Neoliberal governing through social enterprise: Exploring the neglected roles of deviance and ignorance in public value creation

Abstract

This article makes a case for paying greater attention to how informal relationships between government officials and civil society practitioners impact processes of public value creation. Drawing on data from a five‐year qualitative longitudinal study, we illuminate how civil society practitioners deviate from the formal objectives of social enterprise policies in order to create what they see as having public value. Through a process of theory elaboration, we demonstrate how government officials’ wilful ignorance of, or informal collaboration in, such deviance, precipitates forms of public value that are consistent with wider political objectives. Our analysis adds nuance and granularity to the debate on public value by drawing attention to the arcane ways it may be informally negotiated and created outside of the public sphere. This opens up new empirical and theoretical opportunities for understanding how deviance and ignorance might be symbiotically related in processes of public value creation.”

Leadership for public value: Political astuteness as a conceptual link

“…Turning to the symposium articles, they show the diversity of thinking about public value, and they also illustrate an exciting variety of purposes to which public value theory and its constituent frameworks can be put. They range from articles which deploy Moore's strategic triangle (Ayres ; Brown and Head ); use both Moore and Benington (Andrews ); use Benington (Hartley et al ; Teasdale and Dey ) and one article which is less definite about its approach to public value, but which assumes that endeavours by public servants and civil society actors can create public value by reducing air pollution (Trivellato et al ). These articles move the field forward, heeding the call of Hartley et al () for scholars to be clear about which strand of public value theory they are drawing on.…”

“…Brown and Head () largely seem to hold the view that there is a public interest (singular), although they do note that public value can be contested by different stakeholders. Teasdale and Dey () use a Foucauldian governmentality perspective with the example of neoliberal governing through social enterprises to highlight how political philosophies and governmental technologies can foster a more sustainable public space. For Trivellato et al () there are also multiple interests which require particular leadership skills involving orchestration, mediation and negotiation.…”

“…Where leadership occurs is a matter of significance and the location can influence public value. Leadership processes may happen in informal spaces (Ayres ; Brown and Head ; Hartley et al ); in liminal spaces across organizations (Trivellato et al ); in symbolic spaces of loss and displacement of public value (Hartley et al ); in hidden spaces ‘where public managers and civil society practitioners deviate from official mandates’ (Teasdale and Dey ); and in grappling with public and private issues about big data and technological algorithms (Andrews ).…”

“…Consequently, collaboration and partnership might be a means not an end in many situations. Leadership for public value also involves engaging in implicit or explicit decision‐making about what has public value, who is included and who is excluded (Ayres ; Hartley et al ; Teasdale and Dey ). Leadership for public value is also involved in establishing how decisions are made (Andrews ) and how to change practices and ways of working (Brown and Head ).…”

“…Leadership in these symposium articles often involves a continual struggle over how public value might be created, enhanced and subsequently sustained, in the context of other interests. Such impediments may be the interests represented by traditional public administration (Brown and Head ); criminals and potential vigilantes (Hartley et al ); political and economic interests to build an ideal model of citizenship and enterprise (Teasdale and Dey ); different views about how to achieve congestion charging (Trivellato et al ); how to manage big data in the public interest and not solely private corporation capture (Andrews ) or degrees of support, indifference or hostility to a social innovation (Ayres ). This highlights that contest and conflict are often endemic, and sometimes even beneficial, to the exercise of public leadership.…”