Defining the public interests in airport development decision-making

Residents, businesses, local, state and national government stakeholders all want to have their say when airports expand or develop. While stakeholder engagement is increasingly a strategy employed for managing the tensions attracted to airport development, different stakeholders have different expectations and demands of airports. This requires different approaches to stakeholder engagement. Identifying the public interests that are at stake in developing airports provides an initial step towards building a platform for selecting and applying stakeholder engagement strategies in airport and more general infrastructure contexts. This paper uses the existing literature of public interests and values to build a general typology of public values for the stakeholders of airport development. A range of semi-privatised and state owned airport case studies from Europe have been used to demonstrate the universal nature of the identified values. The result is a framework that identifies both the substantive and procedural values, separated into local, state/regional and national levels of interest. The typology provides a generalised view of public interests in airport development; however, the public interests identified may be limited to more western oriented societies due to the skew of airport cases reviewed. Contributions are made to the literature with a typology of public values derived from existing knowledge and explored using empirical case examples. The provided typology enables research of airport development decision-making to delineate public interests both within and between stakeholder groups, and helps to explain the different perspectives that stakeholders have towards airport development. Future research may focus on refining the typology for different types of airport governance structures, such as differences between public values in state and market-led airport development; include more airport cases from eastern societies to draw parallels or differences between western and eastern societies; or utilise the typology as a framework for analysing changes in public interests of airports over time.

Defining the public values in airport development decision-making

Residents, businesses, local, state and national government stakeholders all want to have their say when airports expand or develop. While stakeholder engagement is increasingly a strategy employed for managing the tensions attracted to airport development, different stakeholders have different expectations and demands of airports. This requires different approaches to stakeholder engagement. Identifying the public values that are at stake in developing airports provides an initial step towards building a platform for selecting and applying stakeholder engagement strategies in airport and more general infrastructure contexts. -------- This paper uses the existing literature of public values to build a general typology of public values for the stakeholders of airport development. A range of semi-privatised and state owned airport case studies from Europe have been used to demonstrate the universal nature of the identified values. The result is a framework that identifies both the substantive and procedural values, separated into local, state/regional and national levels of interest. The typology provides a generalised view of public values in airport development; however, the public values identified may be limited to more western oriented societies due to the skew of airport cases reviewed. --------- Contributions are made to the literature with a typology of public values derived from existing knowledge and explored using empirical case examples. The provided typology enables research of airport development decision-making to delineate public values both within and between stakeholder groups, and helps to explain the different perspectives that stakeholders have towards airport development. Future research may focus on refining the typology for different types of airport governance structures, such as differences between public values in state and market-led airport development; include more airport cases from eastern societies to draw parallels or differences between western and eastern societies; or utilise the typology as a framework for analysing changes in public values of airports over time.

Extending the ABC's public service remit through ABC Pool

Historically, the public service broadcaster (PSB) acted beyond its institutional broadcasting remit by initiating and facilitating activities to support cultural infrastructure and national identity (Wilson, Hutchinson and Shea 2010). The recent focus to develop new content delivery platforms and services (Debrett 2010) signifies a semantic shift from the PSB to the public service media (PSM) organisation. The Australian PSM organisation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has moved beyond the era of ‘online’ publishing to incorporate Web 2.0 technologies to foster new relationships with the audience (Walker 2009) and engage in production activities with participatory cultures (Jenkins 2006). This shift presents opportunities and challenges to traditional media production, the existing editorial policies and governance models, and raises questions around the value of PSM experimental and innovative activities. Further, the incorporation of information communication technologies and participatory cultures challenge the core values of ‘public service’ within PSM. This paper examines ABC Pool (abc.net.au/pool) as a means of extending the ABC’s public service remit by incorporating participatory cultures into the production and governance models of the corporation and critically analyses the public value of such innovative experiments.

Public service versus private interest : a comparative analysis of the Australian and British debates

This paper will compare and evaluate the effectiveness of commercial media lobbying and advocacy against public service media in two countries, the United Kingdom and Australia. The paper will focus empirically on the commercial media coverage of public service media issues in these countries (relating to the BBC and ABC respectively) over the period since the election of the Conservative-led Coalition in Britain in June 2010, and the election of the Gillard government in Australia in August 2010. Reference will be made to preceding periods as relevant to an understanding of the current environment. In both countries the main commercial media rival to public service media is News Corp and its associated organisations – News Ltd and Sky News in Australia, and News International and BSkyB in the UK. The paper will examine with analysis of print and online news and commentary content how News Corp outlets have reported and commented on the activities and plans of public service media as the latter have developed and extended their presence on digital TV and online platforms. It will also consider the responses of the ABC and BBC to these interventions. It will consider, thirdly, the responses of Australian and British governments to these debates, and the policy outcomes. This section of the paper will seek to evaluate the trajectory of the policy-public-private dynamic in recent years, and to draw conclusions as to the future direction of policy. Particular attention will be devoted to recent key moments in this unfolding dialogue. In Britain, debates around the efforts of News Corp to take over 100% of BSkyB, both before and after the breaking of the phone-hacking scandal in July 2011; in Australia, the debate around the National Broadband Network and the competitive tender process for ABC World, that country’s public service transnational broadcaster; and other key moments where rivalry between News Corp companies and public service media became mainstream news stories provoking wider public debate. The paper will conclude with recommendations as to how public service media organisations might engage constructively with commercial organisations in the future, including News Corp, and taking into account emerging technological and financial challenges to traditional rationales for public service provision.

Entrepreneurship in the public sector : new possibilities?

Previous research has described potential roles for entrepreneurs in public sector organisations as either closely related to corporate entrepreneurship, or as normative prescriptions regarding the importance of entrepreneurship in the public sector (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009: Morris & Jones, 1999). While some might argue that entrepreneurship in the public sector context is an oxymoron, recent studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurship in the public sector is alive and well (Currie, Humphreys, Ucbasaran & McManus 2008; Kim, 2010). Entrepreneurship in the public sector can take many forms and generate a range of benefits but to date less attention has been given to the potential to generate new public value (Moore, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to increase our knowledge and understanding of the types of strategies and activities the public sector is using to capture initiative, create new public value, and generate new economic activity for the benefit of multiple stakeholders. This paper explores entrepreneurship in one public sector context. Findings indicate that entrepreneurship and commercialisation is more likely to be encouraged in contexts where contestability in develop and exploit capabilities.

Repositioning the innovation rationale for public service media

The values that gave rise to the ethos of public service broadcasting (PSB) almost a century ago, and which have provided the rationale for PSBs around the world across that time, are under question. This article argues that the process of reinvention of PSBs is enhanced through repositioning the innovation rationale for public service media (PSM). It is organized around a differentiation which is part of the standard repertoire of innovation studies – that between product, process and organizational innovation – as they are being practised by the two Australian PSBs, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The article then considers the general problematics of innovation for PSBs through an analysis of the operations of the public value test in the context of European PSM, and its, to this stage, non-application in Australia. The innovation rationale is argued to be a distinctive via media between complementary and comprehensive roles for PSM, which in turn suggests an international, policy-relevant research agenda focusing on international circumstances in which the public broadcaster is not market dominant.

Public values and community energy: lessons from the US and UK

This paper examines some of the normative aspects of community energy programmes — defined here as decentralized forms of energy production and distributed energy technologies where production decisions are made as close as possible to sources of consumption. Such projects might also display a degree of separation from the formal political process. The development of a community energy system often generates a great deal of debate about both the degree of public support for such programmes and the values around which programmes ought to be organized. Community energy programmes also raise important issues regarding the energy choice problem, including questions of process, that is, by whom a project is developed and the influence of both community and exogenous actors, as well as certain outcome issues regarding the spatial and social distribution of energy. The case studies, drawn from community energy programmes in both the United States and the United Kingdom, allow for a careful examination of all of these factors, considering in particular the complex interplay and juxtaposition between the ideas of 'public value' and 'public values'.

Value-for-money e geração de valor público na atuação das organizações sociais de saúde : contribuições para o governo do estado de São Paulo

O fato de que o Estado brasileiro deve, de acordo com sua Carta Magna, garantir o direito de seus cidadãos à saúde não significa, necessariamente, que a provisão destes serviços tem de ser feita diretamente pelo poder público. As parcerias com organizações sociais, previstas na Lei Federal 9.637/1998 e regulamentadas pelos Contratos de Gestão, pretendem oferecer uma alternativa à eficiência, agilidade e flexibilidade na assistência à saúde. Entretanto, a estrutura dos contratos de gestão com Organizações Sociais de Saúde (OSS), elaborada com a pactuação de metas e indicadores de desempenho, não pode ser considerada, isoladamente, como fator garantidor da prestação adequada de tais serviços públicos. É fundamental considerar neste contexto os arranjos organizados pelo poder público para assegurar que os serviços oferecidos representam o que, de fato, os cidadãos consideram valor. O presente trabalho tem como objeto as parcerias com OSS no âmbito do governo do estado de São Paulo. As entrevistas realizadas e as pesquisas empreendidas na confecção deste estudo revelam que, caso se pretenda trabalhar com estas parcerias sob uma perspectiva de value-for-money e geração de valor público, faz-se necessário aprimorar os mecanismos de escuta aos cidadãos, os arranjos de governança colaborativa entre entes federados, o alinhamento com órgãos de controle e, sobretudo, qualificar a capacidade organizacional do Estado e das OSS, por meio da revisão das metas e indicadores dispostos nos contratos de gestão.

Reforming public services in the UK:Bringing in the third sector

In the UK, the government continues its project to reform public services. Earlier projects have focused on the modernization of public sector organizations; in the latest round of reform, New Labour has focused on widening choice and the personalization of services. To this end, the government has been working with Third Sector (TS) organizations to expand their role in shaping, commissioning and delivering public services. The government's vision is predicated on a normative assertion, that, unlike traditional public sector organizations, TS bodies create public value by being more innovative, are inspired by altruistic aims and values, and have greater commitment to their clients. This paper reviews recent policy and questions whether the government's policy is flawed, contradictory and risks damaging the attributes of the TS admired by New Labour. © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

What do public values mean for public action? Putting public values in their plural place

Public values are moving from a research concern to policy discourse and management practice. There are, though, different readings of what public values actually mean. Reflection suggests two distinct strands of thinking: a generative strand that sees public value emerging from processes of public debate; and an institutional interpretation that views public values as the attributes of government producers. Neither perspective seems to offer a persuasive account of how the public gains from strengthened public values. Key propositions on values are generated from comparison of influential texts. A provisional framework is presented of the values base of public institutions and the loosely coupled public propositions flowing from these values. Value propositions issue from different governing contexts, which are grouped into policy frames that then compete with other problem frames for citizens’ cognitive resources. Vital democratic commitments to pluralism require public values to be distributed in competition with other, respected, frames.

Economics of non-market innovation and digital literacy

This article is an abbreviated version of a debate between two economists holding somewhat different perspectives on the nature of non-market production in the space of new digital media. While the ostensible focus here is on the role of markets in the innovation of new technologies to create new economic value, this context also serves to highlight the private and public value of digital literacy.

Contexts, hybrids and network governance : a comparison of three case-studies in infrastructure governance

While hybrid governance arrangements have been a major element of organisational architecture for some time, the contemporary operating environment has brought to the fore new conditions and expectations for the governance of entities that span conventional public sector departments, private firms and community organisations or groups. These conditions have resulted in a broader array of mixed governance configurations including Public Private Partnerships, alliances, and formal and informal collaborations. In some such arrangements, market based or ‘complete’ contractual relationships have been introduced to replace or supplement existing traditional ‘hierarchical’ and/or newer relational ‘network-oriented’ institutional associations. While there has been a greater reliance on collaborative or relational contracts as an underpinning institutional model, other modes of hierarchy and market may remain in operation. The success of these emergent hybrid forms has been mixed. There are examples of hybrids that have been well adopted, achieving the desired goals of efficiency, effectiveness and financial accountability; while others have experienced implementation problems which have undermined their results. This paper postulates that the cultural and institutional context within which hybrids operate may contribute to the implementation processes employed and the level of success attained. The paper explores hybrid arrangements through three cases of the use of inter-organisational arrangements in three different national contexts. Distilling the various elements of hybrids and the impact of institutional context will provide important insights for those charged with the responsibility for the formation and key infrastructure and public value development.

The new normativity : the innovation imperative

At a quite fundamental level, the very way in which Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) may envisage its future usually captured in the semantic shift from PSB to Public Service Media (PSM) is at stake when considering the recent history of public value discourse and the public value test. The core Reithian PSB idea assumed that public value would be created through the application of core principles of universality of availability and appeal, provision for minorities, education of the public, distance from vested interests, quality programming standards, program maker independence, and fostering of national culture and the public sphere. On the other hand, the philosophical import of the public value test is that potentially any excursion into the provision of new media services needs to be justified ex ante. In this era of New Public Management, greater transparency and accountability, and the proposition that resources for public value deliverables be contestable and not sequestered in public sector institutions, what might be the new Archimedean point around which a contemporised normativity for PSM be built? This paper will argue for the innovation imperative as an organising principle for contemporary PSM. This may appear counterintuitive, as it is precisely PSB’s predilection for innovating in new media services (in online, mobile, and social media) that has produced the constraining apparatus of the ex ante/public value/Drei-Stufen-Test in Europe, based on principles of competitive neutrality and transparency in the application of public funds for defined and limited public benefit. However, I argue that a commitment to innovation can define as complementary to, rather than as competitive ‘crowding out’, the new products and services that PSM can, and should, be delivering into a post-scarcity, superabundant all-media marketplace. The evidence presented in this paper for this argument is derived mostly from analysis of PSM in the Australian media ecology. While no PSB outside Europe is subject to a formal public value test, the crowding out arguments are certainly run in Australia, particularly by powerful commercial interests for whom free news is a threat to monetising quality news journalism. Take right wing opinion leader, herself a former ABC Board member, Judith Sloan: ‘… the recent expansive nature of the ABC – all those television stations, radio stations and online offerings – is actually squeezing activity that would otherwise be undertaken by the private sector. From partly correcting market failure, the ABC is now causing it. We are now dealing with a case of unfair competition and wasted taxpayer funds’ (The Drum, 1 August http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2818220.html). But I argue that the crowding out argument is difficult to sustain in Australia because of the PSB’s non-dominant position and the fact that much of innovation generated by the two PSBs, the ABC and the SBS, has not been imitated by or competed for by the commercials. The paper will bring cases forward, such as SBS’ Go Back to Where you Came From (2011) as an example of product innovation, and a case study of process and organisational innovation which also has resulted in specific product and service innovation – the ABC’s Innovation Unit. In summary, at least some of the old Reithian dicta, along with spectrum scarcity and market failure arguments, have faded or are fading. Contemporary PSM need to justify their role in the system, and to society, in terms of innovation.

Time to change consumer involvement in nursing research

The experiences of people affected by cancer are at the very heart of nursing research efforts. Because much of our work is focused on understanding how to improve experiences and outcomes for people with cancer, it is easy for us to believe that our research is inherently "person centered" and thus collaborative. Let's reflect on what truly collaborative approaches to cancer nursing research could be like, and how we measure up to such goals. Collaboration between people affected by cancer (consumers) and nurses in research is much more than providing a voice for individuals as participants in a research study. Today, research governing bodies in many countries require us to seek a different kind of consumer participation, where consumers and researchers work in partnership with one another to shape decisions about research priorities, policies, and practices.1 Most granting bodies now require explanations of how consumer and community participation will occur within a study. Ethical imperatives and the concept of patient advocacy also require that we give more considered attention to what is meant by consumer involvement.2 Consumers provide perspective on what will be relevant, acceptable, feasible, and sensitive research, having lived the experience of cancer. As a result, they offer practical insights that can ensure the successful conduct and better outcomes from research. Some granting bodies now even allocate a proportion of final score or assign a "public value" weighting for a grant, to recognize the importance of consumer involvement and reflect the quality of patient involvement in all stages of the research process.3