The literature on the place of values in public sector decision making will be reviewed before identifying the particular values used, and the ways in which they are used, in resource allocation decisions. There are three main areas to be considered. The first concerns whether managers and officials ought to be involved in value-based decision making. In practice this argument has been a territorial one about the boundaries between the role of managers and officials, on the one hand, and politicians and board members, on the other. The classical distinction between the two groups is that the latter are responsible for policy (which involves thinking about values) whilst the former are focused on administration or operations. This apparently tidy distinction has, as will be seen, been subject to much disagreement. It is difficult in practice to see managers and officials as ethereal creatures who can switch off their value preferences when doing their jobs. This presumption identifies the other two areas which need review. They are the alternative answers that writers have given to the question of how public officials and managers should apply values in their work. The first alternative is a formal one which involves treating values objectively as defined and discrete inputs to a policy analysis procedure. The alternative is an informal use of values which allows public managers to be involved in the rough and tumble of policy debate and to argue on the basis of their personal values and preferences. The idea of informality will be applied to individuals’ value systems which will not be seen as immutable and unchanging. As Watson suggests:
The combination of values held, and the various strengths with which each is held, is a matter of the way each person is shaping their iden-tity at that time.
(Watson 1994a:74)
The literature on the place of values in public sector decision making will be reviewed before identifying the particular values used, and the ways in which they are used, in resource allocation decisions. There are three main areas to be considered. The first concerns whether managers and officials ought to be involved in value-based decision making. In practice this argument has been a territorial one about the boundaries between the role of managers and officials, on the one hand, and politicians and board members, on the other. The classical distinction between the two groups is that the latter are responsible for policy (which involves thinking about values) whilst the former are focused on administration or operations. This apparently tidy distinction has, as will be seen, been subject to much disagreement. It is difficult in practice to see managers and officials as ethereal creatures who can switch off their value preferences when doing their jobs. This presumption identifies the other two areas which need review. They are the alternative answers that writers have given to the question of how public officials and managers should apply values in their work. The first alternative is a formal one which involves treating values objectively as defined and discrete inputs to a policy analysis procedure. The alternative is an informal use of values which allows public managers to be involved in the rough and tumble of policy debate and to argue on the basis of their personal values and preferences. The idea of informality will be applied to individuals’ value systems which will not be seen as immutable and unchanging. As Watson suggests:The combination of values held, and the various strengths with which each is held, is a matter of the way each person is shaping their iden-tity at that time.(Watson 1994a:74)
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..