How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience
| Author | Jostein Askim |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852307081152 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
How do politicians use performance information? An analysis
of the Norwegian local government experience
Jostein Askim
Abstract
This article aims to improve knowledge of performance information’s role in politi-
cal decision-making. Two research questions are addressed, with data from a
national survey of councillors in Norway: first, how important is performance
information for councillors? The article disaggregates decision-making into three
stages and assesses performance information utilization at each stage. The results
show surprisingly high levels of utilization. Second, why do some councillors use
performance information more than others? The article compares utilization
across policy sectors and the results show two contrasting groups: utilization is
higher among councillors working with elderly care, administrative affairs, and
educational affairs than among councillors working with other sectors. Possible
reasons for this pattern are discussed.
Points for practitioners
First, it is important to understand politicians’ relationship to performance informa-
tion because their views determine the fate of performance management – politi-
cians are, after all, those who provide funding for this practice. Second, politicians’
utilization of performance information is not limited to the post-decisional stage of
decision-making. They need and use accurate information about organizational
performance throughout the decision-making process. Third, performance
information’s relevance is not limited to a few policy sectors. Across-sector
variations in utilization are probably due to variations in access to performance
information rather than variations in sector-inherent compatibilities with perform-
ance management.
Jostein Askim is a research fellow and doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science,
University of Oslo, Norway.
Copyright © 2007 IIAS, SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol 73(3):453–472 [DOI:10.1177/0020852307081152]
454 International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3)
Keywords: local government, Norway, performance management, performance
measurement, public sector reform
New Public Management (NPM) has enhanced governmental organizations’ expo-
sure to performance information (Radin, 2000; De Bruijn, 2002; Behn, 2003; Pollitt
and Bouckaert, 2004), but studies show that the mere presence of performance
measures does not necessarily lead to their effective use in decisions (Rich and Oh,
2000; Melkers and Willoughby, 2005; Pollitt, 2006a; Siverbo and Johansson, 2006).
Most scholars, in fact, appear rather sceptical about the usefulness of performance
information in decision-making, especially for politicians (Lægreid et al., 2006; Pollitt,
2006b). This is disappointing for those who foster hopes for increasingly well-
informed decision-making in government and it can mean that councillors lose
influence relative to groups that do make active use of this type of information, such
as executive managers and central governmental agencies.
Our knowledge about whether and how politicians use performance information
is, however, limited by a lack of empirical evidence (Poister and Streib, 1999; Lancer
Julnes and Holzer, 2001; Bogt, 2004; Moynihan, 2005b; Helden et al., 2006; Pollitt,
2006c). When summing up 20 years’ research on performance measurement, Pollitt
(2006c) calls it ‘mildly amazing’ that there are only a few analyses of what elected
politicians do with performance information. This article attempts to contribute to the
understanding of performance information’s role in politicians’ decision-making by
reporting the results of a national survey of councillors (elected representatives to
municipal councils) in Norway.1 The survey questioned councillors about their use of
performance information and other sources of information for various decision-
making purposes.
These data are used to address two questions currently under debate in the
literature. First, how important is performance information for councillors? The article
disaggregates decision-making into three discrete stages and assesses performance
information’s absolute and relative importance at each stage. The data show that
some councillors make more use of performance information than others. This gives
rise to the second research question: How can these variations be explained? To
address this question, the article compares utilization across policy sectors.
The article’s treatment of these two research questions contributes to an analytic
issue that has received growing attention in the field: Under what circumstances
are politicians and other decision-makers in government likely to use performance
information? (Dekker and Hansén, 2004; Pollitt, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
The article starts by briefly reviewing existing research on the use of performance
information in government and politics. The following sections present and discuss
evidence from Norwegian local government prior to a discussion in the concluding
section of implications, limitations and pointers for future research.
Performance information meets political decision-making
Measurement of activities and outputs is as old as public administration itself
(Williams, 2003), but since the 1990s performance measurement has become more
extensive (more fields), more intensive (more functions) and more external in use
Askim How do politicians use performance information? 455
(Bouckaert, 1996). Measurement generates performance information, which is
according to Pollitt (2006b) systematic information that describes the outputs and
outcomes of public programmes and organizations, generated by systems and
processes intended to produce such information. This includes information gener-
ated by performance-monitoring systems as well as information flows from evalua-
tions (internal and external) and performance audits (internal and external).
When communicated to administrative and political bodies, performance informa-
tion is often presented as performance indicators (PIs), which may include indicators
of organizational efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Presentation of performance
information involves analysis. Analysing performance information can comprise a
comparison of performance levels with past performance (all-time highs and histori-
cal averages), normative standards (aspiration levels set by the organization itself and
by others such as national and international bodies), and the performance of other
organizations (group averages and positive outliers), so-called ‘comparative statistics’
(Simon, 1937). There exists a wide range of more or less generic performance
management techniques which support such analysis. ‘The balanced scorecard’
(Kaplan and Norton, 1996) is one example.
Limited utilization?
Performance management enthusiasts argue that performance information enables
decisions and actions that lead to more efficient and effective goal-fulfilment. Based
on studies of US performance management reforms, Moynihan claims that designers
of performance management systems commonly assume that ‘performance infor-
mation will automatically become a factor in existing decision processes’ (Moynihan,
2005b: 211). But few organization and administration researchers equate measure-
ment with use; measures are descriptive facts, while use is about drawing inferences
from these facts for the purposes of making decisions. Such inference-drawing
involves diagnosing descriptive patterns and ideally identifying cause–effect and
means–ends explanations (Dekker and Hansén, 2004).
Research on performance information utilization from both sides of the Atlantic
has generated findings that resonate with insight gained from organization theory
(Feldman and March, 1988; March, 1988; Argyris, 1992; Rousseau, 2006), strategy
(Greve, 2003) and evaluation and public policy (Weiss, 1998; Rich and Oh, 2000).
First, routines for gathering, storing, and communicating performance information –
are part of the decision-support system for politicians, managers, and others with a
stake in the organization. Second, performance information is nonetheless frequently
only loosely coupled to actual decision-making; there is extensive evidence that
politicians rarely make direct, instrumental use of performance information.
In the United States, almost all state governments have adopted systems for
collecting and distributing performance information as part of so-called Managing
for Results reforms, but empirical studies have found limited use of performance
information for decision purposes, and particularly so for elected officers (Moynihan,
2005a). The conclusion drawn by Bogt (2001, 2003, 2004), based on case studies
and survey research in Dutch local government, is that Dutch aldermen (the top
echelon of Dutch councillors) see little value in the performance information that is
456 International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3)
made available to them; they prefer meetings and consultations with civil servants. In
a study that compares performance management across European countries and
across policy sectors, Pollitt concludes that measuring performance has become
almost universal, but that ‘politicians do not take much interest – unless and until
disasters, scandals, or breakdowns come along. . . . Performance measurement and
performance management remain activities conducted chiefly by and for managers’
(Pollitt, 2006a: 41).
Evidence of how politicians use performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial