Institutional Research on Performance Measurement and Management in the Public Sector Accounting Literature: A Review and Assessment

Abstract

This paper reviews the evolution of institutional research on performance measurement and management (PMM) in the public sector accounting literature. An assessment of the progress of this research programme is offered in light of some key developments in the broader neo‐institutional sociology (NIS) literature, such as the growing recognition of the role of embedded agency, the need to bridge institutional and rational choice explanations of action and the extension of empirical research across different levels of institutional fields. Some progress has been made in this respect and has contributed to shift the emphasis from a one‐sided focus on institutional effects on PMM, treating institutional pressures as largely exogenous, to recognize its more intricate roles as an outcome of, as well as a medium for, change. However, further research is required into the micro dynamics involved in transforming and reproducing PMM practices at different levels of analysis and how such practices become infused with meanings conditioned by higher‐order institutional logics across various levels of institutional fields. Some research strategies for addressing these issues are outlined.

Public sector management accounting in emerging economies: A literature review

“…In a similar vein, Sharma and Lawrence (2005, 2009) have found that new accounting criteria favoured by donor agencies negatively impacted the housing and telephone sector, in terms of a substantial rise in prices, a reduction in the supply of housing and deterioration of telephone services in rural areas. These studies cover an important, largely neglected niche in PSMA in EEs.…”

“…More research is needed to understand structural impediments to the 'ideal' MA repertoire and how management accounting tools are implemented and used in practice. 14 In this respect, we support types of research that see the new accounting tools not as neutral technicalities but as devices for changing power balances between stakeholders, for example NPM-like reforms that make managers more powerful at the expense of the interests of clients and workers (Ashraf & Uddin, forthcoming; in this review, see research by Rahaman & Lawrence, 2001;Sharma & Lawrence, 2005, 2009.…”

“…Institutional theory, structuration theory, stakeholder theory, action and hermeneutics approaches are used. Papers based on institutional theories rely on 'new institutional sociology' and 'old institutional economics' (see Modell, 2009 andBurns &Scapens, 2000, respectively), sometimes combined with other theories, such as structuration theory. These theories seek to identify subjective meanings ensuing from people's interactions with MA systems.…”

Literature review and challenging research agenda on politicians’ use of accounting information

“…The first is contingency-based research, which starts from the view that performance management practices depend upon certain contextual circumstances, such as the complexity of processes or environmental uncertainty (see, for example, Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004;Van Dooren, 2005;Moynihan and Pandey, 2010;Speklé and Verbeeten, 2014;and Kroll, 2015, for a review on the link between managerial performance information use and organizational performance). The second one is neo-institutional sociology, which highlights how performance management practices have become taken for granted due to certain pressures, and how these practices contribute to habitual types of actions (see Modell, 2009, for a review). Without denying the importance of these theories, some other theories are suggested here because they potentially enable an understanding of how decision-making by politicians drives their accounting information use.…”

Italian municipalities' NPFM reforms: an institutional theory perspective

“…In recent years a significant issue in public sector management literature has been that of understanding why not seldom the New Public Financial Management -NPFM-reforms have led to unintended as well as unexpected consequences (Guthrie, 1998;Newberry, 2002;Christiaens and Rommel, 2008;Lapsley;2009) and to management changes which are rather formal than substantial (Olson, Guthrie and Humphrey, 1998;Ter Bogt and Van Helden, 2000). Among the various approach used to explain the difference between actual and expected effects of accounting innovations different studies (Burns and Scapens, 2000;Scapens, 1994;Panozzo, 2000;Caccia and Steccolini, 2006;Ter Bogt and Van Helden, 2000;Ter Bogt, 2008;Siti-Nabiha, Scapens, 2005;Modell, 2009;Seal, 1999 ) have used the institutional theory.…”