Search results

In recent years, increasing scholarly attention has been directed towards the field of governing bodies research. However, little attention has been paid to the behavioural perspective on studying public boards. Aiming to fulfil this gap this paper offers a review of the international literature addressing boards behaviour within the unique organizational setting of public sector.

Considering as behavioural studies those publications focusing on actors, processes, decision-making, relationships and interaction inside and outside the boardroom, 91 papers were analysed. Adopting the framework provided by Huse (2007), the papers are classified following four behavioural dimensions/blocks which are crucial to understand board dynamics: board members, interactions, structures and leadership, decision-making culture.

The literature review shows the increasing production – in the last years – on the theoretical issues related to the behavioural perspective in public governance literature. The most relevant part of these contributions addresses the theoretical dimensions of the board member’s characteristics and of structural leadership.

The manuscript reveals the need to adopt a more organizational approach for studying the behavioural categories and levels of analysis proposed by public governance literature. Moreover, the article evidences some possible directions for future research that might further contribute to enrich the ‘behavioural governance perspective’ in public organizations.

Denmark is characterised by high levels of trust between citizens and public authorities as well as between public leaders and employees, providing a comparative advantage when it comes to expanding public welfare, enhancing economic performance and handling a crisis like COVID-19. Public governance, however, requires a delicate balance between trust and the legitimate need for control to secure accountability This chapter explains how the high levels of trust in the Danish public sector are wedded to a pragmatic combination of various public governance paradigms, which has produced a ‘hybrid governance system’ balancing the legitimate demand for control with widespread trust in public employees. Traditional Weberian bureaucratic values of regularity, impartiality and expertise are combined with a limited and selective introduction of New Public Management reforms. Simultaneously, a dynamic neo-Weberian state works to satisfy an increasingly demanding citizenry while new platforms for developing collaborative solutions to complex problems are designed and developed at the municipal level. This hybrid governance system produces a virtuous circle of trust sustained by trust-based systems of evaluation, assessment and accountability developed in close dialogue between public managers and employees. The chapter demonstrates how a long-lasting political-administrative culture based on trust and a pragmatic, non-ideological combination of different governance paradigms has generated a positive trust‒public governance feedback loop. Striking the right control‒trust balance remains a continual challenge, however, to avoid governance failures eroding citizen trust in the public sector and to safeguard public values of transparency, accountability and performance.

This chapter offers to higher education research a theoretical and methodological proposal based on narrativity, pointing to the articulation between metanarratives, public, conceptual and individual narratives. Stemming from social constructionism, it draws on concepts such as floating signifiers and nodal points, borrowed from discourse analysis, to explore the conflict and struggle between discourses. The examples provided focus on how individual narratives enact discourses on higher education institutional governance, as expressed in public narratives, and on how narratives influence the perceptions of institutional actors. Our goal in this chapter is, on the one hand, to propose an operationalization of discourse analysis, and, on the other hand, to signal the contribution of the narrative approach in revealing research findings based on the process of meaning construction.

Purpose – The “governance” term has gained ground both in the academic debate and in the political rhetoric. A growing use of the term is perceived to go hand-to-hand with a loss of conceptual accuracy. A theoretical reference able to provide a context for the development of empirical governance research is needed. The research aims at systemizing the literature developed around the governance term, identifying its building blocks; this would allow the term to become a reference point in the theory and practice of public administration.Design/methodology/approach – The chapter is of a theoretical nature and based on literature review, both exploratory and synoptic, covering substantive and methodological material.Findings – Different public governance research clusters have been compared: Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, German, Scandinavian, and Italian. Important differences, with reference to contents or related to research approaches in use, are found to exist between and within these clusters. Nonetheless, some common elements are included in the “public governance” concept.Research limitations/implications – Linguistic barriers make different literatures accessible at different degrees to the researcher, resulting in different depth of analysis. This limitation has in part been dealt with research assistance kindly provided by native language colleagues.Practical implications – The clarification of the different meanings of governance facilitates a more precise use in the policy and public management discourse. Having identified interdependencies between the different levels enables a better design of public management reforms.Originality/value – Original features of this chapter are the international comparison of different administrative traditions and the analysis of different disciplinary approaches.

Purpose – Starting from public and corporate governance literature, the chapter aims to evidence the opportunity in exploring board of directors in public organisations, where the focus is on a behavioural perspective.Design/methodology/approach – Presenting two levels of analysis: (a) the relationship between the board and ‘external’ stakeholders, and (b) the relationship between the board and managers, a framework is proposed evidencing which factors (variables, constructs and concepts) logically should be considered as part of the explanation of boards’ role in public organisations’ innovation.Findings – The chapter provides support for a board model in public governance, evidencing both the opportunity to assume a multi-paradigm perspective and the existing similarities and differences between boards in public and corporate governance approach. It is possible, for example, to empirically apply the framework both to different national context and to different levels of public organisations.Originality/value of chapter – The chapter presents theoretical perspectives on governance research, and both some pioneer studies in public sector research and some of the major contribution in corporate governance studies. All of them have been put together, introducing a new stream of research in the debate on the micro (organisational) level of governance in public sector.

This study aims at rereading public governance (PG) and public value management (PVM) in the light of viable systems approach (VSA). Starting from the common points and the dissimilarities between the two theories, an integrated framework for pinpointing the key drivers leading to the emersion of public value co-creation in a public system conception of governance is elaborated. An overview on the emersion of PVM and PG is conducted in order to identify the main features of the new mindset. Then, VSA’s assumptions also are analyzed (with particular focus on their managerial implications) and then subdivided into four macro-areas.

The combination of the two theories allows recognition of four levers (with relative postulates) for fostering public value co-creation: (1) strategic selection of actors; (2) establishment of system and relational boundaries; (3) pursuit of the fit strategy-tactics; (4) system governance diffusion. From a theoretical point of view, the study provides suggestions for the creation of a public system theory of governance. Regarding managerial standpoint, revealing the drivers for public value co-creation can aid managers to better elaborate strategies for stimulating actor’s engagement in order to challenge complexity and user’s demands variability.

The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of co-governance and its implications on public value, with particular reference to local authorities in the Italian context.

The research aim is pursued by means of a literature review and an empirical research. The empirical research is developed through a questionnaire, sent to the 119 municipalities of the Italian provincial capitals. The overall response rate was 41.18% (49 responses).

In Italian local authorities the process of increasing citizens’ participation and citizens’ involvement as co-producers of public value by means of co-governance and participatory governance tools is still ongoing. More than 50% of the local authorities of the research sample have introduced co-governance or participatory governance tools and activities but they are still facing problems in implementing them.

In general, the level of citizens’ participation seems not to be fully developed.

The empirical part of the research focuses only on the application of co-governance and participatory governance tools in the Italian context, therefore the main limitation lies in the difficulties of extending their application to the international context. In addition, the questionnaire was designed only for medium- to large-sized local authorities. Thus, the research does not consider the possible implications for small municipalities.

This article considers some of the possible difficulties of implementation of co-governance and participatory governance tools.

This article highlights the link between the creation of public value and the adoption of public policies based on citizens’ involvement and consultation.

This article underlines the link between public value creation and co-governance. It also offers a broad empirical survey on the presence of co-governance and participatory governance tools and activities in the Italian context; this topic was not examined in prior studies.

The chapter aims to conceptually explore how to govern public sector organizations in order to create public value. It focuses on the importance of knowledge-intensive processes in creating public value as well as the challenges in governing such fragile processes.

We use organizational theory and respective concepts in the field of organizational design focusing on cognitive and motivational aspects. These are explained by group theories and concepts of conditional cooperation.

We show the important role and the antecedents of self-governance in creating public value based on knowledge creation, sharing and use, whereas the classical method of hierarchical and bureaucratic procedural-based governance (via rules and direct supervision) as well as the more modern method of output-based governance (via so-called key performance indicators) fails to govern public value in this form.

The heuristic model differentiates between modes of governance. Their mutual interplay and empirical evidence are yet needed for substantiating the findings.

Self-organizing mechanisms require behavioural antecedents of the involved actors: on the one hand there is a need for a minimum of mutual understanding in the sense of ‘cognitive compatibility’ and on the other, a minimum of ‘willingness to cooperate’.

Participating public employees and citizens need to cultivate participatory and collaborative governance mechanisms in order to create public value. These can be understood as supplementing and enriching existing ones rather than replacing them.

This chapter contributes to research in public administration in that the concept of public value with a focus on knowledge-intensive collaboration is specified. A new path is taken, originating from organizational theory and motivational theory that are transferred into public administration in order to show how collaborative governance should be employed and how motivational and cognitive aspects should be considered.

The purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.

The review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.

The papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”

The small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.

Considering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).

Despite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.

In this concluding chapter, the editors provide an overall assessment of contemporary Danish public governance based on the main findings in the preceding chapters of the edited volume. Surveying the Danish governance responses to contemporary mega-challenges, the chapter reflects on policy implications and contemplate the future of both research and practice related to public administration, politics and governance in Denmark. The chapter argues that recent public governance reforms have turned the Danish welfare state into a mix of a neo-Weberian state and an enabling state, which deploys its considerable resources to create economic growth for the benefit of the large majority of Danes, to satisfy the needs of citizens and businesses and to develop collaborative solutions to complex problems. While the chapter concludes that this modified version of the well-known universal welfare state is largely apt for meeting the mega-challenges of the twenty-first century, recent reforms seeking to enhance job-seeking incentives for the unemployed and to integrate immigrants have resulted in new forms of marginalisation of weaker societal groups. Moreover, evolving problems such as climate change, an ageing population and digital citizen privacy will require further public governance reforms in the years to come.