Comparing the performance of national public sectors: conceptual problems

Emerald - Tập 57 Số 4 - Trang 329-338 - 2008
Steven Van de Walle1
1Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Tóm tắt

PurposeA number of studies and indicators have ranked European countries in terms of the performance of their public sectors. This paper aims to demonstrate that there are important conceptual problems with such rankings and comparisons.Design/methodology/approachUsing the existing indicators, the paper first shows how European countries' public sectors are ranked. It then goes on to show how conceptual problems with these indicators may lead to incorrect conclusions.FindingsCountries' public sector performance cannot be summarised using a single indicator because of inability to define “the public sector” and the disagreement on what it means for public sectors to perform.Practical implicationsDespite increasing demand and supply in policy circles for international public sector indicators, the existing ones are unreliable.Originality/valueThis paper extends the assessment of international public sector indicators beyond a mere technical evaluation.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L. and Tanzi, V. (2003), “Public sector efficiency: an international comparison”, Working paper No. 242, European Central Bank, Frankfurt am Main. Arndt, C. and Oman, C. (2006), Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators, OECD Development Studies Centre, Paris. Besançon, M. (2003), “Good governance rankings: the art of measurement”, WPF report No 36, World Peace Foundation, Cambridge, MA. Blondel, J. (1982), The Organization of Governments: A Comparative Analysis of Governmental Structures, Sage, London. Boyle, R. (2006), Measuring Public Sector Productivity: Lessons from International Experience, CPMR Discussion Paper No. 35, Institute of Public Administration, Dublin. (The) European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres (2003), “The size of the government sector: how to measure?”, paper presented at 24th CEIES Seminar, Vienna, 23‐24 October. Fukuyama, F. (2004), “Why there is no science of public administration”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 189‐201. Goodsell, C.T. (1983), The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, Chatham House Publishers Inc., Chatham. Handler, H., Koebel, B., Reiss, P. and Schratzenstaller, M. (2005), “The size and performance of public sector activities in Europe”, WIFO Working paper 246/2005, WIFO, Vienna. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2006), Governance Matters V: Governance Indicators for 1996‐2005, World Bank, Washington, DC. Knack, S. and Manning, N. (2000), “Towards consensus on governance indicators: selecting public management and broader governance indicators”, World Bank, Washington, DC. La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1999), “The quality of government”, The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 222‐79. Malik, A. (2002), “State of the art in governance indicators”, Background paper for the Human Development Report 2002, Occasional paper 2002/7, available at: hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2002/papers/malik_2002.pdf. Peters, B.G. (1992), “Comparative perspectives on bureaucracy in the policy process”, in Hill, L.B. (Ed.), The State of Public Bureaucracy, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY, pp. 87‐110. Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.Y. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Rutgers, M.R. (2004), “Comparative public administration: navigating Scylla and Charybdis – global comparison as translation”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 150‐68. Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004), Public Sector Performance: An International Comparison of Education, Health Care, Law and Order and Public Administration, Social and Cultural Planning Office, The Hague. Van de Walle, S. (2006), “The state of the world's bureaucracies”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439‐50.