Governing the Performance of Government

Abstract

Under such headings as new public management (NPM) and evidencebased policymaking, contemporary governments are subjected to a bewildering array of performance measurement and management tools. Public authorities are increasingly urged and at times forced to give accounts not only of their use of resources, but also of the results generated by their actions. In particular, they are supposed to be able to document, preferably through quantifiable and comparative data, the so-called output generated by their activities. Similarly, politicians time and again try to sell their vision as pragmatic (non-ideological) and committed to interventions that produce results. Some even have the guts (hubris) to base political campaigns on delivering such measurable results in what could be dubbed a type of contract politics: If you vote for me, I will deliver outputs X, Y and Z. Or, in more formal terms, if public acceptance of policymaking for a long time was linked to legally stipulated election procedures and clearly defined bureaucratic conduct favouring impartiality, what Weber termed legitimate rule, such acceptance seems increasingly linked to technologies of performance holding the promise of public service efficiency and quality.