This issue

– public dis/value
– the ethics of COVID-19
– beyond coronavirus
– close the gap
– government as a system
Plus what I'm reading.

Research brief: Expanding public value to include dis/value 

For public service managers and policy-makers, ‘public value’ has become an important, sometimes unchallenged, organising concept. A paper in the journal, Public Management and Money, critiques public value and introduces the new concept of public dis/value. Read our brief on the paper.

Securing justice and democracy against COVID-19  

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the increased demands it has placed on governments, ANZSOG has begun a new series “Leading in a Crisis”. Using academics from across the world, the series brings together the best thinking on the role of government in mega-crises, like the COVID-19 outbreak. Papers in the series so far have focused on strategic leadership, building high-performing teams and maintaining organisational resilience.

As governments seek to address the immediate challenges of the crisis, they also need to keep in mind how their actions measure up against enduring societal objectives.

This issue is at the heart of a White Paper from Harvard University’s Center for Ethics.

The paper argues the policy goals in a constitutional democracy during a pandemic are analogous to the goals when responding to war from sudden attack. War threatens: 

• loss of life 

• the stability of the economy and society 

• standards of justice 

• the sustainability of political institutions. 

In both situations of war and pandemic, the goal is to: defeat the adversary with minimal loss of life and minimal damage to the material supports of a healthy economy and society.  

This needs to be done without perpetrating injustice. Pursuing defeat of the adversary also needs to: 

• lay the foundation for a transition back to a peace-time setting 

• preserve political institutions throughout the crisis. 

What does this mean? 

The goal is both to defeat the adversary, and to preserve society. As in wartime, there will be different phases of decision-making and planning and a constant need for readjustment. In a period of flux, what’s needed is a durable and consistent set of legitimate and socially accepted objectives. 

The paper proposes the following: 

1. Meet the public health emergency with public health mitigation strategies that: 

• are coordinated and evidence-based 

• secure health infrastructure in service of fighting the pandemic 

• protect civil liberties 

• do not perpetrate injustice. 

2. Mitigate the health crisis  without destroying the economy and material supports of society. 

3. Preserve the durability and sustainability of institutions necessary for constitutional democracy. 

Once the coronavirus crisis has passed, society will be defined by a fundamental schism: the period before COVID-19 and the new normal that will emerge post-virus.  

An article from McKinsey discusses a call to act across five stages, starting from crisis response to the new normal. The duration of each stage will vary based on geography and industry. Organisations may find themselves operating in more than one stage simultaneously. 

The path to the next normal 

1. Resolve. Crisis-response efforts are in full motion - from public health interventions to bolstering supplies of essential goods to business continuity planning. Difficult choices must be made and resolve is needed to determine the scale and pace of action. 

2. Resilience. A health crisis is turning into a financial crisis. Uncertainty about the size, duration and shape of the decline in GDP is undermining confidence. Shocks will upturn established industry structures, resetting competitive positions.  

3. Return. Returning after a severe shutdown will be challenging. Industries will need to reactivate supply chains and labour forces. The return to previous levels of workforce productivity is uncertain.  

4. Reimagination. A shock of this scale will shift the preferences and expectations of individuals as citizens, employees and consumers. Organisations have the opportunity use insights from these shifts to better meet preferences and needs. 

5. Reform: The aftermath of the pandemic will provide an opportunity to learn from new policy initiatives and social innovations. With this will come an understanding of what could uplift economic and social welfare on a more permanent basis. 

Closing the gap by empowering Indigenous communities 

This Lowitja Institute report was prepared for the Close the Gap Steering Committee. Over the last twelve years, successive governments have failed to deliver the reforms needed to close the gap on health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 

At the heart of the report is the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander empowerment as vital to well-being. The report features case studies highlighting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-driven approaches to health policy and program reform. 

These cover four domains of the cultural determinants to health: 

• Self-determination and leadership.  Practices and processes that incorporate not only self-governance and shared decision-making, but also rights to express and pass on culture, language, and relationships with Country. 

• Indigenous beliefs and knowledge. Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander holistic definitions of health and wellbeing in the way we deliver health services is critical to improving outcomes. 

• Cultural expression and continuity. These are sources of strength and resilience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Measures are needed to promote cultural expression as a health protective factor and ensure the cultural safety of the health system. 

• Connection to Country. Identity, cultural practices, social systems, traditions and concepts of spirituality are all drawn from, and depend upon, connection to Country. 

Government as a system 

UK’s Policy Lab has shared their latest ‘Government as a System’ toolkit in this blog post. The toolkit has been informed by over 50 projects Policy Lab has undertaken over the last six years. 

The framework outlines different government levers or styles of action that policymakers use when developing new policy ideas.

This includes domains such as influencing, engaging, designing, developing, resourcing, delivering and managing. Levers are also mapped against the level of power, ranging from more soft, collaborative power to formal top down powers. The toolkit maps 56 distinct actions across the whole system. 

1. Why de-separating political and administrative careers matters

There was once two separate career paths for policy-makers: one for public servants and one for politicians. Increasingly these pathways have become blurred resulting in a set of political elites whose careers are intermingled. A Democratic Audit article argues the career public service has consequently become more politicised. 

2. We need a red team for COVID-19 

Military forces often put together “red teams” to imitate an enemy and uncover a way to defeat it. Red teams can test and evaluate strategies, policies and plans. An Inside Story article argues we need a red team for COVID-19. Such a team would shine a light on plans formed by the national cabinet. The aim would be to challenge, stretch and improve these plans in real time, in line with the public’s expectations of speed and effectiveness. 

‘Til the next issue

Maria Katsonis