Marketization and Performance Measurement in Swedish Central Government: A Comparative Institutionalist Study

Abstract

Public sector organizations have increasingly been subject to varying forms of marketization, ranging from competitive contracting to a more general conception of citizens or users as customers or consumers regardless of whether such economic factors prevail. Drawing on neo-institutional sociology (NIS) and other advances in economic sociology, we examine such marketization efforts as an institutionally embedded phenomenon with particular reference to how it is implicated in the performance measurement practices (PMPs) of two state agencies in Sweden. This reveals how PMPs are embedded in only partly consistent institutional logics and under what circumstances such practices can be reconciled. Some PMPs, especially those grounded in efficiency concerns, tend to play an important constitutive role in operating-level practices, partly as a result of also being embedded in regulatory pressures. Other PMPs, imbued with symbolic meanings signifying a more customer-oriented rationale, only seem to approach such a status if they are dis-embedded from the 'global' practices in which they originate and re-embedded in evolving PMPs dominated by efficiency concerns. We discuss the implications of these findings for emerging research into practice variations embedded in competing logics in institutional fields and for policy development.One of the most notable changes in the public sector over the past two decades is the growing reliance on various forms of market mechanisms as means of governance and control (see, e.g.

The societal relevance of management accounting: An introduction to the special issue

“…2. Theoretical approaches used to study this phenomenon include inter alia garbage can theory (Wiesel et al 2011), institutional theory (Modell and Wiesel 2008), sociology of professions (Samuel et al 2005) and various critical theories (Preston et al 1997, Lawrence andSharma 2002). 3.…”

“…One major strand of research has been concerned with how novel costing and performance measurement practices contribute to transform conceptions of the beneficiaries of public or newly privatised services by re-casting them as "customers" with distinct preferences or needs and how this affects the allocation and delivery of such services (Ogden 1997, Preston et al 1997, Lawrence and Sharma 2002, Samuel et al 2005, Modell and Wiesel 2008, Wiesel et al 2011. This research has drawn on a variety of theoretical perspectives 2 and shows how the re-casting of beneficiaries as customers is an integral, if not necessary, part of the marketisation of public services and how management accounting mediates such transformations.…”

Practice Variation in Public Sector Internal Auditing: An Institutional Analysis

“…Over the last few years, research into institutional accounting has devoted increasing attention to studying the relationship between different institutional constituencies and management accounting practices; in particular it has explored how this relationship is implicated in the wider process of organizational and institutional change (e.g. Lounsbury, 2001;Modell, 2005;Modell & Wiesel, 2008;Cruz, Major, & Scapens, 2009;Englund & Gerdin, 2011;Yang & Model, 2013;Englund, Gerdin, & Abrahamson, 2013). In this context, researchers have started to incorporate the issue of organizational diversity and variations in practice into institutional analysis, focusing on how institutional and technical forces interact with and influence practices adopted by individuals and organizations in different ways (Lounsbury, 2001;Cruz et al, 2009).…”

“…This multiple embeddedness may lead to the experience of conflicting or ambiguous institutions, for instance between institutionalized professional obligations and business logics, and thus to reflexivity about the need to adapt existing accounting practices (Cruz et al, 2009;Englund & Gerdin, 2011). Accordingly, there are a number of examples in recent accounting literature in which fragmented and pluralistic institutional fields have enabled agents to change management accounting practices in the search for compromises between competing institutional arrangements (Modell, 2005;Modell & Wiesel, 2008;Cruz et al, 2009). For instance, Modell and Wiesel (2008) examined how performance measurement practices are embedded in different forms of public sector marketization through the analysis of two state agencies in Sweden.…”

“…Accordingly, there are a number of examples in recent accounting literature in which fragmented and pluralistic institutional fields have enabled agents to change management accounting practices in the search for compromises between competing institutional arrangements (Modell, 2005;Modell & Wiesel, 2008;Cruz et al, 2009). For instance, Modell and Wiesel (2008) examined how performance measurement practices are embedded in different forms of public sector marketization through the analysis of two state agencies in Sweden. Based on the empirical analysis, they highlighted how, in a context of fragmented reform, actors were forced to face conflicting institutions which, at the same time, left them with room to balance tensions between different institutional arrangements.…”