Abstract
Moving to outcome-based measurement systems in the public sector has been difficult. In this article, we examine the contingent decision-making arguments stimulating output instead of outcome measurement in public management. Based on an argumentative literature review, we conclude that there exist several contingent arguments encouraging politicians and public managers to stick with outputs while ignoring outcomes in performance measurement. Mapping out these arguments contributes to understanding the difficulties in implementation of outcome-based measurement and management systems. This understanding is highly useful in performance management research and policy practice. We also suggest that these contingent arguments may be considered proposals for the future research in the area of public financial management and public sector performance measurement.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). American federalism and the search for models of management. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 671–681.
Anderson, G. F., Hurst, J., Hussey, P. S., & Jee-Hughes, M. (2000). Health spending and outcomes: Trends in OECD countries, 1960–1998. Health Affairs, 19(3), 150.
Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (1988). Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.
Bandy, G. (2011). Financial management and accounting in the public sector. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Bouckaert, G. (1993). Measurement and meaningful management. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17(1), 31–43.
Bovaird, T. (2014). Attributing outcomes to social policy interventions—‘Gold standard’ or ‘fool’s gold’ in public policy and management? Social Policy and Administration, 48(1), 1–23.
Bryan, F. M. (2010). Real democracy: The New England town meeting and how it works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carlin, T., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Accrual output based budgeting systems in Australia The rhetoric-reality gap. Public Management Review, 5(2), 145–162.
Chalmers, D. (2008). Indicators of university teaching and learning quality. Canberra: Australian Learning and Teaching Council, the Australian Government Department of Education.
Chan, Y. C. (2004). Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(3), 204–221.
Chaston, I. (2011). Public sector management: Mission impossible? Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cunningham, G. M., & Harris, J. E. (2001). A heuristic framework for accountability of governmental subunits. Public Management Review, 3(2), 145–165.
Curristine, T., Park, C. K., & Emery, R. (2008). Budgeting in Portugal. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 8(3), 7.
Dervin, B. (1983). Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information needs to synthesis and interpretation. In S. Ward & L. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 153–184). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dugan, R. E., & Hernon, P. (2002). Outcomes assessment: Not synonymous with inputs and outputs. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 376–380.
Ferlie, E., Pollitt, C., & Lynn, L. E. (2005). The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
General Accounting Office. (1997). Managing for results: Opportunities for continued improvements in agencies performance plans. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. GAO/AIMD-99-215.
Gleason, J. M., & Barnum, D. T. (1982). Toward valid measures of public sector productivity: Performance measures in urban transit. Management Science, 28(4), 379–386.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Ranson, S. (1977). The politics of the budgetary process in English local government. Political Studies, 25(1), 25–47.
Grizzle, G. A., & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). Implementing performance based programme budgeting. A System-Dynamics Perspectives, Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51–62.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn., pp. 191–215). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.
Hahn, M., Lawson, R., & Lee, Y. G. (1992). The effects of time pressure and information load on decision quality. Psychology and Marketing, 9, 365–378.
Harrison, J., Rouse, P., & De Villiers, C. J. (2012). Accountability and performance measurement: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Centrum Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(2), 243–258.
Hatry, H. P. (1997). Where the rubber meets the road: Performance measurement for state and local public agencies. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(75), 31–44.
Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Institute: Washington, DC.
Hatry, H. P. (2005). Results matter: Suggestions for developing country’s early outcome measurement effort. In A. Shah (Ed.), Handbook on public sector performance review. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes–based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725.
Hodges, R. (2012). Joined-up government and the challenges to accounting and accountability researchers. Financial Accountability and Management, 28(1), 26–51.
Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1992). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.
Irwin, T. (1996). An analysis of New Zealand’s new system of public sector management. Public management occasional papers no 9. Performance management in government. Contemporary Illustrations. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Jackson, P. (2012). Value for money and international development: Deconstructing myths to promote a more constructive discussion. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139–147.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivating reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Keevers, L., Treleaven, L., Sykes, C., & Darcy, M. (2012). Made to measure: Taming practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies, 33(1), 97–120.
Kristensen, J. K., Groszyk, W., & Bühler, B. (2002). Outcome-focused management and budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(4), 7–34.
Kurunmaki, L., Miller, P., Keen, J., & Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. (2003). Health act flexibilities: Partnerships in health and social care. London: Centre for Business Performance.
Kurunmaki, L., & Miller, P. (2011). Regulatory hybrids: Partnerships, budgeting and modernising government. Management Accounting Research, 22(4), 220–241.
Lewin, Kurt. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lowe, T. (2013). New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the less we understand. Public Money and Management, 33(3), 213–216.
Marks, M. M. (2005). In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, L. L. (1997). Outcome budgeting: A new entrepreneurial approach to budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 9(1), 108.
Mascarenhas, R. C. (1996). Searching for efficiency in the public sector: Interim evaluation of performance budgeting in New Zealand. Public Budgeting and Finance, 16, 13–27.
Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1.
Mayne, J. (2007). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13(1), 87–109.
McGill, R. (2001). Performance budgeting. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(5), 376–390.
McPhee, I. (2005). Outcomes and outputs: Are we managing better as a result?. In CPA National Public Sector Convention, 20.
Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. J. (2007). Postmodern public administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Midwinter, A. (2009). New development: Scotland’s Concordat—An assessment of the new financial framework in central–local relations. Public Money and Management, 29(1), 65–70.
Modell, S. (2001). Performance measurement and institutional processes: A study of managerial responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 437–464.
Morowitz, H. J. (2002). The emergence of everything: How the world became complex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newcomer, K. E. (2007). Measuring government performance. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 307–329.
Newcomer, K. E. (2015). From outputs to outcomes. In Guy & Rubin (Eds.) Public administration evolving: From foundations to the future (pp. 125–158). New York: Routledge.
OECD. (2013). Together for better outcomes: Engaging and involving SME taxpayers and stakeholders. Paris: Author.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce selected philosophical writings. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robichau, R. W., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2009). The implementation of public policy: Still the missing link. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 21–36.
Rosen, E. D. (1993). Improving public sector productivity: Concepts and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rossi, P. (1997). Program 0utcomes: Conceptual and measurement issues. In E. Mullen & J. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in human services (pp. 20–34). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1772/1985). The government of Poland, translated, with an introduction and notes by Willmoore Kendall, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.
Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), 621–631.
Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.
Smith, P. C. (1996). Measuring outcome in the public sector. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 292–327.
Spoon, J. J., & Klüver, H. (2014). Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies, 35, 48–60.
Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1994). Performance measurement: When performance can never be finally defined. Public Money and Management, 14(2), 45–49.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of Performance: Organizational and service improvement in the public domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taro, Kulli. (2015). The attribution problem in performance measurement in the public sector: Lessons from performance audits in Estonia. Tallinna: TUT Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: Author.
Van Dooren, W., & de Walle, Van. (2008). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van de Walle, S., & Van Dooren, W. (2010). How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information. In K. Walshe, G. Harvey, & P. Jas (Eds.), Connecting knowledge and performance in public services: From knowing to doing (pp. 33–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Valk, W., & Van Iwaarden, J. (2011). Monitoring in service triads consisting of buyers, subcontractors and end customers. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(3), 198–206.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.
Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Weaver, R. K. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(04), 371–398.
Wholey, J. S., & Hatry, H. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604–610.
Yeung, O. M., & Mathieson, J. A. (1998). Global benchmarks: Comprehensive measures of development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rajala, T., Laihonen, H., Vakkuri, J. (2018). Shifting from Output to Outcome Measurement in Public Administration-Arguments Revisited. In: Borgonovi, E., Anessi-Pessina, E., Bianchi, C. (eds) Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector. System Dynamics for Performance Management, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57018-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57018-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57017-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57018-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)