In public management and especially in large urban projects, public administrators regularly work and collaborate with planners (Rhodes & Murray, 2007; Ysa, 2007). However, they will find each other at every level of... [ view full abstract ]
In public management and especially in large urban projects, public administrators regularly work and collaborate with planners (Rhodes & Murray, 2007; Ysa, 2007). However, they will find each other at every level of government. Even though these two professions address public policy issues and are committed to pursuing the public interest, they come from different theoretical traditions and strategies of intervention (Edwards & Galloway, 1981; Johnson, 2014; Johnson, Peck, & Preston, 2017). There are times when planners and public administrators might wonder where the other is coming from. Davis and West (2009, p. 616) note that, “public servants come with ready-shaped propositions (offers rather than open minds) to an authorization environment in which the framing of public action in terms of public value contends alongside other framings for endorsement.” If planners and public administrators had an understanding of the other’s point of view, they might be better able to collaborate, innovate (Garcia-Zamor, 2005), look out for their ethical “blind spots” (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011), and “shape practical action in situations” (West & Davis, 2011, p. 230).
For this paper, the focus is on understanding the framing of public values between the public administration and planning professions. From the public administration side, researchers have created a “public values universe” inventory (Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007) through a content analysis of the public administration literature on public values. This study follows this research model to create a planning “public values universe” using the public values literature from planning. With these “maps” of each other’s public value(s), they can be compared to reveal commonalities and differences. Where Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) use leading public administration journals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavian countries from 1990 - 2003, this study uses leading planning journals from the United States and internationally from 1990 to today. I searched each journal for articles that mention “public values” or “public value”. In each article I looked for references to public values in terms of processes planners pursue on behalf of the public and what products they pursue on behalf of the public. Just like Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman’s (2007) study, the analysis is an interpretive literature review, which is subject to influence by my own perspectives. I placed the values into the same constellations as Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman to aid in comparing the public values universes of public administration and planning.
Comparing the public values of planners and public administrators showcases areas planning and public administration have in common (sustainability, citizen participation, accountability, the public interest) but also differences (political loyalty, spatial orientation, redistribution, market regulation, reflection, agonistic debate, and advocacy). When addressing the co-creation of value, a good starting point is what different public service professions bring to the table. With this information, planners and administrators can better coordinate their efforts with citizens and elected officials.
Value co-creation, co-design and co-production in public services
