Again, this question is quite loaded depending on how your organization utilizes automation.
But I will try to provide you "my" answer.
Some organizations simply use the record and playback feature. I have found that with this approach alone the framework maintenance is time consuming, however many companies utilize this approach ONLY because it allows them to create scripts faster which of course means getting your regression testing built. Sometimes with record and playback, scripts will execute faster than say creating a "reusable" script. Reusable scripts often pass parameters, use loops, if...else statements, and lots of other conditional statements that could potentially slow down execution compared to just a record/playback. However, I think a few seconds or a minute of slow down is a good trade off for a reusable script that requires little or no maintenance.
So in my opinion, I would answer that a reusable script within my framework does add more value for the following reasons:
1. No redundant code. Example: I want to open lots of forms from a single parent form. I can have 10 scripts that open each form , or I can code one, that will pass a parameter for a unique "property" of the child forms. In this example, I now have 1 script I can call to perform all 10 of the form loads.
2. Time value - Writing one script is much faster than writing 3. (often though one parameterized script MAY end up taking more time - but in the long run it SAVES you time when it comes to maintaining)
3. Maintenance - Overall by using reusable scripts, the maintenance needed is less. If done correctly, when a new build is released you should NOT have to change EVERY Script. If you have a "Library" of common functions used,in a "Perfect" scenario, those should be the only ones that need "minor" tweaks.