drivers for public value co-creation can aid managers to better elaborate strategies for stimulating actor’s engagement in order to challenge complexity and user’s demands variability.

Keywords: Public governance; public value management; viable systems approach; public value co-creation

INTRODUCTION

Public service organizations (PSOs), intrinsically based on the constant research for social consensus and legitimation (Verschuere & Beddeleem, 2013), should aim at continually aligning their conduct with consumers–citizens’ demand, even more than private organizations (Pettigrew, 2005).

So, in parallel with the emersion of service logic in marketing research, managerial theories and literature on governance also have been marked by significant changes. In public management, in fact, there is the passage from an “old” bureaucratic and hierarchic vision of governance (Weber, 1964) to the “intermediate” new public management (NPM; Hood, 1991; Osborne, 2006; Thatcher, 1995) to a “new” broadened approach, public value management (PVM; Moore, 1995; Stoker, 2006), advancing a general collaborative viewpoint based on the centrality of diffused governance and user’s participation. This perspective leads to the elaboration of a series of theories grounded on a networked approach to governance, such as public governance (PG; Cepiku, 2005; Peters & Pierre, 1998; Rhodes, 1997).

Simultaneously, in the plethora of managerial and service research studies, Viable Systems Approach (VSA; Barile, 2000; Golinelli, 2000) stands out since it broadens the level of analysis from a micro-standpoint of service interactions to the analysis of decision-making’s role in the harmonization of systems to create value co-creation (Barile, 2008; Piciocchi, Siano, Bassano, & Conte, 2012). So, thanks to its marked managerial implications, VSA can be viewed in this context as the most suitable approach for redefining the actual configuration of governance in a system view.

Therefore, it can be noticed that – even if from different point of views – both the approaches converge around a system perspective highlighting the necessity to conceptualize a system governance for POS grounded on democratic diffusion of power and on stakeholder’s participation in decision-making in a process-based vision. Despite these similarities, however, there is a lack in extant research of studies combining the two theories, whereas only service-dominant logic (S-D logic; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008) has been until now combined with PG (Osborne, Radnor, Kinder, & Vidal, 2014; Osborne, Radnor, & Nasi, 2013).

The study aims at valorizing the common points between PVM and PG and VSA by proposing their integration to finally advance an all-encompassing framework for rereading governance in line with contemporary context. The assimilation of the two theories implies mutual benefits for both of them: if, on the one hand, VSA introduces new meanings into the traditional view on governance and redefines POS as systems, PVM and PG contribute to exploring the managerial implications of networked vision and system view of governance.

Thus, the work attempts at answering the following research question:

RQ: Is it possible to reconceptualize PG (and PVM) through viable systems approach in order to identify the drivers for public value co-creation in public service organizations?

In particular, the two paradigms are joined in a system view (public system governance), and the four drivers for promoting public value co-creation (Troisi, 2016), the ultimate and ideal goal of the whole process, are identified. These drivers are: (1) strategic selection of actors; (2) fit strategy-tactics; (3) strategic and relational boundaries; (4) networked governance.

The development of an integrated framework for rereading PG through VSA sets a research agenda for a public system theory of governance and provides further research with some interesting insights for creating new evolutionary models of analysis for improving decision making in public (but also private) organizations.

The contribution is structured as follows. First, the double shift occurring both in public management theories and in managerial and service research, leading, respectively, to the birth of PG and VSA, is briefly debated. Then, from the common points between the two theories four macro-areas of intersection to be followed for implementing strategies are presented and successively described. The final part of the chapter concerns the overall contribution, the implications, and the limitations of the framework introduced.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

From New Public Management to PG and PVM: Toward a System Approach

In contemporary markets, the analysis of the blurred concept of governance has become even more complex since the advent of the social, economic, and cultural transformation discussed above. Then, in line with the aforementioned new, postmodern, and fragmented society (Haveri, 2006), PG should adapt to this scenario, by taking into account the different and conflicting stakeholder interests (Botti, Monda, Tommasetti, Troisi, & Vesci, 2016; Dezi, 2005; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000).

For this reason, in public management literature, a shift has occurred from an “old” bureaucratic conception to a networked vision of governance. This new mindset takes into account the necessity to adopt a wider and multi-stakeholder view (Sacconi, 2005) in order to manage changing prosumers and increase service performance and effectiveness (Toffler, 1980). According to Osborne (2006), three evolutionary stages can be distinguished: (1) public administration (PA); (2) new public management (NPM); (3) public governance (PG). In parallel with the establishment of this broadened perspective, the traditional conception of government has been replaced by governance (Borgonovi, 2002).

Public Administration and New Public Management

The first vision (public administration, PA) derives from the archaic administrative models grounded on the central role of bureaucracy in policy making and implementation (Chandler, 1991; Rhodes, 1997). Introduced in political science sector (Weber, 1968), PA model is composed of a unitary state based on vertical integration between policy making and implementation, which is automatically accomplished by merely ensuring a fit between the fixed aims and the results obtained.

The vertical governance and the top-down establishment of guidelines are linked with the existence of a clear divide between administrators and policy makers, who do not own any discretional power.

At this level, governance does not exist, but government still prevails. Decision-making is legitimized by formal institutional rules which have compulsory effects (Borgonovi, 2002).

The second framework, NPM (Kickert, 1997; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004; Thomas, 2012), introduced in Hood’s (1991) seminal work, is a managerial and market-oriented framework for public services delivery, generated from the overcoming of the rigidity of previous PA approach.

This managerial approach to public services delivery, which can be ascribed to rational/public choice and neoclassicism theories (Niskanen, 1971), focuses on a competitive logic seeking to identify the most adequate strategies for allocating public resources in order to provide public organizations with competitive advantage. In line with public sector corporatization, private sector managerial techniques are applied to public context in order to generate immediate increase in efficiency and effectiveness (Thatcher, 1995).

This perspective is characterized by the presence of a disaggregated state, in which policy implementation is not strategically considered as a whole, but is viewed, instead, as a series of unconnected actions that are derived from service units in competition with each other. Government mechanisms are grounded on the absolute rationality (Simon, 1991), and there is still a clear separation between policy makers and administrators.

In line with an intra-organizational focus, the relationships with external stakeholders are established only on the basis of formal contracts for resource allocation. Moreover, service delivery is evaluated on the basis of the mere fit between inputs and outputs and on the assessment of performance indicators (Hood, 1991) and on economy and efficiency of service units which are seen as single isolated components which represent a cost for organizations.

In literature, NPM’s uncritical application of private sector management strategies to public organization raised a general criticism.

In the first place, it has been viewed as an “old” model since it lies on manufacturing paradigm (the good-dominant logic of service mentioned in the introduction). Second, the evolution of plural and pluralist systems of public services delivery implies that government no longer acts as a black box composed of depersonalized individuals, but it requires the collaboration of a range of actors, in line with the assumptions of S-D logic and relationship marketing (Grönroos, 2008; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). What is more, economic context is not always stable and the process of service provision needs to be managed through in-progress adjustments (Merton, 1968).

Public Value Management and Public Governance

From the general shift toward a collective logic based on citizen engagement designed to challenge hypercompetitive environment, a series of approaches arise (Network Governance, Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997; New Public Administration, Frederickson & Chandler, 1989; New Public Service, Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000).

Among these, PVM (Moore, 1995; Stoker, 2006) stands out, thanks to the adoption of an overall system vision considering the production of service as the joint result of the collaboration among members of public service systems that include PSOs themselves, service users, and other key stakeholders (such as local communities).

Public value represents the evaluation of service valuable dimensions on the part of citizenry (Alford, 2002; Alford & O’Flynn, 2009; Kelly, Mulgan, & Muers, 2002). This concept refers to the value exchanged between organizations and citizenship as a whole. According to Moore (1995), public value is expressed by citizens in the form of requirements and it is collectively built through the involvement of elected key stakeholders (Stoker, 2006) in a network of relationships aimed at pursuing public interest. The constant search for public value, in opposition to NPM’s focus on market orientation, requires an open-minded relational approach in which user’s interactions are strengthened by trust, legitimacy, and confidence in government.

As Moore and Braga (2004) state, in PVM model citizens decide together, via elected representatives, what they value as collective in a diffused governance ruled by social exchanges. In this framework, managers have the key role of network coordinators and of relationships facilitator, since they should maintain system’s survival and equilibrium (Kelly et al., 2002).

Starting from PVM’s assumptions, public governance (PG, or new public governance, NPG; Osborne, 2006) proposes the transition from formal government to a shared, informal and competence-bas...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Refocusing Performance Management through Public Service Design?
• An Integrated Framework Toward Public System Governance: Insights from Viable Systems Approach
• Public Support and Corporate Giving to the Arts and Culture in Times of Economic Crisis: An Exploratory Analysis on the Italian Case
• Working Citizens’ Cross-Sectoral Preferences in England and Finland
• Government–Third Sector Relations and the Triple Helix Approach: Patterns in the Italian Social Innovation Ecosystem
• Paradigms of Public Management and the Historical Evolution of State–CSO Partnerships: A Comparison of AIDS, Social Assistance, and Cultural Policy
• Infrastructure Projects as a Value Co-creation Process
• The Co-production of Housing Policies: Social Housing and Community Land Trust
• Collaborative Governance: A Successful Case of Public and Private Interaction in the Port City of Naples
• The Relationships between Government and Civil Society in Performing Public Service Hybrid Organisations: Some Insights from a Comparative Study
• About the Authors
• About the Editors
• Index