Creating Public ValueEdit
Creating Public Value
Public value is a way of thinking about government action that foregrounds results, legitimacy, and the capacity to deliver real benefits for ordinary people. It asks not only what the state can do, but what it should do to improve safety, opportunity, and prosperity while maintaining the conditions that sustain freedom and responsible governance. The idea has roots in public administration theory and has evolved into a practical framework for aligning policy choices with citizen expectations and the resources available to deliver them. It is not about slogans or abstract ideals; it is about outcomes people can see and trust.
From its most usable form, creating public value rests on balancing three pillars: legitimacy, capability, and citizen demand. Legitimacy means broad consent and trust in public institutions, earned through fair processes, clear purposes, and observable accountability. Capability is the ability to deliver services efficiently, at reasonable cost, and with steadfast respect for the rule of law. Citizen demand is the sense that policies address real problems and improve daily life. When these elements reinforce one another, public action earns support, resources, and the freedom to pursue further improvements. Mark Moore and his collaborators have described this approach in detail as part of the broader field of Public administration theory, including the work commonly associated with the phrase Creating Public Value.
Foundations of Creating Public Value
A triad of legitimacy, capability, and demand
- Legitimacy is built through transparent decision-making, predictable rules, and accountable governance.
- Capability is about effective implementation: clear missions, competent administration, and reliable delivery of essential services.
- Demand reflects the expectations of citizens, families, and communities who rely on public goods and public safety to pursue opportunity.
The public value framework
The framework treats public value as the value the state creates that is recognized as legitimate by the people it serves. It emphasizes defining a clear public mission, designing organizational arrangements to execute that mission, and measuring progress in ways that matter to taxpayers and voters. It also encourages evaluating trade-offs, since resource constraints require prioritization and discipline. See Public value for related concepts and debates, and consider how Public-private partnership arrangements might expand capability without sacrificing legitimacy.
Public value in practice
A public agency that can articulate a mission, demonstrate responsible stewardship of funds, and show tangible improvements in safety, health, or opportunity is more likely to sustain public support. This does not mean chasing quick wins at the expense of long-term stability; it means pursuing durable outcomes, like safer streets, better schools, and reliable infrastructure, while maintaining fair processes and prudent budgeting. See discussions of Performance management and Budgeting as related tools to track progress.
The role of markets and private sector engagement
Public value is not a call to shrink government for its own sake, but a call to harness the efficiency and innovation of markets where appropriate, under strong public constraints. Public-private partnerships can be vehicles for expanding capacity, injecting discipline, and accelerating delivery of essential services, provided there is clear accountability, measurable results, and safeguards against abuse of power. This line of thinking relies on the rule of law, competitive procurement, and transparent reporting to preserve legitimacy and protect taxpayers.
Mechanisms to Create Public Value
Mission clarity and governance
Clear objectives help agencies allocate resources wisely and defend choices in the face of political pressure. A well-structured governance model reduces duplicative programs, aligns programs with outcomes, and makes it easier to explain to white voters and others what is being done and why.
Budgeting and performance measurement
Sound fiscal stewardship pairs with performance metrics that reflect real-world impact, not just process. Cost-conscious budgeting, outcome-oriented targets, and independent auditing help ensure that money is spent where it matters most to citizens. See Public finance and Auditing for related topics.
Markets, competition, and procurement reform
Competition in service delivery can drive better results and lower costs if kept within a framework of accountability and non-discrimination. Reforming procurement to reduce red tape, limit taxpayer exposure to overruns, and encourage best value can generate public value without retreating from public responsibility. See Procurement and Competition (economics) for context.
Localism, devolution, and citizen engagement
Delegating authority closer to the people who experience policy effects can improve legitimacy and responsiveness. Local control, with appropriate oversight, allows communities to tailor solutions to their circumstances while preserving overarching standards for fairness and lawfulness. Engagement processes should be designed to avoid capture and to include diverse voices, including black communities and other underrepresented groups, in a way that respects pluralism and shared norms.
Accountability, transparency, and oversight
Public value requires robust accountability: financial reporting, performance reviews, and judicial or legislative checks on power. When agencies face real consequences for failures and when success is demonstrable, trust grows, making it easier to secure support for needed reforms and investments. See Accountability and Transparency (governance).
Controversies and Debates
Equity versus efficiency
Critics on the left warn that a value-focused framework risks neglecting distributional justice or the needs of marginalized groups. From a practical standpoint, proponents respond that efficiency, growth, and stable public finances create the conditions for broader opportunity. They argue that equity is advanced not by bureaucratic experiments alone but by policies that expand access to education, health, and opportunity while maintaining incentives for hard work and investment. The right approach emphasizes targeted, merit-based solutions and clear, measurable outcomes rather than11 unfocused equity mandates.
Managerialism and measurement
A common critique is that the framework treats public life as a matter of management problems to be solved with dashboards and targets. Proponents concede that measurement must be meaningful and resistant to gaming: it should capture long-run results, discourage gaming of metrics, and focus on outcomes people can actually feel in their daily lives. The opportunity is to align incentives so bureaucrats and vendors strive for durable improvements rather than ticking boxes.
The charge of ideology
Some critics argue that the emphasis on markets and private engagement undercuts the public nature of essential services. In response, advocates stress that the state remains essential for providing core public goods, enforcing standards, and guarding against abuses of market power. The point is not to replace public responsibility with private appetite but to combine the strengths of both sectors under a common framework of legitimacy and accountability.
Why contemporary criticisms from the "woke" perspective are misplaced
Certain critics argue that public value frameworks neglect power imbalances, identity, and social justice. From a perspective focused on practical governance, the counterpoint is that legitimate, nonpartisan governance can and should address opportunity gaps through policies that expand choice, competition, and accountability. In many cases, targeted reforms—such as expanding school choice where appropriate, improving public safety through local partnerships, and reducing unnecessary regulation—can advance both efficiency and fairness. Advocates also argue that public value can incorporate equity concerns by linking outcomes to transparent, merit-based opportunities rather than symbolic measures.