The Implementation of Performance Management in European Central Governments: More a North-South than an East-West Divide

• Authors: Gerhard Hammerschmid , Lorenz Löffler
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article presents the first country-comparative evidence on the importance and use of performance management in European central governments, based on an executive survey conducted in 17 countries. The data confirm that performance management has made its way into European central governments and continues to constitute a major reform trend. At the organizational level of ministries and agencies we find a consistently strong use of strategic planning, performance appraisal and management objectives, along with only a partial institutionalization of a performance-management logic. Scepticism towards measurement and the difficulty of acting upon performance information are persistent challenges. We also find that performance-management implementation is significantly stronger in agencies and larger organizations, and that it varies strongly between different countries. Implementation is substantially higher in Scandinavian countries and Anglo-Saxon countries than in Continental and Southern European countries, with a rather varied pattern for Central and Eastern European countries. The findings thereby confirm the need for a more context-sensitive understanding of performance management, along with the need for more extensive research and evidence to further develop this cross-comparative European perspective.

Keywords

EN

performance management; Europe; comparative public administration; management instrument; performance-indicator use

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 49-68

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-01-29

Contributors

author

Gerhard Hammerschmid

author

Lorenz Löffler

References

• Aberbach, J. D., R. D. Putnam and B. A. Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA / London: Harvard University Press.
• Andrews, R. and G. A. Boyne. 2010. “Capacity, Leadership, and Organizational Performance: Testing the Black Box Model of Public Management.” Public Administration Review 70, 443 - 454.
• Askim, J. 2009. “The Demand Side of Performance Measurement: Explaining Councillors’ Utilization of Performance Information in Policymaking.” International Public Management Journal 12, 24 - 47.
• Behn, R. D. 2003. “Why Measure Performance ? Diff erent Purposes Require Diff erent Measures.” Public Administration Review 63, 586 - 606.
• Bouckaert, G. and J. Halligan. 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
• Bouckaert, G., V. Nakrošis and J. Nemec. 2011. “Public Administration and Management Reforms in CEE: Main Trajectories and Results.” NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 4, 9 - 29.
• Bouckaert, G., and W. Van Dooren 2009. “Performance Management in Public Sector Organisations.” In T. Bovaird and E. Loffl er (ed.). Public Management and Governance. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 151 - 164.
• Boyne, G. A. 2002. “Concepts and Indicators of Local Authority Performance: An Evaluation of the Statutory Framework in England and Wales”, Public Money and Management 22, 17 - 24.
• Boyne, G. A. 2010a. “Public and Private Management: What’s the Diff erence ?” Journal of Management Studies 39, 97 - 122.
• Boyne, G. A. 2010b. “Performance Managament: Does it Work ?” In R. Walker, G. A.
• Boyne and G. A. Brewer (eds). Public Management and Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207 - 226.
• Boyne, G. A., K. J. Meier, L. J. O’Toole and R. M. Walker. 2006. Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Enticott, G. 2004. “Multiple Voices of Modernization: Some Methodological Implications.” Public Administration 82, 743 - 756.
• Enticott, G., G. A. Boyne and R. M. Walker. 2009. “The Use of Multiple Informants in Public Administration Research: Data Aggregation Using Organizational Echelons.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19, 229 - 253.
• Frazier, A. and J. Swiss. 2008. “Contrasting Views of Results-Based Management Tools from Different Organizational Levels.” International Public Management Journal 11, 214 - 234.
• Hammerschmid, G., A. Oprisor and V. Štimac. 2013b. COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe. Research Report. Berlin. Available at http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/COCOPS-WP3-Research-Report.pdf (last accessed 01. 10. 2015).
• Hammerschmid G., V. Štimac, A. Oprisor and S. Van de Walle. 2014. “Antecedents of Performance Information Use: Explaining Different Uses of Performance Information by Public Managers in 17 European Countries.” Paper presented at the APPAM annual conference, 7 November, in Albuquerque, NM, USA.
• Hammerschmid, G., S. Van de Walle and V. Štimac. 2013a. “Internal and External Use of Performance Information in Public Organisations: Results from an International Executive Survey.” Public Money and Management 33, 1 - 16.
• Ingraham, P. W., P. G. Joyce and A. K. Donahue. 2003. Government Performance: Why Management Matters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Kickert, W. 2011. “Distinctiveness of Administrative Reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain: Common Characteristics of Context, Administrations and Reforms.” Public Administration 89, 801 - 818.
• Kroll, A. 2015. “Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research.” Public Performance & Management Review 38, 459 - 486.
• Kroll, A. 2012. Why Public Managers Use Performance: Information Concepts, Theory, and Empirical Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam.
• Kuhlmann, S. and H. Wollmann. 2014. Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham / Northhampton: Edward Elgar.
• Lodge, M. and C. Hood. 2012. “Into an Age of Multiple Austerities ? Public Management and Public Service Bargains across OECD Countries.” Governance 25, 79 - 101.
• March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.
• Meyer, R. E. and G. Hammerschmid. 2010. “The Degree of Decentralization and Individual Decision Making in Central Government Human Resource Management: A European Comparative Perspective.” Public Administration 88, 455 - 478.
• Meyer-Sahling, J. H. 2012. “Civil Service Professionalisation in the Western Balkans.” SIGMA Paper 48. Paris: OECD Publications.
• Moynihan, D. P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Moynihan, D. P. and P. W. Ingraham. 2004. “Integrative Leadership in the Public Sector: A Model of Performance-Information Use.” Administration and Society 36, 427 - 453.
• Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey. 2010. “The Big Question for Performance Management: Why do Managers Use Performance Information ?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20, 849 - 866.
• Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey. 2005. “Testing how Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15, 421 - 439.
• Moynihan, D. P., S. K. Pandey and B. E. Wright. 2012. “Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: Linking Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use.” Governance 25, 463 - 483.
• Nemec, J. 2010. “New Public Management and its Implementation in CEE: What do we Know and where do we Go ?” NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 3, 31 - 52.
• OECD. 2005. Modernising Government: The Way Forward. Paris: OECD.
• Olsen, J. P. 2003. “Towards a European Administrative Space ?” Journal of European Public Policy 10, 506 - 531.
• Painter, M. J. and B. G. Peters. 2010. Tradition and Public Administration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pollitt, C. 2013. “The Logics of Performance Management.” Evaluation 19, 346 - 363.
• Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Radin, B. A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Randma-Liiv, T. and R. Savi. Forthcoming. “Managing the Public Sector under Fiscal Stress.” In G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, R. Andrews and P. Bezes (eds). Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Talbot, C. 2005. “Performance Management.” In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn and C. Pollitt (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491 - 517. Taylor, J. 2011. “Factors Infl uencing the Use of Performance Information for Decision Making in Australian State Agencies.” Public Administration 89, 1316 - 1334.
• Van Dooren, W., G. Bouckaert and J. Halligan. 2010. Performance Management in the Public Sector. London / New York: Routledge.
• Van Dooren, W. and S. Van de Walle, S. 2008. Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Walker, R. M., G. A. Boyne and G. A. Brewer. 2010. Public Management and Performance: Research Directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/nispa-2015-0008