Because theyre worth it, by Brendan Barber

31 May 07
A major rethink is needed on the government's reform programme. Central to that is the concept of 'public value' and new ways of getting public sector workers on board. Brendan Barber outlines a different approach ahead of his speech to CIPFA's annual conference

01 June 2007

A major rethink is needed on the government's reform programme. Central to that is the concept of 'public value' – and new ways of getting public sector workers on board. Brendan Barber outlines a different approach ahead of his speech to CIPFA's annual conference

There has been much speculation, and not a little mystery, about whether a Brown premiership will mean a change of direction on public service reform.

The latest reading of the tea leaves suggests that it will. Liam Byrne, one of the batch of young ministers tipped for promotion by Brown, recently attacked the fetish of choice and private sector involvement in public service delivery. He argues that the government is obsessed with process over outcomes.

Byrne says that the right objective is to empower users to control delivery so that they receive public services in a way and at a time that meets their needs. There are many routes to this and none is the preserve of one particular mechanism or sector. Byrne is among a group of ministers and ex-ministers contributing to a new book – Public matters – that develops this theme.

There is also a shift occurring in the more rarefied atmospheres of academia and think-tanks. New Public Management theory – in short, the view that the public sector should become more like the private sector – has ruled the roost for many years and has influenced the policies of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. But a new generation of thinkers sees many problems with this approach. It might seem strange to those who have not been involved in these debates, particularly those who actually deliver frontline services, but there is now a belated realisation that public services do not operate like commercial markets and were never really meant to.

Of course, public services have to be efficient, offer value for money and meet individual user choice where possible. But this is only half of the equation – public services are also about delivering fairly and in a way that is subject to democratic accountability. Importantly, they also often have to operate in an environment of restricted capacity, where not every choice can be met. It is beginning to be understood that what public services do is often a complex trade-off between cost, equity, user need and capacity.

The rather fraught example of social housing illustrates this clearly. In parts of the UK, there is a huge user need for varied forms of social housing yet there are not enough houses. This means there has to be rationing.

If we have a commitment to equity, we cannot simply ration on a first come, first served basis (or on the basis of country of origin for that matter). Instead, we must make an estimate of the needs of the potential tenant. Of course, there is a strong case for increasing capacity by building hundreds of thousands of new council houses, but that is not without cost. These costs have to be balanced against other demands on the public purse and against other needs within the housing sector itself, such as good and speedy maintenance of existing stock.

This is a complex and dynamic equation with many variables and possible outcomes. As any housing officer can tell you, this cannot be resolved simply by making public sector managers think more like their private sector counterparts.

The rather simplistic view perpetuated not just by ministers, but by other parties too, is that making public services responsive to individual user choice automatically improves overall quality. But it ain't necessarily so. Meeting individual choice is important, but when it is not set in context it ignores the wider issues of capacity, equity and cost. The only mechanism likely to be able to deliver improvement while taking account of the many subtleties, dilemmas and variables present within the public service equation is good old-fashioned talking and deciding as a group.

This is the core of a new theory, which argues that public services deliver something different to the private sector – 'public value'. Public value is the benefit delivered to users not just as individuals at the point of delivery but also as members of a community that benefits from free health care, good education and available housing. It also incorporates value for money and efficiency, because users benefit from reasonable tax levels and judicious public spending.

The key to good public services under this theory is to find the balance between these different elements and deliver it. The way that is done is through both established forms of democracy, such as local councils, and newer forms such as deliberative assemblies. These forums bring people who deliver public services together with users to work through the dilemmas and develop a shared solution.

The Work Foundation in the UK is currently the main torch carrier for the theory, but other approaches are also likely to emerge – all of which mark a break with the orthodoxy of the past 30 years. None of this means that we should stop trying to make public services respond to individual needs. The hardest thing, which public value has little to say about as yet, is how to do this while allowing the wider context to be considered simultaneously. Byrne seems to be suggesting that there are a variety of routes to this, which should all be explored. He says, quite rightly, that we need 'creative minds' on this one. The Trades Union Congress will be heeding this call. We have set up a project to explore this, which will report in the autumn.

It must be a record for a general secretary of the TUC to get this far in an article without mentioning staff or unions, but now it is time to touch on this vital area. The fatal flaw in New Public Management theory and the government's current programme is that both managers and staff are seen as little more than calculating machines that can be programmed to change their ways either by edict from above or by the pressures exerted through quasi-markets. It fails to see that public service staff are driven by more complex motivations than this. A sense of doing what's right by their clients and by their colleagues also play a big role, as do good quality of work, fair pay, decent conditions and some degree of autonomy and control of their working lives.

And there is no escaping the fact that if staff do not believe that what they are doing will help them and their service move towards these goals, then any improvement will be very limited – something that Byrne has also acknowledged.

The macho, top-down reform of the NHS that has gripped government is the clearest display of this. It is ending in tears because however much a strategy appeals to the wonks in Number 10, if staff can't be persuaded of its benefits, it is worthless. This is a principle that any decent private sector chief executive knows well – it is strange that the gurus of private delivery of public services never picked it up.

Of course, for the great majority of users, the face of a public service is its staff – be they health workers, teachers or firefighters. And, as recent research has shown, if staff are demoralised and disappointed by the service they are able to offer, then users will receive that message and draw the same conclusions. So any government that drives through change without taking staff with them, and then expects the votes to flood in from a grateful nation, will be sorely disappointed.

This means that staff must be a key part of any new approach to reform. The challenge is to find the mechanisms that both create a link of trust between users, staff and management and allow dialogue, agreement and public service responsiveness – to both the community and individuals – to flourish. This is no small task but if achieved, even in part, it would represent a genuine culture change for the better in public service.

Now it is all down to Gordon Brown. He can continue down a route of public service reform that has been shown to be both simplistic and self-destructive. Or he can seize the political and intellectual opportunity now available and chart a new approach that genuinely addresses all the complex and subtle dilemmas that are part of public service delivery in the UK today.

Brendan Barber is the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. He will be speaking on 'Engaging the workforce' at the CIPFA conference in Bournemouth on Thursday, June 14

PFjun2007

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top