Valuing Public Value: Recognising and Applying Knowledge About the Governmental Process*
Rhodes and Wanna (2007) have criticised Moore's argument for ‘public value’ as an organising construct for public managers, claiming that it is confused, ill-informed, ignores the central dynamic of political life, and demands that public managers become ‘Platonic guardians’, making it totally inappropriate for use in Australia. This article examines Moore's analysis and Rhodes and Wanna's critique, and explores the relevance for the argument of the complex nature of authority in Australian government, recent developments in the social science understanding of governing, and the experiential knowledge of practitioners. It cites the governing of the Murray-Darling Basin as an example, and discusses the different discourses that academics and practitioners use in making sense of complexity in governing.