Editorial: Public value for all? Considering the parameters of public value co-creation

The aim behind this Public Money & Management theme is to explore the parameters of public value co-creation in order to open up a broader discussion of dis/value, public value destruction and co-destruction as a developing theme in the literature. Public value co-creation has become an increasingly important subject in the design and delivery of public services (Moore, 1995; Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Sorensen et al., 2021) with a core focus of delivering valuable outcomes for citizens. This has been increasingly considered in the co-creation work between public leaders and stakeholders in the private and third sectors, alongside citizens (Bryson et al., 2017; Sancino et al., 2018). This activity is important as it considers not only what is valuable for society but also the needs of the public (Sorensen et al., 2021). A focus on value creation is also seen at the service delivery level where public service logic (Osborne, 2018; Petrescu, 2019) provides a nexus of co-creation between the service user and service provider.

The public value emergent from the interaction between the service user and the service provider is implicitly thought of as providing a positive outcome or experience, and both parties tend to be considered to benefit from this interaction. Generally, as a process, co-creation is thought to add public value by involving service users in service delivery and design. However, there are also tensions about how we define public value and how we understand its contribution to the public sphere. This means that some people may miss out on public value, or there will be trade-offs between different groups in society when decisions are made about resource allocation (Benington, 2011). In recent years, there has been increased attention to value destruction and failure (Bozeman, 2002; Engen et al., 2020) where decisions about service provision impact on the public by creating dis/value or even harm (Cluley et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the value that emerges from public service exchanges will be different for different people. In these circumstances, and many others, public value may not be the positive experience it is implicitly considered to be. Some people may be denied access to public value creation processes, while others may be forced and/or unwilling to take part in it. Obvious examples include prisoners (see Alford, 2016) and people who have been involuntarily sectioned under mental health legislation. Less obvious and overlooked examples include those who are subject to institutional biases and those who do not conform to generally accepted social norms. This might be for reasons of resource thresholds, stigma, or prejudice. Examples include people involved in safeguarding investigations, the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and those who require significant additional resources to engage in the co-creation and co-production activities (for example people with significant cognitive or physical disabilities). Instead of the outright positive experience implicit within conceptualization and uses of public value discourse, the value that emerges from particular exchanges could be conceptualized as ‘co-created dis/value’, ‘unwanted co-creation’, or even ‘coerced co-creation’ (Cluley et al., 2020). It is this implicit understanding and acceptance that we seek to question in this theme by exploring experiences and conceptualizations of dis/value.

This theme presents a critical approach to the concept of public value and its creation process, building on the arguments made in Cluley et al. (2020) where dis/value is defined as: ‘an umbrella term to capture the range of public value experiences that may not fit with the general perception that public value co-creation is a positive process for all’.

Essential to this definition is its predication on Cluley and Radnor’s (2019) definition of public value where value is conceptualized as:

… the subjective phenomena (this could be a feeling/emotion, a physical effect, a material object, or an event) that emerges through the interaction of all elements (human, material, environmental, political, cultural, experiential) involved in the relationship between a service user and a public service organization.

These definitions allow the inclusion of alternative perspectives and experiences of value—both theoretical and empirical. In the articles selected for this theme, we hear about examples of public service experience that do not conform to typical co-creation processes and include those who could be considered to be diverse, seldom heard, and vulnerable service users. Further to this, the articles included discuss a range of public service settings such as healthcare, early years’ services, and death and dying services. We present a range of articles that scrutinize co-creation/production from a critical perspective, but which also suggest avenues for improvement and progression. Returning to the aim of the theme, the articles included consider what public value creation means for citizens who are hidden from view. Moreover, the theme contributes to recent discussions of public value destruction and co-destruction and considers the relationships between these themes.

Summary of research articles in this theme

The articles include a variety of approaches to exploring and progressing dis/value, including empirical pieces, theory development, a scoping review and topical debates. As a collective, these articles illustrate and embrace the diversity of public services and value experiences and also highlight the need for further investigation.

In the first article in the theme, Parker et al. (2022) explore the view that service providers can also destroy, as well as create value. Parker et al. propose a typology of dis/value identified through a scoping review of the public value and co-creation literatures. The article identifies four developing types of dis/value: the market-economic-budgetary type; the leadership-managerial-political-professional type; the process-experiential type; and the organizational-functionalist type. The findings of this review not only provide a much-needed overview of the dis/value field but will also be useful for professionals engaged in designing and delivering public services—including managers, planners and commissioners.

The second article, by Eriksson et al. (2022), uses healthcare case studies to identify three ideal types of public value. The article discusses the presence of and potential for dis/value across each ideal type. The authors talk about diminishing public value as a consequence of negative service experiences and lack of information, lack of representation, institutional biases and reinforcement of stereotypes, and issues related to mistrust.

Next, von Heimburg et al. (2022) consider the relationship between early years’ services, participation and co-creation, with a recognition of the potential for dis/value for disadvantaged families. Their article argues that Norwegian kindergartens can deepen the relationship between the state and those who are socially marginalized.

Our final research article, by Portulhak and Pacheco (2022), uses the empirical setting of the Catholic Church in Brazil to reflect on the relationship between stakeholder participation and public value. Portulhak considers institutional biases within the Catholic Church and the role this plays in value perception—further highlighting the subjective and contextual nature of public value and the potential for dis/value that this can create.

Debates and new developments

In terms of future considerations of public value destruction, value co-destruction and dis/value, two debate articles and two new development articles provide progressive perspectives and consideration of public service dis/value for the theme. Drawing on Ostrom’s work (1990), in their new development article, Williams et al. (2022) acknowledge the potential for both the intentional and unintentional co-creation of dis/value. Here, Ostrom’s principles for collaborative group working are used to present theoretical developments to mitigate the risk of co-creating dis/value, as well as to propose ways of negotiating dis/value if it arises. To facilitate translation of these principles, and the theory underpinning them, into practice they propose three initiatives. First, a re-classification of Ostrom’s principles; second, the re-conceptualization of co-creation as a novel way of creating a ‘common pool resources’; and, third, the recognition that failure to adequately address the potential to co-create dis/value can lead to ‘tragedies of co-design’.

The second new development piece, written by Sancino et al. (2022), discusses the romantic bias towards public value co-creation, which can lead to public value loss and destruction. To improve public sector co-creation, they suggest a material understanding of public value co-creation is required to limit dis/value.

Our two debate articles examine the meaning of dis/value in two distinct environments. Shorrock (2022) appraises public value co-creation in settings where service users may be identified as vulnerable and subject to safeguarding procedures. In particular, she enquires how the voices of users controlled by the state might be included in service design and delivery. The second debate article, by Zavattaro and Coutts (2022), considers public value failure during Covid 19 (Zavattaro et al., 2021), in conjunction with Jørgensen and Bozeman's (2007) inventory of public values. Here, they note that Covid 19 surfaced key issues not only about personal loss, but also about equity in death, challenges in how the state manages pandemics, as well as the public value connected with burial and land use.

Conclusions: future challenges and opportunities

The diversity of people requiring, using and receiving public services remains a complex arena, with new policy, legislation and disruptive events that impact on service commissioning and the design and delivery of services. Recent examples include the Covid 19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and Brexit, which in their own ways have impacted both strategically/structurally for organizations and personally for citizens. However, disruption can also arise from transformations in state policy and changes to legislation (for example the recent transition to Universal Credit in the UK), from budget cuts and reductions in non-statutory delivery by local government services and, importantly, from the subjective and contextual nature of public value. Indeed, the subjective and contextual nature of public value is highlighted across the articles in this theme, reflecting the need to approach public value as a diverse and changeable phenomenon.

While tensions within around power and involvement in public services delivery and co-production continue to proliferate, as highlighted by Shorrock in this theme, more consideration is required to address how citizens are involved in public service delivery contexts where there is an interplay of care and control (Unwin, 2018) or where service users are obligatees (Alford, 2016). Considering power and exclusion, are there co-productees who might not be considered appropriate for inclusion in co-production processes? This also links to the relationship of people with the state, with some people having to ‘navigate the state’, being ‘rejected by the state’ and others ‘rejecting the state’ (Cluley et al., 2020). One area that has been less explored is how users may be shut out of, or not included, in co-design and co-production processes because of their legislative status (for example whether they are subject to care or control mechanisms). Additionally, the challenge is not to throw away what we have learned, but to understand how strategists and front-line practitioners, for example as street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980; Zacka, 2017) understand their own role in navigating ‘public value for all’.

The articles presented in our theme highlight dis/value across a range of public service settings and provide a number of strategies to both acknowledge and reduce the potential for dis/value. This theme is a step towards opening up discussion of alternative experiences of value, further research and knowledge exchange. The articles raise some important questions for further research and understanding:

• Who benefits from public value and who misses out?

• How to apply and negotiate public value for all?

• Is there a limitation of dis/value?

• Should we further explore representation and institutional bias?

• What is the relationship between public management and social policy to bridge the gap between user experience and dis/value?

We hope that the reflection and consideration of the articles within this theme lead to further research and knowledge creation to address these, and other, questions so we can debate whether public value is for all.