Public management and government performance: An international review

Abstract

Introduction Performance is seemingly an obsession with governments around the world. As Frederickson and Smith (2003: 208) point out, ‘[a]ccountability for conducting the public's business is increasingly about performance rather than discharging a specific policy goal within the confines of the law.’ Evidence for ‘this general advocacy of a performance orientation’ (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004: 126) is found, for example, in the European Commission's commitment to ‘more efficient, performance-orientated working methods’ (EC 2000: 8), in the British government's widespread use of performance targets (James 2001) and in US President George W. Bush's ‘management agenda’ in particular, in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), instituted in 2002. This tool represents the most recent effort by the US federal government to increase the emphasis on performance in government programmes and agencies, although the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act remains in effect. It was implemented by the Bush Administration as an explicit accountability strategy: The PART was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. The PART therefore looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design; performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning; program management; and program results. Because the PART includes a consistent series of analytical questions, it allows programs to show improvements over time, and allows comparisons between similar programs. (US OMB, 2005)