Benchmarking performance of governance quality in Indian states using MCDM techniques

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to benchmarking the governance performance of Indian states. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a framework to measure governance performance at the state level. Using the data on 28 key indicators, the authors evaluate Indian states on seven broad dimensions of governance quality covering several aspects of public service delivery, regulatory quality and law and order. The empirical methodology involves the application of multi-criteria decision making techniques in two steps. The authors, first develop suitable weights of the identified dimensions and criteria under each dimension by applying the inputs of an expert-based decision-panel in a best-worst framework. Next, using these weights, the authors evaluate ranking of each state using TOPSIS and PROMETHEE-II methods. Findings The results indicate wide disparities in the governance performance of Indian states. Based on different indicators, the paper evaluates the rank of all the major Indian states. Results reveal that “Social Service Delivery(S)” is the most influencing dimension for the development of a state. Overall, the authors find Andra Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and Goa to be the leading states in terms of governance quality. Research limitations/implications The paper provides policy makers with easy to use operational indicators to analyse the governance performance of Indian states. These would help in better monitoring of these states through competitive goal-setting for continuous improvement. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first formal assessment of governance quality in the Indian states in a multi-criteria framework. To this end, the paper addresses the issue of wide regional disparities in the country. The findings of the paper provide powerful insights to policy makers in setting up appropriate strategies to eliminate these disparities.

Os Estudos Empíricos Internacionais No Setor Público Têm Feito Uso Dos Sistemas De Avaliação De Desempenho Em Sua Plenitude?

“…ZOPOUNIDIS, 2012;MENDES et al, 2012); (ii) Benchmarking (KIM; KIM;LEE, 2019;KUHLMANN;BOGUMIL, 2018;PETTERSEN;NYLAND, 2006); (iii) Análise Envoltória de Dados (DEA) (KESKIN;KOKSAL, 2019;WANG;LE, 2018); e (iv) Multi-criteria Decision Aiding-Constructivist (MCDA-C)(ENSSLIN et al, 2018;RODRIGUES et al, 2018), objetivando identificar e adotar métodos mais eficientes e eficazes no contexto que está sendo analisado.Embora o interesse por estudos na área pública venha crescendo nos últimos anos(RANTANEN et al, 2007), as investigações ainda estão concentrados na concepção e implementação do SAD(CHEN; LI, 2018; JAASKELAINEN; LONNQVIST;KULMALA, 2015;MENDES et al, 2013;RAJ;KHANNA, 2018;RANTALA;UKKO, 2019;WANG et al, 2018). Tais estudos abordam fortemente a necessidade de se desenvolverem medidas alinhadas à estratégia da organização e às preferências dos stakeholders (BALLANTINE; BRIGNALL;MODELL, 1998;PEDROSO;BERMANN;PEREIRA, 2018; ZHANG et al, 2019), com equilíbrio de medidas financeiras e não financeiras(CATUOGNO et al, 2017), apresentadas de forma transparente e simplificada para facilitar a comunicação de informações complexas(KARNAUSKAITE et al, 2018).…”

Performance evaluation: a comparative study between public and private sectors

“…The low incidence of articles with cardinal scales (Alsyouf, 2006; Ram and Montibeller, 2013; Batocchio et al , 2017; Duman et al , 2017; Bhattacharya and David, 2018; Ensslin et al , 2018; Karnauskaitė et al , 2018; Raj and Khanna, 2018; Rodrigues et al , 2018; Wang et al , 2018; Zhang et al , 2018), which enable the measurement of performance through the conversion of data into information (Melnyk et al , 2014) and indicate the consequences of performance below or above the goal, stands out in both sectors. The pattern of reference is also present in a few studies.…”

“…Factors of failure that are also relevant, although with less emphasis, are listed as government pressure and political imposition (Kuhlman, 2010; Micheli and Neely, 2010); problems of information quality; the lack of knowledge and information and indefinite goals (Pettersen and Nyland, 2006; Rantanen et al , 2007b; Wang et al , 2018). In this sector, the critical success factors that were evident were PES uniqueness, in the sense of adapting it according to particular contingencies of each organisation (Raj and Khanna, 2018), and employees' motivation, especially related to the adopted reward system (Greatbanks and Tapp, 2007; Rantala and Ukko, 2019).…”

Influence of governance instruments on supply chain quality: a qualitative investigation in the dairy industry

“…2.5.2 Informal instruments in the quality of supply networks (SNs). The social structure (Raj and Khanna, 2018), which is an informal instrument of governance, has an important influence on the relationship between quality and SC performance (Schniederjans, 2018). Internally, managers' transformational leadership style can entail a significant and positive impact on a firm's SCQ performance (Teoman and Ulengin, 2018).…”