It has been two decades since the “public value” framework emerged, articulated initially at the Harvard Kennedy School. In this paper we set out the basics of the original approach, and then consider emerging critiques and meanings. Our aim is firstly to clarify the core concepts of Moore's approach, and secondly to track the new meanings of public value which are developing. This allows us to engage with the growing debate about public value both inside and outside academia, and also to discuss its trajectory as a new idea in public sector management.

This paper addresses shortcomings in the scholarship about ‘wicked problems’, and suggests ways of tackling them. Firstly, accounts of these problems tend to ‘totalise’, regarding them as intractable masses of complexity, so conflict-prone and/or intractable that they defy definition and solution. By contrast, we put forward a more nuanced analysis, arguing that complex problems vary in the extent of their wickedness, via such dimensions as their cognitive complexity or the diversity and irreconcilability of the actors or institutions involved. We propose a typology of different forms of wicked problems. A second shortcoming, linked to intractability, is that the favoured means of tackling wicked problems has tended towards ‘one best way’ approaches, most commonly collaboration with key stakeholders. Moreover, particular forms of collaboration tend to be routinely applied in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion to a variety of situations – notably with a plethora of actors, and a focus on governance rather than implementation management. We put forward a contingency framework, based on our typology, proposing which types of collaboration are suitable for which types of problem. Finally, we argue for a more realistic standard of success in dealing with wicked problems, especially the most difficult ones. To call for the ‘solving’ of these problems is to set up a standard which is not only impossible but also perhaps unnecessary. We argue that we do not so much ‘solve’ wicked problems as make progress towards improvement or towards better managing them. We spell out a more realistic version of ‘progress’.

There is considerable scholarly writing about the theory and application of public value concepts, but this article explores why there is, by contrast, so little empirical research on public value. The article then goes on to provide a framework and a research agenda for inspiring and guiding new empirical research, based on three different conceptualizations of public value, with researchers needing to be explicit about which approach they are using in order to avoid confusion. While case studies have been used as a research method, the authors suggest a much wider array of potential research methods (depending on the research question) covering both quantitative and qualitative approaches and with a wider variety of designs, including comparative analysis. It is suggested that empirical research is undertaken with a more diverse range of stakeholders of public value, breaking out of the public manager-centric approach. This is an exciting agenda for research, though the paper warns that public value may fade from view unless empirical research is undertaken to test, challenge and extend the scholarly contributions.

This article argues that while the idea of public service-dominant logic (PSDL) has much to offer, there remains room to extend it. First, the article fine-tunes the argument that co-production is unavoidable in services management, by categorizing the different things co-producers provide and analysing their interdependencies. Second, it seeks to account for collectively consumed public value, which is neglected in PSDL. Third, it recognizes that far from ‘delighting’ customers, many public services entail applying the coercive authority of the state to those with whom they deal. The article proposes a reconceptualization of the notion of ‘client focus’.