HOW DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC VALUE ARE AFFECTED BY SOCIAL

NEEDS AND POLITICAL ECONOMY

Understanding Development

Todaro and Smith (2014), posits that development is the process of improving the
quality of lives and capabilities by raising people’s levels of living, self-esteem and
freedom. While Pieterse (2010) argued that development is an organised
intervention in collective affairs according to a standard of improvement. For
purposes of this paper we will accept the definition as purported by Todaro and
Smith, because it outlines clearly where the improvement needs to happen.

Meynhardt (2009, p. 193) argues that public value is about the impact of how people
think and feel about society. Public value is about magerial success in initiating and
reshaping public sector enterprises in ways that increase their value to the public in
both the short and long run (Mooore, 1995, p.10).

Baran (1991,p. 806) argues that value refers to “something which—for whatever
reason—is emphasized in reality and desirable and forceful for the one who
evaluates, be it an individual, a societal group or an institution representing
individuals or groups”. Thus the popular definition held is that public value “is what
the public values” (Talbot, 2006, p. 7), in basic terms. Another way in which public
value is conceptualised in one where public value is the extent to which a perceived
relationship between an individual (or group) and some social entity influences the
fulfilment or change of basic needs. The definition by Talbot on public value, makes
it difficult to situate the conceptualisation of what public value actually is. The
definition by Baran on the other hand address this challenge, seek to conceptualise
public value as a function of “relationship” between an individual or group and some
entity of social importance in fulfilling the basic needs or the change thereof.
There are multiple ways in which public value could be evaluated (Meynhardt, 2009,
p. 209). One is the political-social lens which considers the political chancers and
risks, while the second lens adopts a hedonistic-aesthetic outlook which considers
the positive or negative experiences which are associated with the action for the
individual (Meynhardt, 2009, p. 209). The third way of evaluating public value is
through utilitarian lens which seeks the rational basis and the cost benefit ratio
between the costs incurred to deliver the service and the benefit derived there from,
the fourth and last perspective is the moral-ethical perspective which seeks to
understand the moral implications on the individual for the service (Meynhardt, 2009,
p. 209). The figure 1 below better illustrates these perspectives.

Figure 1: Four Perspectives on Public Value (Meynhardt, 2009, p. 209)

The diversity of public value and what it looks like from the concepts outlined above
point to a contested idea. The value of any service or programme will always be
contested depending on the framework one chooses to use to look at the service or
programme. This multiplicity of perspectives is what gives rise to differing political
viewpoints, and the need to balance between the extremes. Having to decide which
of the policies to adopt, in a highly unequal society like South Africa is likely to lead
but to greater levels of inequality.
Adam & Dercon (2009, p.174) argue that in order to understand development and
growth, it is necessary to understand the determinants of development and growth
which could either be the institutional or political factors. In other words one needs to
understand the perspective through which value is conceptualised. It is in trying to
gain this understanding that the concept of political economy finds its roots. Political
economy outlines the political choices and institutional structures adopted by the
government and its citizens (Adam & Dercon, 2009, p. 174).

When one tries to conceptualise African political economy, one is often confronted
by the concept of neopatrimonialism (Mkandawire, 2015, p. 565). Clapham (1985,
p.85) defined neopatrimonialism as “a form of organization in which relationships of a
broadly patrimonial type pervade a political and administrative system which is
formally constructed on rational-legal lines and officials hold positions in bureaucratic
organizations with powers which are formally defined, but exercise those powers as
a form of private property.”

Mkadawire (2015) argues that the term neopatrimonialism has rather been “abused”
within the African context as it has been used “incorrectly” to explain the plethora ills.
Neopatrimonialism has had an effect of flattening the African political and economic
landscape and it provides a poor understanding of the unique and complex problems
of the African continent. Mkadawire (2015, p. 602) concludes by appreciating the
complex nature of the Economic-policy making which is often influenced by ideas,
interests, economic forces and institutions to name but a few and this process should
not be reduced purely to neopatrimonialism to explain why it fails particularly within
the African context.

The dichotomy between public value and political economy?

From the conceptualisation above on public value and political economy, it is clear
that there appears to be conflict between the two concepts. The political choices and
institutional structures chosed by the government are not always in alignment with
the views and opinions of the individual, and consequently the perception of what the
public value is in respect of the chosen political choices or institutional structures that
are prioritised. The decisions taken politically are not always in the best interest of
the individual. Having to decide which qualities of lives and capabilities are to be
raised is deeply political and so is deciding which freedoms to stand for and which
ones to sacrifice.

It appears as though public value or development is mutually exclusive to political

economy and social needs. It is not always the case that what people need is what
they actually demand.

REFERENCES

Mayne, J. & Zapico-Goni, E. (Eds). (1997). Monitoring Performance in the

Public Sector. New York: Routledge

Montuori, A. (2011). Systems Approach. p. 414–21 in Encyclopedia of

Creativity (2nd ed.). Academic Pres.

Bornstein, L. (2006). Systems of accountability, webs of deceit? Monitoring and

evaluation in South African NGOs. Development, 49(2), 52-61.

Shapiro, J. S. (2007). Monitoring performance in the public sector: Future directions

from international experience. Transaction Publishers.

Shah, A. and Shen, C. (2008). A Primer on Performance Budgeting. In A.Shah (Ed. ,

Budgeting and Budgetary Institutions (pp.137- 178). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.