Exceptional Proff 520

75th Anniversary Article

Janet V. Denhardt is the Chester A.

Newland Professor of Public Administration

in the Price School of Public Policy at the

University of Southern California and direc-

tor of the Price School’s Sacramento

Center. She is also a fellow of the National

Academy of Public Administration. Her

teaching and research interests focus on

governance, organizational theory, organi-

zation behavior, and leadership.

E-mail: [email protected]

Robert B. Denhardt is professor and

director of leadership programs in the Price

School of Public Policy at the University of

Southern California. He also holds the title

of Regents Professor Emeritus at Arizona

State University and Distinguished Visiting

Scholar at the University of Delaware. He is

a past president of the American Society for

Public Administration and a fellow of the

National Academy of Public Administration.

E-mail: [email protected]

664 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 5, pp. 664–672. © 2015 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12347.

Janet V. Denhardt Robert B. Denhardt University of Southern California

Editor’s Note: Fifteen years ago, Janet and Robert Denhardt introduced a set of norms and practices they called the New Public Service. Th eir perspective was created as a counterbalance to the popularity of reinventing government and the larger wave of New Public Management that began in the 1980s. In this anniversary essay, the Denhardt’s scan the landscape of public administration to assess how the principles of New Public Service have fared against the New Public Management.

JLP

Abstract: Th e New Public Service describes a set of norms and practices that emphasize democracy and citizenship as the basis for public administration theory and practice. Th is article revisits some of the core arguments of the New Public Service and examines how they have been practiced and studied over the past 15 years. Th e authors conclude that neither the principles of the New Public Service nor those of the New Public Management have become a dominant paradigm, but the New Public Service, and ideas and practices consistent with its ideals, have become increasingly evident in public administration scholarship and practice.

values and citizenship by public administrators will have benefi ts in terms of building communities, engag- ing citizens, and making government work more eff ec- tively. Th e proponents of the New Public Management, on the other hand, argue that the use of market models and values is the best way to understand the role and operations of government and to ensure effi ciency.

Of course, public administration practice cannot be divided into two distinct camps: one refl ecting market values and the other refl ecting democratic values. Th ere are diff erences, however, in the extent to which certain values are balanced or pursued relative to other values. For example, few would say that citizenship, a hallmark of the New Public Service, is unimportant. Yet there are diff erences in how much emphasis is placed on fostering citizenship through dialogue ver- sus off ering individual “customer” choices. Likewise, it would be a rare public servant who would say that effi ciency is not an important value. Rather, it is a question of the extent to which effi ciency is, or is not, balanced with other values such as engagement and community building.

If values are often mixed and muddied in practice, how and why might it be useful to argue one set of values against another set of values? It is our conten- tion in that doing so, we can make our assumptions more explicit and highlight potential value trade-off s

Th e New Public Service Revisited

First appearing as a Public Administration Review (PAR) article in 2000 and later as a book, Th e New Public Service (2011) presented a set of ideals and related practices emphasizing democratic norms and citizen engagement in the conduct of public administration. Off ered as an alternative to the New Public Management (NPM) popularized by Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing Government (1992), the New Public Service addressed core ques- tions about the nature of public service, the role of administration in governance, and the value tensions surrounding bureaucracy, effi ciency, equity, respon- siveness, and accountability. Our purpose was not to develop a set of novel ideas but rather to give voice to the traditional and signifi cant democratic perspec- tives we felt were becoming overshadowed by the New Public Management rhetoric of “fi xing” a broken government by running it like a business.

Certainly the 15 years since the New Public Service appeared in PAR have been both remarkable and tumultuous, creating new challenges and opportu- nities for public service. In light of these dramatic changes, we now ask, how have the values of the New Public Service been refl ected in scholarship and prac- tice over the past 15 years?

At the risk of oversimplifying, the New Public Service argues that the explicit consideration of democratic

The New Public Service Revisited 665

Raadschelders and Lee observe, for example, that the success of NPM is based on the administrative capacity of government (see Brown and Potoski 2003; Yang, Hsieh, and Li 2009), that it has not paid adequate attention to politics, law and culture (Haruna 2003; Kassel 2008; Riccucci and Th ompson 2008), that it is less effi cient and eff ective than expected (Leland and Smirnova 2009; Lenkowsky and Perry 2000; Moynihan 2006; Th ompson 2000), and that there remains a disconnect between theory and practice (Van Slyke 2003; Williams 2000). Some scholars maintain that legislative and judicial constraints have been overlooked (Reed and Meyer 2004) and that NPM has eroded accountability to citizens and civil society (Eikenberry and Kluver 2004; Kelly 2005; Romzek and Johnston 2005).

Th is article demonstrates that in addition to its impact in the academic literature, there is also increasing evidence that the values and norms advanced by the New Public Service are being played out in practice. It appears that the dominance of the New Public Management that we found in 2000 may not be as pronounced in 2014. As Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg observe, “Just as New Public Management supplanted traditional public administration in the 1980s and 1990s as the dominant view, a new movement is now under way that is likely to eclipse it” (2014, 445).

Th e New Public Service was organized around seven core argu- ments related to the role of the public service in facilitating citizenship and promoting democratic governance. In the sections that follow, we distill these arguments into four main questions in order to present an update on the development of related theory and practice since the original publication: (1) Does citizen engagement work? (2) How have the values of the public interest and collaborative leadership been expressed in practice? (3) Has the reliance on market models of entrepreneurship and privati- zation decreased? (4) Are we rowing, steering, or serving? We conclude with an assessment of possible future directions for the fi eld of public administration as it struggles to match its practices and its ideals.

Does Citizen Engagement Work? In the New Public Service, we suggested that the work of public servants cannot accurately be described as simply responding to the demands of “customers” for speedy and effi cient solutions to individual problems. Rather, we argued that public service should

focus on creating opportunities for citizenship by forging trusting relationships with mem- bers of the public and working with them to defi ne public problems, develop alternatives, and implement solutions.

Does Citizen Engagement Work? Have citizen engagement strategies been used and resulted in benefi ts to citizens and com-

munities? Th e answer is a resounding yes. Evidence shows that when deliberative processes are used to create two-way communications and agencies are responsive to what they hear, there are positive gains in terms of citizenship, trust, and the quality of decisions. For example, Beierle and Cayford analyzed the results of 239 cases of public engagement in environmental policy making and found that it “frequently produces decisions that are responsive to public values

that might not otherwise have been considered. It should be made clear from the outset that we view both the New Public Service and the New Public Management as primarily normative rather than empirical arguments. While research can support and inform nor- mative arguments, it cannot entirely resolve them. Accordingly, this article does not claim that the values of the New Public Service have “won” over the values of the New Public Management or vice versa. Instead, we summarize the research on the pursuit of New Public Service values and review the benefi ts of these approaches. We then ask, how does this research strengthen or weaken the normative arguments for New Public Service values?

Certainly a great deal of important work has been published that addresses the key questions raised by the New Public Service. Th is research has moved the discussion forward, outward, and beyond to consider new conceptual frameworks and issues. Consider, for example, works that have built on the foundations laid by the New Public Service, including Zeemering (2008) on the importance of cross-boundary cooperation; Nabatchi and Mergel (2010) on the necessity for administrators to view governance in terms of networks that present opportunities for citizen participation; Meijer (2011) on the ways in which Dutch citizens have used online services; Terry (2005) on the weakening of administrative institutions; Fung (2013) on the importance of transparency; Nalbandian (2008) on the heightened need for citizen engagement in increasingly complex local governance contexts; and Durant and Ali (2013) on continu- ing citizen estrangement despite administrative reforms. Th ese are but a few examples of the wealth of critical analysis that continues to test and add to the tenets of the New Public Service.

One way to evaluate the impact of the New Public Service is by looking at its presence in the academic literature. As Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg note, while there are several value-based frame- works that emphasize citizenship and democracy (e.g., Boyte 2005; Bozeman 2007; Osborne 2010; Stoker 2006), the “‘New Public Service’ certainly appears to be the leading contender” (2014, 452). Th is growing body of literature does not necessarily mean, however, that the New Public Management has not retained much of its hold over the day-to-day work of public administration practitioners.

Certainly the New Public Management has had a signifi cant and often positive eff ect on government practices. While it may not have lived up to the expectations of those who argued that it would “fi x” the problems of government, its mark on the public sector remains clearly visible and valuable. Effi ciency is a laudable value that will undoubtedly remain a hallmark of public administration practice (Callahan 2010; Rho 2013; Terry 2005).

It is also the case, however, that the fi eld of public administration’s ardor for New Public Management has noticeably cooled over the last decade. According to Raadschelders and Lee’s evaluation of PAR articles from 2000 to 2009, the New Public Management “dominated the study and practice of public administration and practice of public administra- tion over the past three decades.” Th ey also point out, however, that “[d]uring the past decade . . . NPM increasingly met with criticism of its limitations and disadvantages” (2011, 25).

Public service should focus on creating opportunities for citizenship by forging trusting relationships with members of

the public.

666 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

but public managers’ attitudes had the greatest explanatory power: “the most important factor in citizen involvement decisions is the attitude public managers hold towards the value of participation.” On the other hand, when public participation is done grudgingly or as a marginal addition, “the most that can be hoped for . . . is that they do no harm” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, 75).

Coursey, Yang, and Pandey (2012) looked at data from the National Administrative Studies Project and found that a manager’s public service motivation and perceived commitment to citizen participa- tion “aff ect managerial attitudes towards participation in both direct and indirect ways.” In other words, recruiting and retaining public servants who have high levels of public service motivation, particu- larly when they perceive a high level of organizational support for participation, is likely to lead to desirable participation outcomes. Th is suggests that the normative component of the New Public Service has important implications for practice. If public manag- ers question the traditional assumptions and methods of citizen participation and instead value citizen engagement and dialogue as essential to democratic governance, they may be more likely to (1) use approaches that are more intensive and (2) be more respon- sive to what citizens say. Research suggests that their doing so will likely have positive eff ects on decision making, citizenship, and governance.

What Approaches Work Best? Fortunately, practice has shown that there are many eff ective

approaches to citizen engagement, and the argument for increased citizen involvement continues to gain ground. While there have long been barriers and resistance to direct citi- zen participation in the governance process, we have now reached a point that Roberts (2008) has termed “the age of citizen engagement.” Public servants and their agencies have come a long way from the federally mandated citizen

participation requirements of the 1960s and 1970s and employ a variety of approaches and mechanisms for involving citizens in all phases of governmental decision making and action. As a result, “citizen engagement is no longer hypothetical: it is very real, and public administrators are central to its evolution” (Roberts 2008, 4).

In a 2010 International City/County Management Association (ICMA) white paper titled Connected Communities, a wide variety of successful approaches to citizen engagement were documented (Svara and Denhardt 2010). Th e authors found that governments at all levels are becoming increasingly creative in their attempts to develop dialogue and to interact with citizens. A few examples of these approaches provide a glimpse of the methods being used to authentically involve citizens in policy making and resource alloca- tion decisions.

For example, surveys are used to solicit citizen opinions and ideas on budgets, to evaluate programs, and to gauge preferences on the type of engagement activities citizens prefer (Glaser, Yeager, and Parker 2006). Th e surveys in the 1980s were generally neither representative nor systematic. Since that time, survey techniques have become much more sophisticated, and when used sequentially or in combination with other tools, a survey is an eff ective method

and substantively robust, but it also helps to resolve confl ict, build trust, and educate and inform the public” (2002, 74). Th ey further found that the process used makes all the diff erence. “Processes in which agencies are responsive, participants are motivated, the qual- ity of deliberation is high, and participants have at least a moderate degree of control over the process are more successful” (74).

In examining citizen engagement practices around the world, Innes and Booher found that when collaborative processes were used, the benefi ts became clear. Th ere are numerous examples of collabora- tive dialogue in budgeting that have resulted in “agreements that were otherwise politically impossible. Dialogue has also been shown to defuse racial tensions, build social capital, and enhance civic capacity” (2004, 427).

Traditional Approaches to Citizen Participation Do Not Work Th e reverse argument also seems to be confi rmed: if citizen engage- ment is done in an inauthentic manner, based on a mistrust of citi- zens and one-way communication, with restricted access and little follow-through, not only will it not “work,” but also it may damage citizenship and trust and reduce the capacity of the governance system (Innes and Booher 2004). Legally mandated public hearings and comment periods do “not achieve genuine participation,” fail to make people feel heard, seldom improve decisions, and do not involve a broad cross-section of the public. Worse, these approaches antagonize the public and create greater polarization (Innes and Booher 2004, 419).

Unfortunately, most of what is called citizen participation is not the sort of deliberative dialogue and engagement that is advocated by the New Public Service. So, in a sense, those who claim that citizen participation does not work are absolutely correct if they are referring to the traditional mechanisms. Conversely, when done well, citizen dialogue and engagement has the opposite eff ect: it builds citizenship, trust and capacity.

Th is makes it very diffi cult to interpret the fi ndings of studies that purport to measure the eff ects of public “participation” when participation is defi ned as everything from a public hearing to fi lling out a survey and/or attending a series of neighborhood meetings. When all of those approaches are included (e.g., Wang 2001), it is not surprising that the results are mixed.

Why Do the Reasons for Seeking Citizen Engagement Matter? Of course, while evidence shows the eff ectiveness of citizen engage- ment, the arguments behind the New Public Service are, as we have already said, clearly normative. How important are these values in decisions about how to use citizen engagement strategies? Are citizen engagement initiatives used for management or political expediency or because it the right thing to do? Yang and Callahan (2007) sug- gest that there are three possible drivers: (1) the presence of pressure to do so from external stakeholders; (2) the nature of managerial attitudes regarding the value of participation; and (3) perceived obstacles, including resource, capacity, and structural barriers. Based on a survey of local governments, these researchers found that citizen involvement eff orts do refl ect all three of these drivers,

Most of what is called citizen participation is not the sort of deliberative dialogue and

engagement that is advocated by the New Public Service.

The New Public Service Revisited 667

How Have the Values of the Public Interest and Collaborative Leadership Been Expressed in Practice? Advocates of the New Public Management claimed that the public interest is either irrelevant or nonexistent, favoring instead a reliance on individual choice as it is exercised in a market. Th e aggregation of individual choices based on self-interest was assumed to the best means to determine and achieve policy objectives. Public servants were encouraged to act as entrepreneurs and to take action to ensure market-like effi ciency.

In the New Public Service, on the other hand, the search for a shared view of the public interest is based on an open, inclu- sive, and informed discussion of values. Over the last decade, the ideal of the public interest—defi ned by Perry and Wise as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives primar- ily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (1990, 368)—has been explored in a variety of ways. It has been found, for example, that citizen trust and confi dence in government are built on the perception that governmental policy is focused on the public interest. Research by Glaser, Parker, and Payton (2001) and Glaser, Denhardt, and Hamilton (2002) supports this contention; when government agencies visibly concentrate their eff orts on increasing the well-being of the community and the public interest, citizens’ trust and willingness to pay for civic investments increase.

Th e public interest is also important in understanding what draws individuals to the public service and motivates them to perform eff ectively over time. In 1996, Perry suggested that there are four dimensions to measuring public service motivation: (1) attraction to policy making, (2) commitment to the public interest, (3) com- passion, and (4) self-sacrifi ce. Th is framework served as a catalyst for extensive subsequent research. In 2010, Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise reviewed 20 years of research and concluded that, while there were methodological and other issues, there was general support for the idea that public service motivation leads people to choose public service work and that it is positively related to performance.

The Public Interest and Public Choice Advocates of the New Public Service contend that the concept of the public interest is central to public administration and related work. Ironically, early public choice theorists actually seemed to agree with the New Public Service on this point. Th ese public choice theorists were much more resistant to dismissing the role of the public interest in arrangements involving privatization and coproduction. For example, Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren stated in 1961 that cooperative arrangements work when they “produce a greater return to all parties concerned, if the appropriate set of public interests is adequately represented among the negotiators (1961, 833; emphasis added). In a review of Vincent Ostrom’s work by Michael McGinnes and Elinor Ostrom, the authors observe that the close association between Vincent Ostrom and public choice is ironic, given his strong critique: “Public choice theory brings to the study of politics a relentless focus on the importance of effi ciency in public policy . . . In a polycentric order, individuals or communi- ties might decide, for whatever reason, to sacrifi ce effi ciency for the pursuit of other goals, such as accountability, fairness, or physical sustainability” (2012, 19–20).

for engaging citizens. Surveys have been used to set budget priori- ties, gauge support or dissatisfaction with programs or services, and obtain ideas about the type of citizen engagement activities citizens prefer (Glaser, Yeager, and Parker 2006). Th e Deliberative Polling process developed at Stanford University uses a multistage process including both surveys and facilitated dialogue.

Online technologies and social media have transformed citizen engagement and created new levels of transparency in the last decade. In 2011, the United States and seven other governments (United Kingdom, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, and South Africa) initiated Open Government Partnership pro- grams to provide their citizens with access to government data that had not been readily accessed previously (Fung 2013). In the United States, President Barack Obama’s commitment to open government ushered in a new era of citizen access through the Internet.

A 2011 assessment of public participation in federal agencies under the Open Government Directive included examples from federal departments using crowdsourcing, online contests, online town halls, wikis, and a wide variety of social media to solicit input, build relationships, and encourage collaboration (Lukensmeyer, Goldman, and Stern 2011, 17–18). Technology and social media are being used at the state and local government levels as well. Nabatchi and Mergel (2010) highlight best practices, including a program called the Virginia Idea Forum, through which citizens submit, discuss, and collaborate on ideas for improvement. At the local level, Bryer (2010) points to a program called Manor Labs in Manor, Texas, where citizens are awarded points called “innobucks” for submitting ideas. Wikis are being used to create “virtual charettes,” as in the San Jose planning process (Nabatchi and Mergel 2010). Technology has been used facilitate large-scale dialogues as well, such as after the September 11 terrorist attacks (Civic Alliance 2002, 1).

While technology has played an important role, there has also been success in using small groups and face-to-face interaction, such as in Delray Beach, Florida, where citizens talked about sustainability and budget issues, and in Alachua County in the same state, where small groups worked on an interactive budget simulation to help establish priorities. In citizen academies, such as in Redwood City, California, citizens meet with city offi cials and attendance has remained high over time. In Montgomery, Ohio, the Citizens Learning Academy uses simulations and hands-on learning and an understanding of trade-off s in policy decisions related to taxes, economic develop- ment, and other issues. Finally, citizen engagement approaches based on the arts are being employed to attract people who might not typically be involved in civic activities express ideas that they fi nd diffi cult to communicate. A wide variety of tools can be used to create these kinds of opportunities, including art, dance, theater, and storytelling (Goldbard 2010).

In short, citizen engagement, which does not rely on traditional, legally mandated participation mechanisms and instead embraces authentic dialogue, has been shown to produce positive eff ects on decision making, citizenship, and governance. Citizen engagement has become increasingly importance in governance at all levels, providing a signifi cant and growing counterpoint to models based solely on “customer service” and the market.

668 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

Such circumstances demand something other than command and control leadership— something more like fl exible, adaptive, and shared leadership.

Has the Reliance on Market Models of Entrepreneurship and Privatization Decreased? Th e New Public Management emphasized decentralization, privatization, and competi-

tion in order to achieve effi ciency and best respond to customer demands. Th e New Public Service, on the other hand, suggests that privatization and the values of business entrepreneurship may devalue the public interest and values such as equity, representative- ness, and fairness.

Looking at the history of privatization and contracting paints a picture of less successful privatization and contracting than the New Public Management predicted. Every fi ve years since 1982, the ICMA has conducted a survey on alternative service delivery arrangements in local government in the United States. Since the survey began, the most common form of service delivery has been through public organizations. In 1992, when Osborne and Gaebler’s book was published, 50 percent of services were provided public employees. By 2002, the percentage of directly provided public services had increased to 59 percent. Five years later, in 2007, 52 percent of services were publicly provided. So, with the exception of a modest decrease in contracting in 2002, the level of contracting has remained fairly constant over the past three decades.

Th is does not tell the whole story, however. What has changed is whom government is contracting with, the nature of those con- tracts, and the fact that contracting includes both contracting out and contracting back in. From 1992 to 1997, for instance, “on average, governments newly contract out six services and contract back in four services” (Hefetz and Warner 2004, 172). In an analysis of 26 case studies of contracting back in, Ballard and Warner (2000) found that in most cases, poor service quality, diffi culties with con- tract specifi cations, and the challenges of monitoring were the rea- sons for bringing services back in house. In summarizing the results of their research, Hefetz and Warner state that the data “support the new public service that argues public managers do more than steer a market process; they balance technical and political concerns to secure public value” (171).

It is not just local government managers in the United States who are reversing the trend toward privatization. Th e United Kingdom and New Zealand were among the fi rst adherents to New Public Management and market-based approaches to government. Both enacted legislation requiring compulsory competitive contracting

in an eff ort to promote extensive privatiza- tion. New Zealand, in particular, served as an exemplar for proponents of the New Public Management in the United States (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Since that time, the United Kingdom and Australia have both abolished the requirement for competitive bidding on service contracts, and New Zealand’s prime minister is focused

As Bozeman (2007) put it, in working to create a collective, shared notion of the public interest, public administrators should seek not quick fi xes to problems derived from individ- ual choices but rather provide help in creating shared interests and responsibility. Th is is in sharp contrast to the emphasis on self-interest inherent in the New Public Management model, which suggested that public managers should maximize productivity and eff ective- ness by exercising more latitude in decision making, similar to that exercised in the private sector. As Osborne and Gaebler stated, “the idea was to get them thinking like owners” and to ask, “If it this were my money, would I spend it this way?” (1992, 3). Th e New Public Service, on the other hand, emphasizes that public money should not be spent by public servants acting as if they were spend- ing their own money. Rather, public servants are accountable to democratic processes and institutions, and there should be a “vastly increased enhanced capacity for citizen involvement in the policy process” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011, 102).

The Public Interest, Networks, and Collaborative Leadership Because of the wide range of stakeholders and perspectives involved in most public issues, it is increasingly necessary to use collective, collaborative approaches to operate programs targeting public needs. One indicator of this trend is the publication of a special issue of PAR (2006) on “Collaborative Public Management.” For purposes of the symposium, the editors defi ned collaborative public management as the process of facilitating and operating in multio- rganizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved or easily solved by single organizations. “Collaborative means to co-labor, to cooperate to achieve common goals, working across boundaries in multi-sector relationships” (O’Leary, Gerard, and Bingham 2006, 7).

Certainly since we fi rst wrote about the New Public Service, the design and implementation of public policy has moved even further away from a single governmental unit acting alone or in close concert with one or two others to a complex system featuring complex governance networks comprising a plurality of actors— public, private, and nonprofi t—each bringing their own special interests, resources, and set of expertise. Sørensen and Torfi ng defi ne a governance network as “1. a relatively stable horizontal articula- tion of interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors; 2. who interact through negotiations; 3. which take place within a regular to, normative, cognitive and imaginary framework; 4. that is self-regulating within limits set by external agencies; and 5. which contributes to the production of public purpose” (2007, 9).

If this is the case, traditional leadership models emphasizing hier- archical power, authority based on position, and strict managerial control seem ill suited for the modern governance system. And, not surprisingly, these same models are being called into question in other sectors as well. A 2010 IBM study of public and private chief executive offi cers from around the world pointed to the turbulence and complexity of the newly globalized world in which we live.

Public administrators should seek not quick fi xes to prob- lems derived from individual

choices but rather provide help in creating shared interests and

responsibility.

Traditional leadership models emphasizing hierarchical power,

authority based on position, and strict managerial control seem ill suited for the modern

governance system.

The New Public Service Revisited 669

their shared goals rather than attempting to control or steer society in new directions. We noted, however, that ensuring accountability for those goals is anything but simple. In our view, public servants need to pay close attention not only to the market but also to a long list of other concerns, including local, state, and federal laws, profes- sional standards, and the political climate, as well as community values and citizen interests.

Public administrators have long struggled with how to measure outcomes of public programs that can have multiple and some- times confl icting goals coupled with the increasingly intractable and “wicked” nature of public problems. Especially pertinent to the discussion here, performance measurement tools have traditionally neglected the potential role of citizens in developing measures that are meaningful and useful as well. Th ey have similarly neglected the need to measure the impact of public programs on citizenship.

Authors such as Callahan (2010) and Woolum (2010) argue that we ought to give citizens the opportunity to play a role in how govern- ment evaluates its provision of services. In this way, the process measures what truly matters to the public. Of course, what citizens want to see measured and what agency staff want to see measured might be diff erent, but it is valuable to consider both perspectives. For example, the Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment project in Iowa included the following: “Are the measures helpful to citizens in evaluating the performance of the service? Can an ordinary citi- zen understand the measure?” Woolum cites programs in Denver, Colorado; Derby, Kansas; and Vancouver, Washington, that are involving citizens in their performance measurement programs and “giving citizens a voice in identifying priorities and goals and deter- mining indicators of success” (2010, 102).

In considering performance measurement programs in the United States, Callahan suggests that the best programs seek ongoing community input, present data by theme or issue area rather than department, use plain language, use measures to learn and improve, and make appropriate use of forums and Web technologies to share information. She highlights the “plain language reporting” that characterizes the State of Washington’s Government Management Accountability and Performance program; New York City’s “My Neighborhood Statistics,” which allows citizens to easily compare service delivery in diff erent neighborhoods; and the TrackDC Web site in Washington, D.C., which lets users easily access budget and spending data (Callahan 2010).

Others have emphasized the importance of not only involving citizens in developing performance measurement strategies but also measuring the impact of public programs on citizenship. Drawing from policy feedback theory, Wichowsky and Moynihan state

that there is “empirical evidence that certain policies have measurable eff ects on political participation, social capital, sense of civic belonging, and political effi cacy” (2008, 908). Th ey make a compelling argument that performance measurement systems should incorporate measures of how public policies and programs infl uence citizenship outcomes such as political effi cacy, social trust, and civic engagement.

on rebuilding the capacity of government for service delivery. Th e idea behind privatization is that it would give consumer citizens more voice through market choice. Th e problem is that, in practice, governments typically contract with only one or two providers. In the case of the former, choice is neither increased nor decreased. As a result, “the citizen consumer does not see a choice of provid- ers” and thus may have no more choices than when the service is publicly provided (Warner 2008, 167). Warner concludes that the experiment to “increase the role in local government service delivery . . . has failed to deliver adequately on effi ciency, equity or voice.” Th is does not indicate a return to what we call “old public adminis- tration.” Rather, “it heralds the emergence of new balanced position which combines use of markets, democracy, and planning to reach decisions which may be both effi cient and more socially optimal” (171).

Th e government’s use of full contracts and mixed contracts has also shifted. Full contracts are arrangements where the service is com- pletely contracted out to a nongovernmental entity. Mixed con- tracts use a combination of public and private employees. “Mixed delivery has been a source of consternation for market advocates, who view such redundancy as potentially ineffi cient and unneces- sary” (Warner and Hefetz 2008, 163). As Warner and Hefetz found in their analysis of the ICMA data, in 1992, there were twice as many fully privatized contracts as there were mixed contracts. By 1997, the situation was reversed. Th ere were one and a half times as many mixed contracts as full contracts. During this time period, full contracts dropped from 33 percent to 18 percent of service delivery. Mixed contracts, on the other hand, went from 18 percent in 1992 to 24 percent. Th at means that by 2002, public services were less likely to be provided by purely outside contracts than in 1992 and that there was a “dramatic rise in mixed public–private delivery” (Warner and Hefetz 2008, 155).

In analyzing these data, Warner and Hefetz arrive at some interest- ing conclusions. “By remaining directly engaged in service delivery, governments can assure that contractors maintain effi cient processes, high quality, competitive costs, and citizen satisfaction” (2008, 162). Th eir review of the empirical evidence suggests that the private delivery does not save money over time. Part of the reason for this is the cost of monitoring. As Rho found in studying contracting in public education, “the results using the data over the 12-year period repeatedly confi rmed that more contracting generates greater bureaucracy, because of the demands to monitor contracts” (2013, 332). Th ey suggest that, while privatization remains a “political project,” city managers recognize the need to balance effi ciency concerns with citizen satisfaction and the costs and challenges of monitoring private contractors.

Are We Rowing, Steering, or Serving? New Public Management advocates Osborne and Gaebler recommended that government move increasingly away from a service delivery role (which they call “rowing”) and instead to policy development (which they call “steer- ing”). In the New Public Service, we argued that an increasingly important role of the public servant is to serve citizens and commu- nities by helping citizens articulate and meet

An increasingly important role of the public servant is to serve citizens and communities by helping citizens articulate and meet their shared goals rather than attempting to control or steer society in new directions.

670 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

increasing civic engagement and involvement in the governance process.

While research cannot resolve normative questions about govern- ance, further inquiry into the implicit values and practical eff ects various approaches using multiple and varied measures may lead to a greater understanding of what works best under what set of circumstances. It is our contention, however, that from a norma- tive standpoint, there is more room in the New Public Service for the lessons of New Public Management than the other way around. Particularly to the extent that New Public Management relies on public choice and “a relentless focus on the importance of effi ciency” (McGinnis and Ostrom 2012, 19), value-based models such as the New Public Service will continue to provide a needed counterpoint.

Public servants operate in the context of competing values in a com- plex and an ever changing environment. A professional ethos can be defi ned as a set of values and a framework for action that not only describes the characteristics of an organization but also motivates those who belong to it. In the public service, we can talk about a bureaucratic ethos focused on the values of effi ciency, expertise, effi cacy, and loyalty and a democratic ethos focuses on citizen- ship, democracy and social equity. We agree with Salminen and Mäntysalo that a professional public service ethos can begin bridge the gap between bureaucratic and democratic values “by creating a logic of appropriateness . . . pertaining to quality and performance” (2013, 169). A professional ethos is not purely objective but rather recognizes that judgments about values and how they should be balanced, advocated, and reconciled are necessary and should be guided both by personal values and the values and ethics of the profession as a whole. Th ese judgments necessitate both an ongo- ing dialogue and a strong framework of public service ethics. We consider these debates part of an ongoing dynamic that animates theory and practice and defi nes the current challenges and opportu- nities for the public service.

Authors’ Note A substantial amount of the material contained in this article has been integrated into Th e New Public Service, fourth edition, published by Routledge in 2015.

References Ballard, Michael J., and Mildred E. Warner. 2000. Taking the High Road: Local

Government Restructuring and the Quest for Quality. In Power Tools for Fighting Privatization, 6/1–6/53. Washington, DC: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Beierle, Th omas C., and Jerry Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Boyte, Harry C. 2005. Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics. Public Administration Review 65(5): 536–46.

Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Brown, Trevor L., and Matthew Potoski. 2003. Contract-Management Capacity in Municipal and County Governments. Public Administration Review 63(2): 153–64.

Bryer, Th omas. 2010. Across the Great Divide: Social Media and Networking for Citizen Engagement. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 73–79. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

In short, while public servants sometimes “row” in providing direct service, they “steer” in terms of creating the parameters of and processes of decision making, and increasingly, their role is one of serving citizens and networks of governance. Th ey are accountable not only for direct service delivery and rulemaking but also for developing citizenship and helping broad networks of organizations and individuals fi nd common ground for public action.

Conclusion As much as advocates of the New Public Management and the New Public Service both might want to stake claim to “the answer,” gov- ernment and governance has always been and will always be compli- cated. If there were easy answers to the problems and challenges we face, someone would have developed the solutions to them already. It is not a matter of one model being right and the other one being wrong. Rather, it is question of the extent to which certain values, such as effi ciency, are balanced or pursued relative to other values, such as democracy and the collective public interest.

Th e pursuit of New Public Service values is not without barriers and potential problems. Not all expressions of the public interest that emerge from political process and dialogue are “equally morally compelling” (Moore 2014, 474). Moreover, public dialogue can be dominated by well-resourced special interests and partisan activ- ists who are skilled at framing issues (Jacobs 2014). Besides, there are times when market models may be appropriate. Th e market is an effi cient way to direct governmental activity and expenditures toward the satisfaction of individual preferences.

Nonetheless, we argue that we should continue to question whether individuals making judgments about their own interests are the best or only arbiters of public value. Th ere is no denying the “challenges of a networked, multi-sector, no-one-wholly-in-charge world” and the need to “embrace values beyond effi ciency and eff ectiveness— and especially democratic values” (Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg 2014, 445). While the market is effi cient, “the correct arbiter of public value has to be a collective public—imperfectly formed by the processes of democratic governance” (Moore 2014, 475). And there is reason for optimism about the realization of those democratic values: “recent research demonstrates a surprising degree of public participation in deliberation regarding public policy”; two-thirds report engaging in “public talk” about public issues, and an impressive 25 percent attend organized forums to participate in face-to-face deliberation” (Jacobs 2014, 492).

Neither the principles of the New Public Service nor the principles of the New Public Management can be shown to have become a dominant paradigm, but the New Public Service, and ideas and practices consistent with its ideals, have become increasingly evident in public administration scholarship and practice. Th e present state of theory and practice might be best characterized as a more nuanced view of public administration responsive to both democratic and market-based values. In our fi rst book, we argued that one set of values—either the New Public Management or the New Public Service—ultimately had to take precedence and that, in our view, the practices of the New Public Management should fi t within the ideals of the New Public Service. To this point, however, we see more of a blending, with scholars and practitioners sub- scribing to some aspects of both. However, the direction is toward

The New Public Service Revisited 671

Lenkowsky, Leslie, and James L. Perry. 2000. Reinventing Government: Th e Case of National Service. Public Administration Review 60(4): 298–307.

Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., Joe Goldman, and David Stern. 2011. Assessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2012. Refl ections on Vincent Ostrom, Public Administration, and Polycentricity. Public Administration Review 72(1): 15–25.

Meijer, Albert J. 2011. Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public Administration Review 71(4): 598–607.

Moore, Mark H. 2014. Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis. Public Administration Review 74(4): 465–77.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77–89.

Nabatchi, Tina, and Ines Mergel. 2010. Participation 2.0: Using Internet and Social Media Technologies to Promote Distributed Democracy and Create Digital Neighborhoods. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 80–87. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

Nalbandian, John. 2008. Predicting the Future: Why Citizen Engagement No Longer Is Optional. Public Management 90(11): 35–37.

O’Leary, Rosemary, Catherine Gerard, and Lisa Blomgren Bingham. 2006. Introduction to the Symposium on Collaborative Public Management. Public Administration Review 66(6): 6–9.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepre- neurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, Stephen P., ed. 2010. Th e New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Th eory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routledge.

Ostrom, Vincent, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. Th e Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Th eoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review 55(4): 831–42.

Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 6(1): 5–22.

Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise. 2010. Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review 70(5): 681–90.

Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. Th e Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367–73.

Raadschelders, Jos C. N., and Kwang-Hoon Lee. 2011. Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review, 2000–2009. Public Administration Review 71(1): 19–33.

Reed, Christine M., and Kyle P. Meyer. 2004. Medicaid Managed Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs: Examining Legislative and Judicial Constraints on Privatization. Public Administration Review 64(2): 234–42.

Rho, Eunju. 2013. Contracting Revisited: Determinants and Consequences of Contracting Out for Public Education Services. Public Administration Review 73(2): 327–37.

Riccucci, Norma M., and Frank J. Th ompson. 2008. New Public Management, Homeland Security, and the Politics of Civil Service Reform. Public Administration Review 68(5): 877–90.

Roberts, Nancy. 2008. Th e Age of Direct Citizen Participation. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Romzek, Barbara S., and Jocelyn M. Johnston. 2005. State Social Services Contracting: Exploring the Determinants of Eff ective Contract Accountability. Public Administration Review 65(4): 436–49.

Salminen, Ari, and Venla Mäntysalo. 2013. Exploring the Public Service Ethos. Public Integrity 15(2): 167–86.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445–56.

Callahan, Kathe. 2010. Next Wave of Performance Measurement: Citizen Engagement. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 102–5. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York. 2002. Listening to the City: Report of Proceedings. http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/0207LTCreport.pdf [accessed January 13, 2015].

Coursey, David D., Kaifeng Yang, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Public Service Motivation (PSM) and Support for Citizen Participation: A Test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s Reformulation of PSM Th eory. Public Administration Review 72(4): 572–82.

Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2011. Th e New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Denhardt, Robert, B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt. 2000. Th e New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–59.

Durant, Robert F., and Susannah B. Ali. 2013. Repositioning American Public Administration? Citizen Estrangement, Administrative Reform, and the Disarticulated State. Public Administration Review 73(2): 278–89.

Eikenberry, Angela M., and Jodie D. Kluver. 2004. Th e Marketization of the Nonprofi t Sector: Civil Society at Risk? Public Administration Review 64(2): 132–40.

Fung, Archon. 2013. Infotopia: Unleashing the Democratic Power of Transparency. Politics and Society 41(2): 183–212.

Glaser, Mark A., Janet Vinzant Denhardt, and Linda K. Hamilton. 2002. Community v. Self-Interest: Citizen Perceptions of Schools as Civic Investments. Journal of Public Administration Th eory and Practice 12(1): 103–27.

Glaser, Mark A., Lee E. Parker, and Stephanie Payton. 2001. Th e Paradox between Community and Self-Interest: Local Government, Neighborhoods, and Media. Journal of Urban Aff airs 23(1): 87–102.

Glaser, Mark A., Samuel J. Yeager, and Lee E. Parker. 2006. Involving Citizens in the Decisions of Government and Community: Neighborhood-Based vs. Government- Based Citizen Engagement. Public Administration Quarterly 30(1): 177–217.

Goldbard, Arlene. 2010. Th e Art of Engagement: Creativity in the Service of Citizenship. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 106–11. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

Haruna, Peter F. 2003. Reforming Ghana’s Public Service: Issues and Experiences in Comparative Perspective. Public Administration Review 63(3): 343–54.

Hefetz, Amir, and Mildred Warner. 2004. Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 14(2): 171–90.

IBM. 2010. Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Offi cer Study. Somers, NY: IBM Global Business Services. http://public.dhe. ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03297usen/GBE03297USEN.PDF [accessed January 15, 2015].

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. Reframing Public Participation. Planning Th eory and Practice 5(4): 419–36.

Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2014. Th e Contested Politics of Public Value. Public Administration Review 74(4): 480–94.

Kassel, David S. 2008. Performance, Accountability, and the Debate over Rules. Public Administration Review 68(2): 241–52.

Kelly, Janet M. 2005. Th e Dilemma of the Unsatisfi ed Customer in a Market Model of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 65(1): 76–84.

Leland, Suzanne, and Olga Smirnova. 2009. Reassessing Privatization Strategies 25 Years Later: Revisiting Perry and Babitsky’s Comparative Performance Study of Urban Bus Transit Services. Public Administration Review 69(5): 855–67.

672 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

Wichowsky, Amber, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. Measuring How Administration Shapes Citizenship: A Policy Feedback Perspective on Performance Management. Public Administration Review 68(5): 908–20.

Williams, Daniel W. 2000. Reinventing the Proverbs of Government. Public Administration Review 60(6): 522–34.

Woolum, Janet. 2010. Citizen-Government Dialogue in Performance Measurement Cycle: Cases from Local Government. In Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building, edited by James H. Svara and Janet Denhardt, 102–5. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

Yang, Kaifeng, and Kathe Callahan. 2007. Citizen Involvement Eff orts and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder Pressures, and Administrative Practicality. Public Administration Review 67(2): 249–64.

Yang, Kaifeng, Jun Yi Hsieh, and Shiun Tzung Li. 2009. Contracting Capacity and Perceived Contracting Performance: Nonlinear Eff ects and the Role of Time. Public Administration Review 69(4): 681–96.

Zeemering, Eric S. 2008. Governing Interlocal Cooperation: City Council Interests and the Implications for Public Management. Public Administration Review 68(4): 731–41.

Sørensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfi ng, eds. 2007. Th eories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41–57.

Svara, James H., and Janet Denhardt. 2010. Connected Communities: Local Governments as a Partner in Citizen Engagement and Community Building. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

Terry, Larry D. 2005. Th e Th inning of Administrative Institutions in the Hollow State. Administration & Society 37(4): 426–44.

Th ompson, James R. 2000. Reinvention as Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review 60(6): 508–21.

Van Slyke, David M. 2003. Th e Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Services. Public Administration Review 63(3): 296–315.

Wang, Xiaohu. 2001. Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities. Public Performance and Management Review 24(4): 322–36.

Warner, Mildred E. 2008. Reversing Privatization, Rebalancing Government Reform: Markets, Deliberation and Planning. Policy and Society 27(2): 163–74.

Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2008. Managing Markets for Public Service: Th e Role of Mixed Public–Private Delivery of City Services. Public Administration Review 68(1): 155–66.

Join Public Administration Review on Facebook

to fi nd out more about issue updates and upcoming calls for papers

(http://www.facebook.com/PAReview).

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.