One of the constant themes in the policy and public management field is an attempt to define the differences or similarities between public and private agendas and approaches. Efforts to differentiate the public from the private are like an archeological “tell” where layers are built on one another but without clarity about where one culture begins and another ends. The topic is often discussed in the literature and its similarities and differences are debated both in the US and across the globe.

This exchange takes many forms and the pendulum as swung back and forth between the two very different approaches. Its characteristics change frequently over time and, as a result, lead both scholars and policymakers to often confuse definitions and assumptions about the topic. Perhaps the most familiar quip about the topic came from Wallace Sayre, a professor at Columbia University who coined the oft-quoted aphorism, “Public and private management are fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects.”

Sayre’s quip actually sums up an extensive literature and set of experiences that attempt to sort out approaches through traditional separate typologies. Yet the development of typologies does not seem to be likely to provide the basis for effective strategies for change when decision-makers in the public sector try to improve their work. Some limited views that led players in particular directions were linked to the background and academic discipline of those approaching the topic.

Policy and management problems cross several fields and draw on a wide variety of methodologies, frameworks, information and agendas. Many players have a background in classical economics and, as a result, they tend to draw on efficiency goals and assumptions. These often are embedded in hierarchical structures that emerged from the Industrial Revolution and frameworks that searched for clear authority to justify change.

In that sense, it is useful to take a historical perspective on this topic. One could begin with the early stages of the Industrial Revolution with power and authority found in hereditary families as well as the important role of the church. Both of these institutions provided legitimization for a set of corporate-like values that eventually emerged from hierarchical structures that became essential parts of the development of what has been called the public sector. Authority was acknowledged and often accepted without a clear understanding of its effect on those without formal authority or power within the society.

Parallel to these changes was the eventual development of the middle class and a set of experiences and opportunities that led to the concept of citizenship. While it never covered all citizens, its expression across the globe did lead to a concept of citizenship through different forms of voting. These values developed in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and became a part of the American story that influenced many.

Those attracted to economic reasoning viewed voting as a perfect market with voters provided with appropriate information and choices. As a result, the structure of the American political system of federalism and shared power made it difficult to establish clear definitions of these two sectors and establish boundaries between them. Economists tried to differentiate between the values implicit in each sector by acknowledging that the private sector sought to maximize efficiency while other economists sought to add public sector goals of effectiveness and equity to private sector efficiency. One confronted different but legitimate definitions of effectiveness and equity. Efficiency itself was difficult to define. It could involve cost, time, support, and other valuable resources.

Other economists sought to establish what they called “a public good” – something that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Yet that too was difficult to maintain. Its proponents tried to extend policy into other areas beyond the military that did not meet the traditional definition. Current debate about the environment represents an attempt to frame that issue in the public good category.