The 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled


...Sessions were interesting, scholars were engaging and all the social events were amazing!

B.K., Kazakhstan, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

Excellent organization, excellent food. Compliments to the organizers, they did a wonderful job!

V.J., Netherlands, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

...I must say that the PhD pre-conference seminar was the most useful seminar of my life. Very well...

K.V., Czech Republic, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

... I would even argue that they are the very best - both in terms of scientific content and also entertainment…

P.W., Denmark, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  27th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
Panel: Public Value as a Guiding Principle for Governance
Author(s)  Marek Ćwiklicki 
  Cracow University of Economics
Kraków  Poland
Pilch Kamila,  
 Title  Understanding Public Value through its Instruments
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Marek Ćwiklicki
A practical implementation of guidelines derived from public value theory is associated with activities performed with a certain way and with a certain means. A public manager wanting to create public value has to choose the right tool for the right job. Therefore the question of selecting the proper instrument appears. The choice of the tool can be the result of previous experience or knowledge, or mode broadly – educational and professional background. We perceive as the most natural and obvious for public value the following perspectives: political science, public policy, public administration, and business study. We argue that represented by specialist point of view influences the perception of effectiveness of particular group of instruments for specific areas associated with public value. In order to show the above difference we apply qualitative approach and we have performed Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA) on the data collected from specialists in listed above scientific disciplines. The choice of MFA we justify by its usefulness to analyse surveys for which several groups of variables can be identified, or for which the same questions are asked at several time intervals. The goal of MFA is to integrate different groups of variables describing the same observations. First we analysed the basic model for public value creation, i.e. Moore’s strategic triangle and listed the main sub-areas within public value (public services), legitimacy and support (environment), and operational capacity (results-based management). We have identified 10 of them. Next we asked the purposeful chosen specialists to enumerate traits (or characteristics, attributes) which management tool (instrument) should possess for enhancing public value creation. Then, we asked respondents to evaluate – applying their attributes formulated in previous step and using 7-point scale – each group of tools assigned to sub-areas identified around strategic triangle corners. We normalised data sets by using Principal Component Analysis. Next, these data were combined into a data matrix and the principal components were carried out on this matrix. It allowed us to show differences in perceptions within representatives of major scientific disciplines associated with public value theory. We finish our paper with conclusions based on noticed differentiation in perceptions of effectiveness of public value instruments.