Benchmarking as a Tool for the Modernisation of Local Government

Abstract

This paper examines benchmarking as a tool of the modernisation process in local government and the contradictory tensions in the Best Value scheme are explored. Benchmarking is shown to encapsulate the dichotomous nature of a modernising philosophy which espouses innovation and local solutions alongside the government’s centralising tendencies. One consequence is the advancement of ‘compulsory’ and ‘defensive’ modes of benchmarking with local authorities benchmarking for external accountability reasons; issues of tangible improvement are secondary concerns. These tensions are viewed as irreconcilable, the implication is that local government will need to carefully manage and evaluate its benchmarking activities.

Distinctive research patterns on public sector performance measurement of public administration and accounting disciplines

“…Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004) published a survey study in an accounting journal, which does not cite relevant preceding research in PA concerning survey type investigations (Julnes and Holzer 2001;Wang and Berman 2001). Furthermore, PA research could benefit from Quite a number of articles in our review show that European researchers are often critical of some tendencies in contemporary public management reforms (for example: ter Bogt and van Helden 2000;Bowerman et al 2001;Modell 2001;Boyne et al 2002;Sanderson 2002), whereas much research in the North-American tradition is more normative (Rubenstein et al 2003;Folz 2004). Such research is, generally speaking, more supportive of public management reforms.…”

Modernising Government: The Calculating Self, Hybridisation and Performance Measurement

“…There is, however, a long tradition of performance assessment in both health care and local government (Bowerman et al, 2000 and2001). Recent decades have witnessed an avalanche of performance indicators, performance reviews, audits and inspections in the UK public sector (Bowerman et al, 2000;Chow, Humphrey and Miller, 2005;Lapsley and Mitchell, 1996;Pollitt, 1986;and Power, 1997).…”

“…), local government Best Value Performance Indicators, Best Value Performance Plans and Best Value Reviews, Audit Commission Quality of Life Indicators, Comprehensive Performance Assessment framework for local authorities, NHS Reference Costing, as well as NHS and Social Services Performance (star) Ratings. The employment and implications of these performance measures have been a focus of much academic research, as have attempts to combine various measures through such devices as the Balanced Scorecard (Bowerman et al, 2000 and2001;Pollitt et al, 1999;and Model, 2004).…”

“…Systems of performance measurement have to satisfy a number of stakeholders and audiences. For example, accountability to the public for the use of resources needs to be demonstrated via traditional local authority mechanisms (Bowerman et al, 2001). This was a concern to a head of Learning Disability Services, who also acted as a Lead Commissioner: [.…”

Budgeting and governing for deficit reduction in the UK public sector: act three ‘accountability and audit arrangements’

“…Authorities were also encouraged to benchmark with one another in order to share "best practice" and stimulate improvement through a competitive process -something that most of them engaged in for reasons of external accountability (Bowerman et al, 2001). …”