Special session on Decision-Making for Public Sector Recovery (DEPSER)

Scope

In today’s world, public sector bodies are expected to make decisions of public relevance and interest that are not only based on evidence, but also take into account the costs and benefits, while acknowledging any uncertainties. It is crucial that such decisions are made with utmost transparency and accountability to ensure the best possible outcomes for the public. The current turbulent times have made providing essential services in critical areas such as healthcare, education, community programmes, criminal justice, and public transport more challenging than ever. Economic conditions have imposed austerity measures and constraints on public expenditure, which require careful planning activities with a strategic value given their long-term impact. The planning process should consider the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the public sector makes the right decisions that benefit everyone.

However, in the wake of continuous economic upheavals and renewed social challenges, the public sector in many countries worldwide stands at a crossroads between recovery and transformative capacity. The "Decision-Making for Public Sector Recovery” (DEPSER) track seeks to illuminate this crossroads, drawing inspiration from the most recent Public Value perspectives and signifying organisations’ subjectively relevant contribution—positive or negative—toward the common good.

The underlying approach recognises the pivotal role of government and public institutions in fostering innovation and human development, not merely as regulators but as active market shapers and transformational change creators under the banner of collective decision-making and the adaptability of social decision rules in the face of different social contexts. Furthermore, DEPSER is designed to provide a critical engagement with the emerging vision for post-pandemic development studies and, generally, with the moral labour of disaster prevention and work-related accidents and diseases.

Undeniably, the track emerges amidst a crucial time as Europe navigates the challenges and opportunities scheduled in the European Union Recovery Plan. This plan represents a landmark initiative and aims to guide member states towards resilient and inclusive post-crisis recovery, making it an essential backdrop for our discussions. By exploring the synergies between Public Value theories and the practical implications of the EU Recovery Plan, DEPSER strives to contribute to developing robust economic policy and public sector strategies. Such strategies will not only address immediate recovery needs but also lay the groundwork for sustainable, long-term economic and social well-being across the European Union.

By emphasising the integration of decision-making and economics, DEPSER also helps explore how advanced decision tools, particularly AI and related technology, are reflected in their contributions to public sector efficiency and efficacy. Therefore, the track invites researchers and practitioners to contribute insights on innovative economic models, human beings’ role in policy-making, tangible case studies of public sector successes, learning experiences, and evaluation processes.

DEPSER is more than a debate platform: it is intended to be an international call to action for reinventing public sector strategies, as well as addressing the ethical, governance, and responsibility challenges inherent in its founders’ intentions. The ultimate endeavour is to develop a comprehensive understanding that guides resilient, effective public policy implementation, paving the way for a sustainable economic recovery that benefits all sectors of society. This introduction sets the stage for a series of discussions and presentations aligned with a vision of public value, focusing on innovative approaches to economic challenges in the public sector.

• Amarasinghe, K., Rodolfa, K.T., Lamba, H., & Ghani, R. (2023). Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions. Data & Policy, 5: e5.
• Arrow, K.A. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. (2010). Public value in complex and changing times. in J. Benington, & M.H. Moore (eds.), Public value: Theory and practice, pp. 1-29. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Blankart, C.B., & Koester, G.B. (2006). Political economics versus public choice—Two views of political economy in competition. Kyklos, 59(2): 171-200.
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (eds.) (2017) [2007]. Transcending new public management—The transformation of public sector reform. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
• Cordella, A., & Bonina, C.M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512-520.
• Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101409.
• Cowling, M. (2006). Measuring public value: The economic theory. London: The Work Foundation.
• Criado, J.I., & Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5): 438-450.
• Crosby, B.C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655-669.
• Dasgupta, P., & Serageldin, I. (2000). Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Dickinson, H. (2016), From new public management to new public governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’. In J. Butcher, & D. Gilchrist (eds.), The three sector solution: Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business. Canberra, ACT, Australian National University Press.
• Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436.
• Dong, L. (2015). Public administration theories—Instrumental and value rationalities. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Elsner, W., Heinrich, T., & Schwardt, H. (2015). The microeconomics of complex economies. Evolutionary, institutional, and complexity perspectives. Oxford, UK: Academic Press.
• Emery, Y., & Giauque, D. (2014). The hybrid universe of public administration in the 21st century. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(1), 23-32.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Esposito, P., & Ricci, P. (2015). How to turn public (dis)value into new public value? Evidence from Italy. Public Money & Management, 35(3), 227-231.
• Finger, M., & Razaghi, M. (2017). Conceptualizing smart cities. Informatik-Spektrum, 40, 6-13.
• Flachaire, E., Hué, S., Laurent, S., & Hacheme, G. (2023). Interpretable machine learning using partial linear models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. DOI: 10.1111/obes.12592.
• Friedman, L.S. (2002).The microeconomics of public policy analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114: 11-32.
• Grossi, G., Vakkuri, J., & Sargiacomo, M. (2022). Accounting, performance and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations: a value creation perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(3), 577-597.
• Hirschman, A.O. (1972). Exit, voice, and loyalty—Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137-159.
• Jones, L.R., & Kettl, D.F. (2003). Assessing public management reform in an international context. International Public Management Review, 4(1), 1-19.
• Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787-801.
• Kaun, A., & Dencik, L. (2020). Datafication and the welfare state. Global Perspectives, 1(1): 1-8.
• Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value. London: Cabinet Office.

---

---

---

Topics

Is there a way out of the crisis? Economic change and restructuring of a society based on the values and principles of equity and equality.

Corporate taxation, tax avoidance, tax evasion and potential solutions to the repeated problems emerging from the failures of the trickle-down theory.

Multi-criteria decision-making for public sector management: Bridging the gap between theoretical concepts and practical implementation.

Perceptions of decision-making roles and priorities that impact recovery after unexpected events.

Explainable machine learning for public policy: Machine learning systems increasingly supporting high-stakes public policy decisions.

Long-standing problems with government decision-making for public sector services: The shadow economy and policy delays.

Making informed decisions in the public sector: Exploring how big data analysis and AI can enhance decision-making in public sector policy formation.

Post-pandemic economic resilience: Strategies for building sustainable economies and resilient communities.

Public Sector innovation and entrepreneurship: The role of government in fostering innovation and cooperation among business units as a recovery tool.

Navigating public sector recovery and the political economy of uncertainty: Safety management through values and critical commitment to disaster prevention.

Sustainable investment and the so-called green recovery: Aligning economic recovery with environmental sustainability goals.

Digital transformation in public services: How digitalisation can improve efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

Experimenting the impact of fiscal policies for economic recovery: Does monetary policy act as a catalytic tool for economic survival?

Inclusive recovery strategies addressing real economies and social inequalities: Rethinking democratic theories of justice.

Just over two years after the end of the pandemic crisis and its impact on the global economy: what does it take to transform crises into opportunities?

Public-private partnerships in recovery plans: The role and impact of public-private collaborations in economic recovery.

Healthcare systems and economic recovery: Analysing the interplay between public health and economic recovery strategies.

Educational reforms for a future-ready workforce, too: Tailoring education systems to meet the demands of a recovering and evolving economy.

Factors affecting project governance in decision-making for public sector project procurement.

Universalism and allocative decision-making in smart cities: Applying social choice rules to emergent urban ecosystems.

Behavioural social choice theory: Criteria for a unified theory of decision-making, reconciling normative and descriptive work.

The role of public sector in local economic and territorial development: Social capital, social movements and the reinvention of participatory governance.

Behaving adaptively: Public sector recovery as aggregate dynamics of evolving structures in complex systems.

Social and environmental sustainability: Evaluating public policy and business model choices in mitigating environmental impacts.

Defining recovery models by increasing the transparency of decision-making and ensuring trust in the public sector.

Citizens’ ability to examine and challenge public sector decisions and processes: Implications for researchers and policymakers.

What does the post-pandemic economic recovery mean for economic growth and energy consumption?

Exploring Environmental-Social-and-Governance disclosure effects on the operations of public bodies: Strategies for sustainable urban and regional development.

DEPSER 2025 welcomes empirical, experimental, theoretical, and methodological papers that address these or related questions from various disciplines and perspectives. Specifically, we invite researchers and scholars to submit papers that contribute to developing research methods and theoretical frameworks in public sector decision-making and corresponding policy insights. Applied papers should discuss new policy initiatives, best practices, and lessons learned in the broader social science area so that practitioners, academicians, and information professionals can benefit from the emerging knowledge gained. Strictly empirical, computational, and lab or field experimental studies are also welcome. Finally, we encourage papers on quantitative and qualitative methods addressing interdisciplinary research approaches. Analytical and methodological papers should contribute to formulating quantitative hypotheses, meticulously gathering and thoroughly interpreting data, and planning and conducting experiments or surveys, providing clear guidance for researchers who want to use a particular research method. Theoretical papers should develop or refine theoretical frameworks in the field of study. We welcome papers that propose new theoretical models or frameworks, as well as papers that critique and refine existing ones. Furthermore, theoretical papers should be based on a sound theoretical foundation and offer instructions to researchers on how to replicate them. Papers will be judged on novelty, significance, correctness, and clarity.