Public Performance - towards a new model?
| Published date | 01 July 1999 |
| Author | Colin Talbot |
| Date | 01 July 1999 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207679901400302 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public
Performance
-
towards
a
new
model?
Colin
Talbot
University
of
Glamorgan
Abstract
This
is
an
article
about
performance
in
government.
It
considers
how
perfor-
mance,
in
a
variety
of
senses,
has
become
a
dominant
theme
in
probably
the
majority
of
OECD
countries
(although
not
all).
It
asks
some
fundamental
questions
about
what
is
'performance'
in,
and
of,
government
by
reflecting
on
what
governments
do
in
terms
of
the
policy
instruments
available
to
them.
It
looks
briefly
at
how
developments
in
the
use
and
understanding
of
'perfor-
mance'
concepts
(and
related issues
of
quality)
have
been
changing
in
the
private
sector
-
especially
the
emergence
of
new
holistic
models
of
perfor-
mance
or
'balanced
scorecards'.
It
discusses
how
far
these
are
relevant
to
public
services
performance,
concluding
that
while
there
is
much
to
learn
there
are
also
key
areas
of
difference
between
'performance'
in
the
private
and
public
sectors.
Drawing
on
the
evident
strengths
of
the
more
holistic
models
developed
in
the
private
sector,
it
outlines
a
similar
approach
-
a
balanced
framework
-for
public
services,
but
one
which
takes
account
of
the
constraints
and
purposes
of
public
service
-
the
Public
Service
Excellence
Model.
The
Rise
and
Rise
of
Performance
Management
The
1980s
and
especially
the
1990s
has
seen
the
rise
and
rise
of
'performance'
as
an
issue
in
public
sector
theory
and
practice.
There
have
been
a
series
of
studies
of
the
theory
and
practice
of
performance
systems
-
some
serious
and
some
more
superficial
(Jowett
1988;
Beeton
and
Terry
1989;
Cave,
Kogan
et
al.
1990;
Carter,
Klein
et
al.
1992;
Jackson
1995;
Halachmi
and
Bouckaert
1996;
Smith
1996;
Mayne
and
Zapico-Goni
1997;
OECD-PUMA
1997).
Alongside
these
descriptive
and
analytical
accounts
there
have
been
a
series
of
prescriptive
'how
to
do
it'
guides,
although
many
of
these
also
include
some
analyses
of
concepts
and
practice
(Tomkins
1987;
Carley
1988;
Beeton
and
Terry
1989;
Rogers
1990;
Hoyes
and
Means
1992;
Jackson
and
Palmer
1992;
Rosen
1993;
Martin
and
Kettner
1996;
Yates
1996;
Holzer
and
Callahan
1998;
Popovich
1998;
Sandler
and
Hudson
1998;
Sluyter
1998).
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
14
No.
3
Autumn
1999
15
There
has
also
been
a
specific
sub-literature
developing
around
the
issue
of
quality
and
performance
in
public
services
(Dickens
1994;
Morgan
and
Murgatroyd
1994;
Gaster
1995;
Kirkpatrick
and
Matinez
Lucio
1995;
Pollitt
and
Bouckaert
1995;
Perrin
and
Koshel
1997)
and
also
around
the
issue
of
audit
and
performance
(Hillison,
Hollander
et
al.
1995;
OECD-PUMA
1996;
Pollitt,
Girre
et
al.
1999)
including
audits
of
specific
organisations
performance
indictors
(Comptroller
and
Auditor
General
1995;
Comptroller
and
Auditor
General
1998).
Finally,
there
is
also
a
small
but
growing
body
of
literature
asking
what
all
this
is
for
and
more
specifically
where
performance
information
sits
in
systems
of
accountability
and
resource
allocation
(Commonwealth
Department
of
Finance
1992;
Congressional
Budget
Office
1993;
General
Accounting
Office
1993;
Commonwealth
Department
of
Finance
1994;
Commonwealth
Department
of
Finance
1995;
Public
Service
Committee
1996;
Talbot
1996;
Boyne
1997;
Hyndman
and
Anderson
1998;
Talbot
1999;
Treasury
Committee
1999).
What
is
'Performance'
and
why
does
it
matter?
All
this
activity
may
create
the
false
impression
that
the
issues
of
performance
in
government
and
public
services
are
new
which,
of
course,
they
are
not.
'Perfor-
mance'
in
its
broadest
sense
has
probably
been
an
issue
in
government
for
as
long
as
government
has
been
around.
In
a
fascinating
study
of
the
'tides
of
reform'
in
American
federal
administration
between
1945
and
1995
Paul
Light
identifies
four
'tides':
(1)
scientific
management,
with
its
focus
on
tight
hierarchy,
specialization,
clear
chains
of
command,
(2)
war
on
waste,
with
its
emphasis
on
inspectors,
auditors,
cross-checkers,
and
reviewers,
(3)
watchful
eye,
with
its
embrace
of
sunshine
and
openness,
and
(4)
liberation
management,
with
its
cry
to
let
the
managers
manage,
albeit
with
a
bit
of
market
pressure.
(Light
1997).
Light
identifies
the
key
goals
of
each
tide
as,
respectively,
efficiency,
economy,
fairness
and
high
performance
-
all
of
which
are
clearly
'performance'
goals
as
widely
defined.
If
we
take
a
simple
model
of
performance
(see
Figure
1)
then
they
focus,
respectively,
on
(1)
the
efficiency
relationship
between
inputs
and
outputs
(2)
reducing
inputs
or
the
cost
of
inputs
(3)
due
process
and
equity
and
(4)
the
relationship
between
inputs
and
outputs
and
outcomes.
The
simple
performance
model
below
is
particularly
useful
for
analyzing
where
the
emphases
in
particular
'performance'
initiatives
have
placed
emphasis.
A
study
of
'administrative
arguments'
established
99
doctrines
of
organisation
(often
contradictory)
that
were
said
to
be
prevalent
and
long
lasting
in
debates
about
administration
and
management
(Hood
and
Jackson
1991).
Interestingly,
the
terminology
of
'performance'
does
not
appear
anywhere
in
Hood
and
Jackson's
analysis
of
administrative
doctrines.
This
perhaps
reflects
the
origin
of
the
book
in
the
mid-late
1980s,
before
the
current
wave
of
interest
in
perfor-
mance.
It
also
suggests
there
is
something
novel,
if
only
terminologically,
in
the
current
debates.
In
the
area
of
what
the
authors
called
'doctrines
of
control
over
operations'
they
identified
eight
doctrines,
grouped
into
three
areas:
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
14
No.
3
Autumn
1999
16
To continue reading
Request your trial