How should we measure success in the public sector?

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