Building legitimacy at Sport Canada: pitfalls of public value creation?

Abstract

Legitimacy building is an increasingly recognized feature of bureaucratic practice under networked governance. Mark Moore's (1995) model of ‘public value creation’ captures the strategic imperative to build credibility, legitimacy and support for policies and programmes in this context. As an emerging ‘narrative’ in public organizations, it combines perspectives on managerial and political leadership and is therefore useful to explain bureaucratic experiences with legitimacy building and their implications for policy. This article investigates the efforts of Canada's federal sport agency to secure legitimacy and explores the implications of public value creation on future policy-making. Drawing from interview data as well as public and internal documents, the study outlines Sport Canada's initiatives to establish sport's ‘benefits’, collaborate widely and add value in terms of equity and ethics. Two related implications (or storylines) are considered and discussed: (a) the tendency for public value creation to reduce the policy sector to anecdotal understandings in the eyes of political authorizers, and (b) the propensity for building public value to result in over-commitment due to the accumulation and embedding of new collaborations, mandates and target populations.Points for practitionersMark Moore's ‘public value’ approach resonates with practitioners because of its realist portrayal of politics in public administration. Generating support and legitimacy for existing or proposed policies and programmes is acknowledged to be particularly important in contexts where networks are prevalent. This article investigates legitimacy building within federal sport, a sector which has been reliant on networked governance since its inception and where substantive efforts have been aimed at raising its profile. The case cautions against persistent case-building and public value creation because continuous justifications may ultimately raise questions regarding the credibility of bureaucratic advice and of the likely success of programme commitments.