ABSTRACT
Networked public service delivery requires trust and flexibility, yet public managers remain constrained by legal contracts designed for hierarchical control. This article advances public management theory by examining how courts in the UK and the US address this governance dilemma through their interpretation of good faith in relational contracts. Using a mixed case selection strategy, combining diverse and pathway logic, the authors trace doctrinal evolution across both jurisdictions. UK courts are shown to be developing a pragmatic, context-sensitive framework that aligns legal doctrine with collaborative practice. In contrast, courts in the US are constrained by sovereign immunity and a high bar for proving bad faith, creating a legal environment that prioritizes government discretion over partnership. From this divergence, four judicial models of good faith enforcement are theorized: presumptive, high bar, contextual, and reasonable expectations. The article makes three contributions: it positions judicial reasoning as an active institutional force shaping relational governance; it offers a framework linking legal interpretations of good faith to accountability, risk, and collaboration; and it bridges public management and contract law to support future empirical research on contracting behaviour and governance outcomes.
€
Deanna Malatesta and Craig R Smith, Relational contracting and the duty of good faith: Divergent judicial pathways in the UK and the US, Public Money & Management. Published online: 6 May 2026.
Leave a Reply