Berlin

Accenture Global Cities Forum
Exploring People's Perspectives on the Role of Government
Berlin

Contents
Summary 3
Observations from the Berlin Forum 4
Berlin’s principles of public value 5
Messages to government from people of Berlin 5
1 About the Accenture
Global Cities Forum 7
2 The individual’s relationship
with government 11
The user of public services 12
The citizen 13
The taxpayer 13
Tensions between the perspectives 14
3 Improving public value:
The quality of life in Berlin 15
General principles of public value in Berlin 16
Improving learning and education,
health and public safety 17
Future priorities for Berlin 19
Roles and responsibilities of different actors 20
4 Messages to government from
people of Berlin 23
5 Accenture Public Service Value
Governance Framework 25
6 How Berlin compares with
the other Global Cities 27
Appendix 29
The Accenture Global Cities Forum is an ongoing study into
how members of the public define “public value” and what
they expect of government. The Institute for Public Service
Value designed the first phase of the study as a series of
citizen panels in eight world cities: London, Sydney, Singapore,
Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. Each Forum
included 60 to 85 local residents randomly selected to represent
the city’s demographics—providing strong, qualitative insight
into what people think about government and public services
and how they judge public value.
Page 2 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Summary
On Saturday, September 15, 2007, 63 residents
of Berlin from all walks of life came together
to discuss the role of government in improving
the quality of their lives in the city.
This was the fourth of the Accenture Global Cities Forums
conducted by the Accenture Institute for Public Service
Value. These Forums are part of an ongoing global research
project to directly engage citizens 1 in discussion about
how governments can improve the social and economic
conditions of the people they serve. In 2007, we held
Global Cities Forums—conducted as daylong “deliberative
events”—in London, Sydney, Singapore, Berlin, New York,
Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. 2
During the Berlin Forum, participants discussed their
experiences with public services and their expectations
of government. In addition to listening to participants’
views, we wanted to engage them fully and challenge
their thinking to elicit a more informed debate about how
government could act to improve the quality of their lives.
An important objective of the project is to explore the
relationship between individuals and their government by
probing into the multifaceted and sometimes conflicting
expectations and demands people place on government
as citizens, users of services and taxpayers. So, in addition
to debate, discussion and some electronic polling, the
day involved a simulation session in which groups of
participants assumed these three roles and then debated
issues from the different perspectives. In Berlin, that
debate focused on three social outcomes that our research
showed are currently important to people in the city:
learning and education, health and public safety.
By the end of the day, through deliberation and roleplaying
activities, Berlin participants identified a set of
principles that they believe should guide the provision
of government services in the city and the production of
public value more widely. Taken together with analysis
of the findings from the seven other cities, Accenture
has formulated what we propose is a new governance
framework—a basis for strengthening the relationship
between people and their governments.
This report presents the detailed observations and findings
of the Global Cities Forum—Berlin. What follows is a
brief summary.
1 In this report, we use the word "citizens" to denote community
members, including those who are temporary residents.
2 The Global Cities Forums were conducted in this order across the eight
cities. The project was designed to be iterative, using logistical and
procedural findings from each event to inform subsequent events.
Page 3 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Observations from the Berlin Forum
Overall, participants at the Berlin Forum regard living in
the city positively. Berliners especially appreciate the city’s
green space, cultural opportunities, good infrastructure
and vibrant, multicultural character.
However, they also feel the government is falling short of
their expectations in a number of key areas. Participants are
particularly concerned about attracting more businesses to
the city to improve the economy and employment opportunities.
Public safety concerns also remain a key issue for many
residents—especially in the poorer districts of the city.
While participants recognize that the solution to these
problems requires action within and outside the public
sector, they feel that government bears the main
responsibility for tackling these priorities to improve quality
of life in Berlin. During the Forum, they argued the need for
government to demonstrate clearer leadership, characterized
by a strategic focus on sustainable solutions to social issues
rather than stopgap “solutions” that produce short-term
political gains. They expect elected leaders and civil servants
to consistently demonstrate integrity and keep the needs of
the city’s residents at the heart of policymaking and service
delivery. And they want their leaders to be role models for
citizens—supporting and rewarding individuals’ commitment
to improving their own lives and their neighborhoods.
Participants articulated fairly clearly what they expect
from government in their efforts to improve the social
and economic conditions in Berlin.
Participants expressed concern that nearly two decades
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, quality of life is significantly
worse for many people living in neighborhoods in the former
East Berlin versus their wealthier neighbors in the former
West Berlin. At the Berlin Forum, participants indicated that
government is not doing enough to address this imbalance.
In fact, some argued that current government policy tends to
exacerbate inequalities by prioritizing services for the people
in Berlin who are already well off. They believe this violates
the principle of solidarity (in German: Solidaritätsprinzip)—
perhaps the core foundation of the German welfare state.
In relation to education, participants are concerned about
varying educational standards across the federal states of
Germany and believe standards are significantly poorer in
Berlin than in more affluent states, such as Bavaria, Hesse
and Baden-Württemberg. They are also troubled by gaps in
educational standards within Berlin—again, between more
and less affluent districts. They fear that such disparity
could lead to a two-tiered society and view this as a key
area for government to address.
While Berlin Forum participants agreed that everyone should
have access to a basic standard of service, they found it
more difficult to decide whether the principles of equality
and equity should extend as far as providing a high standard
of service for all residents. This tension was particularly
strong in discussions about health services, as people posed
the critical question: Should everyone receive expensive
drugs and operations, or should the government merely
ensure a basic standard for all?
Forum participants noted that Berlin’s economy is relatively
weak—with an unemployment level that is high compared
to other major cities in Germany and the rest of Western
Europe. Thus, participants argued that the government
should consider the long term and invest more heavily
in education—in preschool education, schools and further
education—and work closely with businesses to make
Berlin a city of choice for new industries.
Page 4 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Participants strongly advocate early intervention and want
government to place greater emphasis on taking action in
the short term to prevent longer-term problems. For example,
they want more investment in education, building a better
foundation for children and young people to succeed later
in life. Similarly, they argued that there would be a marked
improvement in public health—and a resulting reduction
in the pressures on the health system—if the government
placed more emphasis on community education about
healthier living. They argued that this would lead to more
people taking responsibility for their own actions, which
is critical for improving individuals’ quality of life and
supporting the common good.
Participants believe that integration is a key social concern
that would benefit from earlier intervention and a longerterm
effort. They asserted that government should do more
to ensure that immigrants learn the German language and
way of living; immigrants would then be far more likely to
find good jobs and their children would be better equipped
to succeed in school. Likewise, people educated about health
and encouraged to lead healthier lifestyles may require
less medical treatment over the course of their lives.
Berlin Forum participants called for a new relationship
between people and their government. They want to know
how their taxes are being spent and to what result. They also
demand that government and public-service managers be
held accountable for their management of public funds and
face appropriate penalties for mismanagement or waste.
Underlying the call for transparency and accountability
is the desire for a greater flow of communication between
government and citizens. People in Berlin want government
to engage with them in new ways and involve them
in making core decisions that affect their daily lives,
neighborhoods and communities. In short, people at
the Berlin Forum want to be able to influence
developments far more than they can today.
“We should be a part of the decision-making process
as it is our money that’s being spent and I want to
know where it's going. The entire process should
be as transparent as possible.”
Berlin’s principles of public value
While they recognized that specific outcomes for different
service areas and the mechanics of service delivery will vary
greatly, Berlin Forum participants formulated a set of principles
that they believe are applicable to all public services, that
are essential to achieving improved outcomes, and that will
help to provide increased value for all members of the public.
The principles of public value are:
A long-term view
Berliners call for government to think long term and focus on
preventing future problems. The demand for prevention and
early intervention stems from a perception among participants
that policy changes often occur as “knee-jerk reactions” to
specific events rather than through strategic planning.
Connectedness/coordination
Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be
achieved through improved coordination between publicservice
providers and through better communication with
their customers.
Transparency and information
Greater transparency and regular, appropriate provision
of information would help citizens better identify with the
government and its processes. This would be the essential
foundation for a stronger system of accountability, which
Berlin Forum participants demand.
Equality and fairness
A fundamental principle should be that no one is
disadvantaged by social background or income. Participants
expect a basic standard of public service to be provided for
everyone, free of charge.
Customer focus
Services in a capital city like Berlin need to be adapted
to its population’s demands and lifestyle. People want
government to be more flexible about how, where and
when services are provided.
None of the principles are unique to Berlin; many of the
same ideas emerged in the other seven cities where we
conducted Forums. For example, all the cities placed a
strong emphasis on equality and fairness, as well as on
transparency and accountability. Like those in most of
the other cities, Berlin participants were also concerned
with customer focus. They emphasized the need for a
longer-term view in planning and delivering services—like
participants in Sydney, New York and Los Angeles—and the
need for more coordination between government agencies—
like those in London, Sydney and New York.
Messages to government from
people of Berlin
The debate and deliberations from the Berlin Forum
provide clear messages for government and those
managing public services.
Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service
planning and delivery.
To improve quality of life for Berlin residents, government
should include them in decision making and tailor services
to meet their needs, expectations and preferences.
Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term
future of the city.
Berliners regard the development of long-term, sustainable
solutions as critical to the future quality of life in their
city. They also see this as the most cost-effective way of
tackling Berlin’s social issues. Investing in education and
employment is fundamental to developing a sound economy
and improving quality of life.
Page 5 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Encourage people to take more personal responsibility
for achieving positive social outcomes.
Berlin Forum participants believe that more proactive
policies and future-oriented decision making depend on
educating, inspiring and empowering residents to take
personal responsibility for social outcomes. Government
officials need to show the way and act as positive role
models for others.
Help people to help themselves through investment in
education and job opportunities, and support businesses
in playing their part.
A good education can lead to better job opportunities and
a more competitive city. This is perhaps the most important
priority for people in Berlin. The government should invest
more heavily in education and consider measures to encourage
more businesses to establish themselves in the city.
Design and deliver public services to help reduce the gap
between the more affluent and poorer communities.
Residents of Berlin regard equality as a basic principle and
believe that more should be done to help poorer neighborhoods
and disadvantaged people. This is likely to require higher
levels of government spending in some areas and services
tailored to meet the needs of particular communities.
When considered in conjunction with the deliberative
findings and principles formulated in the other seven
cities, the Berlin principles of public value form important
components of what we believe is a new model for more
citizen-engaged governance. The Accenture Public Service
Value Governance Framework provides a means to clearly
articulate a relationship that is not only about voting
in elections or paying taxes—however important these
are—but also about genuine engagement of citizens in
their governance. The Accenture Institute for Public Service
Value Global Cities Forum presents strong evidence of
rising demand from citizens for a new relationship with
government built around:
Outcomes
Focusing on improved social and economic outcomes
Balance
Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness and common good
Engagement
Engaging, educating and enrolling the public as co-producers
of public value
Accountability
Clarifying accountability and facilitating public recourse
Public services are in fact the key mechanism through which
people interact with their governments. The value of those
public services, however, lies not simply in their quality
or efficiency, but in the actual improvements they produce
in the economic and social conditions of the people they
serve—the public. That “public value” is ultimately defined
by members of the public in their roles as users of public
services, citizens, taxpayers and voters.
Page 6 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

About the Accenture Global Cities Forum
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value
initiated the Global Cities Forum research project
to examine more closely people’s relationship
with government.
We designed the Global Cities Forum as a series of deliberative
events with residents of eight world cities: London, Sydney,
Singapore, Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.
Each event brought together approximately 60 to 85 people,
randomly recruited by a professional agency to represent the
demographic profile of the city, to discuss what they want
from their governments.
A prime objective of the project is to elicit from citizens their
own views and definitions about the value that government
should bring to their lives. A principal role of government is
to protect and enhance the lives of its citizens—to provide for
the common good. Government does that largely through the
provision of public services. The value of those public services,
however, lies not simply in their quality or efficiency, but in
the actual improvements they produce in the economic and
social conditions of the people they serve—the public. In the
research and academic literature, this is often referred to as
“public value.” The purpose of our project is to ascertain how
the public defines public value.
However, the public does not speak with one voice; nor does
any member of the public have only one perspective on the
role of government. Each of us may have different and
sometimes conflicting ways of relating to government and
to public services. As users of public service, people want
the highest quality possible. As citizens, they have a vested
interest in services that promote social harmony, safety and
well-being, whether or not they consume these services
themselves. As taxpayers, however, they see clear limits on
the levels of public investment they are willing to support.
These three perspectives—all held, in one respect or another,
by each member of the public—can conflict, with individuals
changing their views depending on their needs and concerns
at any particular time.
Page 7 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

The public’s conflicting views of value
As context for the Global Cities Forum, we commissioned
Ipsos, as part of its Global@dvisor Survey, to question
1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held
Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project
(Great Britain, Australia, Singapore, Germany, the
United States, France and Spain). Our objective was to
ascertain the extent to which people in these countries
hold contradictory views about government and public
services as service users, citizens and taxpayers.
In our recent contextual survey of 1,000 residents of
Germany (see summary above), nearly half of respondents
said that the quality of their lives could be improved
“a lot” or “a fair amount”; 38 percent of respondents said
the “government” should contribute most to improving their
quality of life; yet while only 14 percent thought that public
services today were contributing “a lot” or “a fair amount”
to that improvement, only 40 percent would be prepared
to pay more to improve services, and only a small minority
of those would pay any more than a small amount.
Public managers face these kinds of contradictions every
day. Accenture set out to explore them and, in doing that,
find ways of helping members of the public recognize and
reconcile the different perspectives they bring to bear
on governments and public-service agencies.
We asked respondents to answer four questions:
1 How much do you think the quality of your life—in relation to issues such as personal
health, safety, learning, the cost of living, environment and so on—could be improved?
(Possible answers: a lot, fair, a little, none)
2 Again, thinking about these kinds of issues, which of the following do you think should
contribute most to improving the quality of life for the citizens of your country?
(Possible answers: government, business, not-for-profits, all citizens, you)
3 One purpose of public services is to maintain and improve the quality of people’s lives.
How much do you think public services are improving the quality of your life today?
(Possible answers: a great deal, a fair amount, a little, no difference)
4 To what extent would you be willing to pay more money to improve or expand public services?
(Possible answers: a great extent, some, small, would not pay)
In general, people did think that the quality of their lives could be improved and that government has a significant
role to play in helping make these improvements. Few thought current public service contributed much to improving
the quality of their lives, but few were willing to pay more taxes to improve public services. The responses in all
seven countries are contained in the appendix.
To do that, we worked with international market research
company Ipsos-MORI and its local offices in six countries
to design and conduct a series of large-scale, daylong
deliberative events around the world. We also worked with
OPM, a UK-based public-service development and research
company to design and conduct the pilot event in London.
The value of a deliberative approach is the ability to go
beyond people’s initial reactions to issues placed before
them. Rather than simply polling or surveying respondents,
deliberative methods provide a time and place where people
can gain information, exchange and discuss their views
and come to reasoned conclusions with other participants
on the questions being posed. This produces deeper, more
thoughtful responses to issues. It also exposes both the
processes through which people make such judgments and
the principles that underpin those judgments. In the case
of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value Global
Cities Forum, it provided a very rich picture of what people
think about government and public services and how
they judge public value.
Page 8 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

In each city Forum, we sought to engage with citizens
about their relationship with government and how social
improvements that provide real value to citizens can be
achieved. We designed the event to elicit responses to the
following questions:
• What are the most important social and economic conditions
that people face in their city, and what do they want their
governments to do to help improve these?
• How do they want government and public services to
relate to them, and what role do they see for others in
improving their social and economic conditions?
• How can government ensure that public organizations
deliver value to the public they serve?
• How do people want to be engaged in the design and
delivery of public services?
The deliberative event in Berlin
The Global Cities Forum—Berlin was held on Saturday,
September 15, 2007, as the fourth of the eight events.
It involved 63 Berlin residents randomly selected to
represent the city’s very diverse demography.
The day was divided into seven sessions, during which
we used a variety of research methods and techniques,
including electronic voting, role play, and facilitated
group and plenary discussions. The agenda included:
Session 1: Warm-up—electronic voting.
This session explored participants’ perceptions of what it
is like to live in Berlin. Using electronic keypads—a new
and entertaining experience for many—participants voted
on a number of questions about the city, the social issues
facing it, their expectations of government and the quality
of public services they receive. The results of their voting
appeared immediately on a “big screen” and prompted brief
commentaries from participants and facilitators.
Session 2: Discussion—“The role of government
in improving your life.”
Sitting in one of six groups of 10 to 12 people, participants
discussed their thoughts about the quality of life in Berlin
and their expectations of what government should be doing
to preserve and improve people’s quality of life in the city.
Session 3: Role-play exercise—“Understanding
what people want from government, from three
different perspectives.”
Working in the same small groups, participants were
assigned one of three perspectives—that of service user,
citizen or taxpayer. Each group was assigned one of the
three roles, with two tables of participants to each role.
We signified the roles with distinctively colored T-shirts
that participants slipped on: yellow for service users,
green for citizens and red for taxpayers. We asked each
group to assume their role to discuss their expectations
of government. They spoke first in general terms and
then—in smaller subgroups of three or four—talked about
expectations in relation to one of three social outcomes that
our research showed are currently important to people in
Berlin: learning and education, health and public safety.
We asked participants to develop a list of four or five
principles that they believed—from their particular roleplaying
perspective—should guide government action and
the provision of public services with respect to improving
that particular outcome. This session aimed to have participants
begin considering the principles of public value in their own
terms, but with only one perspective in mind.
Session 4: Role-play exercise and debate—“Drilling down
into outcomes for the specific issues.”
In this session, people changed tables and T-shirt colors
mixed. The subgroups of service users, citizens and taxpayers
came together to discuss the principles they had developed
in the previous session in relation to one of the three
outcome areas. Thus, each table had service users, citizens
and taxpayers talking about learning and education or
health or public safety (again, two tables of participants, this
time, focused on one outcome). Sticking to their designated
roles, participants shared and debated their views on the
principles of public value. Through this process, we and they
identified any tensions among user, citizen and taxpayer
expectations. After debate, compromise and agreement, the
session concluded with participants drawing together a top
set of five principles that reflect the integration of three
perspectives. These are the principles they believe need to be
adopted to address their expectations for their issue. In our
terms, this was their definition of public value for each of
the three outcomes.
Session 5: Reflection—“What have we learned from
our deliberations?”
In this session, we encouraged participants—out of role play
and without color-coded T-shirts—to reflect on their three
perspectives and what they had discovered about people’s
expectations of government. A vote on the extent to which
the different perspectives were easy or difficult to reconcile,
along with a group discussion of the reasons for this and
how the perspectives fit with individuals’ viewpoints, allowed
them to evaluate the success of this deliberative approach.
Session 6: Discussion—“Whose role is it, anyway?”
In this session, we asked participants to define the ideal
roles of government, other potential service providers
(including the private and nonprofit sectors), citizens more
widely and themselves personally in improving social and
economic outcomes in Berlin. Through discussions with
others at their tables, participants considered how these
idealized roles differ from the current situation in Berlin
and what they believe needs to change as a result.
Session 7: Voting and small-group discussion—“Priorities
for the future of Berlin.”
To conclude, we asked participants to respond again to some
of the same questions we posed in Session 1. The goal: to
gauge whether any views had changed. Participants then
looked to the future and discussed their key concerns about
living, working or studying in Berlin 10 years from now.
As a final task, we asked everyone to develop and write
on a postcard their own personal “message to government.”
Page 9 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Living in Berlin
Around the time of the Global Cities Forum (September 2007),
the new antismoking law had come into play, prohibiting smoking
in public buildings, hospitals, public transport and restaurants.
The federal states were yet to decide the date for implementing
the smoking ban and there was much debate about what seems
to be the right balance between citizens’ right to personal
choice versus government’s right to regulate behaviors.
In some areas of Berlin, there had been significant clashes
between right-wing and left-wing political activists, and many
residents were increasingly concerned about the support that
parties such as the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany)
have gained—especially among young people in eastern Germany.
Despite government effort to address the city’s serious budget
crisis, the public was concerned about the state of the economy
in the capital. Berlin’s unemployment rate was above average,
compared to Germany as a whole. The high rate had led to
the migration of educated young citizens and other qualified
workers to the western federal states, leaving behind those who
are older and less educated, less trained and less qualified.
The remainder of this report presents the findings from
the day. Section 2 presents the Berlin Forum participants’
views on the individual’s relationship with government. This
covers the three perspectives through which people relate to
government—service user, citizen and taxpayer—and examines
what people expect from government under different
circumstances. Section 3 explores participants’ expectations
of government in improving public value: the quality of life
in Berlin. This presents participants’ broad principles of public
value and the expectations placed on government—with
particular emphasis on learning and education, health and
public safety in Berlin. This section also sets out participants’
views on the roles and responsibilities of government and
other partners in improving public value for the people
of Berlin, both now and in the future. Section 4 presents
participants’ core messages for government and for those
Many people in Berlin believe that integration has failed
and that the system has let down immigrant groups. They
expressed increasing concern that many immigrant groups
tend to live in areas of Berlin that are not as clean, well-off
or safe as other areas of the city with fewer immigrants.
In the Berlin Forum itself, when asked to rate the city as a place
to live and work, two-thirds of participants rated it as having
above-average living and working conditions. Berliners appreciate
the city’s good infrastructure and diverse cultural opportunities,
and they are proud of its cosmopolitan character. The cost of
living—including housing—is relatively low. Consequently,
many people find that they can live comfortably in Berlin.
We asked participants to identify from a list the most
important social problems facing the city. As priorities
for improvement, they chose employment (28 percent)
and education (23 percent), followed by public safety (14
percent). Perhaps surprisingly, both health and immigration
were identified as key issues by only 7 percent of participants.
Nevertheless, health was identified as an area where the
government is struggling to address the demands of the
managing public services in Berlin. Section 5 draws
together our analysis of the deliberations at the Berlin Forum
and those in the other seven Global Cities Forum events.
This analysis led to the creation of a new model for citizenengaged
governance—what we call the Accenture Public
Service Value Governance Framework. Section 6 contains
comparative data, contrasting findings from the Berlin
Forum with those from the seven other cities that were
part of the Accenture Public Service Value Global Cities
Forum. Finally, the appendix provides figures that summarize
the results from three components of the research: the
electronic voting questions posed during the Forums;
the findings of the deliberations on public value; and the
data from the four questions included in the
Ipsos Global@dvisor Survey.
growing and aging population. The majority of participants
(59 percent) felt that government’s current efforts fall very
short of their expectations.
Similarly, participants were particularly critical of education
services, which 74 percent rated far below average. A major
concern in this area is the variance in educational standards
in different areas and what many feel is too narrow a focus
on academic attainment, rather than shaping the education
policy with broader learning and development goals in mind.
During the morning electronic voting session, we gave
participants a prompt: “By texting us in three words or less,
tell us how you feel about living and working in your city”.
Below are some of the responses:
“Good, multicultural” “Fantastic, trendy and lively”
“Exciting, hectic” “Loud, stressful, dirty” “Great”
“Fantastic art and culture” “Freedom, flexibility, fun”
“Reasonable cost of living, but poor employment
opportunities” “Open, free, tolerant”
Page 10 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

The individual’s relationship with government
The “individual in society” is a complex construct.
In relation to government and public services,
each individual assumes—variously or often
simultaneously—three overlapping roles: one as
service user, another as citizen and a third as
taxpayer (or payer of charges). Each of these
different roles comes with its own expectations
and demands, and the three may not always sit
comfortably together. Yet all three come into
play as the individual thinks about what he
or she demands from government.
With the Berlin Forum participants, we wanted to examine
what, specifically, it means to be a user of services, a citizen
and a taxpayer. What does looking at these different
perspectives, with their differences and tensions, tell us
about what people want from government? Can developing
clearer understandings of the multifaceted and sometimes
conflicting expectations and demands the public places
on political leaders and public-service managers provide
a basis for improving public service and, ultimately,
social and economic outcomes?
In this section, we outline what we learned from
Berlin Forum participants about their relationship with
government from each of these three perspectives.
Page 11 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

The user of public services
In Berlin, the user of public services is primarily concerned
with having access to high-quality services that meet their
individual needs.
Service users look to government and service providers to:
• Provide access to services tailored to their personal needs
• Offer greater flexibility and choice
• Deliver services with a strong customer service ethos
• Communicate how funds are being spent, and reassure
the public that money is being spent appropriately
Forum participants taking on the perspective of service
users were very vocal in their expectations of government
and public services.
In the role of service users, participants talked about the
kinds of services they expect government to provide and how
they feel these could be delivered. Discussions tended to focus
on service quality, availability and reliability. Participants also
focused on the need for choice and services that are flexible—
that is, tailored to their own personal needs.
Participants felt that to deliver on these expectations,
government and public-service managers should do much
more to understand the needs and preferences of the
people they serve.
Accustomed to high levels of customer service from
businesses, Berlin Forum participants have a strong sense
of entitlement and see themselves as paying customers
(regardless of whether or not the specific public service
is funded via a “user pay” or “general taxation” system).
Indeed, 93 percent of participants agreed that public
services should treat users more like customers. They believe
the city’s public services could be improved substantially,
and that government should be more willing to ask users’
opinions and tailor services accordingly.
Users do not necessarily expect government to offer a
broader range of providers to choose from. Rather, choice
is about having more options for how and when to access
services; in particular, they expect more online services
and longer hours of operation.
Importantly, improvements in customer care are as much
about changing cultures as specific, concrete measures,
such as extending hours or implementing new information
systems. Participants called for government and publicservice
managers to emphasize customer service to their
staffs through induction and training programs and in
the way they reward and manage performance.
Many Berlin Forum participants talked about how they
have wasted time and effort finding out where to go or
with whom to speak to handle a specific query. They feel
the system is difficult to “navigate” and want more, and
more effective, signposting of services and improved
information about what they are entitled to receive.
Many participants feel that public services are currently
falling short on basic principles of customer care. An example
that one woman gave was of services that closed their
doors to people on the spurious grounds that there was
not enough time to deal with everyone in the queue.
“They throw you out and say, ‘We’re full,’ but they’re
still open for another hour.”
Finally, participants seek reassurance that taxes are being
allocated and spent appropriately in areas that they personally
view as priorities. And they felt that they—as users—would
become more empowered to argue their point if they better
understood how priorities are set and public funds are spent.
Page 12 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

The citizen
Among Berlin Forum participants, citizens’ goals for improved
social and economic conditions revolve around the socially
desirable concepts of equality and fairness, without special
treatment for any groups.
Citizens look to government to:
• Provide services that are accessible to all who need them
• Deliver positive outcomes for the entire society from
taxes paid by citizens
• Focus on improving the city as a whole and build
an environment of opportunity and support that
benefits everyone
• Foster a culture of collaboration where citizens are
encouraged and empowered to help achieve improvements
for themselves as individuals and for Berlin as a whole
Forum participants assuming the perspective of the citizen
found it relatively straightforward to articulate their
expectations to government and public services—possibly
because the principle of solidarity is particularly strong
in the German history of the welfare state.
Arguing from the citizen point of view, participants expect
government to focus on equality of opportunity, with no
favoritism toward particular groups or individuals. Many
feel this is particularly important in relation to education
and health. They argue that government needs to address
inequalities in educational standards across Germany (between
different federal states), as well as within Berlin (between
different districts). They think no one should be disadvantaged
because of income, social class or type of health insurance.
“Everyone should have support and equal access to
health standards and services, which also includes
prescription drugs. Once I saw an old man running out
of the pharmacy, crying. He was not able to pay for his
medicine as he probably could not afford the additional
payment for a prescription.”
Participants are concerned that public spending has not
always taken into account the principle of equality. As
citizens, for example, they feel that Berlin has recently spent
too much on government buildings, security for state visits
and amenities for public officials—things that benefit only
a small minority who are already relatively well off.
“They build a daycare center for the government employees’
children but not nursery schools for the rest of the people.”
Citizens acknowledge that efforts to improve social and
economic conditions are not just the responsibility of
the government and that citizens ought to accept more
responsibility and become more civic-minded. However, they
expect the government to support them in this by fostering
this sense of personal responsibility and collective spirit and
by motivating people to show more respect and concern for
others. Citizens look to government to support or initiate
public information campaigns (in print, via TV and on the
radio) on issues, such as healthy living and combating
right-wing radicalism.
They also look to politicians to lead such campaigns and
be explicit about how people should behave. As public
figures, politicians and senior officials should also set a good
example personally; that includes demonstrating concern for
all of society and not just seeking personal advantage, such
as increases in their allowances.
“Doing good is not supported, not rewarded, most of the
time not even publicized. But doing good is important in
order to strengthen the feeling of togetherness and also
personal motivation.”
The taxpayer
The Berlin taxpayer is primarily concerned about value
for money. Taxpayers place a great deal of importance on
efficiency, but like service users, they want to know their
money is spent on the right issues. In other words, they
demand greater accountability for how their taxes are
used and to what effect.
Taxpayers are looking to government to:
• Use resources efficiently and provide value for money
• Link public spending explicitly to results
• Be transparent about processes and spending, so that
residents can hold government accountable
• Provide opportunities for greater participation in
setting priorities for public budgets
From the taxpayer perspective, participants said they expect
public services to operate in ways that consistently produce
the best value for their money. In contrast to the user and
citizen (who are primarily concerned about quality and access),
taxpayers’ chief concern is the total level of taxation, which,
in their view, should be kept as low as possible.
Rather than asking for cutbacks in certain areas to deal with
new priorities—which they feel could be unrealistic—taxpayers
seek ways to improve efficiency. Participants believe that
faster decision-making processes and implementation are
important measures in this regard, along with reducing
bureaucracy to create a leaner system.
However, in their role as taxpayers, participants found it
tricky to define concrete efficiency gains. They realized
that they have relatively little idea of how public money is
allocated and used. This prompted many to demand greater
transparency about government budgeting and spending.
Page 13 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Taxpayers want to know how their taxes are being used;
they insist on clear explanations of the rationale for publicspending
priorities; they expect government to link public
spending more explicitly to results for individuals and
communities; they want financial reports or statements of
public spending to be published in forms that “ordinary”
people can readily understand; and they want reassurance
that monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that
public funds are spent efficiently and effectively.
Taxpayers also called for greater public participation in decision
making—for example, allowing people to choose (by voting)
between different ways that taxes could be spent.
“If I pay taxes, I also want the right to participate
in decisions.”
Even so, they recognize that this may cause tensions: What
one wants as a taxpayer might be quite different from what
one wants as a citizen or service user. If government polled
people on spending alone, some argued, there is risk that
people’s choices may not allow for sufficient investment to
protect the public good or that spending may cease in some
areas where benefits might be less obvious (but still important).
A few days after the Berlin Forum, there was to be a vote
on whether or not to introduce parking fees in the main areas
of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf, which had been experiencing
significant traffic and parking congestion. This vote prompted
one resident of the area to reflect on the different viewpoints
as a taxpayer and as a user.
“I’ve not decided what to vote for yet. As a taxpayer,
I should vote ‘yes,’ as it creates revenue, but as a user
I should vote ‘no’ instead, as it also affects me.”
Tensions between the perspectives
Interestingly, compared to Berlin participants, Forum participants
in other parts of the world (such as Sydney and New York
City) were less inclined to accept that the differences in
citizen, user and taxpayer expectations could lead to very
different, and at times conflicting, demands on government.
In contrast, Berlin Forum participants acknowledged that
their different priorities and demands could lead to tensions,
which government and public-service managers need to
reconcile in their efforts to meet everybody’s needs—users,
citizens and taxpayers alike.
During the course of the day, they realized that the demands
they were placing on government might sometimes be
unrealistic. But they also argued that many of their demands
would lead to improved social outcomes for everyone, whichever
way you looked at it. To this extent, what the participants
representing the three different perspectives wanted would
often complement rather than conflict with each other.
Nevertheless, some tensions between perspectives—including
control versus civil liberties—emerged. Participants as
users and taxpayers believe that government controls are
necessary to make people act in particular ways and obey
the law. Citizens did not always agree with this. They
pointed out that greater controls might discourage personal
responsibility because such controls suggest that personal
well-being and social results are the responsibility of the
government rather than its citizens.
In relation to the issue of public safety in Berlin, the gap
between control and civil liberties was particularly difficult
to bridge. For example, citizens argued strongly for little or
no use of camera surveillance or fingerprinting. On the other
hand, some users asserted that these measures helped people
to feel safer. Taxpayers also supported the measures, arguing
that there is a direct link between such safety measures and
a reduction in costs associated with criminal prosecutions.
Another point of contention was privilege for certain groups
versus equal treatment for all. Participants debated whether
gifted children should receive special support, such as
extra schooling. One user had a persuasive argument,
with which other users agreed: “If we support and invest
money in gifted children and pupils, we will receive bettereducated
and skilled citizens and employees that the whole
society will profit and benefit from.” Citizens and taxpayers
disagreed—the former on the grounds of the principle of
equality (they felt it was important to focus on supporting
the weakest groups in society before dealing with the
privileged) and the latter on the basis of cost.
Also discussed was universal service provision versus
user pays. This tension was particularly strong in the area
of health care. All agreed that everyone in society should be
entitled to a basic level of service. The debate centered on use
of public funds for higher-quality and more expensive services.
Taxpayers argued for a “user pays” system, at least for some
services, in which government funds a basic level of service
but people have to pay for anything above this basic provision.
They argued that anything more would be too expensive.
Users and citizens disagreed, arguing that the system should
be funded sufficiently to provide high-quality health care for all.
Some users pointed out that individual circumstance should
also be taken into account. An example they gave was of
people who experience side effects from a more “economical”
drug but not from another, more expensive one. These users
also worried that drugs available as part of a basic level of
health care provision might be of low quality. Citizens simply
took the line that equally high standards of care should be
provided for all people in society without regard to cost.
There was also the question of whether any groups in society
should get preferential treatment, given that public funding
is a finite resource. Some taxpayers argued that in relation to
health care, for example, young people ought to take priority
over old people. A number of citizens countered with the view
that all sectors of society have an equal right to a high standard
of health care, and public funding must bear the cost.
“As a taxpayer, I must say that an old person should not
receive a new hip.”
Page 14 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Improving public value:
The quality of life in Berlin
An important aim of the Accenture Institute for
Public Service Value Global Cities Forum research
project is to enable participants to identify the
key dimensions of public value for the residents
in each city and to explore ways of enhancing
public value in the future.
In this section, we examine Berlin Forum participants’ input
about what government and public services should always
do to achieve outcomes that truly benefit residents of Berlin.
These are their general principles of public value. We have
derived these from their collective discussions—as users,
citizens and taxpayers—about the outcomes that are highly
important to residents of Berlin: learning and education,
health and public safety. We look in detail at each of those
three outcomes as discussed by Berlin Forum participants and
then present participants’ view about who should be doing
what to improve social and economic conditions in Berlin.
Page 15 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

General principles of public value
in Berlin
Principle 1: Long-term view
Berlin Forum participants call for government to think long
term and focus on preventing future problems rather than
reacting to events that have already happened. They believe
that prevention and early intervention, including encouraging
people to change their behavior, is the best approach to
tackling social problems in a sustainable and strategic way.
People feel that the government should initiate public
campaigns aimed, for example, at promoting a healthy
lifestyle, preventing illness or bringing up children properly:
“That’s everything: things like healthy food, how to swim,
how to ride a bike properly, everything you can think of
that will lead to greater knowledge and to better behavior.”
There is a general perception among participants that policy
changes occur too often as “knee-jerk reactions” to specific
events. They argue that only by taking a strategic approach
will good social outcomes be achieved in the long term.
For instance, to have enough health care professionals
to meet Berlin’s future needs, more must be trained now.
This may cost more in the short term but makes economic
sense in the longer term.
“If we have less qualified people working in the health
care sector, we’ll have gaps in medical care and supply
in the future. I mean, it is already the case: We don’t
have enough skilled personnel.”
Principle 2: Connectedness/coordination
Participants felt that substantial efficiency gains can be
achieved through improved communication and coordination
between public-service providers and better communication
with their customers. They also believe that greater flexibility,
responsiveness and speed in decision making would lead to
improved efficiency.
Some Berlin Forum participants related how they have had
to provide the same type of information to a number of
different agencies and public-service staff. They argued that
this is a waste of time (for themselves and for the public
servants) and, in some situations, can be a great source of
distress. Forum participants felt that much more could be
done to utilize new technologies and improve collaboration
between agencies and departments so that information
systems are comprehensive and up to date.
“The communication between different levels within
public services and also between government and public
services must be improved so that information isn’t lost,
and time and effort is saved for all. This also means that
there should be as few people for one task as possible
to prevent time or effort lost due to any interpersonal
conflict. The communication process is then clear and
information is not lost somewhere in the process.”
Principle 3: Transparency and information provision
Forum participants very much want to understand and be
part of the processes by which decisions are made about
public-service provision, especially where those decisions
affect them directly. Indeed, they view being informed and
having a say on matters that affect them as fundamental
elements of a transparent political process. It matters
most to them in relation to issues such as the availability
and quality of preschool care and primary schools in their
neighborhood, the building of streets and housing, and
facilities for young people.
They regard transparency and information provision as
important aspects of developing a citizenry that identifies
with the government and its ways of working and who
feel they are treated fairly.
“People want to understand laws, facts, figures and actions.
Then you can also identify much more easily with the
system and the society as a whole … and of course you
are willing to follow certain instructions and principles
when you’re informed.”
Page 16 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Principle 4: Equality and fairness
Participants expressed a strong concern that people should
not find themselves at a disadvantage because of social
background, income or the neighborhood in which they live.
The principle of equality, participants agreed, helps to
ensure the greater integration of all groups into society,
particularly immigrants and other groups at risk of social
marginalization. They call for the government to take the
needs of socially disadvantaged people into account when
developing policies, particularly in core services such as
education. In Berlin, this approach will help overcome what
many participants perceive to be an inequality in school
standards between neighborhoods, particularly those with
larger immigrant populations who are falling behind.
Principle 5: Customer focus
Almost all of the participants (93 percent) feel that public
services should treat people more like customers, and they
raised this subject many times throughout the day. Harking
back to the principle of transparency and information
provision, participants often commented that the two
principles could not be separated.
“I pay for them and then it should be self-evident that
I’ve got a right to get in touch with them. I just want
a feeling of being treated as a customer. For example,
the opening hours should be longer.”
Improving learning and education,
health and public safety in Berlin
Delivering greater public value is about improving the social
and economic conditions for the residents of Berlin. During
the Forum, and particularly during the role-play sessions, we
asked participants to focus on three specific areas, and to
discuss, in practical terms, what would need to happen in
each of these areas to improve their own quality of life—that
is, to achieve improved outcomes. In doing so, they identified
a core set of “public value principles” that they expect
government decision makers and public-service managers to
consider as they work toward achieving these outcomes.
Learning and education
Defining public value: Learning and education
Berlin residents believe that high-quality education for all,
regardless of social background, is a fundamental right.
High standards in preschool education, schools and adult
education are important, as are nonacademic qualifications.
In this vein, participants view investment from companies
into apprenticeships and traineeships as important
mechanisms for learning.
Forum participants want to see:
• Everyone living in Berlin having access to
high-quality education
• Government taking action to avoid those from
disadvantaged backgrounds falling behind
• Their priorities and needs being taken into account
in the design of educational strategies
• Education and learning institutions adopting the successful
development of the labor market as one of their major—
and more explicit—goals
• Teachers getting more recognition for their important work
Many participants are critical of the government in the area
of learning and education in Berlin. In the voting session
of the forum, three-quarters said that government “did not
exceed their expectations” in this area.
In relation to education, Berlin Forum participants believe
that equality of opportunity is one of the most important
principles that government should consider when seeking to
achieve social outcomes. Participants spoke of the need for
schooling and employment opportunities for people from all
social strata. They thought, for instance, that children from
socially disadvantaged groups should get free books and
other materials.
“It would not be fair if children don't have books and
materials because their parents are [less well off].
Materials and nursery school should be free.”
Participants expect the same high standards across all
federal states and across all of Berlin's districts, so that
children whose families moved could “switch” schools
without falling behind and so that no neighborhood,
however poor, would have failing schools.
“The education standards should be the same in every
federal state. At the moment you cannot move where you
want to, even if you find a job somewhere else, because
you don’t know if your children will manage at school.”
Many cited what they perceive as a widening gap between
elite or private schools in well-off districts (usually those
with mostly German national inhabitants) and “underdog”
schools in poorer districts (often those with a high
proportion of immigrants).
One woman was unsure whether she should send her child
to the local public school or to a private school. She said
she would not normally choose private schooling, but she
believed that the public school would have lots of immigrants
and that the level of education there would, therefore, be
poorer because it would have to concentrate on helping
children whose first language was not German: “I think public
schools need more support and investment… then I wouldn’t
need to send my child to a private school, which of course also
costs money. Normally I would always opt for a public school.”
Page 17 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

“They should invest in schools; we have so many ‘loser
schools’ which should be supported and integrated.”
Participants recognize that education outcomes require
the consistent involvement not just of schools and other
education institutions but also of pupils and parents themselves.
They feel that government should do more to involve parents
and pupils in the design of education policies and the
management of education services.
“We don’t need leisure facilities for young people
somewhere where no one uses them. The need should
be identified first, by asking the citizens, teachers
and parents.”
Many highlight the contribution of appropriate and highquality
education services to the quality of life for Berliners
in general, and to a stronger economy in the future, noting
that companies will only locate themselves in Berlin if
there are enough skilled workers there. Most were keen to
see educational services developed with such longer-term
outcomes in mind. For example, participants argued for an
expansion in foreign-language teaching in schools because
they consider language skills as increasingly important
in the global economy.
Among Berlin Forum participants, there is a general sense that
teachers’ status in Germany is not high enough, given the
important role that educators play. Many participants said they
want to find ways of giving teachers increased recognition.
“Teachers should receive more recognition and deserve
more credit for the job they do. It really is a tough
job that is very important and valuable.”
Health
Defining public value: Health
Berlin residents believe that a good standard of basic
health care should be available to everyone, regardless
of age or social background. They see this as fostering
a healthier population in the long term while making
certain that no one in society is left behind.
In particular, Forum participants want government
to ensure that:
• A high-quality basic health care system is accessible to all
• Policies focus on preventing social problems in the long
term by encouraging people to change their behavior
and live healthier lives
• Bureaucracy is kept to a minimum
Participants consider health care critical for society and
recognize that good-quality care affects individuals’ chances
in other areas of their lives, such as succeeding in the workplace.
This again affects broader social well-being. By ensuring
people are healthier longer, they can lead more active lives,
work better and, therefore, contribute to the economy.
Equality is considered paramount, and participants want
a basic health care system provided to all and at a good
standard. People regard this as part of the government’s
duty of care for its people, and the majority of participants
believe that there should be no difference in the basic care
that is provided for patients with private health insurance
and those without.
“The state has a duty to care for the socially disadvantaged,
so basic care should be provided, as should prevention
programs to educate people about healthy living,
food and so on.”
The main area of contention for participants was over
how much of the health care system should be assured
for all citizens. Most think that only basic care should
be universally provided, and that individuals should pay
for “extras” or to have their own choice of treatments or
medical professionals. Only a minority believe that the
government should provide high-level health care for
everyone, regardless of cost.
“When it comes to non-medical questions, for example
whether one has a single room in a hospital, it is not
the government’s duty to pay for that. Everyone should
decide and bear the costs themselves.”
Prevention is another important principle for participants
seeking improved health outcomes. Most believe that
government should act to change people’s behavior in the
short term to achieve long-term goals. They see information
provision—especially through public campaigns about
healthy behavior—as a vital starting point. People recognize
that achieving behavioral change will require them to take
greater responsibility for their own behavior and even to try
to influence the behavior of others.
Finally, some participants thought that there is room for
significant efficiency gains and improvements in the customer
experience by streamlining the current health care system.
For example, participants believe it is difficult and confusing
to understand precisely what health coverage is offered by
the relatively large number of health insurance companies.
They feel this system—where private health insurance
finances a large part of the total health care budget—should
be reviewed to make it less cumbersome for people to
choose their care package.
Page 18 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Public safety
Defining public value: Public safety
Residents of Berlin want to reduce crime figures, but they
also regard a greater feeling of being safe as an important
social outcome.
In order to achieve this greater feeling of safety in their city,
participants believe it is important that:
• Police and emergency services are able to respond quickly
to residents’ needs
• Policymaking in the area of public safety is undertaken
with long-term goals in mind
• A balance is achieved between governmental controls
and civil liberties
• People are treated equally before the law
When asked to indicate their experiences of public-safety
efforts, half of participants said (in the voting session) that
the government’s actions fall short of their expectations in
improving public safety in Berlin. They feel government and
public-service providers could do more to reduce general
crime figures, deal with low-level crime (including vandalism
and graffiti), tackle right-wing radicalism and reduce the
feeling of being unsafe in some parts of Berlin.
One woman mentioned that a friend of hers no longer uses
public transport during the evening or at night as she has
been attacked several times. She believes that the attacks
are due to her friend being black and sees hate crimes
specifically and public safety generally as important areas
for improvement in Berlin.
“There are many people in Berlin who don’t have the courage
to use public transport during evenings or at night.”
Forum participants considered it vital that public-safety
services—in particular, emergency services—are able to
respond quickly to their needs. Today, this is not always the
case. One participant gave the example of being kept “on
hold” when he phoned the police in an emergency.
“Response times should be quicker; administration
must be speeded up.”
“Loopholes should be ‘closed’ faster; the system
should react more quickly.”
Participants generally regard prevention as an important
principle in achieving public safety outcomes. Many
participants tie this to moral, ethical or social standards
and looked to education as a means of strengthening these
standards. They believe this will help to prevent crime
from escalating in the medium and long term. Some spoke
about how several neighborhoods had turned into “problem
districts” and made a connection between this and what
they see as a general decline in moral standards.
“The differences between neighborhoods are very great.
Zehlendorf is nice, but Kreuzberg is awful. Drugs are
openly dealt at the Cotti and the police look the other
way. Kreuzberg has a bad image, bad schools.”
There was much debate on the balance that needs to be
struck between upholding individual freedoms and using
controls to help improve public safety. Participants demand
improved public safety in general and see a role for controls
(such as surveillance cameras) in helping to achieve this
outcome. However, they also stress the importance of civil
liberties. Much could be achieved, some participants feel, by
considering the role of the police in local communities, who
can be law enforcers and points of contact. They believe that
police presence on the streets has been wrongly reduced in
recent years and demand an increase—especially in more
disadvantaged districts. Participants asserted that this would
help lower crime rates, thereby creating a better sense
of safety in those communities.
“(The police) have always acted not only to enforce
security, but also as a point of contact for people in
the neighborhood. This also leads to a better atmosphere,
to a de-escalation in crime rates and aggression,
at least if the police act as citizens among citizens.”
Finally, participants are convinced of the importance of
treating everyone equally if improved outcomes in the
area of public safety are to be achieved. They call for the
government to ensure that everyone has equal rights,
for instance, in criminal proceedings.
“Everyone should receive the same treatment before the
law. It is not fair that someone who can afford a better
lawyer has better chances and gets a lesser punishment.”
Future priorities for Berlin
We asked participants about their concerns regarding living,
working or studying in Berlin 10 years from now.
Participants in the Berlin Forum feel that in the future, the
city will face many of the same challenges it faces today.
They regard education, employment and health as their top
priorities for the future, followed closely by living costs and
infrastructure. A lack of investment in Berlin contributes
to a current lack of job opportunities, but participants are
relatively optimistic that this situation will improve.
Participants remain concerned that Berlin will become a twotiered
society, in which good health care and education might
increasingly be available only for those who are better off. They
are concerned that increased social tensions and inequalities will
result. The importance of health care in their list of priorities is a
reflection of Berlin’s aging population and the growth in demand
for residential nursing homes and well-equipped hospitals.
Participants are doubtful that their desired outcomes could
be achieved in the future, seeing that there are likely to be
important tradeoffs to be made. In health, for example, meeting
their demands for higher-quality services, equality of treatment
and universal access will be expensive. Although technology
may facilitate some gains, higher standards can be achieved
only if there is also a greater investment in staff.
“If the tendency of reducing staff numbers in public
services such as schools, hospitals and the police goes
on, I doubt that we will have a better quality of
anything in the future.”
Page 19 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Roles and responsibilities
of different actors
While much of the discussion at the Berlin Forum
concerned the role of government in delivering economic
and social outcomes, it was clear from discussions and
from the results of the voting sessions that participants do
not think government has the sole responsibility. Indeed,
people feel that many other actors should have greater
involvement in the future (see chart). While people still
considered government to take the lead, others—including
business, the voluntary sector and individuals—are
expected to have roles, as well.
In this section, we look at how participants viewed the
respective roles of each of these actors in improving social
conditions—that is, achieving positive social outcomes.
Government
Participants argue that government has the central role in
achieving social outcomes. Although some expressed concerns
about government’s ability to do this to the level they expect,
the majority of participants (84 percent) wish to see government
assume an even greater level of involvement in the future.
Participants argue that only the government can provide
the framework and general conditions to enable change and
produce positive outcomes. Certainly it has the main role in
delivering public services but, more than this, participants
argued that government should also be motivating, enabling
and educating the others—private businesses, voluntarysector
agencies and citizens—to play stronger parts in
achieving social outcomes.
At the same time, participants indicated that government
and public services should not “invade” people’s lives.
The government’s involvement should be balanced against
people’s need to control their own lives. Most participants
agreed this was not always an easy balance to strike.
Participants characterize government’s role in four ways:
director, enabler, controller and regulator, and role model
and educator.
Director
Berlin Forum participants see government as the highest
authority, elected as representative of the people and with
the power, know-how and resources to define the legal and
social framework for policymaking and public-service provision.
“It’s the basis; it provides the basic structure, the
responsibilities and duties for us. It defines the
governing values and principles.”
Because of its central role, government must guide and
instruct the other actors, steering their actions to ensure
improved social outcomes.
Enabler
Government should not concentrate all responsibilities in
public-service providers and their managers. It must also
help other actors to fulfill their roles in delivering social
outcomes. For example, the government and public services
should find better ways to support private-sector companies
that want to invest in the city.
“Companies, new ones in particular, get no support.
It takes ages until you have your authorizations, and
entrepreneurs just have a bad position.”
Controller and regulator
Forum participants say they want government to be more
assertive about monitoring and enforcing services, practices,
laws and outcomes. They do not mean that government should
create more laws (which would merely hinder efficiency),
but rather that it should enforce existing laws consistently.
“We have so many laws, but they’re taken for granted, not
implemented, not used. That’s something the government
should not only encourage but also control.”
Government should also be more forceful in regulating
the activities of public-service providers. Participants think
government should provide better incentives for managing
resources well and achieving good social outcomes, as well
as imposing penalties for poor management.
Role model and educator
Many participants believe that, as the principal stakeholder
in improving the quality of life in Berlin, government should
act as a role model, aiming to motivate others to be more
involved in society. If government publicly and actively sets
a good example, citizens will be more likely to follow that
example and live by society’s laws and standards.
It is also the responsibility of government to educate
people about society, or at least to provide people with
opportunities to become educated. Through such education,
citizens will understand better how their society works and
would, therefore, be more inclined to act in its best interests.
Page 20 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Business
Berliners believe private companies have a duty to help
address social issues and feel that businesses could play
greater roles. However, participants are cautious about
allowing the private sector too much influence over policy
and politics, especially compared to the voluntary sector
and individual citizens. They noted a need for continuous,
careful scrutiny over government’s dealings with businesses.
“Politics and business must be strictly separated.
Politicians sitting on the board of directors of
companies and so on can always lead to bias
or even corruption... scandals."
“Government must be free and independent from
companies’ lobbyists.”
As a better way to involve the private sector, participants
suggested encouraging companies to engage in acts of
corporate social responsibility. Indeed, participants call
for far greater commitment to social issues on the part of
businesses, arguing that it is people, as employees, workers
and consumers, who keep the economy going. They believe
firmly that private-sector entities have a general responsibility
to work for the good of society as a whole—for instance, by
investing some of their profits back into society.
“This is future investment. The company makes a profit
from highly skilled workers, the entire society profits
by gaining better support and services, and so on.”
“When they profit from public transport, they have the
responsibility to play a role in it…ensuring that public
transport is safe, for example.”
Other ways that participants want businesses to be involved
in achieving social outcomes were:
• Investing in research and development for health care
products and drugs
• Making use of apprenticeships and vocational traineeships
(both companies and society as a whole benefit from
having a well-educated and skilled workforce)
• Investing in health care campaigns and in childcare
provision for their employees
• Sponsoring universities—for instance, providing grants to
pay for tuition fees and professorships (this came with the
caveat that businesses should not be allowed too great an
influence over institutions of higher education)
• Sponsoring preschool, primary and secondary schools
• Acting as an advisor to government and
public-service agencies
The voluntary sector
Most participants believe that voluntary organizations
already play a constructive and significant role in achieving
positive social outcomes. And while 48 percent of participants
voted in favor of seeing the sector become even more
engaged in social issues, 47 percent were satisfied with
its current level of involvement.
Berlin Forum participants thought that the voluntary sector’s
main role is to support the government in public-service
delivery and to help motivate individuals to participate
in collective action.
The voluntary sector is able to help government deal with
problems in the delivery of public services, especially local
services, by providing quick, efficient and flexible support
where government agencies are unable to do so. Participants
gave examples—including volunteer firefighters, churches that
support poor or homeless people, charities working in the area
of health care or social rehabilitation, and private institutions
that deal with drug abusers, homeless people or the hungry.
“They (voluntary-sector agencies) are involved in the areas
of health care, youth, education, everything…The state
doesn't have enough money, so (voluntary organizations)
try to deal with the deficits of the government.”
But, while participants agreed that it is beyond government’s
means to handle all social problems on its own, they are not
keen to see it rely on the voluntary sector too much: This, they
feel, would “smack of government shirking its responsibilities.”
Indeed, in that respect, some regard an expanded role for
the voluntary sector as a negative outcome.
The second major role that participants identified for
the voluntary sector was motivating individual citizens.
Many think voluntary organizations play an important
part in creating a sense of togetherness and cooperation—
encouraging people to identify with their communities
and providing a platform for people to demonstrate social
commitment by helping others.
Page 21 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Citizens and me
According to Berlin Forum participants, citizens can and
should take responsibility for their own behavior, as well as
for helping to improve outcomes for their local communities
and society as a whole. In their discussions, participants
identified many ways in which they personally might
contribute to improved social outcomes. Such involvement
runs the gamut and includes engaging in politics by voting
or by taking direct action; undertaking voluntary work in
schools or helping neighbors; behaving responsibly by acting
as role models for their children; and showing a positive
attitude toward social engagement.
When asked what “taking responsibility for one’s own behavior”
means to them, participants talked about fulfilling one’s duty
to obey the law, living a healthy life, acting in accord with
social values and standards, and seeking out opportunities
for personal social development. Some also believe that
citizens have a role to play in reducing the burden on public
services—for example, by going to the doctor only when
necessary or helping to make their communities safer.
“If we had a neighborhood watch, this would also be
on a voluntary basis, supporting the community spirit
and also unburdening the police.”
Some participants want citizens to participate more actively
in debates about what should happen in their neighborhoods
and where tax money should be invested. The more people
are able to participate in local community decision making,
the greater the encouragement to become more active citizens.
“We all are responsible for our neighborhoods and also
ourselves. Everyone should try to act in a social and
ethical way, which also means taking responsibility
for one’s health and education.”
“Like the ‘citizens’ vote we had during the last election
in Berlin: We don’t need voting for all kinds of political
issues, but we do when it comes to our neighborhood or
questions everyone benefits or suffers from—this
also applies to education or health issues.”
“Everything you say is valid for the role of ‘me.’ A citizen’s
role doesn’t exist; it makes no sense. It’s me that acts,
and citizens viewed together are just several ‘me’s.’”
Many participants found it challenging to differentiate
between “me as a citizen” and “me as an individual.”
Nevertheless, when asked about the degree of involvement
that citizens and they personally should have in improving
society, it was clear that participants draw a distinction
between what all citizens should do and what they
personally should do. While 75 percent of participants
said that all citizens should be more involved in planning
and delivering public services in the future, a much lower
proportion (42 percent) were willing to agree that they,
personally, should be more involved.
While some participants are motivated to be involved in
social issues—for example, by taking part in voluntary
organizations or in activities to improve their neighborhood—
others believe they already do enough or feel that the main
responsibilities should be borne by government and publicservice
providers. Still others see relatively few opportunities
to get more involved and cited a lack of support and the
absence of positive role models as contributing factors.
“I am involved in voluntary work. I care for disabled
people, which is really an interesting job with many
responsibilities, and I think everyone can do something,
either in the neighborhood or wherever.”
Page 22 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Messages to government
from people of Berlin
One of the strongest findings to emerge from
the Berlin Forum is that residents value the
opportunity to have their say on the future
of their city. Yet there are currently very few
avenues available for them to do so. In light
of this, the overwhelming majority of Berlin
Forum participants reported that they enjoyed
taking part in the event and genuinely valued
the opportunity to voice their views on public
services in the city.
The deliberative approach was successful in allowing people
from very different backgrounds and generations to exchange
ideas, learn from each other and develop a more informed and
balanced view of the role of government. Participants in Berlin
stated that, due to the growing diversity of the city, there was
an increasing sense of difference. Some reported never going
to certain parts of town or mixing with different communities.
The Forum therefore allowed participants to talk to people
they would otherwise never have met about issues that are
important to them all.
The Forum also provided participants with a chance to
understand what they had in common with a diverse range
of other people and to see that, despite their differences, they
are all part of the same society. As one participant said, the
Forum showed him that “there are lots of people that think
like me and want the same things from our city.”
By the end of the day, many participants acknowledged that
they had found it comforting to learn that others feel the same
way they do and that this realization had given them greater
confidence to voice their opinions on public services and get
involved in community matters in the future. Many felt the
Forum helped them to better understand different viewpoints,
enriched their own opinions and attitudes, and left them
with a broader and more reasoned perspective on their city.
“This morning, I was very tired and didn't really want
to come. But I am so glad I did. I learned a lot and
I really enjoyed listening to what other people feel
about our city.”
While Berlin residents have many issues they would like to
raise with government, the following are the key, consistent
messages that arose from the discussions at the Berlin Forum.
Page 23 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Put citizens’ needs at the center of public-service
planning and delivery.
Berlin residents want public services to be designed with
the citizen in mind. Participants asked for longer opening
hours, friendlier staff, better communication, support and
explanations, greater administrative flexibility and
decreased bureaucracy.
However, developing more citizen-oriented services is not
a one-way street. People expect to participate in policy
decisions and to have the opportunity to influence publicservice
operations. This will require government and
public-service managers to develop more open channels
of communication, operate more transparently and
provide evidence that policies and practices are really
being developed with and for citizens.
“Closeness to citizens must be developed. They should
hear what we say and view us as customers, as clients.”
Making government more transparent will develop people’s
trust in public services and encourage them to take greater
“ownership” of the city’s challenges and look for solutions.
Focus on prevention and plan for the long-term
future of the city.
Many of the problems facing Berlin require long-term solutions
and a greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention.
This shift means that government and public-service managers
should play a more educative and facilitative role in society.
In the area of health, for example, this means educating
people to live healthy lives by, for instance, educating
children from preschool school onwards about healthy living,
ensuring schools provide healthy food and increasing taxes
on unhealthy products. In education, it means working
closely with parents and other service providers to support
children in a more holistic way and respond to special needs
before “things go wrong.” And in public safety, it means
finding ways to ensure long-term confidence in a police
service that interacts with local citizens and is responsible
for more than just control and punishment. People see these
measures as an investment in a better future—an investment
that will also lead to efficiency savings through better
public-service planning.
Encourage people to take more personal responsibility
for achieving positive social outcomes.
The desire for more proactive policies and future-oriented
decision making includes empowering citizens so that they can
take personal action to help achieve social outcomes. A starting
point is for the government and public-service managers to act
as positive role models by behaving in a civic-minded manner.
Launching media campaigns to help change behavior, speaking
openly about how people are expected to behave within society
and giving awards to people for exceptional social commitment
are all measures that will encourage people to assume more
personal responsibility.
Help people to help themselves through investment in
education and job opportunities, and support businesses
in playing their part.
Education and employment are the top two issues for Berliners.
A good education can lead to better job opportunities, higher
living standards and, ultimately, the sustainability of the city.
Participants argued that education can strengthen the city’s
competitiveness and is also the way to develop a culture of
citizen engagement. Residents, therefore, demand greater
investment in the educational system, providing higher
standards for gifted and less-gifted children alike.
“Education comes first, then work and then profit:
not vice versa. Our children are our future.”
However, ensuring people have the skills is not enough:
Government must also ensure they have the opportunities
to use these skills. People want the government to act
to reduce Berlin’s high unemployment rate by enhancing
investment opportunities (through monetary incentives
and other benefits) to attract more businesses to the city.
Design and deliver public services to help reduce
the gap between the more affluent and poorer
communities.
Berlin residents regard equality as one of the most basic
principles. They define this as equal chances for everyone,
regardless of social background. But this does not necessarily
equate to equal treatment. Berlin Forum participants
acknowledged that in some cases, a fair service may be one
tailored to meet an individual’s or a community’s needs.
Ultimately, residents expect government to do more to help
poorer neighborhoods and disadvantaged people in Berlin.
This includes increasing government spending in some areas
and tailoring services specifically to meet the needs of
poorer communities.
“Everyone should have the same opportunities regardless
of their social, ethnic or financial background. If problems
occur, people need support and help according to
their needs.”
Page 24 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Accenture Public Service
Value Governance Framework
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value
Global Cities Forum was conducted in eight cities
around the world: London, Sydney, Singapore,
Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles.
Accenture Accenture Public Service Public Value Service Value
Governance Governance Framework
Framework
Public
Government GovernmentService
Value
Outcomes
Accountability
Balance
Outcomes
Accountability
Engagement
Balance
Public Citizen Citizen
Service Service User Service User
Value Taxpayer Taxpayer
Engagement
Although we designed and conducted all eight Forums similarly,
and used a similar deliberative approach in each, many
differences emerged between the views of the participants
in Berlin and those of other Global Cities. But there were
also many similarities. (Comparisons of the main findings
in the eight cities are included in the appendix.)
People everywhere are proud of where they live—some more than
others, of course—but they also all see a need for improvement
in the social and economic conditions of their cities.
While they see government as the main driver of change,
they want a bigger say in making their cities better places to
live. Everywhere, participants feel their governments are not
doing enough to listen to their views. They also expect their
governments to offer more opportunities to involve them in
the process of setting priorities and planning and delivering
improvement in their cities.
These views are not new or surprising. Although we know
that many people want—or say they want—a bigger say and
role, we see little being done to engage them and little effort
on their part to be engaged. Instead, we see a plethora of
“doorstep opinion” polls and a rather complacent notion
of elections as the main forum for people to have their say.
But as one New York participant declared, and as participants
in each Forum echoed, “Elections are not enough!”
The outcome of the deliberations, personal learning and
findings of the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value
Global Cities Forum confirms that people want to become
more engaged in their own governance. Sure, they have
many other important things to do, and daylong forums
with other local residents are a luxury of time that few
could afford on a regular basis. But when people need
help or support or information or wish to register praise
or complaint, they do not want to wait until government
pollsters come to them to speak about it. Nor do they want
to wait until election day. And the paradox of all of this
in the 21st century is that we have the know-how and
technology to facilitate better everyday public engagement.
Page 25 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

We analyzed the Berlin principles of public value in conjunction
with the deliberative findings and principles formulated in the
other seven cities and found strong evidence of people around
the world wanting more from the ways in which they currently
engage with their governments. As a product of that analysis,
we formulated what we believe can be a model for a more
active relationship between people and their governments.
The Accenture Public Service Value Governance Framework
represents a more publicly engaged model of governance,
one that truly connects people—in all their roles—with those
whom they elect to lead their governments and to shape
and direct their public services. Derived from the common
concerns and ambitions of all groups of participants and the
principles of public value that they defined, the framework
is built around four components:
Outcomes—Focusing on improved social and
economic outcomes.
The purpose and mission of public-service provision should
be concentrated on the actual improvements that those
services can produce in the economic and social conditions—
such as health, learning and education, and public safety—
of the people they serve, not simply on the amounts of
services produced or on economic efficiency.
Balance—Balancing choice and flexibility with fairness
and common good.
People are insisting that government should tailor service
provision to meet the wide range of different needs across the
population. At the same time, government must be mindful that
narrow or unconsidered applications of “choice” and “fairness” can
actually widen gaps between those who are able to take advantage
of the benefits of greater choice and those who are not.
Engagement—Engaging, educating and enrolling
the public as co-producers of public value.
The educative and enabling roles of government are vastly
under-used. People can be helped to clarify their own
perceptions of government through regular consultation
and engagement; to learn how to make the best use of
government resources through better and more easily
accessible information; and to contribute as partners
to improving social and economic outcomes.
Accountability—Clarifying accountability and facilitating
public recourse.
People are demanding much greater clarity and accountability
from government, especially with regard to tax expenditure
where the absence of easily accessible information fuels
perceptions of waste and inefficiency. The public—as service
users, taxpayers and members of the wider community—also
are seeking consistent and accessible means to remedy
problems with government when they occur.
These components provide meaning and a language with
which to clearly articulate a relationship that is about
genuine engagement of people in their governance, not one
that is only about voting in elections or paying taxes—as
important as these things are.
In the case of Berlin, our understanding is that some aspects
of the four components are in place:
Explicit outcome-focused public policy is regarded with a
great deal of interest and increasing frequency in Germany.
However, the focus currently is more ad hoc than systematic.
Moreover, outcomes are mostly articulated at a political level
and in a political context, rather than embedded in how
government manages public-service operations and delivery.
However, a number of recent initiatives have been started
at the municipal, state and federal levels.
At the municipal level, for example, the Kommunale
Gemeinschaftsstelle (KGSt), Germany’s largest local
government association, which comprises approximately
1,600 municipalities and cities, has initiated a project called
“Measures-based management—outcomes and outputs in
municipal budgets" (“Die Kommune mit Kennzahlen steuern:
Wirkungen und Leistungen im neuen Haushalt"). At the state
level, progress has been made toward introducing balanced
scorecards that include a greater focus on results and wider
societal outcomes. Finally, initiatives such as the Federal
Ministry of Interior’s and the Bertelsmann Foundation’s study
on Strategic Management (“Strategische Steuerung für den
Staat—Internationale Ansätze im Vergleich”) are helping to
build the foundation for strengthening outcome-oriented
management at the federal level.
Mechanisms to balance the extension of choice with the
safeguarding of the common good are more systematic.
As a rule, both in policy and in administration, this is
achieved on a case-by-case basis, though it is unclear the
extent to which citizens’ expectations, preferences and risks
are taken into account. Greater understanding of citizens’
perspectives about the tensions between individual service
and equity, such as those articulated in the Berlin Forum,
could help government proactively address the diversity of
citizens’ needs and provide deeper insight to more effectively
formulate responses, such as targeted preventative measures
to improve health outcomes.
However, traditionally, the engagement of citizens—apart from
elections—is limited to formal processes such as feedback
mechanisms at the service-delivery level. Over the past
decade, the government has sought to put more emphasis
on civic engagement, but these efforts have not always been
sustained in terms of extended openness toward actively
involving citizens in decision-making processes.
Regarding clearer accountability, many municipalities, as
well as some state and federal level departments, have begun
to introduce management systems geared toward creating
greater transparency and avenues for public recourse. This
includes introducing performance management in public
services; however, compared to many other developed countries,
Germany is in a relatively early stage of introducing performance
management or aligning it with other management processes
such as strategy formulation, implementation and budgeting.
We believe that governance in the 21st century must engage
people in all their roles as active co-producers of public value.
The payoff can be a strengthened and mutually supportive
relationship between people and their governments. Without
such a social compact, we risk contributing to disenchantment,
cynicism and poor public service. With the public fully engaged,
we have the potential for better lives for us all.
Page 26 of 39 Back Contents Next
Print Close

How Berlin compares
with the other Global Cities
Participants at the Berlin Forum were very
positive about their city: Almost two-thirds of
participants rated it above average as a place to
live and work. While this figure was higher than
in the other European cities—London, Paris and
Madrid—it was lower than all the other cities
outside of Europe. And fewer people rated Berlin
as “world class” than in any other Global City.
Berlin participants were particularly concerned about
the need to improve the economy and, more specifically,
employment opportunities in the city. This was voted
as the most critical issue by 28 percent of Berlin Forum
participants. Education was also highlighted as a key
concern (with 23 percent of the votes), followed by public
safety (14 percent), which was seen as a problem particularly
in the poorer districts of the city. In contrast to the other
cities, employment and education were voted the top two
issues only in the Berlin Forum, whereas cost of living
and health ranked fairly low as areas of concern for Berlin
participants. In fact, Berlin returned by far the lowest
rating for cost of living (13 percent) as a key concern.
In general, Berlin Forum participants are satisfied with
their public services (60 percent). However, only 4 percent
rated them as “very good” or “excellent,” compared with 40
percent in Madrid, 34 percent in Singapore and 27 percent
in Sydney. But as in many other cities, when considering
particular services, Berlin participants were more critical.
For example, three in four believe the government falls a
long way short of expectations in education—making them
the least satisfied with education versus the other cities
where the issue was discussed (Sydney, Singapore, New York,
Los Angeles and London). Similarly, 59 percent said health
services fell below their expectations, a figure on par with
Sydney but below that of London and Los Angeles.
Although they saw room for a great deal of improvement
in public services, Berlin Forum participants had little
inclination to pay more in the form of taxes or user charges.
Only 8 percent agreed that they would be prepared to pay
more in taxes, compared to 34 percent in Sydney, 33 percent
in Los Angeles and 29 percent in New York. Similarly, only
19 percent advocated additional user charges for those who
could afford it, less than any other city apart from Paris.
Participants in Berlin were more inclined than those in any
other city to think that the government should give primary
consideration to quality of service for users (above the broader
good of society and the amount of tax paid) as they plan and
deliver services. At the same time, the voting results show
that more than any other city, participants in Berlin want to
see government deliver services to everyone equally rather
than targeting those with the highest level of need.
Page 27 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

In defining their aspirations for public services, Berlin Forum
participants shared many of the same values as those in other
cities. For example, they placed a strong emphasis on equality
and fairness, transparency and accountability, and customer
focus. But they were also concerned with efficiency, like those
in Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles, and the need for a longerterm
view in planning and delivering services, like those in
Sydney, New York and Los Angeles.
Participants in Berlin discussed improvements in three specific
social and economic conditions: health, learning and education,
and public safety. While they shared many of the same
aspirations as those in other cities where these same issues
were discussed, there were also differences.
On health, for example, Berlin participants valued easily
accessible, high quality care, as did those in all the other cities
where health was discussed (London, Sydney, Singapore and
Los Angeles). Like participants in London and Los Angeles,
they also put a strong emphasis on equality of provision, and
like those in London and Sydney, they articulated the need
to take a longer-term view and focus more on preventative
care. However, Berlin participants seemed more concerned
about efficiency than those in London, Sydney or Los Angeles;
less worried about choice than those in Los Angeles; less
interested in connectedness of service provision than those in
London; and less focused on financial access than those
in Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles.
Like participants in London, Sydney, New York and Los Angeles,
Berlin participants were concerned with the broader social
and economic impact of education, and specifically the positive
impact that good education services have on improving
the strength of the economy and overall quality of life.
Participants in all these cities sought improvements in the
quality of education. Berlin participants also highlighted
fairness and equality as an important principle, as did
participants in London, Sydney and New York. Participants
in Berlin, London and Singapore also sought more flexibility
in education programs. But Berlin participants were less
concerned with the need for a broad curriculum than those
in London, Sydney, Singapore or Los Angeles; less focused on
accountability than those in New York; less worried about
efficiency than those in Los Angeles; and less concerned
about the need for increased investment in the educational
system than those in Sydney.
In the area of public safety, participants in all the cities
in which this was discussed articulated the importance of
fairness and balance. In the case of Berlin, for example,
this meant a balance between governmental controls and
maintenance of civil liberties. Like those in Paris, Madrid and
London, Berlin participants also saw a need for connected
services—particularly as a means of encouraging crime
prevention. And like those in all other cities but Paris, they
placed great emphasis on the quality of service, specifically
the need to ensure that emergency services respond quickly
to their needs. However, Berlin participants were less
concerned about accountability and community involvement
than those in New York and less focused on efficiency
than those in Paris and Madrid.
In Berlin, participants were more inclined to vote for a larger
role for government in addressing future priorities: 84 percent
wanted to see more involvement from government, a figure
lower than that of Sydney and Madrid but higher than all
the other cities included in the Forum. However, people in
Berlin were among the least inclined of all the cities to see
a larger role for themselves as citizens in addressing future
priorities. Only 75 percent called for greater involvement of
citizens compared to 98 percent in New York, 96 percent in
Los Angeles and 95 percent in Madrid. Even so, participants
were comparatively positive about the private sector, with
79 percent agreeing they should have a bigger role; only
Madrid participants (85 percent) were more positive about
the role of the private sector.
The appendix contains figures that provide a summary
of the results from three components of the research: the
electronic voting questions posed during the Forums; the
findings of the deliberations on public value; and the data
from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos
Global@dvisor survey.
Page 28 of 39 Back Contents Next
Print Close

Appendix
Page 29 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Results from electronic voting at the Global Cities Forum
The following figures present the results from the electronic voting questions posed during the eight Forums. Results for London are not
available for some of the questions as the London Forum was a pilot and some of the voting questions changed after that first event.
How do you rate your city as a place to live and work?
Very Poor Fairly Poor Average Fairly Good World Class
London
Sydney
Singapore
Berlin
New York
Paris
Madrid
Los Angeles
2 7 33
39
19
11 9
4
2 6
2 5
10
6
21
26
20
33
40
31
52
44
52
46
41
7 18
53
22
0% 20 40 60 80 100
49
29
23
18
14
15
What are the three most important social issues facing you and your city today?
And what are the three main priorities for making the city a great place to live and work 10 years from now?
1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place
Issue London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles
Cost of Living
Health
Housing
Employment
Education
Public Safety
Ease of Transport
2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017
Page 30 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Environment
In cases where two results of the same color are shown, there was a tie

How good are public services in your city?
London*
Sydney
Very Good Fine Poor+
Singapore
Berlin
New York
Paris
Madrid
Los Angeles
56 44
33 40
14 52
40 56 4
32 54
47 45
28 32
43 47
0% 20 40 60 80 100
* The question in London was “Overall do you agree that people in the city get good quality services?: Strongly agree,
agree, disagree, strongly disagree.”
What should be the most important consideration for government in planning and delivering public services?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0%
What is good for society as a whole
The amount of tax I pay
43
23
Sydney
34
41
33
26
30 28
40
The quality of service users receive
42
34
36 37
35
36 35
32 32
28
30
27
29
Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles
43
27
14
10
8
How should governments fund improvements in services?
Governments should impose user charges to pay for improvements
Governments should raise taxes in order to pay for improvements
Page 31 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
London
Sydney
Singapore
Berlin
New York
Paris
Madrid
Los Angeles
79
85
75
48
57
52
57
65
69
67
53
44
52
52
38
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Disagree Agree
6
8
10
12
19
22
30
29
29
27
34
40
39
33
51

In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services
exceed or fall short of your expectations?
London
The chart omits neutral responses
In the case of these three important social issues, to what extent do public services
exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations? 12
London
In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14
The chart omits neutral responses
what extent do public services
exceed or fall short 52 of your expectations?
72
12
10
London
In the case of these 58 three important social issues, to 14 what extent
The chart
do public
omits
services
neutral responses
100 80 60 40 200%
20 40 60 80 100
exceed or fall short of your expectations?
Fall short of expectations 52 12
Exceed expectations
72 10
London
Sydney
100 80
58
60 40 200%
14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 52
63
72
12
7
10
Exceed expectations
Sydney
100 80
58
6051
40 200%
4
14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of
72
expectations 63
60
710
13
Exceed expectations
Sydney
100 80 6051
100 80 60
40
40
Fall
Fall
short
short
of
of
expectations
expectations 63
60
20
20
0% 4
0%
20
20
7
13
The chart omits neutral responses
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Exceed
Exceed
expectations
expectations
Sydney
Singapore
100 80
51
60 40 20
4
0% 20
The chart omits neutral responses
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 63
37
60
7
15
13
Exceed expectations
Singapore
100 80
51
60 40 20
4
5 0% 20
The chart
40 51
omits neutral responses
60 80 100
Fall short of expectations
60 37
24
13 15
29
Exceed expectations
Singapore
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
Fall
Fall
short
short
of
of
expectations
expectations 37
20
20
24
5 0%
0%
20
20
15
The chart omits neutral responses
40 51
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Exceed
Exceed
expectations
expectations
29
Singapore
Berlin
100 80 60 40 20
5
0% 20
The
The
chart
chart
omits neutral responses
51 omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 59
37
24
2
15
29
Exceed expectations
Berlin
100 80 74 60 40 20
5
0% 2 20
The chart 51 omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 59
50
24
2
11
29
Exceed expectations
Berlin
100 80 74
100 80
60
60
40
40
Fall
Fall
short
short
of
of
expectations
expectations 59
50
Berlin
New York74
100 80 60 40
Fall short of expectations
59
50
50
20
20
20
0% 2
0%
2
2
0%
2
20
20
11
20
11
The chart omits neutral responses
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Exceed
Exceed
expectations
expectations
The
The
chart
chart
omits
omits
neutral
neutral
responses
responses
40 60 80 100
Exceed expectations
New York74
100 80 60 4032 20
2
0% 1420
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 50
82
50
2
0
11
Exceed expectations
New York
100 80 60 4032 100 80 60 40
Fall
Fall
short
short
of
of
expectations
expectations 50
82
New
Paris
York
32
100 80 60 40
Fall short of expectations 54
50
82
20
20
20
0%
0%
2
0
0%
2
3
0
1420
20
14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Exceed
Exceed
expectations
expectations
The
The
chart
chart
omits
omits
neutral
neutral
responses
responses
40 60 80 100
Exceed expectations
Paris
100 80 60
32
4033 200%
14
20 23
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 54 3
Exceed expectations
Education
Safety
Education
Health
Safety
Education
Health
Safety
Education
Transport
Health
Safety
Education
Transport Health
Health
Education
Transport
Health
Education
Transport
Secure retirement
Health
Education
Education
Secure Health retirement
Health
Education
Secure retirement
Health
Education
Secure
Health
retirement
Health
Education
Education
Health
Health
Safety
Education
Health
Safety
Education
Health
Education
Safety
Education
Safety
Education
Safety
Housing
Safety
Education
Housing
Safety
Education
Safety
Housing
Safety
Transport
Safety
Berlin
100
74
80
51
60 40 20
2
4
0% 20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 59
60
50
2
11
13
Exceed expectations
New York
100 80 74
80 60
40 Fall short of expectations 50
50
20
0% 2
0%
2
20 11
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Exceed expectations
Singapore New York
100 80 60
32
40 200%
14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 50 37
82
2
0
15
Exceed expectations
New York
100 80 60 40
32
20
5
0%
14
20
The chart 51 omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 50
82
24
2
0
29
Exceed expectations
Paris
100 80 60 40 4032 20 0% 14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 54
82
3
0
Exceed expectations
Paris Berlin
100 80 60
33
40 200%
23
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 59 54
71
23
5
Exceed expectations
Paris
100
74
80 60 40
33
20
2
0% 20
23
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 54
71 50
3
5 11
Exceed expectations
Los Angeles
100 80 60 33
40 20 0% 23
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 60
71
8
5
Exceed expectations
Los New Angeles York
72
100 80 60 40 20
4
0% 20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 60 50
65
2 8
9
Exceed expectations
Los Angeles
100 80
72
60
32
40 200%
4 14
20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 60
82 65 0
8
9
Exceed expectations
Madrid
100 72
80 60 40 20 4
0% 20
The chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 65
26
9
32 Exceed expectations
Madrid Paris
100 80 60
32
40 200%
20
The
34 chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 54 26
29
3
32
38
Exceed expectations
Madrid
100 80 60
33
40
32
20 0%
23
20
The
34
chart omits neutral responses
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations
71
26
29 5
32
38
Exceed expectations
100 80 60 32
40 20 0% 20 34
40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 29 38
Exceed expectations
Los Angeles
The chart omits neutral responses
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations 60 8
Exceed expectations
72 4
65 9
100 80 60 40 200%
20 40 60 80 100
Fall short of expectations Exceed expectations
26 32
Education
Education
Health
Health
Safety
Education
Education
Safety
Safety
Education Secure retirement
Housing
Safety Education
Education
Housing Health
Safety
Safety
Housing
Transport
Safety Health
Environment
Transport Education
Safety
Environment Safety
Transport
Education
Environment
Health
Education
Transport
Health Safety
Education
Transport Housing
Health
Safety
Transport
Environment
Safety
Transport
Environment Transport
Safety
Transport Environment
Environment
Page 32 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Madrid
32 34
The chart omits neutral responses
Transport
Education
Health
Transport
Safety
Environment

Public services’ focus on short-term versus long-term concerns
Sydney
Singapore
Berlin
New York
Paris
Madrid
Los Angeles
Public services make for a fairer society
(% agreeing with statement)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0%
How services are presently focused
How services should be focused
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Respond to
long-term concerns
76
82
79
78
62
62
58
73
42
45
47
53
43
33
29
28
26
69
London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles
7
8
64
11
16
20
20
19
29
28
48
The chart omits neutral responses
47
45
47
50
56
Respond to
short-term concerns
76
71
Public services’ focus on targeted versus universal services
Page 33 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Sydney
Singapore
Berlin
New York
Paris
Madrid
How services are presently focused
How services should be focused
Los Angeles
82
75
69
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Deliver to
everyone equally
65
66
55
44
39
46
49
45
29
22
6
5
16
15
17
25
28
33
31
34
32
25
I am satisfied with the way in which public services understand my needs
(% agreeing with statement)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0%
27
15
61
28
41
The chart omits neutral responses
40
48
Deliver to those with
the highest levels of need
London Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles
9
29
37
8

In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?
London
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?
London 23
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?
75
69
92
London 23
In the next 10 years, who should have a bigger role in addressing the city’s main priorities?
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 7075 80 90 100
69
London
Sydney
0% 10
Sydney
0% 10
Sydney
0% 10
0% 10
23
20
23
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
37
37
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50
60
60
60
60
7075 69
72
7075 72
70
70
80
86
80
86
79
80
80
86
92
90
92
90
92
90
90
100
100
100
100
Sydney
Singapore
0% 10
Singapore
0% 10
Singapore
0%
0%
10
10
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
37
37
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50
60
59
60
57
59
60
57 60
59
67
67
72
70
72
70
70
70
79
80
86
79
80
79
77
80
80
90
90
90
90
100
100
100
100
Singapore
Berlin
0% 10
Berlin
0% 10
Berlin
0%
0%
10
10
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
47
47
50
50
50
50
57 60
59
57 60
60
60
67
67
77
70 80
84
77
79
70 80
84
77
75
79
70
70
80
80
84
90
90
90
90
100
100
100
100
Berlin
New York
0% 10
New York
0% 10
New York
0% 0% 10 10
20
20
20 20
30
30
30 30
40
40
40 40
47
47
50
50
55
50 5055 60
60
60 60
67
67
67
75
79
70 80
84
75
72
79
70 80
75
72
70 70 80 80
90
90
90 90
100
100
98
100 100
New
Paris
York
0% 10 20 30 40 5055 60
59
67
72
70 80 90
98
100
98
Paris
0% 10 20 30 40
53
5055 60
58
59
70 80 90 100
69
Government
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Government
Citizens
Business
Business
Not-for-profit
Not-for-profit
Citizens
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Government
Citizens
Business
Business
Not-for-profit
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Government
Citizens
Business
Business
Not-for-profit
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Not-for-profit
Government
Berlin
0% 10 20 30 37 40
47
New York
0% 10 20
30 40
47
Singapore New York
0% 10 20 30 40
New York
0% 10 20 30 40
Paris
0% 10 20 30 40
Berlin Paris
0% 10 20 30 40
Paris
0% 10 20 30 40 47
Los Angeles
0% 10 20 30 40
New Los Angeles York
0% 10 20 30 40
Los Angeles
0% 10 20 30 40
Madrid
0% 10 20
30 40
Paris Madrid
0% 10 20 30 4044
Madrid
0% 10 20 30 40
44
0% 10 20
30 40
44
Los Angeles
0% 10 20 30 40
0% 10 20 30 40
72 79
50 60 70 80 90 100
75 79
79
84
50 60 70 80 90 100
67
5055 60
59 67
67
75
72
70
72
80 90 100
98
50
5557
60
67
70
72
77
80 90 100
98
50
55
53
60
59
70 80 90 100
98
50
53
58
60
59
70
74
80
84
79
90 100
50
53
58
60
59
70
7475
80 90 100
50
58 60 70 80
80
90 100
68
74
50 62 60
67
68
70
72
80
80
90
96
100
5055 62
60
68
70 80
80
90 100
9698
50 60
62 60 70 80 85
90 92
96
100
50 60 70 80 90 100
53
59
85
92
95
50 58 60 70
74
80
85
90
92
95
100
50 60 70 80 90 100
50 60 70 80
80
90 100
50 60 70 80 90 100
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Government
Citizens
Business
Not-for-profit
Citizens
Page 34 of 39 72
Business
Back Contents 85 Next Print Close
Madrid
44
62
68
92
95
96
Government
Business
Not-for-profit
Citizens
Government
Business
Not-for-profit

Results of the deliberations
These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.
Principles of public value: All public services
Equality
and fairness
Transparency and
accountability
Customer focus
and flexibilty
Efficiency/
value for money
Connectedness
and coordination
Long-term outlook
Focus on
immediate results
Accessibilty
Choice
Social conditions discussed in each of the Global Cities
Learning and
education
Health
Public safety
Ease of transport
Environment
Affordable living
Security in
retirement
London
London
Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles
Sydney Singapore Berlin New York Paris Madrid Los Angeles Total
6
5
5
4
2
1
1
Principles of public value: Health
Long-term outlook/
prevention
Efficiency/value
for money
Connectedness
to other services
Page 35 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Equality of
provision
Quality of care
Accessibility
Choice of service
Financial access
Transparency
London
Sydney Singapore Berlin Los Angeles

Results of the deliberations continued
These figures present a summary of our findings from the deliberations on the principles of public value in each of the cities.
Principles of public value: Learning and education
Equality of
provision
Quality of
education
Flexibility, including
lifelong learning
Accountability
Efficiency/value
for money
More investment
in education
Wider socioeconomic
impact
Broad curriculum
London
Sydney Singapore Berlin New York
Los Angeles
Principles of public value: Public safety
Page 36 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
Fairness and
balance
Reduction in crime
and fear of crime
Quality of service/
responsiveness
Community
involvement
Accountability
Efficiency
Connectedness to
other services/
prevention
London
Berlin New York Paris Madrid

Global survey
The following charts provide a summary of the results from the four questions that were included in the Ipsos Global@dvisor survey.
The survey questioned 1,000 citizens in the same seven countries where we held Global Cities Forums during the 2007 phase of the project.
Question 1: How much could the quality of your life be improved?
In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment
Australia
France
Germany
Great Britain
Singapore
Spain
United States
51
39
40
36
36
32
14
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
A little / None A lot / Fair amount
Question 3: How much are public services improving the quality of your life today?
Australia
France
Germany
Great Britain
Singapore
Spain
United States
82
76
75
70
64
66
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Very little / Not at all A great deal / A fair amount
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"
42
14
19
22
27
26
34
49
56
61
60
64
64
68
86
Question 2: Who should contribute most to improving the quality of life for citizens?
In relation to issues such as personal health, safety, learning, the cost of living and environment
All citizens Government Business You personally Not for profits
100
Page 37 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0%
44 45
3 2 3
Australia
48 47
41
38
6
2 1
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"
6
3 3
44 41
4 3 3
44 44
4 3 3
France Germany Great Britain Singapore Spain United States
29
58
7
2 2
Question 4: To what extent would you be willing to pay more tax to improve public services?
Australia
France
Germany
Great Britain
Singapore
Spain
United States
91
79
72
73
62
61
60
54
23
4 5 5
100 80 60 40 20 0% 20 40 60 80 100
Not at all / A small extent A great deal / Some extent
The chart omits responses of "Don't know"
4
16
20
24
31
36
36

Project team More information
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value
team was: Greg Parston, Julie McQueen, Lisa Larsen,
Philip von Haehling, Rob Coffey, Claudia Ribeiro
The Accenture Germany team was: Holger Bill,
Diana Heinemann, Klaus Goez, Jens Bolle,
Yasmine Dessouky, Bernd Gerbaulet, Michael Pitsch’s
The Ipsos Germany project team that conducted the
Global Cities Forum—Berlin and contributed to analysis
was: Janet von Rossem, Ina Hildebrandt, Maria Herrmann,
Nadine Enders, Stephanie Stukenberg, Teresa Stahl,
Thomas Kühn, Heike Hofer, Andrea Meixner, Sonja Mahnhardt
The Ipsos MORI (UK) global project management
team was: Bobby Duffy, Debbie Lee Chan,
Anna Pierce, Emily Gray, Rea Robbey
Visit www.accenture.com/globalcitiesforum to use the
interactive map to connect to any of the eight cities for
a highlight of that city's findings and key messages for
government. You can also take the Global Cities Forum
survey, look through the photo gallery, watch videos of
citizens from some of the sessions and connect with
an expert from the Institute for Public Service Value.
For more information about the Accenture Institute
for Public Service Value Global Cities Forum, e-mail
institutepublicservicevalue@accenture.com
Page 38 of 39 Back Contents Next Print Close

Copyright © 2008 Accenture
All rights reserved.
Accenture, its logo, and
High Performance Delivered
are trademarks of Accenture.
About the Accenture Institute for Public Service Value
The Accenture Institute for Public Service Value is dedicated to promoting high performance
in public service delivery, policy-making and governance, through research and development
on the creation of public value. The institute undertakes and commissions relevant research;
produces publications on good practice in public service; develops practical methods of applying
the concepts of public value; and presents events to bring together and promote discussion
among public managers and stakeholders in the government, academic, nonprofit and private
sectors. Its home page is www.accenture.com/publicservicevalue.
About Accenture
Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company.
Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and
business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture
collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments.
With 178,000 people in 49 countries, the company generated net revenues of US$19.70 billion
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007. Its home page is www.accenture.com
Page 39 of 39 Back Contents Print Close