What are the public values frameworks that street-level public managers take into account in their proactive problem-solving processes of public services? How do street-level public managers apply the value of collaboration to problem-solving processes? While increased attention has been paid to the study of public values frameworks, there is limited empirical research focused on how street-level public managers apply public values frameworks to the problem-solving processes of public services.

Based on a qualitative content analysis of the 54 cases of public service innovations in South Korea, the study aims to identify the public values frameworks that street-level public managers consider during the problem-solving processes. The 54 cases are recognized as innovative practices of proactive problem-solving of public services by the Ministry of Public Personnel Management between 2016 and 2018. Each case description written by public managers is used as raw data of the content analysis. The description of the case includes narratives of the problem-solving processes of goal-setting, implementation, and evaluation.

Each narrative of addressing values and norms is identified by each stage, and the values and norms of original words are coded as raw data for a qualitative content analysis. The raw data of words is classified as a value item at the 1st process of value categorizations (the 1st tier categorization). And all the value items identified from the 1st tier categorization are reclassified under public value sets (the 2nd tier categorization).

The results of study show that street-level public managers consider 31 public value sets for the problem-solving processes. Among the 31 public value sets, three primary values of responsiveness, effectiveness, and collaboration are identified. At the goal setting stage, the value of responsiveness is found in 30 cases and the value of effectiveness is found in 18 cases. Meanwhile, the application of the collaboration value is found in 15 cases. At the implementation stage, the value of responsiveness is found in 35 cases and the value of effectiveness is found in 21 cases. And the value of collaboration is found in 19 cases. At the evaluation stage, the value of effectiveness is found in 38 cases and the value of responsiveness is found in 27 cases. The value of collaboration is found in 21 cases at the evaluation stage.

The study findings show that street-level public managers apply the value of collaboration for each stage of public service innovations. The results further suggest that the collaboration value embedded in public service innovations can be a distinctive value framework that can be added to the other public values frameworks of the political, legal, organizational and market value frameworks. Finally, based on the results of the study, the article presents a street-level public management ethos model that integrates collaborative, democratic and bureaucratic ethos, especially for the setting of public service innovations.

Collaborative governance is increasingly used to address complex public problems and to create public value (Bryson et al., 2006; Sancino, 2022). It is argued in the literature that collaborative governance can contribute to effective and innovative solutions, as well as rejuvenating democracy (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Torfing et al., 2020). Realizing these desired outcomes of collaborative governance requires supportive institutional design and new forms of leadership (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Sørensen & Torfing, 2009). However, there is an ongoing debate about whether the different desired outcomes can be realized simultaneously, or if there are inherent tensions between the forms of institutional design and leadership supporting the different outcomes (Cristofoli et al., 2021; Page et al., 2015). This article seeks to contribute to this debate by focusing on the potential tensions between two outcomes, legitimacy and effectiveness, and examines: What combinations of institutional design and leadership produce effective and legitimate collaborative governance? To investigate the research question, I will conduct a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) of cases drawn from the open-source collaborative governance case database. The article contributes to a more detailed understanding of the model of collaborative governance by Ansell and Gash (2007), by examining how different forms of institutional design and leadership combine to produce the two specific outcomes of effectiveness and legitimacy.

Social governance is an important aspect of national governance. With the strategic goal of modernizing the national security system and capabilities, the Party's 20 National Congresses made new arrangements for improving the social governance system.Improving the social governance system is a major task proposed by the Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core from the strategic perspective of modernizing the national security system and capacity and resolutely safeguarding.General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that the focus of social governance must focus on urban and rural areas and communities, and the community level is the foothold of all work.The new era not only points out the uncertainty of the development transition from traditional society to modern society, and even postmodern society from the dimension of time domain, but also puts forward the problem of how to deal with it.It specifically focuses on grassroots social governance in the context of China in the new era, and its practice logic points to a new pattern of symbiosis, cooperation and action.On the one hand, the high complexity and uncertainty of the society make it impossible for any governance subject to deal with it alone. On the other hand, governance theory continues to evolve and practice, surpassing the original logic and mechanism of control and competition.Therefore, the grassroots social governance in the context of China has formed internal symbiosis, cooperation path and action mode from five dimensions: political guidance, legal guarantee, moral governance and education, autonomy and intellectual governance.

The Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan allocated nearly 7 billion euros to the development of community and territorial care and to its integration with hospital and acute care, making it a priority to foster the National Healthcare Service after the severe consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. People living with and beyond cancer represent a particular target of patients whose need of integrated, coordinated and continuous care is extremely significant, since they must receive care services, from multiple professionals and practitioners working in various locations (Turrini et al., 2010; Taplin et al., 2012). Providing effective care requires to adopt a logic of interdependence, where inter-professional and inter-organizational collaboration allows for exchange of knowledge and expertise (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2022). The paper answers to the need, both in theory and practice, to explore the processes, strategies and mechanisms to establish and maintain inter-organizational and multi-level collaboration between different actors of the cancer service delivery network, investigating the experience of the House of Health (“Casa della Salute”) of Aprilia, in the Lazio Region.

The research finds its theoretical foundations in the framework of collaborative governance (Agranoff, 2006; Ansell and Gash, 2008 and 2018; Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015a and 2015b; Cristofoli et al., 2016, 2017 and 2022; Bianchi et al., 2021), intended as a way to overcome barriers and organizational “silos”, proactively involving and engaging different stakeholders, both public and private, with the aim to carry out “a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2012). Recently, a growing number of studies in healthcare management have adopted this theoretical lens to analyze different collaborative approaches between professionals (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2022), healthcare organizations (Franowski, 2019), actors of a specific disease network (Tremblay et al., 2019). Following the work of Tremblay et al. (2019), we similarly adopt the Emerson et al. (2021) analytical framework to guide the data collection process and interpret the results of the analysis. In particular, the data assessed focus on the characteristics of the context of the cancer network (history, opportunities, constraints), the features of the actors (in terms of values, leadership, management strategies, resources), the mechanisms of collaboration between them (instruments, strategies, dynamics over time).

The empirical context is offered by the local cancer delivery network of Aprilia, a rural municipality of the Lazio Region, where, since 2011, high frequency cancer treatments are delivered in the House of Health (i.e. outpatient setting) by oncologists and professional nurses, who are permanently assigned to this territorial structure. The House of Health is 30 km distant from the nearest hospital hub, located in Latina and 50 km distant from Rome. The territorial oncology of Aprilia is therefore a distinct reality from the hospital oncology of Latina hospital and is one of the centers of specialization of the Sapienza University of Rome. This means that cancer patients treated at Aprilia also have access to experimental therapies. General practitioners (GPs) have an active role relative to cancer patients, being directly involved in the oncological care path and in the follow-up to therapy. The structure is also supported by private non-profit associations through material help (as free transportation for patients more in need) or advocacy activity.

To perform the analysis, we adopted a case study methodology (Hartley, 1994; Yin, 1989 and 2015), combining three different sources of information: (i) a preliminary desk analysis of institutional reports and documents relevant to describe the empirical context; (ii) 13 semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of key informants, among the clinical staff (oncologists and nurses) of the House of Health of Aprilia, the Director and medical students of the Medical Oncology Unit of La Sapienza University (Rome), the Director of the territorial District of Latina and volunteers of nonprofit associations collaborating (iii) an on-site visit to gather direct information regarding organization of patient flows and staff working spaces.

Through the assessment of the collected evidences, we were able to detect the different factors that explain the success of this case and that together contribute to build the “mechanisms of cross-boundary collaboration” conceived by Emerson et al. (2012) as the fundamental core of the collaborative governance: the commitment to the process of all actors involved in the form of shared motivations, especially in their reciprocal recognition (on one hand, local non-profit associations support the oncological services, on the other the healthcare organization gives them the opportunity to reach their institutional mission); the existence of a face-to-face dialogue (GPs are invited to the House of Health on a monthly basis to discuss with the clinical and managerial staff); the presence of a solid trust relationship and common understanding of mission and values at all levels (health professionals, management, GPs, local political institutions, non-profit associations); the adoption of a gradual process of development, reaching “intermediate outcomes” that encourage trust and commitment and build up capacity for joint action (to foster research activity and make Aprilia more attractive also to young medical students, some spaces are dedicated to build a laboratory area for clinical studies).

This virtuous process is supported by other relevant variables forming the external context (Ansell and Gash, 2008): the strong motivation of the health professionals; the support of the local political institutions; the perceived benefit from the patients, in terms of humanization of care and proximity.

The relevance of this experience stays in its potential replicability, in light of the Italian Recocery and Resilience Plan's requirements: it may serve as a prototype for replications in other contexts, laying the foundations for developing similar processes even in other therapeutic areas.