Berlin
Berlin
Berlin
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Accenture Global Cities Forum<br />
Exploring People's Perspectives on the Role of Government<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>
Contents<br />
Summary 3<br />
Observations from the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum 4<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>’s principles of public value 5<br />
Messages to government from people of <strong>Berlin</strong> 5<br />
1 About the Accenture<br />
Global Cities Forum 7<br />
2 The individual’s relationship<br />
with government 11<br />
The user of public services 12<br />
The citizen 13<br />
The taxpayer 13<br />
Tensions between the perspectives 14<br />
3 Improving public value:<br />
The quality of life in <strong>Berlin</strong> 15<br />
General principles of public value in <strong>Berlin</strong> 16<br />
Improving learning and education,<br />
health and public safety 17<br />
Future priorities for <strong>Berlin</strong> 19<br />
Roles and responsibilities of different actors 20<br />
4 Messages to government from<br />
people of <strong>Berlin</strong> 23<br />
5 Accenture Public Service Value<br />
Governance Framework 25<br />
6 How <strong>Berlin</strong> compares with<br />
the other Global Cities 27<br />
Appendix 29<br />
The Accenture Global Cities Forum is an ongoing study into<br />
how members of the public define “public value” and what<br />
they expect of government. The Institute for Public Service<br />
Value designed the first phase of the study as a series of<br />
citizen panels in eight world cities: London, Sydney, Singapore,<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. Each Forum<br />
included 60 to 85 local residents randomly selected to represent<br />
the city’s demographics—providing strong, qualitative insight<br />
into what people think about government and public services<br />
and how they judge public value.<br />
Page 2 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Summary<br />
On Saturday, September 15, 2007, 63 residents<br />
of <strong>Berlin</strong> from all walks of life came together<br />
to discuss the role of government in improving<br />
the quality of their lives in the city.<br />
This was the fourth of the Accenture Global Cities Forums<br />
conducted by the Accenture Institute for Public Service<br />
Value. These Forums are part of an ongoing global research<br />
project to directly engage citizens 1 in discussion about<br />
how governments can improve the social and economic<br />
conditions of the people they serve. In 2007, we held<br />
Global Cities Forums—conducted as daylong “deliberative<br />
events”—in London, Sydney, Singapore, <strong>Berlin</strong>, New York,<br />
Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. 2<br />
During the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum, participants discussed their<br />
experiences with public services and their expectations<br />
of government. In addition to listening to participants’<br />
views, we wanted to engage them fully and challenge<br />
their thinking to elicit a more informed debate about how<br />
government could act to improve the quality of their lives.<br />
An important objective of the project is to explore the<br />
relationship between individuals and their government by<br />
probing into the multifaceted and sometimes conflicting<br />
expectations and demands people place on government<br />
as citizens, users of services and taxpayers. So, in addition<br />
to debate, discussion and some electronic polling, the<br />
day involved a simulation session in which groups of<br />
participants assumed these three roles and then debated<br />
issues from the different perspectives. In <strong>Berlin</strong>, that<br />
debate focused on three social outcomes that our research<br />
showed are currently important to people in the city:<br />
learning and education, health and public safety.<br />
By the end of the day, through deliberation and roleplaying<br />
activities, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants identified a set of<br />
principles that they believe should guide the provision<br />
of government services in the city and the production of<br />
public value more widely. Taken together with analysis<br />
of the findings from the seven other cities, Accenture<br />
has formulated what we propose is a new governance<br />
framework—a basis for strengthening the relationship<br />
between people and their governments.<br />
This report presents the detailed observations and findings<br />
of the Global Cities Forum—<strong>Berlin</strong>. What follows is a<br />
brief summary.<br />
1 In this report, we use the word "citizens" to denote community<br />
members, including those who are temporary residents.<br />
2 The Global Cities Forums were conducted in this order across the eight<br />
cities. The project was designed to be iterative, using logistical and<br />
procedural findings from each event to inform subsequent events.<br />
Page 3 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Observations from the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
Overall, participants at the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum regard living in<br />
the city positively. <strong>Berlin</strong>ers especially appreciate the city’s<br />
green space, cultural opportunities, good infrastructure<br />
and vibrant, multicultural character.<br />
However, they also feel the government is falling short of<br />
their expectations in a number of key areas. Participants are<br />
particularly concerned about attracting more businesses to<br />
the city to improve the economy and employment opportunities.<br />
Public safety concerns also remain a key issue for many<br />
residents—especially in the poorer districts of the city.<br />
While participants recognize that the solution to these<br />
problems requires action within and outside the public<br />
sector, they feel that government bears the main<br />
responsibility for tackling these priorities to improve quality<br />
of life in <strong>Berlin</strong>. During the Forum, they argued the need for<br />
government to demonstrate clearer leadership, characterized<br />
by a strategic focus on sustainable solutions to social issues<br />
rather than stopgap “solutions” that produce short-term<br />
political gains. They expect elected leaders and civil servants<br />
to consistently demonstrate integrity and keep the needs of<br />
the city’s residents at the heart of policymaking and service<br />
delivery. And they want their leaders to be role models for<br />
citizens—supporting and rewarding individuals’ commitment<br />
to improving their own lives and their neighborhoods.<br />
Participants articulated fairly clearly what they expect<br />
from government in their efforts to improve the social<br />
and economic conditions in <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
Participants expressed concern that nearly two decades<br />
after the fall of the <strong>Berlin</strong> Wall, quality of life is significantly<br />
worse for many people living in neighborhoods in the former<br />
East <strong>Berlin</strong> versus their wealthier neighbors in the former<br />
West <strong>Berlin</strong>. At the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum, participants indicated that<br />
government is not doing enough to address this imbalance.<br />
In fact, some argued that current government policy tends to<br />
exacerbate inequalities by prioritizing services for the people<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong> who are already well off. They believe this violates<br />
the principle of solidarity (in German: Solidaritätsprinzip)—<br />
perhaps the core foundation of the German welfare state.<br />
In relation to education, participants are concerned about<br />
varying educational standards across the federal states of<br />
Germany and believe standards are significantly poorer in<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> than in more affluent states, such as Bavaria, Hesse<br />
and Baden-Württemberg. They are also troubled by gaps in<br />
educational standards within <strong>Berlin</strong>—again, between more<br />
and less affluent districts. They fear that such disparity<br />
could lead to a two-tiered society and view this as a key<br />
area for government to address.<br />
While <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants agreed that everyone should<br />
have access to a basic standard of service, they found it<br />
more difficult to decide whether the principles of equality<br />
and equity should extend as far as providing a high standard<br />
of service for all residents. This tension was particularly<br />
strong in discussions about health services, as people posed<br />
the critical question: Should everyone receive expensive<br />
drugs and operations, or should the government merely<br />
ensure a basic standard for all?<br />
Forum participants noted that <strong>Berlin</strong>’s economy is relatively<br />
weak—with an unemployment level that is high compared<br />
to other major cities in Germany and the rest of Western<br />
Europe. Thus, participants argued that the government<br />
should consider the long term and invest more heavily<br />
in education—in preschool education, schools and further<br />
education—and work closely with businesses to make<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> a city of choice for new industries.<br />
Page 4 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Participants strongly advocate early intervention and want<br />
government to place greater emphasis on taking action in<br />
the short term to prevent longer-term problems. For example,<br />
they want more investment in education, building a better<br />
foundation for children and young people to succeed later<br />
in life. Similarly, they argued that there would be a marked<br />
improvement in public health—and a resulting reduction<br />
in the pressures on the health system—if the government<br />
placed more emphasis on community education about<br />
healthier living. They argued that this would lead to more<br />
people taking responsibility for their own actions, which<br />
is critical for improving individuals’ quality of life and<br />
supporting the common good.<br />
Participants believe that integration is a key social concern<br />
that would benefit from earlier intervention and a longerterm<br />
effort. They asserted that government should do more<br />
to ensure that immigrants learn the German language and<br />
way of living; immigrants would then be far more likely to<br />
find good jobs and their children would be better equipped<br />
to succeed in school. Likewise, people educated about health<br />
and encouraged to lead healthier lifestyles may require<br />
less medical treatment over the course of their lives.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants called for a new relationship<br />
between people and their government. They want to know<br />
how their taxes are being spent and to what result. They also<br />
demand that government and public-service managers be<br />
held accountable for their management of public funds and<br />
face appropriate penalties for mismanagement or waste.<br />
Underlying the call for transparency and accountability<br />
is the desire for a greater flow of communication between<br />
government and citizens. People in <strong>Berlin</strong> want government<br />
to engage with them in new ways and involve them<br />
in making core decisions that affect their daily lives,<br />
neighborhoods and communities. In short, people at<br />
the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum want to be able to influence<br />
developments far more than they can today.<br />
“We should be a part of the decision-making process<br />
as it is our money that’s being spent and I want to<br />
know where it's going. The entire process should<br />
be as transparent as possible.”<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>’s principles of public value<br />
While they recognized that specific outcomes for different<br />
service areas and the mechanics of service delivery will vary<br />
greatly, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants formulated a set of principles<br />
that they believe are applicable to all public services, that<br />
are essential to achieving improved outcomes, and that will<br />
help to provide increased value for all members of the public.<br />
The principles of public value are:<br />
A long-term view<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>ers call for government to think long term and focus on<br />
preventing future problems. The demand for prevention and<br />
early intervention stems from a perception among participants<br />
that policy changes often occur as “knee-jerk reactions” to<br />
specific events rather than through strategic planning.<br />
Connectedness/coordination<br />
Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be<br />
achieved through improved coordination between publicservice<br />
providers and through better communication with<br />
their customers.<br />
Transparency and information<br />
Greater transparency and regular, appropriate provision<br />
of information would help citizens better identify with the<br />
government and its processes. This would be the essential<br />
foundation for a stronger system of accountability, which<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants demand.<br />
Equality and fairness<br />
A fundamental principle should be that no one is<br />
disadvantaged by social background or income. Participants<br />
expect a basic standard of public service to be provided for<br />
everyone, free of charge.<br />
Customer focus<br />
Services in a capital city like <strong>Berlin</strong> need to be adapted<br />
to its population’s demands and lifestyle. People want<br />
government to be more flexible about how, where and<br />
when services are provided.<br />
None of the principles are unique to <strong>Berlin</strong>; many of the<br />
same ideas emerged in the other seven cities where we<br />
conducted Forums. For example, all the cities placed a<br />
strong emphasis on equality and fairness, as well as on<br />
transparency and accountability. Like those in most of<br />
the other cities, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants were also concerned<br />
with customer focus. They emphasized the need for a<br />
longer-term view in planning and delivering services—like<br />
participants in Sydney, New York and Los Angeles—and the<br />
need for more coordination between government agencies—<br />
like those in London, Sydney and New York.<br />
Messages to government from<br />
people of <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
The debate and deliberations from the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
provide clear messages for government and those<br />
managing public services.<br />
Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service<br />
planning and delivery.<br />
To improve quality of life for <strong>Berlin</strong> residents, government<br />
should include them in decision making and tailor services<br />
to meet their needs, expectations and preferences.<br />
Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term<br />
future of the city.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>ers regard the development of long-term, sustainable<br />
solutions as critical to the future quality of life in their<br />
city. They also see this as the most cost-effective way of<br />
tackling <strong>Berlin</strong>’s social issues. Investing in education and<br />
employment is fundamental to developing a sound economy<br />
and improving quality of life.<br />
Page 5 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Encourage people to take more personal responsibility<br />
for achieving positive social outcomes.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants believe that more proactive<br />
policies and future-oriented decision making depend on<br />
educating, inspiring and empowering residents to take<br />
personal responsibility for social outcomes. Government<br />
officials need to show the way and act as positive role<br />
models for others.<br />
Help people to help themselves through investment in<br />
education and job opportunities, and support businesses<br />
in playing their part.<br />
A good education can lead to better job opportunities and<br />
a more competitive city. This is perhaps the most important<br />
priority for people in <strong>Berlin</strong>. The government should invest<br />
more heavily in education and consider measures to encourage<br />
more businesses to establish themselves in the city.<br />
Design and deliver public services to help reduce the gap<br />
between the more affluent and poorer communities.<br />
Residents of <strong>Berlin</strong> regard equality as a basic principle and<br />
believe that more should be done to help poorer neighborhoods<br />
and disadvantaged people. This is likely to require higher<br />
levels of government spending in some areas and services<br />
tailored to meet the needs of particular communities.<br />
When considered in conjunction with the deliberative<br />
findings and principles formulated in the other seven<br />
cities, the <strong>Berlin</strong> principles of public value form important<br />
components of what we believe is a new model for more<br />
citizen-engaged governance. The Accenture Public Service<br />
Value Governance Framework provides a means to clearly<br />
articulate a relationship that is not only about voting<br />
in elections or paying taxes—however important these<br />
are—but also about genuine engagement of citizens in<br />
their governance. The Accenture Institute for Public Service<br />
Value Global Cities Forum presents strong evidence of<br />
rising demand from citizens for a new relationship with<br />
government built around:<br />
Outcomes<br />
Focusing on improved social and economic outcomes<br />
Balance<br />
Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness and common good<br />
Engagement<br />
Engaging, educating and enrolling the public as co-producers<br />
of public value<br />
Accountability<br />
Clarifying accountability and facilitating public recourse<br />
Public services are in fact the key mechanism through which<br />
people interact with their governments. The value of those<br />
public services, however, lies not simply in their quality<br />
or efficiency, but in the actual improvements they produce<br />
in the economic and social conditions of the people they<br />
serve—the public. That “public value” is ultimately defined<br />
by members of the public in their roles as users of public<br />
services, citizens, taxpayers and voters.<br />
Page 6 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
About the Accenture Global Cities Forum<br />
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value<br />
initiated the Global Cities Forum research project<br />
to examine more closely people’s relationship<br />
with government.<br />
We designed the Global Cities Forum as a series of deliberative<br />
events with residents of eight world cities: London, Sydney,<br />
Singapore, <strong>Berlin</strong>, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.<br />
Each event brought together approximately 60 to 85 people,<br />
randomly recruited by a professional agency to represent the<br />
demographic profile of the city, to discuss what they want<br />
from their governments.<br />
A prime objective of the project is to elicit from citizens their<br />
own views and definitions about the value that government<br />
should bring to their lives. A principal role of government is<br />
to protect and enhance the lives of its citizens—to provide for<br />
the common good. Government does that largely through the<br />
provision of public services. The value of those public services,<br />
however, lies not simply in their quality or efficiency, but in<br />
the actual improvements they produce in the economic and<br />
social conditions of the people they serve—the public. In the<br />
research and academic literature, this is often referred to as<br />
“public value.” The purpose of our project is to ascertain how<br />
the public defines public value.<br />
However, the public does not speak with one voice; nor does<br />
any member of the public have only one perspective on the<br />
role of government. Each of us may have different and<br />
sometimes conflicting ways of relating to government and<br />
to public services. As users of public service, people want<br />
the highest quality possible. As citizens, they have a vested<br />
interest in services that promote social harmony, safety and<br />
well-being, whether or not they consume these services<br />
themselves. As taxpayers, however, they see clear limits on<br />
the levels of public investment they are willing to support.<br />
These three perspectives—all held, in one respect or another,<br />
by each member of the public—can conflict, with individuals<br />
changing their views depending on their needs and concerns<br />
at any particular time.<br />
Page 7 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
The public’s conflicting views of value<br />
As context for the Global Cities Forum, we commissioned<br />
Ipsos, as part of its Global@dvisor Survey, to question<br />
1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held<br />
Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project<br />
(Great Britain, Australia, Singapore, Germany, the<br />
United States, France and Spain). Our objective was to<br />
ascertain the extent to which people in these countries<br />
hold contradictory views about government and public<br />
services as service users, citizens and taxpayers.<br />
In our recent contextual survey of 1,000 residents of<br />
Germany (see summary above), nearly half of respondents<br />
said that the quality of their lives could be improved<br />
“a lot” or “a fair amount”; 38 percent of respondents said<br />
the “government” should contribute most to improving their<br />
quality of life; yet while only 14 percent thought that public<br />
services today were contributing “a lot” or “a fair amount”<br />
to that improvement, only 40 percent would be prepared<br />
to pay more to improve services, and only a small minority<br />
of those would pay any more than a small amount.<br />
Public managers face these kinds of contradictions every<br />
day. Accenture set out to explore them and, in doing that,<br />
find ways of helping members of the public recognize and<br />
reconcile the different perspectives they bring to bear<br />
on governments and public-service agencies.<br />
We asked respondents to answer four questions:<br />
1 How much do you think the quality of your life—in relation to issues such as personal<br />
health, safety, learning, the cost of living, environment and so on—could be improved?<br />
(Possible answers: a lot, fair, a little, none)<br />
2 Again, thinking about these kinds of issues, which of the following do you think should<br />
contribute most to improving the quality of life for the citizens of your country?<br />
(Possible answers: government, business, not-for-profits, all citizens, you)<br />
3 One purpose of public services is to maintain and improve the quality of people’s lives.<br />
How much do you think public services are improving the quality of your life today?<br />
(Possible answers: a great deal, a fair amount, a little, no difference)<br />
4 To what extent would you be willing to pay more money to improve or expand public services?<br />
(Possible answers: a great extent, some, small, would not pay)<br />
In general, people did think that the quality of their lives could be improved and that government has a significant<br />
role to play in helping make these improvements. Few thought current public service contributed much to improving<br />
the quality of their lives, but few were willing to pay more taxes to improve public services. The responses in all<br />
seven countries are contained in the appendix.<br />
To do that, we worked with international market research<br />
company Ipsos-MORI and its local offices in six countries<br />
to design and conduct a series of large-scale, daylong<br />
deliberative events around the world. We also worked with<br />
OPM, a UK-based public-service development and research<br />
company to design and conduct the pilot event in London.<br />
The value of a deliberative approach is the ability to go<br />
beyond people’s initial reactions to issues placed before<br />
them. Rather than simply polling or surveying respondents,<br />
deliberative methods provide a time and place where people<br />
can gain information, exchange and discuss their views<br />
and come to reasoned conclusions with other participants<br />
on the questions being posed. This produces deeper, more<br />
thoughtful responses to issues. It also exposes both the<br />
processes through which people make such judgments and<br />
the principles that underpin those judgments. In the case<br />
of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value Global<br />
Cities Forum, it provided a very rich picture of what people<br />
think about government and public services and how<br />
they judge public value.<br />
Page 8 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
In each city Forum, we sought to engage with citizens<br />
about their relationship with government and how social<br />
improvements that provide real value to citizens can be<br />
achieved. We designed the event to elicit responses to the<br />
following questions:<br />
• What are the most important social and economic conditions<br />
that people face in their city, and what do they want their<br />
governments to do to help improve these?<br />
• How do they want government and public services to<br />
relate to them, and what role do they see for others in<br />
improving their social and economic conditions?<br />
• How can government ensure that public organizations<br />
deliver value to the public they serve?<br />
• How do people want to be engaged in the design and<br />
delivery of public services?<br />
The deliberative event in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
The Global Cities Forum—<strong>Berlin</strong> was held on Saturday,<br />
September 15, 2007, as the fourth of the eight events.<br />
It involved 63 <strong>Berlin</strong> residents randomly selected to<br />
represent the city’s very diverse demography.<br />
The day was divided into seven sessions, during which<br />
we used a variety of research methods and techniques,<br />
including electronic voting, role play, and facilitated<br />
group and plenary discussions. The agenda included:<br />
Session 1: Warm-up—electronic voting.<br />
This session explored participants’ perceptions of what it<br />
is like to live in <strong>Berlin</strong>. Using electronic keypads—a new<br />
and entertaining experience for many—participants voted<br />
on a number of questions about the city, the social issues<br />
facing it, their expectations of government and the quality<br />
of public services they receive. The results of their voting<br />
appeared immediately on a “big screen” and prompted brief<br />
commentaries from participants and facilitators.<br />
Session 2: Discussion—“The role of government<br />
in improving your life.”<br />
Sitting in one of six groups of 10 to 12 people, participants<br />
discussed their thoughts about the quality of life in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
and their expectations of what government should be doing<br />
to preserve and improve people’s quality of life in the city.<br />
Session 3: Role-play exercise—“Understanding<br />
what people want from government, from three<br />
different perspectives.”<br />
Working in the same small groups, participants were<br />
assigned one of three perspectives—that of service user,<br />
citizen or taxpayer. Each group was assigned one of the<br />
three roles, with two tables of participants to each role.<br />
We signified the roles with distinctively colored T-shirts<br />
that participants slipped on: yellow for service users,<br />
green for citizens and red for taxpayers. We asked each<br />
group to assume their role to discuss their expectations<br />
of government. They spoke first in general terms and<br />
then—in smaller subgroups of three or four—talked about<br />
expectations in relation to one of three social outcomes that<br />
our research showed are currently important to people in<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>: learning and education, health and public safety.<br />
We asked participants to develop a list of four or five<br />
principles that they believed—from their particular roleplaying<br />
perspective—should guide government action and<br />
the provision of public services with respect to improving<br />
that particular outcome. This session aimed to have participants<br />
begin considering the principles of public value in their own<br />
terms, but with only one perspective in mind.<br />
Session 4: Role-play exercise and debate—“Drilling down<br />
into outcomes for the specific issues.”<br />
In this session, people changed tables and T-shirt colors<br />
mixed. The subgroups of service users, citizens and taxpayers<br />
came together to discuss the principles they had developed<br />
in the previous session in relation to one of the three<br />
outcome areas. Thus, each table had service users, citizens<br />
and taxpayers talking about learning and education or<br />
health or public safety (again, two tables of participants, this<br />
time, focused on one outcome). Sticking to their designated<br />
roles, participants shared and debated their views on the<br />
principles of public value. Through this process, we and they<br />
identified any tensions among user, citizen and taxpayer<br />
expectations. After debate, compromise and agreement, the<br />
session concluded with participants drawing together a top<br />
set of five principles that reflect the integration of three<br />
perspectives. These are the principles they believe need to be<br />
adopted to address their expectations for their issue. In our<br />
terms, this was their definition of public value for each of<br />
the three outcomes.<br />
Session 5: Reflection—“What have we learned from<br />
our deliberations?”<br />
In this session, we encouraged participants—out of role play<br />
and without color-coded T-shirts—to reflect on their three<br />
perspectives and what they had discovered about people’s<br />
expectations of government. A vote on the extent to which<br />
the different perspectives were easy or difficult to reconcile,<br />
along with a group discussion of the reasons for this and<br />
how the perspectives fit with individuals’ viewpoints, allowed<br />
them to evaluate the success of this deliberative approach.<br />
Session 6: Discussion—“Whose role is it, anyway?”<br />
In this session, we asked participants to define the ideal<br />
roles of government, other potential service providers<br />
(including the private and nonprofit sectors), citizens more<br />
widely and themselves personally in improving social and<br />
economic outcomes in <strong>Berlin</strong>. Through discussions with<br />
others at their tables, participants considered how these<br />
idealized roles differ from the current situation in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
and what they believe needs to change as a result.<br />
Session 7: Voting and small-group discussion—“Priorities<br />
for the future of <strong>Berlin</strong>.”<br />
To conclude, we asked participants to respond again to some<br />
of the same questions we posed in Session 1. The goal: to<br />
gauge whether any views had changed. Participants then<br />
looked to the future and discussed their key concerns about<br />
living, working or studying in <strong>Berlin</strong> 10 years from now.<br />
As a final task, we asked everyone to develop and write<br />
on a postcard their own personal “message to government.”<br />
Page 9 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Living in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
Around the time of the Global Cities Forum (September 2007),<br />
the new antismoking law had come into play, prohibiting smoking<br />
in public buildings, hospitals, public transport and restaurants.<br />
The federal states were yet to decide the date for implementing<br />
the smoking ban and there was much debate about what seems<br />
to be the right balance between citizens’ right to personal<br />
choice versus government’s right to regulate behaviors.<br />
In some areas of <strong>Berlin</strong>, there had been significant clashes<br />
between right-wing and left-wing political activists, and many<br />
residents were increasingly concerned about the support that<br />
parties such as the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany)<br />
have gained—especially among young people in eastern Germany.<br />
Despite government effort to address the city’s serious budget<br />
crisis, the public was concerned about the state of the economy<br />
in the capital. <strong>Berlin</strong>’s unemployment rate was above average,<br />
compared to Germany as a whole. The high rate had led to<br />
the migration of educated young citizens and other qualified<br />
workers to the western federal states, leaving behind those who<br />
are older and less educated, less trained and less qualified.<br />
The remainder of this report presents the findings from<br />
the day. Section 2 presents the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants’<br />
views on the individual’s relationship with government. This<br />
covers the three perspectives through which people relate to<br />
government—service user, citizen and taxpayer—and examines<br />
what people expect from government under different<br />
circumstances. Section 3 explores participants’ expectations<br />
of government in improving public value: the quality of life<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong>. This presents participants’ broad principles of public<br />
value and the expectations placed on government—with<br />
particular emphasis on learning and education, health and<br />
public safety in <strong>Berlin</strong>. This section also sets out participants’<br />
views on the roles and responsibilities of government and<br />
other partners in improving public value for the people<br />
of <strong>Berlin</strong>, both now and in the future. Section 4 presents<br />
participants’ core messages for government and for those<br />
Many people in <strong>Berlin</strong> believe that integration has failed<br />
and that the system has let down immigrant groups. They<br />
expressed increasing concern that many immigrant groups<br />
tend to live in areas of <strong>Berlin</strong> that are not as clean, well-off<br />
or safe as other areas of the city with fewer immigrants.<br />
In the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum itself, when asked to rate the city as a place<br />
to live and work, two-thirds of participants rated it as having<br />
above-average living and working conditions. <strong>Berlin</strong>ers appreciate<br />
the city’s good infrastructure and diverse cultural opportunities,<br />
and they are proud of its cosmopolitan character. The cost of<br />
living—including housing—is relatively low. Consequently,<br />
many people find that they can live comfortably in <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
We asked participants to identify from a list the most<br />
important social problems facing the city. As priorities<br />
for improvement, they chose employment (28 percent)<br />
and education (23 percent), followed by public safety (14<br />
percent). Perhaps surprisingly, both health and immigration<br />
were identified as key issues by only 7 percent of participants.<br />
Nevertheless, health was identified as an area where the<br />
government is struggling to address the demands of the<br />
managing public services in <strong>Berlin</strong>. Section 5 draws<br />
together our analysis of the deliberations at the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
and those in the other seven Global Cities Forum events.<br />
This analysis led to the creation of a new model for citizenengaged<br />
governance—what we call the Accenture Public<br />
Service Value Governance Framework. Section 6 contains<br />
comparative data, contrasting findings from the <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
Forum with those from the seven other cities that were<br />
part of the Accenture Public Service Value Global Cities<br />
Forum. Finally, the appendix provides figures that summarize<br />
the results from three components of the research: the<br />
electronic voting questions posed during the Forums;<br />
the findings of the deliberations on public value; and the<br />
data from the four questions included in the<br />
Ipsos Global@dvisor Survey.<br />
growing and aging population. The majority of participants<br />
(59 percent) felt that government’s current efforts fall very<br />
short of their expectations.<br />
Similarly, participants were particularly critical of education<br />
services, which 74 percent rated far below average. A major<br />
concern in this area is the variance in educational standards<br />
in different areas and what many feel is too narrow a focus<br />
on academic attainment, rather than shaping the education<br />
policy with broader learning and development goals in mind.<br />
During the morning electronic voting session, we gave<br />
participants a prompt: “By texting us in three words or less,<br />
tell us how you feel about living and working in your city”.<br />
Below are some of the responses:<br />
“Good, multicultural” “Fantastic, trendy and lively”<br />
“Exciting, hectic” “Loud, stressful, dirty” “Great”<br />
“Fantastic art and culture” “Freedom, flexibility, fun”<br />
“Reasonable cost of living, but poor employment<br />
opportunities” “Open, free, tolerant”<br />
Page 10 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
The individual’s relationship with government<br />
The “individual in society” is a complex construct.<br />
In relation to government and public services,<br />
each individual assumes—variously or often<br />
simultaneously—three overlapping roles: one as<br />
service user, another as citizen and a third as<br />
taxpayer (or payer of charges). Each of these<br />
different roles comes with its own expectations<br />
and demands, and the three may not always sit<br />
comfortably together. Yet all three come into<br />
play as the individual thinks about what he<br />
or she demands from government.<br />
With the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants, we wanted to examine<br />
what, specifically, it means to be a user of services, a citizen<br />
and a taxpayer. What does looking at these different<br />
perspectives, with their differences and tensions, tell us<br />
about what people want from government? Can developing<br />
clearer understandings of the multifaceted and sometimes<br />
conflicting expectations and demands the public places<br />
on political leaders and public-service managers provide<br />
a basis for improving public service and, ultimately,<br />
social and economic outcomes?<br />
In this section, we outline what we learned from<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants about their relationship with<br />
government from each of these three perspectives.<br />
Page 11 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
The user of public services<br />
In <strong>Berlin</strong>, the user of public services is primarily concerned<br />
with having access to high-quality services that meet their<br />
individual needs.<br />
Service users look to government and service providers to:<br />
• Provide access to services tailored to their personal needs<br />
• Offer greater flexibility and choice<br />
• Deliver services with a strong customer service ethos<br />
• Communicate how funds are being spent, and reassure<br />
the public that money is being spent appropriately<br />
Forum participants taking on the perspective of service<br />
users were very vocal in their expectations of government<br />
and public services.<br />
In the role of service users, participants talked about the<br />
kinds of services they expect government to provide and how<br />
they feel these could be delivered. Discussions tended to focus<br />
on service quality, availability and reliability. Participants also<br />
focused on the need for choice and services that are flexible—<br />
that is, tailored to their own personal needs.<br />
Participants felt that to deliver on these expectations,<br />
government and public-service managers should do much<br />
more to understand the needs and preferences of the<br />
people they serve.<br />
Accustomed to high levels of customer service from<br />
businesses, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants have a strong sense<br />
of entitlement and see themselves as paying customers<br />
(regardless of whether or not the specific public service<br />
is funded via a “user pay” or “general taxation” system).<br />
Indeed, 93 percent of participants agreed that public<br />
services should treat users more like customers. They believe<br />
the city’s public services could be improved substantially,<br />
and that government should be more willing to ask users’<br />
opinions and tailor services accordingly.<br />
Users do not necessarily expect government to offer a<br />
broader range of providers to choose from. Rather, choice<br />
is about having more options for how and when to access<br />
services; in particular, they expect more online services<br />
and longer hours of operation.<br />
Importantly, improvements in customer care are as much<br />
about changing cultures as specific, concrete measures,<br />
such as extending hours or implementing new information<br />
systems. Participants called for government and publicservice<br />
managers to emphasize customer service to their<br />
staffs through induction and training programs and in<br />
the way they reward and manage performance.<br />
Many <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants talked about how they<br />
have wasted time and effort finding out where to go or<br />
with whom to speak to handle a specific query. They feel<br />
the system is difficult to “navigate” and want more, and<br />
more effective, signposting of services and improved<br />
information about what they are entitled to receive.<br />
Many participants feel that public services are currently<br />
falling short on basic principles of customer care. An example<br />
that one woman gave was of services that closed their<br />
doors to people on the spurious grounds that there was<br />
not enough time to deal with everyone in the queue.<br />
“They throw you out and say, ‘We’re full,’ but they’re<br />
still open for another hour.”<br />
Finally, participants seek reassurance that taxes are being<br />
allocated and spent appropriately in areas that they personally<br />
view as priorities. And they felt that they—as users—would<br />
become more empowered to argue their point if they better<br />
understood how priorities are set and public funds are spent.<br />
Page 12 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
The citizen<br />
Among <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants, citizens’ goals for improved<br />
social and economic conditions revolve around the socially<br />
desirable concepts of equality and fairness, without special<br />
treatment for any groups.<br />
Citizens look to government to:<br />
• Provide services that are accessible to all who need them<br />
• Deliver positive outcomes for the entire society from<br />
taxes paid by citizens<br />
• Focus on improving the city as a whole and build<br />
an environment of opportunity and support that<br />
benefits everyone<br />
• Foster a culture of collaboration where citizens are<br />
encouraged and empowered to help achieve improvements<br />
for themselves as individuals and for <strong>Berlin</strong> as a whole<br />
Forum participants assuming the perspective of the citizen<br />
found it relatively straightforward to articulate their<br />
expectations to government and public services—possibly<br />
because the principle of solidarity is particularly strong<br />
in the German history of the welfare state.<br />
Arguing from the citizen point of view, participants expect<br />
government to focus on equality of opportunity, with no<br />
favoritism toward particular groups or individuals. Many<br />
feel this is particularly important in relation to education<br />
and health. They argue that government needs to address<br />
inequalities in educational standards across Germany (between<br />
different federal states), as well as within <strong>Berlin</strong> (between<br />
different districts). They think no one should be disadvantaged<br />
because of income, social class or type of health insurance.<br />
“Everyone should have support and equal access to<br />
health standards and services, which also includes<br />
prescription drugs. Once I saw an old man running out<br />
of the pharmacy, crying. He was not able to pay for his<br />
medicine as he probably could not afford the additional<br />
payment for a prescription.”<br />
Participants are concerned that public spending has not<br />
always taken into account the principle of equality. As<br />
citizens, for example, they feel that <strong>Berlin</strong> has recently spent<br />
too much on government buildings, security for state visits<br />
and amenities for public officials—things that benefit only<br />
a small minority who are already relatively well off.<br />
“They build a daycare center for the government employees’<br />
children but not nursery schools for the rest of the people.”<br />
Citizens acknowledge that efforts to improve social and<br />
economic conditions are not just the responsibility of<br />
the government and that citizens ought to accept more<br />
responsibility and become more civic-minded. However, they<br />
expect the government to support them in this by fostering<br />
this sense of personal responsibility and collective spirit and<br />
by motivating people to show more respect and concern for<br />
others. Citizens look to government to support or initiate<br />
public information campaigns (in print, via TV and on the<br />
radio) on issues, such as healthy living and combating<br />
right-wing radicalism.<br />
They also look to politicians to lead such campaigns and<br />
be explicit about how people should behave. As public<br />
figures, politicians and senior officials should also set a good<br />
example personally; that includes demonstrating concern for<br />
all of society and not just seeking personal advantage, such<br />
as increases in their allowances.<br />
“Doing good is not supported, not rewarded, most of the<br />
time not even publicized. But doing good is important in<br />
order to strengthen the feeling of togetherness and also<br />
personal motivation.”<br />
The taxpayer<br />
The <strong>Berlin</strong> taxpayer is primarily concerned about value<br />
for money. Taxpayers place a great deal of importance on<br />
efficiency, but like service users, they want to know their<br />
money is spent on the right issues. In other words, they<br />
demand greater accountability for how their taxes are<br />
used and to what effect.<br />
Taxpayers are looking to government to:<br />
• Use resources efficiently and provide value for money<br />
• Link public spending explicitly to results<br />
• Be transparent about processes and spending, so that<br />
residents can hold government accountable<br />
• Provide opportunities for greater participation in<br />
setting priorities for public budgets<br />
From the taxpayer perspective, participants said they expect<br />
public services to operate in ways that consistently produce<br />
the best value for their money. In contrast to the user and<br />
citizen (who are primarily concerned about quality and access),<br />
taxpayers’ chief concern is the total level of taxation, which,<br />
in their view, should be kept as low as possible.<br />
Rather than asking for cutbacks in certain areas to deal with<br />
new priorities—which they feel could be unrealistic—taxpayers<br />
seek ways to improve efficiency. Participants believe that<br />
faster decision-making processes and implementation are<br />
important measures in this regard, along with reducing<br />
bureaucracy to create a leaner system.<br />
However, in their role as taxpayers, participants found it<br />
tricky to define concrete efficiency gains. They realized<br />
that they have relatively little idea of how public money is<br />
allocated and used. This prompted many to demand greater<br />
transparency about government budgeting and spending.<br />
Page 13 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Taxpayers want to know how their taxes are being used;<br />
they insist on clear explanations of the rationale for publicspending<br />
priorities; they expect government to link public<br />
spending more explicitly to results for individuals and<br />
communities; they want financial reports or statements of<br />
public spending to be published in forms that “ordinary”<br />
people can readily understand; and they want reassurance<br />
that monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that<br />
public funds are spent efficiently and effectively.<br />
Taxpayers also called for greater public participation in decision<br />
making—for example, allowing people to choose (by voting)<br />
between different ways that taxes could be spent.<br />
“If I pay taxes, I also want the right to participate<br />
in decisions.”<br />
Even so, they recognize that this may cause tensions: What<br />
one wants as a taxpayer might be quite different from what<br />
one wants as a citizen or service user. If government polled<br />
people on spending alone, some argued, there is risk that<br />
people’s choices may not allow for sufficient investment to<br />
protect the public good or that spending may cease in some<br />
areas where benefits might be less obvious (but still important).<br />
A few days after the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum, there was to be a vote<br />
on whether or not to introduce parking fees in the main areas<br />
of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf, which had been experiencing<br />
significant traffic and parking congestion. This vote prompted<br />
one resident of the area to reflect on the different viewpoints<br />
as a taxpayer and as a user.<br />
“I’ve not decided what to vote for yet. As a taxpayer,<br />
I should vote ‘yes,’ as it creates revenue, but as a user<br />
I should vote ‘no’ instead, as it also affects me.”<br />
Tensions between the perspectives<br />
Interestingly, compared to <strong>Berlin</strong> participants, Forum participants<br />
in other parts of the world (such as Sydney and New York<br />
City) were less inclined to accept that the differences in<br />
citizen, user and taxpayer expectations could lead to very<br />
different, and at times conflicting, demands on government.<br />
In contrast, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants acknowledged that<br />
their different priorities and demands could lead to tensions,<br />
which government and public-service managers need to<br />
reconcile in their efforts to meet everybody’s needs—users,<br />
citizens and taxpayers alike.<br />
During the course of the day, they realized that the demands<br />
they were placing on government might sometimes be<br />
unrealistic. But they also argued that many of their demands<br />
would lead to improved social outcomes for everyone, whichever<br />
way you looked at it. To this extent, what the participants<br />
representing the three different perspectives wanted would<br />
often complement rather than conflict with each other.<br />
Nevertheless, some tensions between perspectives—including<br />
control versus civil liberties—emerged. Participants as<br />
users and taxpayers believe that government controls are<br />
necessary to make people act in particular ways and obey<br />
the law. Citizens did not always agree with this. They<br />
pointed out that greater controls might discourage personal<br />
responsibility because such controls suggest that personal<br />
well-being and social results are the responsibility of the<br />
government rather than its citizens.<br />
In relation to the issue of public safety in <strong>Berlin</strong>, the gap<br />
between control and civil liberties was particularly difficult<br />
to bridge. For example, citizens argued strongly for little or<br />
no use of camera surveillance or fingerprinting. On the other<br />
hand, some users asserted that these measures helped people<br />
to feel safer. Taxpayers also supported the measures, arguing<br />
that there is a direct link between such safety measures and<br />
a reduction in costs associated with criminal prosecutions.<br />
Another point of contention was privilege for certain groups<br />
versus equal treatment for all. Participants debated whether<br />
gifted children should receive special support, such as<br />
extra schooling. One user had a persuasive argument,<br />
with which other users agreed: “If we support and invest<br />
money in gifted children and pupils, we will receive bettereducated<br />
and skilled citizens and employees that the whole<br />
society will profit and benefit from.” Citizens and taxpayers<br />
disagreed—the former on the grounds of the principle of<br />
equality (they felt it was important to focus on supporting<br />
the weakest groups in society before dealing with the<br />
privileged) and the latter on the basis of cost.<br />
Also discussed was universal service provision versus<br />
user pays. This tension was particularly strong in the area<br />
of health care. All agreed that everyone in society should be<br />
entitled to a basic level of service. The debate centered on use<br />
of public funds for higher-quality and more expensive services.<br />
Taxpayers argued for a “user pays” system, at least for some<br />
services, in which government funds a basic level of service<br />
but people have to pay for anything above this basic provision.<br />
They argued that anything more would be too expensive.<br />
Users and citizens disagreed, arguing that the system should<br />
be funded sufficiently to provide high-quality health care for all.<br />
Some users pointed out that individual circumstance should<br />
also be taken into account. An example they gave was of<br />
people who experience side effects from a more “economical”<br />
drug but not from another, more expensive one. These users<br />
also worried that drugs available as part of a basic level of<br />
health care provision might be of low quality. Citizens simply<br />
took the line that equally high standards of care should be<br />
provided for all people in society without regard to cost.<br />
There was also the question of whether any groups in society<br />
should get preferential treatment, given that public funding<br />
is a finite resource. Some taxpayers argued that in relation to<br />
health care, for example, young people ought to take priority<br />
over old people. A number of citizens countered with the view<br />
that all sectors of society have an equal right to a high standard<br />
of health care, and public funding must bear the cost.<br />
“As a taxpayer, I must say that an old person should not<br />
receive a new hip.”<br />
Page 14 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Improving public value:<br />
The quality of life in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
An important aim of the Accenture Institute for<br />
Public Service Value Global Cities Forum research<br />
project is to enable participants to identify the<br />
key dimensions of public value for the residents<br />
in each city and to explore ways of enhancing<br />
public value in the future.<br />
In this section, we examine <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants’ input<br />
about what government and public services should always<br />
do to achieve outcomes that truly benefit residents of <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
These are their general principles of public value. We have<br />
derived these from their collective discussions—as users,<br />
citizens and taxpayers—about the outcomes that are highly<br />
important to residents of <strong>Berlin</strong>: learning and education,<br />
health and public safety. We look in detail at each of those<br />
three outcomes as discussed by <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants and<br />
then present participants’ view about who should be doing<br />
what to improve social and economic conditions in <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
Page 15 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
General principles of public value<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
Principle 1: Long-term view<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants call for government to think long<br />
term and focus on preventing future problems rather than<br />
reacting to events that have already happened. They believe<br />
that prevention and early intervention, including encouraging<br />
people to change their behavior, is the best approach to<br />
tackling social problems in a sustainable and strategic way.<br />
People feel that the government should initiate public<br />
campaigns aimed, for example, at promoting a healthy<br />
lifestyle, preventing illness or bringing up children properly:<br />
“That’s everything: things like healthy food, how to swim,<br />
how to ride a bike properly, everything you can think of<br />
that will lead to greater knowledge and to better behavior.”<br />
There is a general perception among participants that policy<br />
changes occur too often as “knee-jerk reactions” to specific<br />
events. They argue that only by taking a strategic approach<br />
will good social outcomes be achieved in the long term.<br />
For instance, to have enough health care professionals<br />
to meet <strong>Berlin</strong>’s future needs, more must be trained now.<br />
This may cost more in the short term but makes economic<br />
sense in the longer term.<br />
“If we have less qualified people working in the health<br />
care sector, we’ll have gaps in medical care and supply<br />
in the future. I mean, it is already the case: We don’t<br />
have enough skilled personnel.”<br />
Principle 2: Connectedness/coordination<br />
Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be<br />
achieved through improved communication and coordination<br />
between public-service providers and better communication<br />
with their customers. They also believe that greater flexibility,<br />
responsiveness and speed in decision making would lead to<br />
improved efficiency.<br />
Some <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants related how they have had<br />
to provide the same type of information to a number of<br />
different agencies and public-service staff. They argued that<br />
this is a waste of time (for themselves and for the public<br />
servants) and, in some situations, can be a great source of<br />
distress. Forum participants felt that much more could be<br />
done to utilize new technologies and improve collaboration<br />
between agencies and departments so that information<br />
systems are comprehensive and up to date.<br />
“The communication between different levels within<br />
public services and also between government and public<br />
services must be improved so that information isn’t lost,<br />
and time and effort is saved for all. This also means that<br />
there should be as few people for one task as possible<br />
to prevent time or effort lost due to any interpersonal<br />
conflict. The communication process is then clear and<br />
information is not lost somewhere in the process.”<br />
Principle 3: Transparency and information provision<br />
Forum participants very much want to understand and be<br />
part of the processes by which decisions are made about<br />
public-service provision, especially where those decisions<br />
affect them directly. Indeed, they view being informed and<br />
having a say on matters that affect them as fundamental<br />
elements of a transparent political process. It matters<br />
most to them in relation to issues such as the availability<br />
and quality of preschool care and primary schools in their<br />
neighborhood, the building of streets and housing, and<br />
facilities for young people.<br />
They regard transparency and information provision as<br />
important aspects of developing a citizenry that identifies<br />
with the government and its ways of working and who<br />
feel they are treated fairly.<br />
“People want to understand laws, facts, figures and actions.<br />
Then you can also identify much more easily with the<br />
system and the society as a whole … and of course you<br />
are willing to follow certain instructions and principles<br />
when you’re informed.”<br />
Page 16 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Principle 4: Equality and fairness<br />
Participants expressed a strong concern that people should<br />
not find themselves at a disadvantage because of social<br />
background, income or the neighborhood in which they live.<br />
The principle of equality, participants agreed, helps to<br />
ensure the greater integration of all groups into society,<br />
particularly immigrants and other groups at risk of social<br />
marginalization. They call for the government to take the<br />
needs of socially disadvantaged people into account when<br />
developing policies, particularly in core services such as<br />
education. In <strong>Berlin</strong>, this approach will help overcome what<br />
many participants perceive to be an inequality in school<br />
standards between neighborhoods, particularly those with<br />
larger immigrant populations who are falling behind.<br />
Principle 5: Customer focus<br />
Almost all of the participants (93 percent) feel that public<br />
services should treat people more like customers, and they<br />
raised this subject many times throughout the day. Harking<br />
back to the principle of transparency and information<br />
provision, participants often commented that the two<br />
principles could not be separated.<br />
“I pay for them and then it should be self-evident that<br />
I’ve got a right to get in touch with them. I just want<br />
a feeling of being treated as a customer. For example,<br />
the opening hours should be longer.”<br />
Improving learning and education,<br />
health and public safety in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
Delivering greater public value is about improving the social<br />
and economic conditions for the residents of <strong>Berlin</strong>. During<br />
the Forum, and particularly during the role-play sessions, we<br />
asked participants to focus on three specific areas, and to<br />
discuss, in practical terms, what would need to happen in<br />
each of these areas to improve their own quality of life—that<br />
is, to achieve improved outcomes. In doing so, they identified<br />
a core set of “public value principles” that they expect<br />
government decision makers and public-service managers to<br />
consider as they work toward achieving these outcomes.<br />
Learning and education<br />
Defining public value: Learning and education<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> residents believe that high-quality education for all,<br />
regardless of social background, is a fundamental right.<br />
High standards in preschool education, schools and adult<br />
education are important, as are nonacademic qualifications.<br />
In this vein, participants view investment from companies<br />
into apprenticeships and traineeships as important<br />
mechanisms for learning.<br />
Forum participants want to see:<br />
• Everyone living in <strong>Berlin</strong> having access to<br />
high-quality education<br />
• Government taking action to avoid those from<br />
disadvantaged backgrounds falling behind<br />
• Their priorities and needs being taken into account<br />
in the design of educational strategies<br />
• Education and learning institutions adopting the successful<br />
development of the labor market as one of their major—<br />
and more explicit—goals<br />
• Teachers getting more recognition for their important work<br />
Many participants are critical of the government in the area<br />
of learning and education in <strong>Berlin</strong>. In the voting session<br />
of the forum, three-quarters said that government “did not<br />
exceed their expectations” in this area.<br />
In relation to education, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants believe<br />
that equality of opportunity is one of the most important<br />
principles that government should consider when seeking to<br />
achieve social outcomes. Participants spoke of the need for<br />
schooling and employment opportunities for people from all<br />
social strata. They thought, for instance, that children from<br />
socially disadvantaged groups should get free books and<br />
other materials.<br />
“It would not be fair if children don't have books and<br />
materials because their parents are [less well off].<br />
Materials and nursery school should be free.”<br />
Participants expect the same high standards across all<br />
federal states and across all of <strong>Berlin</strong>'s districts, so that<br />
children whose families moved could “switch” schools<br />
without falling behind and so that no neighborhood,<br />
however poor, would have failing schools.<br />
“The education standards should be the same in every<br />
federal state. At the moment you cannot move where you<br />
want to, even if you find a job somewhere else, because<br />
you don’t know if your children will manage at school.”<br />
Many cited what they perceive as a widening gap between<br />
elite or private schools in well-off districts (usually those<br />
with mostly German national inhabitants) and “underdog”<br />
schools in poorer districts (often those with a high<br />
proportion of immigrants).<br />
One woman was unsure whether she should send her child<br />
to the local public school or to a private school. She said<br />
she would not normally choose private schooling, but she<br />
believed that the public school would have lots of immigrants<br />
and that the level of education there would, therefore, be<br />
poorer because it would have to concentrate on helping<br />
children whose first language was not German: “I think public<br />
schools need more support and investment… then I wouldn’t<br />
need to send my child to a private school, which of course also<br />
costs money. Normally I would always opt for a public school.”<br />
Page 17 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
“They should invest in schools; we have so many ‘loser<br />
schools’ which should be supported and integrated.”<br />
Participants recognize that education outcomes require<br />
the consistent involvement not just of schools and other<br />
education institutions but also of pupils and parents themselves.<br />
They feel that government should do more to involve parents<br />
and pupils in the design of education policies and the<br />
management of education services.<br />
“We don’t need leisure facilities for young people<br />
somewhere where no one uses them. The need should<br />
be identified first, by asking the citizens, teachers<br />
and parents.”<br />
Many highlight the contribution of appropriate and highquality<br />
education services to the quality of life for <strong>Berlin</strong>ers<br />
in general, and to a stronger economy in the future, noting<br />
that companies will only locate themselves in <strong>Berlin</strong> if<br />
there are enough skilled workers there. Most were keen to<br />
see educational services developed with such longer-term<br />
outcomes in mind. For example, participants argued for an<br />
expansion in foreign-language teaching in schools because<br />
they consider language skills as increasingly important<br />
in the global economy.<br />
Among <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants, there is a general sense that<br />
teachers’ status in Germany is not high enough, given the<br />
important role that educators play. Many participants said they<br />
want to find ways of giving teachers increased recognition.<br />
“Teachers should receive more recognition and deserve<br />
more credit for the job they do. It really is a tough<br />
job that is very important and valuable.”<br />
Health<br />
Defining public value: Health<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> residents believe that a good standard of basic<br />
health care should be available to everyone, regardless<br />
of age or social background. They see this as fostering<br />
a healthier population in the long term while making<br />
certain that no one in society is left behind.<br />
In particular, Forum participants want government<br />
to ensure that:<br />
• A high-quality basic health care system is accessible to all<br />
• Policies focus on preventing social problems in the long<br />
term by encouraging people to change their behavior<br />
and live healthier lives<br />
• Bureaucracy is kept to a minimum<br />
Participants consider health care critical for society and<br />
recognize that good-quality care affects individuals’ chances<br />
in other areas of their lives, such as succeeding in the workplace.<br />
This again affects broader social well-being. By ensuring<br />
people are healthier longer, they can lead more active lives,<br />
work better and, therefore, contribute to the economy.<br />
Equality is considered paramount, and participants want<br />
a basic health care system provided to all and at a good<br />
standard. People regard this as part of the government’s<br />
duty of care for its people, and the majority of participants<br />
believe that there should be no difference in the basic care<br />
that is provided for patients with private health insurance<br />
and those without.<br />
“The state has a duty to care for the socially disadvantaged,<br />
so basic care should be provided, as should prevention<br />
programs to educate people about healthy living,<br />
food and so on.”<br />
The main area of contention for participants was over<br />
how much of the health care system should be assured<br />
for all citizens. Most think that only basic care should<br />
be universally provided, and that individuals should pay<br />
for “extras” or to have their own choice of treatments or<br />
medical professionals. Only a minority believe that the<br />
government should provide high-level health care for<br />
everyone, regardless of cost.<br />
“When it comes to non-medical questions, for example<br />
whether one has a single room in a hospital, it is not<br />
the government’s duty to pay for that. Everyone should<br />
decide and bear the costs themselves.”<br />
Prevention is another important principle for participants<br />
seeking improved health outcomes. Most believe that<br />
government should act to change people’s behavior in the<br />
short term to achieve long-term goals. They see information<br />
provision—especially through public campaigns about<br />
healthy behavior—as a vital starting point. People recognize<br />
that achieving behavioral change will require them to take<br />
greater responsibility for their own behavior and even to try<br />
to influence the behavior of others.<br />
Finally, some participants thought that there is room for<br />
significant efficiency gains and improvements in the customer<br />
experience by streamlining the current health care system.<br />
For example, participants believe it is difficult and confusing<br />
to understand precisely what health coverage is offered by<br />
the relatively large number of health insurance companies.<br />
They feel this system—where private health insurance<br />
finances a large part of the total health care budget—should<br />
be reviewed to make it less cumbersome for people to<br />
choose their care package.<br />
Page 18 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Public safety<br />
Defining public value: Public safety<br />
Residents of <strong>Berlin</strong> want to reduce crime figures, but they<br />
also regard a greater feeling of being safe as an important<br />
social outcome.<br />
In order to achieve this greater feeling of safety in their city,<br />
participants believe it is important that:<br />
• Police and emergency services are able to respond quickly<br />
to residents’ needs<br />
• Policymaking in the area of public safety is undertaken<br />
with long-term goals in mind<br />
• A balance is achieved between governmental controls<br />
and civil liberties<br />
• People are treated equally before the law<br />
When asked to indicate their experiences of public-safety<br />
efforts, half of participants said (in the voting session) that<br />
the government’s actions fall short of their expectations in<br />
improving public safety in <strong>Berlin</strong>. They feel government and<br />
public-service providers could do more to reduce general<br />
crime figures, deal with low-level crime (including vandalism<br />
and graffiti), tackle right-wing radicalism and reduce the<br />
feeling of being unsafe in some parts of <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
One woman mentioned that a friend of hers no longer uses<br />
public transport during the evening or at night as she has<br />
been attacked several times. She believes that the attacks<br />
are due to her friend being black and sees hate crimes<br />
specifically and public safety generally as important areas<br />
for improvement in <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
“There are many people in <strong>Berlin</strong> who don’t have the courage<br />
to use public transport during evenings or at night.”<br />
Forum participants considered it vital that public-safety<br />
services—in particular, emergency services—are able to<br />
respond quickly to their needs. Today, this is not always the<br />
case. One participant gave the example of being kept “on<br />
hold” when he phoned the police in an emergency.<br />
“Response times should be quicker; administration<br />
must be speeded up.”<br />
“Loopholes should be ‘closed’ faster; the system<br />
should react more quickly.”<br />
Participants generally regard prevention as an important<br />
principle in achieving public safety outcomes. Many<br />
participants tie this to moral, ethical or social standards<br />
and looked to education as a means of strengthening these<br />
standards. They believe this will help to prevent crime<br />
from escalating in the medium and long term. Some spoke<br />
about how several neighborhoods had turned into “problem<br />
districts” and made a connection between this and what<br />
they see as a general decline in moral standards.<br />
“The differences between neighborhoods are very great.<br />
Zehlendorf is nice, but Kreuzberg is awful. Drugs are<br />
openly dealt at the Cotti and the police look the other<br />
way. Kreuzberg has a bad image, bad schools.”<br />
There was much debate on the balance that needs to be<br />
struck between upholding individual freedoms and using<br />
controls to help improve public safety. Participants demand<br />
improved public safety in general and see a role for controls<br />
(such as surveillance cameras) in helping to achieve this<br />
outcome. However, they also stress the importance of civil<br />
liberties. Much could be achieved, some participants feel, by<br />
considering the role of the police in local communities, who<br />
can be law enforcers and points of contact. They believe that<br />
police presence on the streets has been wrongly reduced in<br />
recent years and demand an increase—especially in more<br />
disadvantaged districts. Participants asserted that this would<br />
help lower crime rates, thereby creating a better sense<br />
of safety in those communities.<br />
“(The police) have always acted not only to enforce<br />
security, but also as a point of contact for people in<br />
the neighborhood. This also leads to a better atmosphere,<br />
to a de-escalation in crime rates and aggression,<br />
at least if the police act as citizens among citizens.”<br />
Finally, participants are convinced of the importance of<br />
treating everyone equally if improved outcomes in the<br />
area of public safety are to be achieved. They call for the<br />
government to ensure that everyone has equal rights,<br />
for instance, in criminal proceedings.<br />
“Everyone should receive the same treatment before the<br />
law. It is not fair that someone who can afford a better<br />
lawyer has better chances and gets a lesser punishment.”<br />
Future priorities for <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
We asked participants about their concerns regarding living,<br />
working or studying in <strong>Berlin</strong> 10 years from now.<br />
Participants in the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum feel that in the future, the<br />
city will face many of the same challenges it faces today.<br />
They regard education, employment and health as their top<br />
priorities for the future, followed closely by living costs and<br />
infrastructure. A lack of investment in <strong>Berlin</strong> contributes<br />
to a current lack of job opportunities, but participants are<br />
relatively optimistic that this situation will improve.<br />
Participants remain concerned that <strong>Berlin</strong> will become a twotiered<br />
society, in which good health care and education might<br />
increasingly be available only for those who are better off. They<br />
are concerned that increased social tensions and inequalities will<br />
result. The importance of health care in their list of priorities is a<br />
reflection of <strong>Berlin</strong>’s aging population and the growth in demand<br />
for residential nursing homes and well-equipped hospitals.<br />
Participants are doubtful that their desired outcomes could<br />
be achieved in the future, seeing that there are likely to be<br />
important tradeoffs to be made. In health, for example, meeting<br />
their demands for higher-quality services, equality of treatment<br />
and universal access will be expensive. Although technology<br />
may facilitate some gains, higher standards can be achieved<br />
only if there is also a greater investment in staff.<br />
“If the tendency of reducing staff numbers in public<br />
services such as schools, hospitals and the police goes<br />
on, I doubt that we will have a better quality of<br />
anything in the future.”<br />
Page 19 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Roles and responsibilities<br />
of different actors<br />
While much of the discussion at the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
concerned the role of government in delivering economic<br />
and social outcomes, it was clear from discussions and<br />
from the results of the voting sessions that participants do<br />
not think government has the sole responsibility. Indeed,<br />
people feel that many other actors should have greater<br />
involvement in the future (see chart). While people still<br />
considered government to take the lead, others—including<br />
business, the voluntary sector and individuals—are<br />
expected to have roles, as well.<br />
In this section, we look at how participants viewed the<br />
respective roles of each of these actors in improving social<br />
conditions—that is, achieving positive social outcomes.<br />
Government<br />
Participants argue that government has the central role in<br />
achieving social outcomes. Although some expressed concerns<br />
about government’s ability to do this to the level they expect,<br />
the majority of participants (84 percent) wish to see government<br />
assume an even greater level of involvement in the future.<br />
Participants argue that only the government can provide<br />
the framework and general conditions to enable change and<br />
produce positive outcomes. Certainly it has the main role in<br />
delivering public services but, more than this, participants<br />
argued that government should also be motivating, enabling<br />
and educating the others—private businesses, voluntarysector<br />
agencies and citizens—to play stronger parts in<br />
achieving social outcomes.<br />
At the same time, participants indicated that government<br />
and public services should not “invade” people’s lives.<br />
The government’s involvement should be balanced against<br />
people’s need to control their own lives. Most participants<br />
agreed this was not always an easy balance to strike.<br />
Participants characterize government’s role in four ways:<br />
director, enabler, controller and regulator, and role model<br />
and educator.<br />
Director<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants see government as the highest<br />
authority, elected as representative of the people and with<br />
the power, know-how and resources to define the legal and<br />
social framework for policymaking and public-service provision.<br />
“It’s the basis; it provides the basic structure, the<br />
responsibilities and duties for us. It defines the<br />
governing values and principles.”<br />
Because of its central role, government must guide and<br />
instruct the other actors, steering their actions to ensure<br />
improved social outcomes.<br />
Enabler<br />
Government should not concentrate all responsibilities in<br />
public-service providers and their managers. It must also<br />
help other actors to fulfill their roles in delivering social<br />
outcomes. For example, the government and public services<br />
should find better ways to support private-sector companies<br />
that want to invest in the city.<br />
“Companies, new ones in particular, get no support.<br />
It takes ages until you have your authorizations, and<br />
entrepreneurs just have a bad position.”<br />
Controller and regulator<br />
Forum participants say they want government to be more<br />
assertive about monitoring and enforcing services, practices,<br />
laws and outcomes. They do not mean that government should<br />
create more laws (which would merely hinder efficiency),<br />
but rather that it should enforce existing laws consistently.<br />
“We have so many laws, but they’re taken for granted, not<br />
implemented, not used. That’s something the government<br />
should not only encourage but also control.”<br />
Government should also be more forceful in regulating<br />
the activities of public-service providers. Participants think<br />
government should provide better incentives for managing<br />
resources well and achieving good social outcomes, as well<br />
as imposing penalties for poor management.<br />
Role model and educator<br />
Many participants believe that, as the principal stakeholder<br />
in improving the quality of life in <strong>Berlin</strong>, government should<br />
act as a role model, aiming to motivate others to be more<br />
involved in society. If government publicly and actively sets<br />
a good example, citizens will be more likely to follow that<br />
example and live by society’s laws and standards.<br />
It is also the responsibility of government to educate<br />
people about society, or at least to provide people with<br />
opportunities to become educated. Through such education,<br />
citizens will understand better how their society works and<br />
would, therefore, be more inclined to act in its best interests.<br />
Page 20 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Business<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>ers believe private companies have a duty to help<br />
address social issues and feel that businesses could play<br />
greater roles. However, participants are cautious about<br />
allowing the private sector too much influence over policy<br />
and politics, especially compared to the voluntary sector<br />
and individual citizens. They noted a need for continuous,<br />
careful scrutiny over government’s dealings with businesses.<br />
“Politics and business must be strictly separated.<br />
Politicians sitting on the board of directors of<br />
companies and so on can always lead to bias<br />
or even corruption... scandals."<br />
“Government must be free and independent from<br />
companies’ lobbyists.”<br />
As a better way to involve the private sector, participants<br />
suggested encouraging companies to engage in acts of<br />
corporate social responsibility. Indeed, participants call<br />
for far greater commitment to social issues on the part of<br />
businesses, arguing that it is people, as employees, workers<br />
and consumers, who keep the economy going. They believe<br />
firmly that private-sector entities have a general responsibility<br />
to work for the good of society as a whole—for instance, by<br />
investing some of their profits back into society.<br />
“This is future investment. The company makes a profit<br />
from highly skilled workers, the entire society profits<br />
by gaining better support and services, and so on.”<br />
“When they profit from public transport, they have the<br />
responsibility to play a role in it…ensuring that public<br />
transport is safe, for example.”<br />
Other ways that participants want businesses to be involved<br />
in achieving social outcomes were:<br />
• Investing in research and development for health care<br />
products and drugs<br />
• Making use of apprenticeships and vocational traineeships<br />
(both companies and society as a whole benefit from<br />
having a well-educated and skilled workforce)<br />
• Investing in health care campaigns and in childcare<br />
provision for their employees<br />
• Sponsoring universities—for instance, providing grants to<br />
pay for tuition fees and professorships (this came with the<br />
caveat that businesses should not be allowed too great an<br />
influence over institutions of higher education)<br />
• Sponsoring preschool, primary and secondary schools<br />
• Acting as an advisor to government and<br />
public-service agencies<br />
The voluntary sector<br />
Most participants believe that voluntary organizations<br />
already play a constructive and significant role in achieving<br />
positive social outcomes. And while 48 percent of participants<br />
voted in favor of seeing the sector become even more<br />
engaged in social issues, 47 percent were satisfied with<br />
its current level of involvement.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants thought that the voluntary sector’s<br />
main role is to support the government in public-service<br />
delivery and to help motivate individuals to participate<br />
in collective action.<br />
The voluntary sector is able to help government deal with<br />
problems in the delivery of public services, especially local<br />
services, by providing quick, efficient and flexible support<br />
where government agencies are unable to do so. Participants<br />
gave examples—including volunteer firefighters, churches that<br />
support poor or homeless people, charities working in the area<br />
of health care or social rehabilitation, and private institutions<br />
that deal with drug abusers, homeless people or the hungry.<br />
“They (voluntary-sector agencies) are involved in the areas<br />
of health care, youth, education, everything…The state<br />
doesn't have enough money, so (voluntary organizations)<br />
try to deal with the deficits of the government.”<br />
But, while participants agreed that it is beyond government’s<br />
means to handle all social problems on its own, they are not<br />
keen to see it rely on the voluntary sector too much: This, they<br />
feel, would “smack of government shirking its responsibilities.”<br />
Indeed, in that respect, some regard an expanded role for<br />
the voluntary sector as a negative outcome.<br />
The second major role that participants identified for<br />
the voluntary sector was motivating individual citizens.<br />
Many think voluntary organizations play an important<br />
part in creating a sense of togetherness and cooperation—<br />
encouraging people to identify with their communities<br />
and providing a platform for people to demonstrate social<br />
commitment by helping others.<br />
Page 21 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Citizens and me<br />
According to <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants, citizens can and<br />
should take responsibility for their own behavior, as well as<br />
for helping to improve outcomes for their local communities<br />
and society as a whole. In their discussions, participants<br />
identified many ways in which they personally might<br />
contribute to improved social outcomes. Such involvement<br />
runs the gamut and includes engaging in politics by voting<br />
or by taking direct action; undertaking voluntary work in<br />
schools or helping neighbors; behaving responsibly by acting<br />
as role models for their children; and showing a positive<br />
attitude toward social engagement.<br />
When asked what “taking responsibility for one’s own behavior”<br />
means to them, participants talked about fulfilling one’s duty<br />
to obey the law, living a healthy life, acting in accord with<br />
social values and standards, and seeking out opportunities<br />
for personal social development. Some also believe that<br />
citizens have a role to play in reducing the burden on public<br />
services—for example, by going to the doctor only when<br />
necessary or helping to make their communities safer.<br />
“If we had a neighborhood watch, this would also be<br />
on a voluntary basis, supporting the community spirit<br />
and also unburdening the police.”<br />
Some participants want citizens to participate more actively<br />
in debates about what should happen in their neighborhoods<br />
and where tax money should be invested. The more people<br />
are able to participate in local community decision making,<br />
the greater the encouragement to become more active citizens.<br />
“We all are responsible for our neighborhoods and also<br />
ourselves. Everyone should try to act in a social and<br />
ethical way, which also means taking responsibility<br />
for one’s health and education.”<br />
“Like the ‘citizens’ vote we had during the last election<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong>: We don’t need voting for all kinds of political<br />
issues, but we do when it comes to our neighborhood or<br />
questions everyone benefits or suffers from—this<br />
also applies to education or health issues.”<br />
“Everything you say is valid for the role of ‘me.’ A citizen’s<br />
role doesn’t exist; it makes no sense. It’s me that acts,<br />
and citizens viewed together are just several ‘me’s.’”<br />
Many participants found it challenging to differentiate<br />
between “me as a citizen” and “me as an individual.”<br />
Nevertheless, when asked about the degree of involvement<br />
that citizens and they personally should have in improving<br />
society, it was clear that participants draw a distinction<br />
between what all citizens should do and what they<br />
personally should do. While 75 percent of participants<br />
said that all citizens should be more involved in planning<br />
and delivering public services in the future, a much lower<br />
proportion (42 percent) were willing to agree that they,<br />
personally, should be more involved.<br />
While some participants are motivated to be involved in<br />
social issues—for example, by taking part in voluntary<br />
organizations or in activities to improve their neighborhood—<br />
others believe they already do enough or feel that the main<br />
responsibilities should be borne by government and publicservice<br />
providers. Still others see relatively few opportunities<br />
to get more involved and cited a lack of support and the<br />
absence of positive role models as contributing factors.<br />
“I am involved in voluntary work. I care for disabled<br />
people, which is really an interesting job with many<br />
responsibilities, and I think everyone can do something,<br />
either in the neighborhood or wherever.”<br />
Page 22 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Messages to government<br />
from people of <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
One of the strongest findings to emerge from<br />
the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum is that residents value the<br />
opportunity to have their say on the future<br />
of their city. Yet there are currently very few<br />
avenues available for them to do so. In light<br />
of this, the overwhelming majority of <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
Forum participants reported that they enjoyed<br />
taking part in the event and genuinely valued<br />
the opportunity to voice their views on public<br />
services in the city.<br />
The deliberative approach was successful in allowing people<br />
from very different backgrounds and generations to exchange<br />
ideas, learn from each other and develop a more informed and<br />
balanced view of the role of government. Participants in <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
stated that, due to the growing diversity of the city, there was<br />
an increasing sense of difference. Some reported never going<br />
to certain parts of town or mixing with different communities.<br />
The Forum therefore allowed participants to talk to people<br />
they would otherwise never have met about issues that are<br />
important to them all.<br />
The Forum also provided participants with a chance to<br />
understand what they had in common with a diverse range<br />
of other people and to see that, despite their differences, they<br />
are all part of the same society. As one participant said, the<br />
Forum showed him that “there are lots of people that think<br />
like me and want the same things from our city.”<br />
By the end of the day, many participants acknowledged that<br />
they had found it comforting to learn that others feel the same<br />
way they do and that this realization had given them greater<br />
confidence to voice their opinions on public services and get<br />
involved in community matters in the future. Many felt the<br />
Forum helped them to better understand different viewpoints,<br />
enriched their own opinions and attitudes, and left them<br />
with a broader and more reasoned perspective on their city.<br />
“This morning, I was very tired and didn't really want<br />
to come. But I am so glad I did. I learned a lot and<br />
I really enjoyed listening to what other people feel<br />
about our city.”<br />
While <strong>Berlin</strong> residents have many issues they would like to<br />
raise with government, the following are the key, consistent<br />
messages that arose from the discussions at the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum.<br />
Page 23 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service<br />
planning and delivery.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> residents want public services to be designed with<br />
the citizen in mind. Participants asked for longer opening<br />
hours, friendlier staff, better communication, support and<br />
explanations, greater administrative flexibility and<br />
decreased bureaucracy.<br />
However, developing more citizen-oriented services is not<br />
a one-way street. People expect to participate in policy<br />
decisions and to have the opportunity to influence publicservice<br />
operations. This will require government and<br />
public-service managers to develop more open channels<br />
of communication, operate more transparently and<br />
provide evidence that policies and practices are really<br />
being developed with and for citizens.<br />
“Closeness to citizens must be developed. They should<br />
hear what we say and view us as customers, as clients.”<br />
Making government more transparent will develop people’s<br />
trust in public services and encourage them to take greater<br />
“ownership” of the city’s challenges and look for solutions.<br />
Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term<br />
future of the city.<br />
Many of the problems facing <strong>Berlin</strong> require long-term solutions<br />
and a greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention.<br />
This shift means that government and public-service managers<br />
should play a more educative and facilitative role in society.<br />
In the area of health, for example, this means educating<br />
people to live healthy lives by, for instance, educating<br />
children from preschool school onwards about healthy living,<br />
ensuring schools provide healthy food and increasing taxes<br />
on unhealthy products. In education, it means working<br />
closely with parents and other service providers to support<br />
children in a more holistic way and respond to special needs<br />
before “things go wrong.” And in public safety, it means<br />
finding ways to ensure long-term confidence in a police<br />
service that interacts with local citizens and is responsible<br />
for more than just control and punishment. People see these<br />
measures as an investment in a better future—an investment<br />
that will also lead to efficiency savings through better<br />
public-service planning.<br />
Encourage people to take more personal responsibility<br />
for achieving positive social outcomes.<br />
The desire for more proactive policies and future-oriented<br />
decision making includes empowering citizens so that they can<br />
take personal action to help achieve social outcomes. A starting<br />
point is for the government and public-service managers to act<br />
as positive role models by behaving in a civic-minded manner.<br />
Launching media campaigns to help change behavior, speaking<br />
openly about how people are expected to behave within society<br />
and giving awards to people for exceptional social commitment<br />
are all measures that will encourage people to assume more<br />
personal responsibility.<br />
Help people to help themselves through investment in<br />
education and job opportunities, and support businesses<br />
in playing their part.<br />
Education and employment are the top two issues for <strong>Berlin</strong>ers.<br />
A good education can lead to better job opportunities, higher<br />
living standards and, ultimately, the sustainability of the city.<br />
Participants argued that education can strengthen the city’s<br />
competitiveness and is also the way to develop a culture of<br />
citizen engagement. Residents, therefore, demand greater<br />
investment in the educational system, providing higher<br />
standards for gifted and less-gifted children alike.<br />
“Education comes first, then work and then profit:<br />
not vice versa. Our children are our future.”<br />
However, ensuring people have the skills is not enough:<br />
Government must also ensure they have the opportunities<br />
to use these skills. People want the government to act<br />
to reduce <strong>Berlin</strong>’s high unemployment rate by enhancing<br />
investment opportunities (through monetary incentives<br />
and other benefits) to attract more businesses to the city.<br />
Design and deliver public services to help reduce<br />
the gap between the more affluent and poorer<br />
communities.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> residents regard equality as one of the most basic<br />
principles. They define this as equal chances for everyone,<br />
regardless of social background. But this does not necessarily<br />
equate to equal treatment. <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants<br />
acknowledged that in some cases, a fair service may be one<br />
tailored to meet an individual’s or a community’s needs.<br />
Ultimately, residents expect government to do more to help<br />
poorer neighborhoods and disadvantaged people in <strong>Berlin</strong>.<br />
This includes increasing government spending in some areas<br />
and tailoring services specifically to meet the needs of<br />
poorer communities.<br />
“Everyone should have the same opportunities regardless<br />
of their social, ethnic or financial background. If problems<br />
occur, people need support and help according to<br />
their needs.”<br />
Page 24 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Accenture Public Service<br />
Value Governance Framework<br />
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value<br />
Global Cities Forum was conducted in eight cities<br />
around the world: London, Sydney, Singapore,<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong>, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.<br />
Accenture Accenture Public Service Public Value Service Value<br />
Governance Governance Framework<br />
Framework<br />
Public<br />
Government GovernmentService<br />
Value<br />
Outcomes<br />
Accountability<br />
Balance<br />
Outcomes<br />
Accountability<br />
Engagement<br />
Balance<br />
Public Citizen Citizen<br />
Service Service User Service User<br />
Value Taxpayer Taxpayer<br />
Engagement<br />
Although we designed and conducted all eight Forums similarly,<br />
and used a similar deliberative approach in each, many<br />
differences emerged between the views of the participants<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong> and those of other Global Cities. But there were<br />
also many similarities. (Comparisons of the main findings<br />
in the eight cities are included in the appendix.)<br />
People everywhere are proud of where they live—some more than<br />
others, of course—but they also all see a need for improvement<br />
in the social and economic conditions of their cities.<br />
While they see government as the main driver of change,<br />
they want a bigger say in making their cities better places to<br />
live. Everywhere, participants feel their governments are not<br />
doing enough to listen to their views. They also expect their<br />
governments to offer more opportunities to involve them in<br />
the process of setting priorities and planning and delivering<br />
improvement in their cities.<br />
These views are not new or surprising. Although we know<br />
that many people want—or say they want—a bigger say and<br />
role, we see little being done to engage them and little effort<br />
on their part to be engaged. Instead, we see a plethora of<br />
“doorstep opinion” polls and a rather complacent notion<br />
of elections as the main forum for people to have their say.<br />
But as one New York participant declared, and as participants<br />
in each Forum echoed, “Elections are not enough!”<br />
The outcome of the deliberations, personal learning and<br />
findings of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value<br />
Global Cities Forum confirms that people want to become<br />
more engaged in their own governance. Sure, they have<br />
many other important things to do, and daylong forums<br />
with other local residents are a luxury of time that few<br />
could afford on a regular basis. But when people need<br />
help or support or information or wish to register praise<br />
or complaint, they do not want to wait until government<br />
pollsters come to them to speak about it. Nor do they want<br />
to wait until election day. And the paradox of all of this<br />
in the 21st century is that we have the know-how and<br />
technology to facilitate better everyday public engagement.<br />
Page 25 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
We analyzed the <strong>Berlin</strong> principles of public value in conjunction<br />
with the deliberative findings and principles formulated in the<br />
other seven cities and found strong evidence of people around<br />
the world wanting more from the ways in which they currently<br />
engage with their governments. As a product of that analysis,<br />
we formulated what we believe can be a model for a more<br />
active relationship between people and their governments.<br />
The Accenture Public Service Value Governance Framework<br />
represents a more publicly engaged model of governance,<br />
one that truly connects people—in all their roles—with those<br />
whom they elect to lead their governments and to shape<br />
and direct their public services. Derived from the common<br />
concerns and ambitions of all groups of participants and the<br />
principles of public value that they defined, the framework<br />
is built around four components:<br />
Outcomes—Focusing on improved social and<br />
economic outcomes.<br />
The purpose and mission of public-service provision should<br />
be concentrated on the actual improvements that those<br />
services can produce in the economic and social conditions—<br />
such as health, learning and education, and public safety—<br />
of the people they serve, not simply on the amounts of<br />
services produced or on economic efficiency.<br />
Balance—Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness<br />
and common good.<br />
People are insisting that government should tailor service<br />
provision to meet the wide range of different needs across the<br />
population. At the same time, government must be mindful that<br />
narrow or unconsidered applications of “choice” and “fairness” can<br />
actually widen gaps between those who are able to take advantage<br />
of the benefits of greater choice and those who are not.<br />
Engagement—Engaging, educating and enrolling<br />
the public as co-producers of public value.<br />
The educative and enabling roles of government are vastly<br />
under-used. People can be helped to clarify their own<br />
perceptions of government through regular consultation<br />
and engagement; to learn how to make the best use of<br />
government resources through better and more easily<br />
accessible information; and to contribute as partners<br />
to improving social and economic outcomes.<br />
Accountability—Clarifying accountability and facilitating<br />
public recourse.<br />
People are demanding much greater clarity and accountability<br />
from government, especially with regard to tax expenditure<br />
where the absence of easily accessible information fuels<br />
perceptions of waste and inefficiency. The public—as service<br />
users, taxpayers and members of the wider community—also<br />
are seeking consistent and accessible means to remedy<br />
problems with government when they occur.<br />
These components provide meaning and a language with<br />
which to clearly articulate a relationship that is about<br />
genuine engagement of people in their governance, not one<br />
that is only about voting in elections or paying taxes—as<br />
important as these things are.<br />
In the case of <strong>Berlin</strong>, our understanding is that some aspects<br />
of the four components are in place:<br />
Explicit outcome-focused public policy is regarded with a<br />
great deal of interest and increasing frequency in Germany.<br />
However, the focus currently is more ad hoc than systematic.<br />
Moreover, outcomes are mostly articulated at a political level<br />
and in a political context, rather than embedded in how<br />
government manages public-service operations and delivery.<br />
However, a number of recent initiatives have been started<br />
at the municipal, state and federal levels.<br />
At the municipal level, for example, the Kommunale<br />
Gemeinschaftsstelle (KGSt), Germany’s largest local<br />
government association, which comprises approximately<br />
1,600 municipalities and cities, has initiated a project called<br />
“Measures-based management—outcomes and outputs in<br />
municipal budgets" (“Die Kommune mit Kennzahlen steuern:<br />
Wirkungen und Leistungen im neuen Haushalt"). At the state<br />
level, progress has been made toward introducing balanced<br />
scorecards that include a greater focus on results and wider<br />
societal outcomes. Finally, initiatives such as the Federal<br />
Ministry of Interior’s and the Bertelsmann Foundation’s study<br />
on Strategic Management (“Strategische Steuerung für den<br />
Staat—Internationale Ansätze im Vergleich”) are helping to<br />
build the foundation for strengthening outcome-oriented<br />
management at the federal level.<br />
Mechanisms to balance the extension of choice with the<br />
safeguarding of the common good are more systematic.<br />
As a rule, both in policy and in administration, this is<br />
achieved on a case-by-case basis, though it is unclear the<br />
extent to which citizens’ expectations, preferences and risks<br />
are taken into account. Greater understanding of citizens’<br />
perspectives about the tensions between individual service<br />
and equity, such as those articulated in the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum,<br />
could help government proactively address the diversity of<br />
citizens’ needs and provide deeper insight to more effectively<br />
formulate responses, such as targeted preventative measures<br />
to improve health outcomes.<br />
However, traditionally, the engagement of citizens—apart from<br />
elections—is limited to formal processes such as feedback<br />
mechanisms at the service-delivery level. Over the past<br />
decade, the government has sought to put more emphasis<br />
on civic engagement, but these efforts have not always been<br />
sustained in terms of extended openness toward actively<br />
involving citizens in decision-making processes.<br />
Regarding clearer accountability, many municipalities, as<br />
well as some state and federal level departments, have begun<br />
to introduce management systems geared toward creating<br />
greater transparency and avenues for public recourse. This<br />
includes introducing performance management in public<br />
services; however, compared to many other developed countries,<br />
Germany is in a relatively early stage of introducing performance<br />
management or aligning it with other management processes<br />
such as strategy formulation, implementation and budgeting.<br />
We believe that governance in the 21st century must engage<br />
people in all their roles as active co-producers of public value.<br />
The payoff can be a strengthened and mutually supportive<br />
relationship between people and their governments. Without<br />
such a social compact, we risk contributing to disenchantment,<br />
cynicism and poor public service. With the public fully engaged,<br />
we have the potential for better lives for us all.<br />
Page 26 of 39 Back Contents Next<br />
Print Close
How <strong>Berlin</strong> compares<br />
with the other Global Cities<br />
Participants at the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum were very<br />
positive about their city: Almost two-thirds of<br />
participants rated it above average as a place to<br />
live and work. While this figure was higher than<br />
in the other European cities—London, Paris and<br />
Madrid—it was lower than all the other cities<br />
outside of Europe. And fewer people rated <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
as “world class” than in any other Global City.<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> participants were particularly concerned about<br />
the need to improve the economy and, more specifically,<br />
employment opportunities in the city. This was voted<br />
as the most critical issue by 28 percent of <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
participants. Education was also highlighted as a key<br />
concern (with 23 percent of the votes), followed by public<br />
safety (14 percent), which was seen as a problem particularly<br />
in the poorer districts of the city. In contrast to the other<br />
cities, employment and education were voted the top two<br />
issues only in the <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum, whereas cost of living<br />
and health ranked fairly low as areas of concern for <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
participants. In fact, <strong>Berlin</strong> returned by far the lowest<br />
rating for cost of living (13 percent) as a key concern.<br />
In general, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants are satisfied with<br />
their public services (60 percent). However, only 4 percent<br />
rated them as “very good” or “excellent,” compared with 40<br />
percent in Madrid, 34 percent in Singapore and 27 percent<br />
in Sydney. But as in many other cities, when considering<br />
particular services, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants were more critical.<br />
For example, three in four believe the government falls a<br />
long way short of expectations in education—making them<br />
the least satisfied with education versus the other cities<br />
where the issue was discussed (Sydney, Singapore, New York,<br />
Los Angeles and London). Similarly, 59 percent said health<br />
services fell below their expectations, a figure on par with<br />
Sydney but below that of London and Los Angeles.<br />
Although they saw room for a great deal of improvement<br />
in public services, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum participants had little<br />
inclination to pay more in the form of taxes or user charges.<br />
Only 8 percent agreed that they would be prepared to pay<br />
more in taxes, compared to 34 percent in Sydney, 33 percent<br />
in Los Angeles and 29 percent in New York. Similarly, only<br />
19 percent advocated additional user charges for those who<br />
could afford it, less than any other city apart from Paris.<br />
Participants in <strong>Berlin</strong> were more inclined than those in any<br />
other city to think that the government should give primary<br />
consideration to quality of service for users (above the broader<br />
good of society and the amount of tax paid) as they plan and<br />
deliver services. At the same time, the voting results show<br />
that more than any other city, participants in <strong>Berlin</strong> want to<br />
see government deliver services to everyone equally rather<br />
than targeting those with the highest level of need.<br />
Page 27 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
In defining their aspirations for public services, <strong>Berlin</strong> Forum<br />
participants shared many of the same values as those in other<br />
cities. For example, they placed a strong emphasis on equality<br />
and fairness, transparency and accountability, and customer<br />
focus. But they were also concerned with efficiency, like those<br />
in Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles, and the need for a longerterm<br />
view in planning and delivering services, like those in<br />
Sydney, New York and Los Angeles.<br />
Participants in <strong>Berlin</strong> discussed improvements in three specific<br />
social and economic conditions: health, learning and education,<br />
and public safety. While they shared many of the same<br />
aspirations as those in other cities where these same issues<br />
were discussed, there were also differences.<br />
On health, for example, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants valued easily<br />
accessible, high quality care, as did those in all the other cities<br />
where health was discussed (London, Sydney, Singapore and<br />
Los Angeles). Like participants in London and Los Angeles,<br />
they also put a strong emphasis on equality of provision, and<br />
like those in London and Sydney, they articulated the need<br />
to take a longer-term view and focus more on preventative<br />
care. However, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants seemed more concerned<br />
about efficiency than those in London, Sydney or Los Angeles;<br />
less worried about choice than those in Los Angeles; less<br />
interested in connectedness of service provision than those in<br />
London; and less focused on financial access than those<br />
in Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles.<br />
Like participants in London, Sydney, New York and Los Angeles,<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> participants were concerned with the broader social<br />
and economic impact of education, and specifically the positive<br />
impact that good education services have on improving<br />
the strength of the economy and overall quality of life.<br />
Participants in all these cities sought improvements in the<br />
quality of education. <strong>Berlin</strong> participants also highlighted<br />
fairness and equality as an important principle, as did<br />
participants in London, Sydney and New York. Participants<br />
in <strong>Berlin</strong>, London and Singapore also sought more flexibility<br />
in education programs. But <strong>Berlin</strong> participants were less<br />
concerned with the need for a broad curriculum than those<br />
in London, Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles; less focused on<br />
accountability than those in New York; less worried about<br />
efficiency than those in Los Angeles; and less concerned<br />
about the need for increased investment in the educational<br />
system than those in Sydney.<br />
In the area of public safety, participants in all the cities<br />
in which this was discussed articulated the importance of<br />
fairness and balance. In the case of <strong>Berlin</strong>, for example,<br />
this meant a balance between governmental controls and<br />
maintenance of civil liberties. Like those in Paris, Madrid and<br />
London, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants also saw a need for connected<br />
services—particularly as a means of encouraging crime<br />
prevention. And like those in all other cities but Paris, they<br />
placed great emphasis on the quality of service, specifically<br />
the need to ensure that emergency services respond quickly<br />
to their needs. However, <strong>Berlin</strong> participants were less<br />
concerned about accountability and community involvement<br />
than those in New York and less focused on efficiency<br />
than those in Paris and Madrid.<br />
In <strong>Berlin</strong>, participants were more inclined to vote for a larger<br />
role for government in addressing future priorities: 84 percent<br />
wanted to see more involvement from government, a figure<br />
lower than that of Sydney and Madrid but higher than all<br />
the other cities included in the Forum. However, people in<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> were among the least inclined of all the cities to see<br />
a larger role for themselves as citizens in addressing future<br />
priorities. Only 75 percent called for greater involvement of<br />
citizens compared to 98 percent in New York, 96 percent in<br />
Los Angeles and 95 percent in Madrid. Even so, participants<br />
were comparatively positive about the private sector, with<br />
79 percent agreeing they should have a bigger role; only<br />
Madrid participants (85 percent) were more positive about<br />
the role of the private sector.<br />
The appendix contains figures that provide a summary<br />
of the results from three components of the research: the<br />
electronic voting questions posed during the Forums; the<br />
findings of the deliberations on public value; and the data<br />
from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos<br />
Global@dvisor survey.<br />
Page 28 of 39 Back Contents Next<br />
Print Close
Appendix<br />
Page 29 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Results from electronic voting at the Global Cities Forum<br />
The following figures present the results from the electronic voting questions posed during the eight Forums. Results for London are not<br />
available for some of the questions as the London Forum was a pilot and some of the voting questions changed after that first event.<br />
How do you rate your city as a place to live and work?<br />
Very Poor Fairly Poor Average Fairly Good World Class<br />
London<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
Paris<br />
Madrid<br />
Los Angeles<br />
2 7 33<br />
39<br />
19<br />
11 9<br />
4<br />
2 6<br />
2 5<br />
10<br />
6<br />
21<br />
26<br />
20<br />
33<br />
40<br />
31<br />
52<br />
44<br />
52<br />
46<br />
41<br />
7 18<br />
53<br />
22<br />
0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
49<br />
29<br />
23<br />
18<br />
14<br />
15<br />
What are the three most important social issues facing you and your city today?<br />
And what are the three main priorities for making the city a great place to live and work 10 years from now?<br />
1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place<br />
Issue London Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles<br />
Cost of Living<br />
Health<br />
Housing<br />
Employment<br />
Education<br />
Public Safety<br />
Ease of Transport<br />
2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017<br />
Page 30 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
Environment<br />
In cases where two results of the same color are shown, there was a tie
How good are public services in your city?<br />
London*<br />
Sydney<br />
Very Good Fine Poor+<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
Paris<br />
Madrid<br />
Los Angeles<br />
56 44<br />
33 40<br />
14 52<br />
40 56 4<br />
32 54<br />
47 45<br />
28 32<br />
43 47<br />
0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
* The question in London was “Overall do you agree that people in the city get good quality services?: Strongly agree,<br />
agree, disagree, strongly disagree.”<br />
What should be the most important consideration for government in planning and delivering public services?<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0%<br />
What is good for society as a whole<br />
The amount of tax I pay<br />
43<br />
23<br />
Sydney<br />
34<br />
41<br />
33<br />
26<br />
30 28<br />
40<br />
The quality of service users receive<br />
42<br />
34<br />
36 37<br />
35<br />
36 35<br />
32 32<br />
28<br />
30<br />
27<br />
29<br />
Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles<br />
43<br />
27<br />
14<br />
10<br />
8<br />
How should governments fund improvements in services?<br />
Governments should impose user charges to pay for improvements<br />
Governments should raise taxes in order to pay for improvements<br />
Page 31 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
London<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
Paris<br />
Madrid<br />
Los Angeles<br />
79<br />
85<br />
75<br />
48<br />
57<br />
52<br />
57<br />
65<br />
69<br />
67<br />
53<br />
44<br />
52<br />
52<br />
38<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Disagree Agree<br />
6<br />
8<br />
10<br />
12<br />
19<br />
22<br />
30<br />
29<br />
29<br />
27<br />
34<br />
40<br />
39<br />
33<br />
51
In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services<br />
exceed or fall short of your expectations?<br />
London<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services<br />
exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations? 12<br />
London<br />
In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
what extent do public services<br />
exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations?<br />
72<br />
12<br />
10<br />
London<br />
In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14 what extent<br />
The chart<br />
do public<br />
omits<br />
services<br />
neutral responses<br />
100 80 60 40 200%<br />
20 40 60 80 100<br />
exceed or fall short of your expectations?<br />
Fall short of expectations 52 12<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
72 10<br />
London<br />
Sydney<br />
100 80<br />
58<br />
60 40 200%<br />
14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 52<br />
63<br />
72<br />
12<br />
7<br />
10<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Sydney<br />
100 80<br />
58<br />
6051<br />
40 200%<br />
4<br />
14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of<br />
72<br />
expectations 63<br />
60<br />
710<br />
13<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Sydney<br />
100 80 6051<br />
100 80 60<br />
40<br />
40<br />
Fall<br />
Fall<br />
short<br />
short<br />
of<br />
of<br />
expectations<br />
expectations 63<br />
60<br />
20<br />
20<br />
0% 4<br />
0%<br />
20<br />
20<br />
7<br />
13<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40<br />
40<br />
60<br />
60<br />
80<br />
80<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Exceed<br />
Exceed<br />
expectations<br />
expectations<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
100 80<br />
51<br />
60 40 20<br />
4<br />
0% 20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 63<br />
37<br />
60<br />
7<br />
15<br />
13<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Singapore<br />
100 80<br />
51<br />
60 40 20<br />
4<br />
5 0% 20<br />
The chart<br />
40 51<br />
omits neutral responses<br />
60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations<br />
60 37<br />
24<br />
13 15<br />
29<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Singapore<br />
100<br />
100<br />
80<br />
80<br />
60<br />
60<br />
40<br />
40<br />
Fall<br />
Fall<br />
short<br />
short<br />
of<br />
of<br />
expectations<br />
expectations 37<br />
20<br />
20<br />
24<br />
5 0%<br />
0%<br />
20<br />
20<br />
15<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 51<br />
40<br />
60<br />
60<br />
80<br />
80<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Exceed<br />
Exceed<br />
expectations<br />
expectations<br />
29<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
100 80 60 40 20<br />
5<br />
0% 20<br />
The<br />
The<br />
chart<br />
chart<br />
omits neutral responses<br />
51 omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 59<br />
37<br />
24<br />
2<br />
15<br />
29<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
100 80 74 60 40 20<br />
5<br />
0% 2 20<br />
The chart 51 omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 59<br />
50<br />
24<br />
2<br />
11<br />
29<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
100 80 74<br />
100 80<br />
60<br />
60<br />
40<br />
40<br />
Fall<br />
Fall<br />
short<br />
short<br />
of<br />
of<br />
expectations<br />
expectations 59<br />
50<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York74<br />
100 80 60 40<br />
Fall short of expectations<br />
59<br />
50<br />
50<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
0% 2<br />
0%<br />
2<br />
2<br />
0%<br />
2<br />
20<br />
20<br />
11<br />
20<br />
11<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40<br />
40<br />
60<br />
60<br />
80<br />
80<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Exceed<br />
Exceed<br />
expectations<br />
expectations<br />
The<br />
The<br />
chart<br />
chart<br />
omits<br />
omits<br />
neutral<br />
neutral<br />
responses<br />
responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
New York74<br />
100 80 60 4032 20<br />
2<br />
0% 1420<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 50<br />
82<br />
50<br />
2<br />
0<br />
11<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
New York<br />
100 80 60 4032 100 80 60 40<br />
Fall<br />
Fall<br />
short<br />
short<br />
of<br />
of<br />
expectations<br />
expectations 50<br />
82<br />
New<br />
Paris<br />
York<br />
32<br />
100 80 60 40<br />
Fall short of expectations 54<br />
50<br />
82<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0%<br />
2<br />
3<br />
0<br />
1420<br />
20<br />
14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40<br />
40<br />
60<br />
60<br />
80<br />
80<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Exceed<br />
Exceed<br />
expectations<br />
expectations<br />
The<br />
The<br />
chart<br />
chart<br />
omits<br />
omits<br />
neutral<br />
neutral<br />
responses<br />
responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Paris<br />
100 80 60<br />
32<br />
4033 200%<br />
14<br />
20 23<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 54 3<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Transport<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Transport Health<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Transport<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Transport<br />
Secure retirement<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Education<br />
Secure Health retirement<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Secure retirement<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Secure<br />
Health<br />
retirement<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Housing<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Housing<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Housing<br />
Safety<br />
Transport<br />
Safety<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
100<br />
74<br />
80<br />
51<br />
60 40 20<br />
2<br />
4<br />
0% 20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 59<br />
60<br />
50<br />
2<br />
11<br />
13<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
New York<br />
100 80 74<br />
80 60<br />
40 Fall short of expectations 50<br />
50<br />
20<br />
0% 2<br />
0%<br />
2<br />
20 11<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Singapore New York<br />
100 80 60<br />
32<br />
40 200%<br />
14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 50 37<br />
82<br />
2<br />
0<br />
15<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
New York<br />
100 80 60 40<br />
32<br />
20<br />
5<br />
0%<br />
14<br />
20<br />
The chart 51 omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 50<br />
82<br />
24<br />
2<br />
0<br />
29<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Paris<br />
100 80 60 40 4032 20 0% 14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 54<br />
82<br />
3<br />
0<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Paris <strong>Berlin</strong><br />
100 80 60<br />
33<br />
40 200%<br />
23<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 59 54<br />
71<br />
23<br />
5<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Paris<br />
100<br />
74<br />
80 60 40<br />
33<br />
20<br />
2<br />
0% 20<br />
23<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 54<br />
71 50<br />
3<br />
5 11<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Los Angeles<br />
100 80 60 33<br />
40 20 0% 23<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 60<br />
71<br />
8<br />
5<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Los New Angeles York<br />
72<br />
100 80 60 40 20<br />
4<br />
0% 20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 60 50<br />
65<br />
2 8<br />
9<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Los Angeles<br />
100 80<br />
72<br />
60<br />
32<br />
40 200%<br />
4 14<br />
20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 60<br />
82 65 0<br />
8<br />
9<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Madrid<br />
100 72<br />
80 60 40 20 4<br />
0% 20<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 65<br />
26<br />
9<br />
32 Exceed expectations<br />
Madrid Paris<br />
100 80 60<br />
32<br />
40 200%<br />
20<br />
The<br />
34 chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 54 26<br />
29<br />
3<br />
32<br />
38<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Madrid<br />
100 80 60<br />
33<br />
40<br />
32<br />
20 0%<br />
23<br />
20<br />
The<br />
34<br />
chart omits neutral responses<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations<br />
71<br />
26<br />
29 5<br />
32<br />
38<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
100 80 60 32<br />
40 20 0% 20 34<br />
40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 29 38<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
Los Angeles<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations 60 8<br />
Exceed expectations<br />
72 4<br />
65 9<br />
100 80 60 40 200%<br />
20 40 60 80 100<br />
Fall short of expectations Exceed expectations<br />
26 32<br />
Education<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Education<br />
Education<br />
Safety<br />
Safety<br />
Education Secure retirement<br />
Housing<br />
Safety Education<br />
Education<br />
Housing Health<br />
Safety<br />
Safety<br />
Housing<br />
Transport<br />
Safety Health<br />
Environment<br />
Transport Education<br />
Safety<br />
Environment Safety<br />
Transport<br />
Education<br />
Environment<br />
Health<br />
Education<br />
Transport<br />
Health Safety<br />
Education<br />
Transport Housing<br />
Health<br />
Safety<br />
Transport<br />
Environment<br />
Safety<br />
Transport<br />
Environment Transport<br />
Safety<br />
Transport Environment<br />
Environment<br />
Page 32 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
Madrid<br />
32 34<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
Transport<br />
Education<br />
Health<br />
Transport<br />
Safety<br />
Environment
Public services’ focus on short-term versus long-term concerns<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
Paris<br />
Madrid<br />
Los Angeles<br />
Public services make for a fairer society<br />
(% agreeing with statement)<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0%<br />
How services are presently focused<br />
How services should be focused<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Respond to<br />
long-term concerns<br />
76<br />
82<br />
79<br />
78<br />
62<br />
62<br />
58<br />
73<br />
42<br />
45<br />
47<br />
53<br />
43<br />
33<br />
29<br />
28<br />
26<br />
69<br />
London Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles<br />
7<br />
8<br />
64<br />
11<br />
16<br />
20<br />
20<br />
19<br />
29<br />
28<br />
48<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
47<br />
45<br />
47<br />
50<br />
56<br />
Respond to<br />
short-term concerns<br />
76<br />
71<br />
Public services’ focus on targeted versus universal services<br />
Page 33 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
Paris<br />
Madrid<br />
How services are presently focused<br />
How services should be focused<br />
Los Angeles<br />
82<br />
75<br />
69<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Deliver to<br />
everyone equally<br />
65<br />
66<br />
55<br />
44<br />
39<br />
46<br />
49<br />
45<br />
29<br />
22<br />
6<br />
5<br />
16<br />
15<br />
17<br />
25<br />
28<br />
33<br />
31<br />
34<br />
32<br />
25<br />
I am satisfied with the way in which public services understand my needs<br />
(% agreeing with statement)<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0%<br />
27<br />
15<br />
61<br />
28<br />
41<br />
The chart omits neutral responses<br />
40<br />
48<br />
Deliver to those with<br />
the highest levels of need<br />
London Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles<br />
9<br />
29<br />
37<br />
8
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?<br />
London<br />
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?<br />
London 23<br />
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?<br />
75<br />
69<br />
92<br />
London 23<br />
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?<br />
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 7075 80 90 100<br />
69<br />
London<br />
Sydney<br />
0% 10<br />
Sydney<br />
0% 10<br />
Sydney<br />
0% 10<br />
0% 10<br />
23<br />
20<br />
23<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
37<br />
37<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
60<br />
60<br />
60<br />
60<br />
7075 69<br />
72<br />
7075 72<br />
70<br />
70<br />
80<br />
86<br />
80<br />
86<br />
79<br />
80<br />
80<br />
86<br />
92<br />
90<br />
92<br />
90<br />
92<br />
90<br />
90<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Sydney<br />
Singapore<br />
0% 10<br />
Singapore<br />
0% 10<br />
Singapore<br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
10<br />
10<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
37<br />
37<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
60<br />
59<br />
60<br />
57<br />
59<br />
60<br />
57 60<br />
59<br />
67<br />
67<br />
72<br />
70<br />
72<br />
70<br />
70<br />
70<br />
79<br />
80<br />
86<br />
79<br />
80<br />
79<br />
77<br />
80<br />
80<br />
90<br />
90<br />
90<br />
90<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
Singapore<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
0% 10<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
0% 10<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
0%<br />
0%<br />
10<br />
10<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
47<br />
47<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
50<br />
57 60<br />
59<br />
57 60<br />
60<br />
60<br />
67<br />
67<br />
77<br />
70 80<br />
84<br />
77<br />
79<br />
70 80<br />
84<br />
77<br />
75<br />
79<br />
70<br />
70<br />
80<br />
80<br />
84<br />
90<br />
90<br />
90<br />
90<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
100<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
New York<br />
0% 10<br />
New York<br />
0% 10<br />
New York<br />
0% 0% 10 10<br />
20<br />
20<br />
20 20<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30 30<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40 40<br />
47<br />
47<br />
50<br />
50<br />
55<br />
50 5055 60<br />
60<br />
60 60<br />
67<br />
67<br />
67<br />
75<br />
79<br />
70 80<br />
84<br />
75<br />
72<br />
79<br />
70 80<br />
75<br />
72<br />
70 70 80 80<br />
90<br />
90<br />
90 90<br />
100<br />
100<br />
98<br />
100 100<br />
New<br />
Paris<br />
York<br />
0% 10 20 30 40 5055 60<br />
59<br />
67<br />
72<br />
70 80 90<br />
98<br />
100<br />
98<br />
Paris<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
53<br />
5055 60<br />
58<br />
59<br />
70 80 90 100<br />
69<br />
Government<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Citizens<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong><br />
0% 10 20 30 37 40<br />
47<br />
New York<br />
0% 10 20<br />
30 40<br />
47<br />
Singapore New York<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
New York<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
Paris<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> Paris<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
Paris<br />
0% 10 20 30 40 47<br />
Los Angeles<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
New Los Angeles York<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
Los Angeles<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
Madrid<br />
0% 10 20<br />
30 40<br />
Paris Madrid<br />
0% 10 20 30 4044<br />
Madrid<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
44<br />
0% 10 20<br />
30 40<br />
44<br />
Los Angeles<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
0% 10 20 30 40<br />
72 79<br />
50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
75 79<br />
79<br />
84<br />
50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
67<br />
5055 60<br />
59 67<br />
67<br />
75<br />
72<br />
70<br />
72<br />
80 90 100<br />
98<br />
50<br />
5557<br />
60<br />
67<br />
70<br />
72<br />
77<br />
80 90 100<br />
98<br />
50<br />
55<br />
53<br />
60<br />
59<br />
70 80 90 100<br />
98<br />
50<br />
53<br />
58<br />
60<br />
59<br />
70<br />
74<br />
80<br />
84<br />
79<br />
90 100<br />
50<br />
53<br />
58<br />
60<br />
59<br />
70<br />
7475<br />
80 90 100<br />
50<br />
58 60 70 80<br />
80<br />
90 100<br />
68<br />
74<br />
50 62 60<br />
67<br />
68<br />
70<br />
72<br />
80<br />
80<br />
90<br />
96<br />
100<br />
5055 62<br />
60<br />
68<br />
70 80<br />
80<br />
90 100<br />
9698<br />
50 60<br />
62 60 70 80 85<br />
90 92<br />
96<br />
100<br />
50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
53<br />
59<br />
85<br />
92<br />
95<br />
50 58 60 70<br />
74<br />
80<br />
85<br />
90<br />
92<br />
95<br />
100<br />
50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
50 60 70 80<br />
80<br />
90 100<br />
50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Government<br />
Citizens<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Citizens<br />
Page 34 of 39 72<br />
Business<br />
Back Contents 85 Next Print Close<br />
Madrid<br />
44<br />
62<br />
68<br />
92<br />
95<br />
96<br />
Government<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit<br />
Citizens<br />
Government<br />
Business<br />
Not-for-profit
Results of the deliberations<br />
These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.<br />
Principles of public value: All public services<br />
Equality<br />
and fairness<br />
Transparency and<br />
accountability<br />
Customer focus<br />
and flexibilty<br />
Efficiency/<br />
value for money<br />
Connectedness<br />
and coordination<br />
Long-term outlook<br />
Focus on<br />
immediate results<br />
Accessibilty<br />
Choice<br />
Social conditions discussed in each of the Global Cities<br />
Learning and<br />
education<br />
Health<br />
Public safety<br />
Ease of transport<br />
Environment<br />
Affordable living<br />
Security in<br />
retirement<br />
London<br />
London<br />
Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles<br />
Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles Total<br />
6<br />
5<br />
5<br />
4<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
Principles of public value: Health<br />
Long-term outlook/<br />
prevention<br />
Efficiency/value<br />
for money<br />
Connectedness<br />
to other services<br />
Page 35 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
Equality of<br />
provision<br />
Quality of care<br />
Accessibility<br />
Choice of service<br />
Financial access<br />
Transparency<br />
London<br />
Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> Los Angeles
Results of the deliberations continued<br />
These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.<br />
Principles of public value: Learning and education<br />
Equality of<br />
provision<br />
Quality of<br />
education<br />
Flexibility, including<br />
lifelong learning<br />
Accountability<br />
Efficiency/value<br />
for money<br />
More investment<br />
in education<br />
Wider socioeconomic<br />
impact<br />
Broad curriculum<br />
London<br />
Sydney Singapore <strong>Berlin</strong> New York<br />
Los Angeles<br />
Principles of public value: Public safety<br />
Page 36 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
Fairness and<br />
balance<br />
Reduction in crime<br />
and fear of crime<br />
Quality of service/<br />
responsiveness<br />
Community<br />
involvement<br />
Accountability<br />
Efficiency<br />
Connectedness to<br />
other services/<br />
prevention<br />
London<br />
<strong>Berlin</strong> New York Paris Madrid
Global survey<br />
The following charts provide a summary of the results from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos Global@dvisor survey.<br />
The survey questioned 1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project.<br />
Question 1: How much could the quality of your life be improved?<br />
In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment<br />
Australia<br />
France<br />
Germany<br />
Great Britain<br />
Singapore<br />
Spain<br />
United States<br />
51<br />
39<br />
40<br />
36<br />
36<br />
32<br />
14<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
A little / None A lot / Fair amount<br />
Question 3: How much are public services improving the quality of your life today?<br />
Australia<br />
France<br />
Germany<br />
Great Britain<br />
Singapore<br />
Spain<br />
United States<br />
82<br />
76<br />
75<br />
70<br />
64<br />
66<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Very little / Not at all A great deal / A fair amount<br />
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"<br />
42<br />
14<br />
19<br />
22<br />
27<br />
26<br />
34<br />
49<br />
56<br />
61<br />
60<br />
64<br />
64<br />
68<br />
86<br />
Question 2: Who should contribute most to improving the quality of life for citizens?<br />
In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment<br />
All citizens Government Business You personally Not for profits<br />
100<br />
Page 37 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0%<br />
44 45<br />
3 2 3<br />
Australia<br />
48 47<br />
41<br />
38<br />
6<br />
2 1<br />
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"<br />
6<br />
3 3<br />
44 41<br />
4 3 3<br />
44 44<br />
4 3 3<br />
France Germany Great Britain Singapore Spain United States<br />
29<br />
58<br />
7<br />
2 2<br />
Question 4: To what extent would you be willing to pay more tax to improve public services?<br />
Australia<br />
France<br />
Germany<br />
Great Britain<br />
Singapore<br />
Spain<br />
United States<br />
91<br />
79<br />
72<br />
73<br />
62<br />
61<br />
60<br />
54<br />
23<br />
4 5 5<br />
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Not at all / A small extent A great deal / Some extent<br />
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"<br />
4<br />
16<br />
20<br />
24<br />
31<br />
36<br />
36
Project team More information<br />
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value<br />
team was: Greg Parston, Julie McQueen, Lisa Larsen,<br />
Philip von Haehling, Rob Coffey, Claudia Ribeiro<br />
The Accenture Germany team was: Holger Bill,<br />
Diana Heinemann, Klaus Goez, Jens Bolle,<br />
Yasmine Dessouky, Bernd Gerbaulet, Michael Pitsch’s<br />
The Ipsos Germany project team that conducted the<br />
Global Cities Forum—<strong>Berlin</strong> and contributed to analysis<br />
was: Janet von Rossem, Ina Hildebrandt, Maria Herrmann,<br />
Nadine Enders, Stephanie Stukenberg, Teresa Stahl,<br />
Thomas Kühn, Heike Hofer, Andrea Meixner, Sonja Mahnhardt<br />
The Ipsos MORI (UK) global project management<br />
team was: Bobby Duffy, Debbie Lee Chan,<br />
Anna Pierce, Emily Gray, Rea Robbey<br />
Visit www.accenture.com/globalcitiesforum to use the<br />
interactive map to connect to any of the eight cities for<br />
a highlight of that city's findings and key messages for<br />
government. You can also take the Global Cities Forum<br />
survey, look through the photo gallery, watch videos of<br />
citizens from some of the sessions and connect with<br />
an expert from the Institute for Public Service Value.<br />
For more information about the Accenture Institute<br />
for Public Service Value Global Cities Forum, e-mail<br />
institutepublicservicevalue@accenture.com<br />
Page 38 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Copyright © 2008 Accenture<br />
All rights reserved.<br />
Accenture, its logo, and<br />
High Performance Delivered<br />
are trademarks of Accenture.<br />
About the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value<br />
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value is dedicated to promoting high performance<br />
in public service delivery, policy-making and governance, through research and development<br />
on the creation of public value. The institute undertakes and commissions relevant research;<br />
produces publications on good practice in public service; develops practical methods of applying<br />
the concepts of public value; and presents events to bring together and promote discussion<br />
among public managers and stakeholders in the government, academic, nonprofit and private<br />
sectors. Its home page is www.accenture.com/publicservicevalue.<br />
About Accenture<br />
Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company.<br />
Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and<br />
business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture<br />
collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments.<br />
With 178,000 people in 49 countries, the company generated net revenues of US$19.70 billion<br />
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007. Its home page is www.accenture.com<br />
Page 39 of 39 Back Contents Print Close