The RSA uses cookies on this website. By using this website you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more read our cookie policy and privacy policy. More Info

Leave the outcomes to the people


Lots of travelling recently – I am writing this on a train from Chester to Bangor (and what a great train journey it is too) on my way to do some interviews for a couple of Radio 4 programmes I am presenting.  Friday saw me near Stafford at an AwayDay for the 2020 Public Services Trust.

One of the sessions at the AwayDay involved my group examining the proposition that the state should move from the goal of social security to one of social productivity.  The notion of social productivity is based on the idea that there’s a lot of good ‘stuff’ outside the state which is vital to the functioning of a fair and decent society: self-reliance, caring and volunteering, for example.  Public services should aim to recognise, nurture and grow this ‘stuff’.  The more services do this, the more productive they are.

Our conversation led us to see the key sets of issues around this proposition.  Firstly, if the state is seeking to tap into and shape people’s own efforts, there is a need for strong legitimacy.  Secondly, however commendable the principles might be, how practicable is the idea that the state can enhance pro-sociability?  Thirdly, if services are the outcome of the combined efforts of the state, individuals and communities, how does accountability work?

From this sprang a surprising conclusion: if service outcomes flow from explicit collaboration between public servants and citizens, then those outcomes must be both negotiated and contingent upon that negotiation.

Among public service planners and commentators, there has been a common call in recent years for outcome based performance management.  But, if outcomes are merged from collaboration between service providers and people in specific and varying circumstances, then they shouldn’t be centrally specified.

Instead, the state should focus its energies on the core functioning of public services.  Whether school children achieve good exam results, neighbourhoods are safe, or towns become healthier should be seen as a function of the objectives jointly agreed between the state and citizens and the ability of both sides to deliver on their commitments.  Rather than services promising to meet outcomes which are not, in the end, in their hands (in which case they may resort to ‘fixing’ the outcomes to meet the targets) they should ensure they are guaranteeing specified levels of functioning, levels which make them a credible and respected partner, with which the public can deal.

This is not a conclusion I expected to reach and I haven’t thought through the implications in full.  Perhaps some of my readers can help?

Be the first to write a comment


Please login to post a comment or reply

Don't have an account? Click here to register.

Related articles

  • The public are ready to go further and faster on Net Zero

    Anthony Painter

    The public are ahead of policy-makers and, indeed, most of the business world. COP26 is an enormous opportunity to catch up. Global leaders should take it.

  • The levelling up conundrum

    Al Mathers Anthony Painter

    How can the government tackle the UK's chronic and enduring regional inequalities? We explore three plausible areas of focus for levelling up: economic development, social cohesion, and community power and identity.

  • The impact of health on economic security

    Hannah Webster

    Hannah Webster reflects on new research that highlights the difficulty for those with long-term health conditions to achieve economic security.