Leighton Andrews, Cardiff University

Matthew Collins, Cardiff University

Ministers and civil servants operate within formally shared constitutional arrangements but increasingly divergent professional cultures. Ministers are drawn from, and remain accountable to, a political environment defined by electoral cycles, media scrutiny, and their parties. Civil servants, by contrast, are shaped by institutional norms of political impartiality and long-term organizational continuity. Where those two paradigms were once held in productive tension by well-understood constitutional conventions, that tension has now become corrosive. Ministers have grown more likely to publicly attribute blame to officials (particularly at the most senior level, with at least 10 permanent secretaries being removed from post early since 2020). Parliament has pressed for the personal accountability of named civil servants, and civil servants have responded by becoming more risk-averse and, in some cases, more deferential to ministerial preference than honest analysis would support. The consequences for the quality of policy advice, and for policy performance more broadly, are both substantive and cumulative.

We recognize that constitutional settlements which order the relationship between ministers and officials are neither natural nor permanent, but were forged at particular moments and have endured precisely because they proved adaptable to the pressures subsequently placed upon them. The Westminster model has been taken up and remade across its various jurisdictions at successive moments of acute strain, very often in the aftermath of war or state crisis. The recurrence in our own time of anxieties about honesty, impartiality, blame and accountability should not let us forget that these questions have been asked, and provisionally answered, before. Reflecting on that history may therefore help us gain perspective on contemporary pressures, and deepen our understanding of where present events might yet take us.

This PMM theme issue invites theoretical and empirical contributions that examine the minister–official relationship and its implications for how policy is made and delivered. We welcome papers that focus on either side of the relationship, or on the relationship itself, provided there is a clear connection to questions of policy performance or governance. The primary focus of this PMM theme is the Westminster model, but comparative contributions that engage with one or more Westminster model jurisdictions are welcome. Papers that draw on Westminster experience to engage with broader theoretical frameworks in public administration will also be considered. We welcome submissions using qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs, as well as conceptual and theoretical contributions that deepen understanding of the relationship and its implications.

Potential topics

• The nature and dynamics of trust between ministers and civil servants
• The politicization of advice and its consequences for advisory quality
• Risk aversion, deference, and the suppression of honesty
• Ethical and conduct standards
• The role of special advisors in mediating the minister-official relationship
• The consequences of ministerial turnover for policy continuity
• The impact of organizational or departmental culture
• Parliamentary accountability and the personal exposure of named officials
• The constitutional position of ministers and/or civil servants
• Historical perspectives on the cycle of strain and reform in the minister-official relationship, particularly those that reflect the impact of crises

Timeline

• January 31, 2027: Deadline for research articles
• March 31, 2027: Deadline for debate and new development articles

Paula Rossi, University of Vaasa

Jim Broch Skarli, University of Inland Norway

Maria Petrescu, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Edwina Zhu, University of Edinburgh Business School

This PMM theme issue will examine how public services can contribute to value creation for citizens within public service ecosystems (PSEs), considering implications for public administration and management theory and/or practice.

To better understand how social, ecological and economic value for citizens could be fostered in the context of public services, researchers have for the past decade addressed how the systemic, relational and context-dependent nature of value creation is situated within PSEs. In short, value creation explores how public services can be understood as resources that enable citizens to create/co-create value in their lives, and the PSE framework, first, draws attention to the hindering and enabling dynamics and conditions of value creation, embedded in and between individual, organizational and institutional levels of PSEs. To illustrate this more clearly, in the context of public services, value creation for citizens takes place through politically governed organizations. These organizations operate at the intersection of individual needs and collective interests. As a result, administrative and political contexts inevitably influence how value is created, what is possible, and how these processes unfold. Public administration and management research and practice informed by the analytical framework of PSEs are therefore well placed to take seriously the systemic characteristics and inherent tensions that shape public service environments.

Second, the PSE framework can help public sector managers, practitioners and researchers overcome the dyadic, service-user and organization-centric focus of value creation. This calls for attention, for example, to the roles and the variety of actors such as service users, family members, politicians, managers, practitioners and professionals in local, regional and national (public, private and non-governmental organizations) contexts. When viewed through the PSE framework, importantly, human-centric value creation/destruction processes become more appreciative also of the importance of non-living elements such as built environment, facilities, technologies, equipment and means of transport.

Third, utilizing the PSE framework to understand value creation for citizens calls for a more nuanced understanding of value. The conceptualization and understanding of value needs to incorporate both value for the service user and societal/collective value for citizens/communities, as well as considering both individual and collective beneficiaries in a more nuanced and appreciative way.

We therefore seek contributions that interrogate both value creation and PSEs further and which consider their implications for public administration and management theory and/or practice. Submissions can be theoretical or empirical. For research articles, a variety of research perspectives and methods are welcomed. Research articles should contribute to theory, as well as practice and/or policy. In addition, 1000-word debate articles and 3500-word new development articles are also welcome to enrich the pragmatic debates.

Potential topics

• Examining the implications of the roles and individual characteristics of service users in value co-creation, for example from the perspective of vulnerable service users and family carers
• Addressing the implementation and utilization of technologies from a PSE and value creation perspective
• Widening the empirical focus from private-benefit services to include more public-benefit services such as utility services, transportation, housing, prison management or urban development, emphasizing 'value for citizens' as an outcome
• Exploring the implications of understanding place-based public services from a PSE and value creation perspective
• Addressing the hindering or enabling dynamics and conditions of value creation in and between the individual, organizational and institutional levels of PSEs in particular contexts, for example by utilizing 'conflict' as an analytical tool
• Interrogating and developing Public Service Logic (PSL) as a framework for investigating and evaluating value creation within PSEs

Timeline

• December 1, 2026: Manuscript deadline for research articles and new development pieces
• March 1, 2027: Manuscript deadline for debate pieces

Zoe Radnor, Aston University

David Walker, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

For this theme issue we are looking for disciplinary eclecticism. We seek contributions that bring together insights from several disciplines, including law, social sciences, public management and the study of politics. Traditionally public management has not engaged in 'constitutional' conversations. However, the rise of what has been identified within the political landscape as 'populism' calls for a cross-disciplinary perspective to understand whether, and how, it is impacting public management and administration.

Populism can be described as a movement rather than a single ideology adopted by any political doctrine, and it often presents complex problems in simple terms, offering direct solutions. In recent times, populism has seen a rise in politicians from the left (for example Julius Malema in South Africa, Lee Jae Myung in South Korea) and the right of the political landscape (for example Donald Trump in the USA, Javier Milei in Argentina and Nigel Farage in the UK).

For this PMM theme issue we are seeking both conceptual and case examples to address the questions raised. Understanding how public managers and administrators are navigating the current context is key to supporting public services and the public good. In addition to research articles, we are also seeking debate and new development pieces to shape the thinking and agenda for further consideration. We would like to understand the implications for both policy and practice.

Potential topics

• Are we facing the limits of traditional thinking in public management? Do public managers have a 'moral personality' with value commitment to liberal democracy and/or state continuity, hence a duty, moral or legal, to protect them?
• Does populism create a challenge for public managers to abide by good governance principles (for example, in the UK, the Nolan Principles of Public Life)?
• Are public managers obliged to defend the state from attack, rhetorical or actual; if so, by what means?
• Have public managers traditionally lacked 'voice' within the political–administrative interface and what challenges do they face with the rise of populism?
• Is there a problem, incipient or actual, facing public managers if they are becoming answerable to politicians with a value set that is antagonistic to the values of public management?
• How anachronistic are those Weberian doctrines of 'responsiveness', i.e. the idea that the primary duty of public managers is to obey political mandates as the sole source of legitimacy?
• What is 'extremism'/populism? Can extremism and populism be defined (proscribed) ex ante?
• Do public managers observe/answer to a code that protects them against orders (short of law-breaking)? Are such codes robust?
• How far do existing doctrines of accountability accommodate answerability for extremist policies?
• Do public managers including civil servants and military personnel have a 'moral' personality and/or ethical commitments that equip them/require them to resist political directives that might subvert existing conventions or constitutional order?
• What lessons could public managers learn from international and comparative perspectives from the rise of populism in different political systems and architectures?

Timeline

• Invalid DateTime: Hybrid symposium for potential contributors
• January 31, 2027: Submission deadline for research articles and new development pieces
• March 31, 2027: Submission deadline for debate pieces