Buying from Local Providers: The Role of Governance Preferences in Assessing Performance Information

Abstract

Governance preferences influence how public officials process performance data about service providers. Based on motivated reasoning theory, we examine the extent to which local delivery preferences—preferences for contracting with local service providers over contracting with non‐local ones—influence public managers' and politicians' interpretation of performance data. We firstly expect public officials to misinterpret evidence that contradicts their local delivery preferences and we, secondly, hypothesize that politicians are more prone to biases than public managers are. We test these hypotheses by conducting a randomized survey experiment among 4,000 public officials in Belgium. The results indicate that public officials tend to show a bias for local providers, but not for non‐local providers. Yet, we found no significant differences between politicians and public managers. Our study provides new evidence about the influence of governance preferences on the interpretation of performance information, and calls into question its effective use by politicians and public managers.

The performance function in local government: Does location impact performance data use?

“…Specifically, budget officials may be more focused on accountability, including their desire to professionalize budget documents with performance information to obtain the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award (Kelly & Rivenbark, 2002). This finding is reflective of the notion that individuals who collect, process, and report information are guided by specific motivations (Lerusse & Van de Walle, 2022). Even though Boyne et al (2002) questioned the ability of performance information to effectively enhance the public service value of accountability, this motivational approach clearly aligns with the primary responsibility of the budget office to produce an annual balanced budget.…”

Public managers’ trust in citizens and their preferences for behavioral policy instruments: evidence from a mixed-methods study

“…We examine local-level public managers' preferences for behavioral policy instruments, and the effects of trust in citizens on these preferences, using an online crosssectional stated-preference survey among general directors and adjunct general directors of Flemish municipal administrations. When it comes to local policymakers in Flanders, a considerable body of literature has been developed addressing the relation between politician's policy preferences and performance information (George et al, 2020;Lerusse & Van de Walle, 2021;Desmidt & Meyfroodt, 2021b;Lerusse & Van de Walle, 2022), strategic planning practices Desmidt & Meyfroodt, 2021a), and valuation tools (Huijbregts et al, 2022). Remarkably, although these gears of the policy process, in terms of information, practices and tools, are meant and expected to rationalize local politicians' decision-making patterns, cognitive biases and motivated reasoning still emerge (Battaglio et al, 2019).…”

“…Remarkably, although these gears of the policy process, in terms of information, practices and tools, are meant and expected to rationalize local politicians' decision-making patterns, cognitive biases and motivated reasoning still emerge (Battaglio et al, 2019). At the same time, behavioral public administration studies of Flemish local public managers examined, among other things, discriminatory practices (Jilke et al, 2018), performance information use (Lerusse & Van de Walle, 2022) and attitudes toward public participation (Migchelbrink & Van de Walle, 2020). However, this study is the first to examine Flemish public managers' preferences for behavioral policy instruments.…”

Ambiguous COVID-19 Messaging Increases Unsafe Socializing Intentions

“…Our study considers directional motivated reasoning in a context that is different from other studies of public administration and political science, which often focus on evaluations of government performance (e.g. Deslatte, 2019;Damgaard & Neilsen 2020;Lerusse & Van de Walle 2022) or on partisanship and partisan cues (e.g. Druckman, Peterson and Slothuus, 2013;Kahan et al 2017;Sylvester 2021).…”