Recent public sector reforms have been dominated by New Public Management. This often puts an emphasis on performance
management - but usually limits
discussions to narrow financial grounds.
Performance is said to encompass economy, efficiency and effectiveness, with,
if we are lucky, equity, added as a fourth ‘e’. But it is economy or cheapness which is the
easy one to measure, and so, as the saying goes, what gets measured gets done.
If we are to measure performance,
then we need to extend the remit to provide an assessment of the acknowledged
universal goals of equity and accountability.
However, there is no one blueprint for success. The criteria in the
table below are therefore provided as a relatively fluid reference point for
research and not a fixed anchor.
Criteria used to evaluate public sector
success:
|
Equity
|
Is the availability
of the surface equitable for different social groups?
Is the quality and
quantity of the service equitable?
Are prices
equitable? [Is charging for a human
right ethical?]
Is equity
formalised, legalised or institutionalised in some way?
|
|
Participation in decision-making
|
Is the depth and
scope of participation adequate?
Is participation
equitable?
Is participation
formalised, legalised or institutionalised in some way?
Is the model of
participation sustainable?
|
|
Efficiency
|
Is the service
delivered in financially efficient manner?
Are adequate
investments being made in long-term maintenance?
Do efficiency gains
undermine other potentially positive outcomes? Deal efficiency gains take
into account other services and/or levels of government?
|
|
Quality of service
|
Is the overall
quality of the service good?
Is quality
improving?
|
|
Accountability
|
Are service
providers accountable to end users?
Is accountability
formalised, legalised or institutionalised in some way?
|
|
Transparency
|
Does the public
understand the operating mandates of the service provider?
Are decisions about
service delivery regularly communicated to the public?
Is transparency
formalised, legalised or institutionalised in some way?
|
|
Quality of the workplace
|
Do frontline workers
participate in policy making for the service?
Are workers paid a
fair salary and benefits?
Are there adequate
numbers of workers to ensure quality, safety and sustainability?
Are they good
relations between frontline workers, managers and end users of the service?
Is there an equity
among workers?
|
|
Sustainability
|
re there sufficient
financial resources available to ensure successful continuity of the service?
Is there sufficient
political support at different levels of government?
Is the service using
natural resources in a sustainable way?
|
|
Solidarity
|
Does the service
help to build solidarity between workers, community, bureaucrats,
politicians, NGOs and end users?
Does this service
helped to build solidarity between different service sectors (e.g. with
public health officials)?
Does the service
help to build solidarity with other levels of state?
|
|
Public
ethos
|
Does the model
helped to create/build a stronger public ethos around service delivery?
Does the model
promote thinking and dialogue about concept of public ownership and control?
Does the service
model explicitly oppose privatisation and commercialisation?
|
|
Transfer ability
|
Is the model
transferable to other places (in whole or in part)?
|
Taken from page 126/127 of:
David A McDonald “Defend, Militate and Alternate:
Public Options in a Privatised World” in
Pradella, Lucia and Marois,
Thomas (eds) (2015) Polarising Development: alternatives to Neoliberalism and
the crisis, London: Pluto Press
.jpg)