PUBLIC VALUE CREATION BY CROSS‐SECTOR COLLABORATIONS: A FRAMEWORK AND CHALLENGES OF ASSESSMENT

This article proposes ways to assess the public value that cross-sector collaborations produce. It introduces a framework featuring three dimensions of public value – democratic accountability, procedural legitimacy, and substantive outcomes – that reflect distinct priorities and concerns for public administration. Utilizing examples from research on a multi-year cross-sector collaboration in the transportation field, we illustrate the framework's application and identify techniques and challenges for assessing the collaborative creation of public value. The article concludes with questions and propositions to guide future research.

[1]  Lawrence R. Jacobs,et al.  The Contested Politics of Public Value , 2014 .

[2]  M. Feldman,et al.  Boundaries as Junctures: Collaborative Boundary Work for Building Efficient Resilience , 2014 .

[3]  John M. Bryson,et al.  Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management , 2014 .

[4]  Chris Huxham,et al.  The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle of Common Goals in Collaborations , 2012 .

[5]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values , 2012 .

[6]  Michael D. Pfarrer,et al.  A Communicative Framework of Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships , 2012 .

[7]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance , 2012 .

[8]  Iestyn Williams,et al.  APPRAISING PUBLIC VALUE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURES , 2011 .

[9]  Tom Willems,et al.  Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox , 2011 .

[10]  Harry C. Boyte,et al.  Constructive Politics as Public Work , 2011 .

[11]  Martha S. Feldman,et al.  Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion , 2011 .

[12]  A. Holmen.  Governance Networks in City-regions: In the Spirit of Democratic Accountability? , 2011 .

[13]  Mark H. Moore,et al.  Conclusions: Looking Ahead , 2011 .

[14]  Mark H. Moore,et al.  Public Value in Complex and Changing Times , 2011 .

[15]  B. Peters,et al.  Public-Private Partnerships and the Democratic Deficit: Is Performance-Based Legitimacy the Answer? , 2010 .

[16]  E. Sørensen,et al.  Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance , 2009 .

[17]  Timo Meynhardt.  Public Value Inside: What is Public Value Creation? , 2009 .

[18]  Thomas Schillemans,et al.  Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies , 2008 .

[19]  John Wanna,et al.  The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians , 2007 .

[20]  K. Provan,et al.  Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness , 2007 .

[21]  Archon Fung.  Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance , 2006 .

[22]  J. Bryson,et al.  The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature , 2006 .

[23]  G. Stoker.  Public Value Management , 2006 .

[24]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[25]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking , 2005, American Political Science Review.

[26]  Jonathan G. S. Koppell.  Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder” , 2005 .

[27]  Laurence E. Lynn,et al.  Is Hierarchical Governance in Decline? Evidence from Empirical Research , 2004 .

[28]  Stephen Page,et al.  Entrepreneurial Strategies for Managing Interagency Collaboration , 2003 .

[29]  Steven L. Blader,et al.  A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[30]  Vivien Lowndes,et al.  Rescuing Aunt Sally: Taking Institutional Theory Seriously in Urban Politics , 2001 .

[31]  K. Provan,et al.  Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise , 2000 .

[32]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems , 1999 .

[33]  S. Graham,et al.  Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice , 1999 .

[34]  E. Weber.  The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective , 1999 .

[35]  Kenneth J. Meier,et al.  Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion? , 1998 .

[36]  G. Majone.  Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards , 1998 .

[37]  D. Stone.  Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making , 1997 .

[38]  Mark C. Suchman.  Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[39]  M. Moore.  Creating public value : strategic management in government , 1995 .

[40]  James W. Dean,et al.  The Relationship between Procedural Rationality and Political Behavior in Strategic Decision Making , 1993 .

[41]  Melvin J. Dubnick,et al.  Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy , 1987 .

[42]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .