Abstract

The aim of this essay is threefold: (1) to identify the tasks of public managers in public value management (PVM), (2) to start a debate on the relationships between autonomy, entrepreneurship and PVM from the perspective of institutional roles and management levels, and (3) to initiate a discussion about the transferability of PVM to diverse administrative systems and cultures. The public value discourse emerged in the 1990s, justifying the need for the concept through a deficit in democratic legitimacy, the delivery paradox, as well as market failure and the critique of New Public Management. Public value focuses on the ultimate purpose of the use of public resources and can thus serve to strengthen outcome legitimacy and downward accountability. Arguably, the most productive interpretation of the public value concept rests along the lines of a normative, conceptual orientation for managerial action, accompanied by a (so far somewhat sparse) set of practical tools and reasoning for public managers. Five tasks of PVM were identified: (1) conducting political management to secure legitimacy for particular value propositions; (2) leveraging public value opportunities through networks and a range of delivery mechanisms; (3) ensuring continuing democratisation through helping the realisation of politically empowered citizenship; (4) ensuring learning across multiple levels and audiences; and (5) cultivating a wider view of sustainable wellbeing for all. Regarding the applicability of PVM across various dimensions of administrative traditions and cultures, it would seem that the tasks are more compatible with some cultures and traditions than others. For instance, these roles seem more compatible with non-politicised public administrations that grant high societal status and discretion to civil servants, and provide them with generalist training and career options. One of the key open questions is under what conditions can a public value approach contribute to changes in the given public administration culture, in particular towards the development of downward accountability mechanisms in the context of democratic backsliding and constraints to bureaucratic autonomy.

中文翻译：

---

公共价值管理的五个任务：作为行政和社会民主化程序的公共价值

摘要

本文的目的是三方面的：（1）确定公共管理者在公共价值管理（PVM）中的任务，（2）从机构角色和管理的角度开始辩论自主性，企业家精神和PVM之间的关系级别；以及（3）发起有关PVM到各种管理系统和文化的可转移性的讨论。公共价值话语出现在1990年代，通过民主合法性的缺失，交付悖论，市场失灵和对新公共管理的批评，证明了对这一概念的需求。公共价值侧重于使用公共资源的最终目的，因此可以用来加强结果的合法性和向下问责制。可以说 对公共价值概念的最有生产力的解释是基于管理行为的规范性，概念性取向，并伴随着（到目前为止有些稀疏）一套实用工具和公共管理者推理。确定了PVM的五个任务：（1）进行政治管理以确保特定价值主张的合法性；（2）通过网络和一系列交付机制来利用公共价值机会；（3）通过帮助实现具有政治权力的公民身份来确保持续的民主化；（4）确保跨层次和跨受众的学习；（5）为所有人培养更广泛的可持续福祉观。关于PVM在各种行政传统和文化中的适用性，看来任务比其他文化和传统更适合某些文化和传统。例如，这些角色似乎与非政治化的公共行政机构更加兼容，后者赋予公务员较高的社会地位和自由裁量权，并为他们提供通才培训和职业选择。关键的开放性问题之一是，在什么条件下，公共价值方法可以在给定的公共行政文化中做出改变，特别是在民主倒退和官僚自治受到限制的情况下，促进向下问责机制的发展。并为他们提供通才培训和职业选择。关键的开放性问题之一是，在什么条件下，公共价值方法可以在给定的公共行政文化中做出改变，特别是在民主倒退和官僚自治受到限制的情况下，促进向下问责机制的发展。并为他们提供通才培训和职业选择。关键的开放性问题之一是，在什么条件下，公共价值方法可以在给定的公共行政文化中做出改变，特别是在民主倒退和官僚自治受到限制的情况下，促进向下问责机制的发展。