Hester Paanakker

values or value clusters differ among different domains, occupations, level of decision-making responsibility or specific type of public service delivery. In addressing this important question of value uniformity, Huberts touches upon the major philosophical debates of value relativism, universalism and pluralism (2014, p. 214). In essence, they represent the following different viewpoints respectively: (1) values only acquire their worth in the specific context they are viewed and used in (relativism); (2) values are, at least to some extent, characterized by a universal validity, irrespective of time, place, person and circumstances (universalism); and (3) values are not only co-existent and co-dependant but also incommensurable – that is, they inherently conflict and the pursuit of the one always is at expense of the pursuit of the other, which makes the management of conflicting values a key characteristic of governing (pluralism). This line of reasoning applies well to public administration contexts. In public governance, a wide range of values, such as honesty, effectiveness, efficiency, integrity and lawfulness are intrinsically valued (De Graaf, 2015). Therefore, in theory, each and every one of them deserves to be pursued to its full capacity. However, in administrative reality this is a sheer impossible task, and every time the right balance between values needs to be struck, it is contingent on the specific situation (De Graaf, 2015). Huberts settles his position in between a pluralist and a universalist point of view, and states to be “sceptical of value relativism” (2014, p. 214). In explaining his position on the tenability of the value panorama he identified, his position tends to lean more towards a universalistic point of view: To put it simply, values, as well as their prioritization in relation to each other, are, of course, constructed in context, so the meaning of incorruptibility and efficiency and their importance among other values will differ between, for example, governance in an Indian village and governance in the wealthy metropolitan areas of the world. To use or even prescribe the same criteria and policies in both contexts would thus be unrealistic and counterproductive. Yet I nevertheless doubt whether a poor Indian villager and a New York yuppie differ that much in their views on a governance system in which the private profit of their “governor” dominates over public interest. Hence, universalistic values on governance do seem to exist. The poor farmer and the yuppie prefer incorruptibility above corruptibility, even though they are part of systems and contexts that will—understandably—lead to very different types of behaviour. (Huberts, 2014, p. 214) 123 Value Contextuality in Public Service Delivery