ategies for the public manager to implement has led to the break down of the theory. Waldo however questioned the idea that public managers actually worked to this model at all stating it was nothing more than a useful myth or a ‘noble lie’.

Politicians were not inherently inclined to claim their influence was smaller than the public perceived and administrators equally not disposed to acknowledge the influence that they actually had.
121 years after Wilson’s work, academics still wrestle with the same issue; what role should public managers play in a democracy? It is now Moore who champions a proactive alternative that has been ignored for so long. However, Moore’s theory is by no means universally accepted and the response is led by the passionate challenges of Rhodes & Wanna . They emphasize the differences of the liberal democracies of the UK and Australia, comparing their strong, disciplined political executive and neutral public officials with the American context in which Moore writes. They claim the authorizing environment is very different in the UK with ministers and the ruling party acting as the fulcrum for decision making; the political appointment of public officials being an exceptional event in comparison to America. They accuse Moore of underplaying the existence of exploitative self-interested lobby groups (such as the alcohol and tobacco industry), failing to acknowledge the asymmetrical power balance between the state and citizens and ignoring the ‘dark side’ of the state’s coercive function. They assert Public Value is a ‘Humpty Dumpty’ term that means too many things to too many people and places public managers as the new Guardians of society and undermining the primacy of party politics.