WHAT IS “CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST”?

The concept of “the public interest” (or whether it can even be defined) is frequently debated in the literature (see, e.g., Sorauf 1957; Schubert 1960; Downs 1962; Goodsell 1990). In practice, the term is often synonymous with the notion of “general welfare,” the “common good,” or actions benefiting the “general public.” While difficult to define precisely, the public interest “has a day-to-day commonsensical, practical salience for the behavior of hundreds of thousands of Public Administrators” (Catron, cited in Wamsley et al. 1990). The concept is somewhat analogous to the legal term “due process,” which, while vague, becomes clearer in the discussion of particular cases and provides a unifying symbol of correct action (Sorauf 1957).

Former Irish Information Commissioner, Kevin Murphy, defined the public interest in the following way:

In very general terms, I take it that the public interest is that which supports and promotes the good of society as a whole (as opposed to what serves the interests of individual members of society or of sectional interest groups). In this sense I take it that the term “public interest” broadly equates with the term “the common good.” (Freedom of Information [Scotland] Act 2002)

The public interest is often contrasted with the concept of “private interest,” recognizing that what is good for general society may not be beneficial to particular individuals and vice versa. The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a classic representation of this concept: While individuals may gain from grazing their cattle on the commons, at some point (absent regulation in the public interest) overgrazing is detrimental to the entire society, destroying the pasture and the livelihood of all (Hardin 1968). Current examples of this conflict include overfishing in the oceans and global warming. Individuals may gain from inexpensive fish or cheap power, but the long-term cost to society in general may be significant and contrary to the broader public interest.

Sometimes it is easier to determine what the public interest is not. For example, it is not corruption or injustice, racism, authoritarianism, arbitrary actions, unethical decision-making, or antisocial behavior.

Faculty members at Virginia Tech University, in their “Blacksburg Manifesto,” noted that while it may be impossible to define the public interest in a given policy situation, the concept is still useful as an “ideal” and a “process.” The manifesto states:

In this vein, the “public interest” refers to a combination of several habits of mind in making decisions and making polity: attempting to deal with the multiple ramifications of an issue rather than a select few; seeking to incorporate the long-range view into deliberations, to balance a natural tendency toward excessive concern with short-term results; considering competing demands and requirements of affected individuals and groups, not one position; proceeding equipped with more knowledge and information rather than less; and recognizing that to say that the “public interest” is problematic is not to say it is meaningless. (Wamsley et al. 1990)

Simone argues that the term “public interest” encompasses “processes, principles and policies” (2006). In applying the concept of the public interest to media policy, Simone recommends “a participatory process as the preferred method for identifying and applying public interest principles. The ultimate goal of the examination is to discover ways to increase public participation in the ongoing dialogue” regarding the public interest. As an illustration of Simone’s approach, ensuring equal access to certain government services might involve all three facets: the policy to make the services available, the principle of equality, and the processes by which that access is ensured. An agency responsible for a particular government service will have to consider all three as it undergoes any change or transformation.

Accepting the notion of the public interest as a useful perspective to guide actions may further suggest an approach to the change process. Wamsley et al. (1990) suggests the following approach:

1. Tentative steps and experimental action, rather than a final “solution”

2. Curiosity and dialogue about ends as well as means

3. Individuals and institutions that “learn” as well as respond

4. Humility and skepticism about “grand designs”

5. Greater awareness of the potential of each individual to contribute to the dialogue about the public interest

6. Greater attentiveness to the words of public discourse.

Goodsell illustrates this approach to the public interest in discussing a National Park Service decision to limit visitors in certain national parks (1990). In its announcement the Park Service emphasized that the park ecosystem must be preserved over the “long run” and that visitors must be given a “quality experience.” Further, the Park Service noted that closing the parks when full respects their “carrying capacity” and indicated that indirect controls tried in the past had failed. Finally, the Park Service said that in an experimental park closing it had received only one complaint. This example demonstrates the importance of the process of determining the public interest.

The point of discussing these approaches and illustrations is not to argue for a specific set of public interest imperatives; rather, it is to suggest that the concept of the “public interest” is a multifaceted concern that leaders of public and nonprofit organizations must keep in mind as they work to change or transform their organizations. This concern for the public interest must capture existing policy and “official” expressions of the public interest; any fundamental principles at stake; the processes by which citizens and stakeholders are able to engage in dialogue about maintaining the public interest during the transformation; and the special trusteeship responsibilities that leaders have for their organizations and the public (both current and future generations).

While nonprofit leaders may not have exactly the same trusteeship responsibilities as public leaders, nonprofit organizations enjoy a special status in most countries: They are created for certain public purposes, generally have public purposes as part of their charter, and often are based on certain shared values or principles—all of which have to be considered in any change or transformation.

The concept of “change in the public interest” argues that the notion of acting for the good of the general members of society must be at the center of all public and nonprofit change and transformation initiatives. Thus, as public and nonprofit leaders contemplate and initiate change and transformation, their diagnosis of the problem, their strategizing about solutions, and their implementation and reinforcement of the resulting changes must all occur within the context of the public interest.