Local Authority E‐government Partnerships in England: A Case Study

Abstract

This paper uses a case study of an e‐government partnership of ten local authorities to consider how governance structures, financial arrangements and performance management systems may promote or inhibit successful collaborative working. The case is considered within the contexts of continuing new public management reforms including the balance between formal performance measurement indicators imposed by higher authorities and the scope for dialogue in the development of performance management systems. The case supports a view that collaborative working can benefit from a governance structure supporting a consistency of objectives of the partners operating within similar political and regulatory environments. Externally imposed performance indicators are significant to the partner authorities but their influence does not exclude the possibility of more dialogue‐driven performance management systems being developed within the partnership. Sustainability of the partnership is never assured and tensions develop as a result of developing priorities of individual authorities, the possibility of local government reorganisation and changing national policy initiatives.

Joined‐Up Government and the Challenges to Accounting and Accountability Researchers

“…Authors such as Osborne (2006 and 2010) see NPM as an intermediate stage of the development of public administration towards a broader concern with inter‐organisational relationships termed ‘new public governance’. This view contrasts with a perspective that NPM is retained in such collaborations, albeit with NPM processes being adapted to revised structures and conditions (e.g., Hood and Peters, 2004; Lapsley, 2008 and 2009; and Hodges and Grubnic, 2010).…”

“…JUG, as a label for reform of public services, appears to have first been used by the Labour Government within policy proposals in the White Paper ‘Modernising Government’ to announce a new package of reforms which included the promise of ‘ Joined‐up government in action – including a clear commitment for people to be able to notify different parts of government of details such as a change of address simply and electronically in one transaction ’ (Cabinet Office, 1999, p. 6, emphasis in original). The JUG agenda can therefore be seen to be linked at the outset with information and communication technologies (ICT) or what is often referred to as e‐government and it resulted in various funding schemes in which local authorities were encouraged to work in partnership with each other and with private sector providers (Hodges and Grubnic, 2010).…”

“…The governance arrangements can be centralised and output based performance indicators provide a basis for accountability. Once again this has NPM features, although it may be necessary to distinguish the creation of centrally‐driven targets for ICT access to service information from the provision and development of the services themselves, which may be provided across providers or be located within an individual public authority (Hodges and Grubnic, 2010).…”

Risk transfer and stakeholder relationships in Public Private Partnerships

“…Smyth and Edkins (2007) Knowledge and resource sharing -This refers to the willingness of the parties in PPPs to share ideas, good practices as well as financial resources in the PPP process. Asenova and Beck (2003), Klijn and Teisman (2003), Hodges and Grubnic (2010) Governance Schemes -The rules and regulation under which a particular system works. Teisman and Klijn (2002), Hodges and Grubnic (2010) Risk Transfer -Risks are transferred from the public sector to the private sector in PPPs in order to ensure Value For Money.…”

e‐Government in the Irish Revenue: The Revenue On‐Line Service (ROS): A Success Story?

“…The focus is increasingly on making the best use of existing and new resources to achieve greater benefit, which in a tax context is compliance and a greater tax intake, at the least cost to the citizen (Plumley, 2007;and van Stolk and Wegrich, 2008). This links clearly with Hodges and Grubnic's (2010) and Lapsley's (2008) claims that the core doctrinal components of NPM remain the same and that what is observable in different public sector contexts is continuing adaptation in implementation of NPM ideas. The advance of developments in technology provide scope for using technology to implement NPM reforms in a search for greater accountability and performance improvements in public sector organisations.…”