The Limits of Performance Assessments of Public Bodies: External Constraints in English Local Government
Abstract
Policy makers have an interest in evaluating what government and taxpayers get for their money. In the United Kingdom, central government has developed elaborate oversight mechanisms involving a plethora of indicators, targets, and inspections to assess public sector performance across a wide range of services. The underlying assumption is that auditees are ultimately responsible for the performance on which they are measured. This rationale might neglect the fact that they face external constraints not influenced easily by their decisions. The research presented here scrutinises one such evaluation approach, the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of local government in England, for the significance of such factors. Using panel-data analysis involving the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 and data from the first three CPA rounds in 2002–04, the research finds that deprivation in education, crime, and living environment had a significant negative effect on local authorities' overall CPA scores, while discretionary expenditure had a positive but not significant effect. However, the effects differ widely across the five types of authorities that exist. The model also reveals that there is no statistically significant evidence to suggest that authorities controlled by a single party perform better than those without, and that, although Conservative councils have higher CPA scores in simple bivariate analysis than those controlled by other parties or with no overall control, these differences disappear in multivariate analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Andrews R, 2004, “Analysing deprivation and local authority performance: The implications for CPA” Public Money and Management 24 19-26
Andrews R, Boyne GA, Law J, Walker RM, 2005, “External constraints on local service standards: The case of comprehensive performance assessment in English local government” Public Administration 83 639-656
Audit Commission, London 2002a A Picture of Performance: Early Lessons from Comprehensive Performance Assessment
Audit Commission, London 2002b Comprehensive Performance Assessment-Scores and Analysis of Performance
Audit Commission, London 2002c CPA Newsletter number 7, October
Audit Commission, London 2003 Understanding the Relationship Between CPA Outcomes and Deprivation
Audit Commission, London 2004a Proposals for Comprehensive Performance Assessment from 2005-Consultation Document
Audit Commission, London 2004b CPA 2005: The New Approach-Single Tier and County Councils and District Council Comprehensive Performance Assessment from 2005
Audit Commission, London 2005 Service Assessment Frameworks-A Consultation Supporting Comprehensive Performance Assessments for Single Tier and County Councils from 2005 to 2008
Baltagi B, 1995 Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
Beck N, Katz JN, 1995, “What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section date” American Political Science Review 89 634-647
Birkin M, Clarke G, Gibson P, Dewhurst R, Bobby J, 2005, “Reevaluating funding mechanisms for UK Primary Care Trusts: A new model of secondary care usage incorporating lifestyle data” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 317-336
Blais A, Blake D, Dion S, 1993, “Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies” American Journal of Political Science 37 40-62
Blais A, Blake D, Dion S, 1996, “Do parties make a difference? A reappraisal” American Journal of Political Science 40 514-520
Boyne GA, 1998 Public Choice Theory and Local Government: A Comparative Analysis of the UK and the USA (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
Boyne GA, 2003, “Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 367-394
Bramley G, Le Grand J, Low W, 1989, “How far is the poll tax a ‘community charge’? The implications of service usage evidence” Policy and Politics 17 187-205
CIPFA, 2002 Finance and General Statistics 2001/02 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London
CIPFA, 2003 Finance and General Statistics 2002/03 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London
CIPFA, 2004 Finance and General Statistics 2003/04 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London
Conservative Party, 2005 Conservative Local Government Manifesto Conservative Research Department, London
Day P, Klein R, 1990 Inspecting the Inspectorates (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
Dowding K, John P, 1996, “Exiting behavior under Tiebout conditions: Towards a predictive model” Public Choice 88 393-406
Dowding K, Mergoupis T, 2003, “Fragmentation, fiscal mobility and efficiency” Journal of Politics 65 1190-1207
Gujarati DN, 1995 Basic Econometrics (McGraw-Hill, New York)
Haubrich D, McLean I, 2006a, “Evaluating the performance of local government: A comparison of the assessment regimes in England, Scotland, and Wales” Policy Studies 27 271-293
Haubrich D, McLean I, 2006b, “Assessing public service performance in local authorities through CPA-a research note on deprivation” National Institute Economic Review, 197(1) 93-105
Hood C, Scott C, Jones GW, James O, 1999 Regulation Inside Government: Waste-watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-busters (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Hood C, James O, Peters BG, Scott C (Eds), 2004 Controlling Government (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
Iversen T, Soskice D, 2006, “Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others” American Political Science Review 100 165-181
John P, Dowding K, Biggs S, 1995, “Residential mobility in London: A micro-level test of the behavioural assumptions of the Tiebout model” British Journal of Political Science 25 379-397
Le Grand J, Winter D, 1977, “Towards an economic model of local-government behaviour” Policy and Politics 5 23-39
McLean I, Haubrich D, Gutiérrez-Romero R, 2007, “The perils and pitfalls of performance measurement: The CPA regime for local authorities in England” Public Money and Management 27 111-118
McMaster R, 1995, “Competitive tendering in UK health and local authorities; what happens to the quality of services?” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 42 409-427
Mellows-Facer A, Young R, 2002 Local Elections in England House of Commons Library, London
Newton K, Sharpe LJ, 1977, “Local outputs research-some reflections and proposals” Policy and Politics 5 61-82
Noble M, Wright G, Smith G, Dibben C, 2006, “Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-area level” Environment and Planning A 38 169-185
ONS, 2003 Census 2001, National Report for England and Wales Office for National Statistics, London
Palmer G, Kenway P, 2004 Comprehensive Performance Assessment and Deprivation (New Policy Institute, London)
Persson T, Tabellini G, 2005 The Economic Effects of Constitutions (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Power M, 1997 The Audit Society (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Propper C, Wilson D, 2003, “The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector”, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, WP 03/073, University of Bristol
Social Exclusion Unit, 2001 A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal Cabinet Office, London
Szymanski S, 1996. “The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services” Fiscal Studies 17 1-19
Tiebout C, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditure” Journal of Political Economy 64 416-424
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2008
Issue published: August 2008
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 64
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 10 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 13
-
Organizational size and public service performance: a meta-analysis an...
-
Churning
-
Churning
-
Assessing the performance of the national park authorities: a case stu...
-
Public Services Performance: An Extended Framework and Empirical Asses...
-
Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: the case of US higher e...
-
Towards Understanding Variations in Social Care for Older People in En...
-
The English Audit Commission and its Comprehensive Performance Assessm...
-
Does Public Service Performance Affect Top Management Turnover?
-
Government Checking Government: How Performance Measures Expand Distri...
-
To what extent does deprivation affect the performance of English loca...
-
Dans quelle mesure la privation affecte-t-elle le travail des autorité...
-
Government Checking Government: How Performance Measures Expand Distri...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
