Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shifting from Output to Outcome Measurement in Public Administration-Arguments Revisited

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector

Part of the book series: System Dynamics for Performance Management ((SDPM,volume 2))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). American federalism and the search for models of management. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, R. N., & Young, D. W. (1988). Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandy, G. (2011). Financial management and accounting in the public sector. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G. (1993). Measurement and meaningful management. Public Productivity and Management Review, 17(1), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, F. M. (2010). Real democracy: The New England town meeting and how it works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, T., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Accrual output based budgeting systems in Australia The rhetoric-reality gap. Public Management Review, 5(2), 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. (2008). Indicators of university teaching and learning quality. Canberra: Australian Learning and Teaching Council, the Australian Government Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaston, I. (2011). Public sector management: Mission impossible? Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, G. M., & Harris, J. E. (2001). A heuristic framework for accountability of governmental subunits. Public Management Review, 3(2), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curristine, T., Park, C. K., & Emery, R. (2008). Budgeting in Portugal. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 8(3), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, R. E., & Hernon, P. (2002). Outcomes assessment: Not synonymous with inputs and outputs. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 376–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Pollitt, C., & Lynn, L. E. (2005). The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. (1997). Managing for results: Opportunities for continued improvements in agencies performance plans. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. GAO/AIMD-99-215.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Ranson, S. (1977). The politics of the budgetary process in English local government. Political Studies, 25(1), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grizzle, G. A., & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). Implementing performance based programme budgeting. A System-Dynamics Perspectives, Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Institute: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, R. (2012). Joined-up government and the challenges to accounting and accountability researchers. Financial Accountability and Management, 28(1), 26–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1992). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. (2012). Value for money and international development: Deconstructing myths to promote a more constructive discussion. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivating reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keevers, L., Treleaven, L., Sykes, C., & Darcy, M. (2012). Made to measure: Taming practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies, 33(1), 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, J. K., Groszyk, W., & Bühler, B. (2002). Outcome-focused management and budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(4), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurunmaki, L., & Miller, P. (2011). Regulatory hybrids: Partnerships, budgeting and modernising government. Management Accounting Research, 22(4), 220–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Kurt. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. M. (2005). In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. (1997). Outcome budgeting: A new entrepreneurial approach to budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 9(1), 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, J. (2007). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13(1), 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill, R. (2001). Performance budgeting. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(5), 376–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhee, I. (2005). Outcomes and outputs: Are we managing better as a result?. In CPA National Public Sector Convention, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. J. (2007). Postmodern public administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modell, S. (2001). Performance measurement and institutional processes: A study of managerial responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 437–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morowitz, H. J. (2002). The emergence of everything: How the world became complex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, K. E. (2007). Measuring government performance. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 307–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Together for better outcomes: Engaging and involving SME taxpayers and stakeholders. Paris: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce selected philosophical writings. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robichau, R. W., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2009). The implementation of public policy: Still the missing link. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, E. D. (1993). Improving public sector productivity: Concepts and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. J. (1772/1985). The government of Poland, translated, with an introduction and notes by Willmoore Kendall, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), 621–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C. (1996). Measuring outcome in the public sector. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoon, J. J., & Klüver, H. (2014). Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies, 35, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1994). Performance measurement: When performance can never be finally defined. Public Money and Management, 14(2), 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of Performance: Organizational and service improvement in the public domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taro, Kulli. (2015). The attribution problem in performance measurement in the public sector: Lessons from performance audits in Estonia. Tallinna: TUT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., & de Walle, Van. (2008). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. K. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(04), 371–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S., & Hatry, H. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, O. M., & Mathieson, J. A. (1998). Global benchmarks: Comprehensive measures of development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland

    Tomi Rajala, Harri Laihonen & Jarmo Vakkuri

Authors
  1. Tomi Rajala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harri Laihonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jarmo Vakkuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomi Rajala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Policy Analysis & Public Mgmt, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Elio Borgonovi

  2. Dept. of Economics & Business Mgmt Sci, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Dept. of Economics & Business Mgmt Sci, Milan, Italy

    Eugenio Anessi-Pessina

  3. CED4 – System Dynamics Group, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Carmine Bianchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation