No abstract

No abstract

Public Money & Management publishes articles which contribute new knowledge as a basis for policy or management improvements, or which reflect on evidence from public service management and finance. The journal does not accept literature reviews. Public Money & Management has a multidisciplinary readership, including officials in all types of public service organizations, academics, consultants and advisers working with the public services, politicians, journalists, and students on both academic and professional courses. Although this readership has been interested largely in British public management, there is an increasing interest in international developments. Accordingly, the editors welcome articles about developments outside the UK which offer clear lessons for British or other western practitioners.The journal publishes core articles, new developments and contributions to debate. Core articles (no more than 5,000 words) must meet high standards of intellectual argument, evidence and understanding of practice in public management. They are double-blind refereed usually by an academic and a practitioner. New developments (typically 2,500 words) focus on the evolution of contemporary public service policy, management or practice and convey the potential or actual impact of change in a detached, informed and authoritative way. These articles are not normally refereed, but are subject to editorial scrutiny. Debate articles (usually under 1,000 words) are personal statements about topical issues, expressing an argument, supported by examples or evidence. They, too, are subject to editorial scrutiny. Authors should take into account the needs of the readership in drafting their articles and, in particular, to explain technical terms and avoid exclusive jargon.

No abstract

This paper examines governance responses to Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The analysis focuses on the interactions between public transport systems and MaaS developments in Amsterdam, Birmingham, and Helsinki. Case comparison is informed by the multilevel perspective on sociotechnical transitions and literature on meta-governance of networks. Drawing on these frameworks and empirical findings, the paper identifies six governance approaches to MaaS across cases: analyser, architect, convener, experimenter, lawmaker, and provider. These basic models encompass strategies ranging from hands-on strong intervention to information collection efforts. Consistent with the transitions literature, these six approaches indicate that public transport regimes seek to control the apparent disruptive potential of MaaS by incrementally absorbing innovations; to this end, regime actors adopt governance responses that tend to reproduce existing institutionalised ways of doing and prevailing logics. Furthermore, the six approaches reveal intense interaction between regime and niche, suggesting that a niche-regime space might have emerged in the cases; actors travel and operate across niche, regime, and niche-regimes, mainly driven by concerns with market share and revenue streams in the mobility system.