The relevance and reliability of performance information for accountability: A survey experiment exploring citizens' views

Abstract

This study explores the impact of the configuration of performance information on citizens' perceptions regarding the impact of the information on their lives and the reliability they assign to it. We conducted a survey experiment among a representative sample of the Israeli population. The treatment included the object being measured, the identity of those who manage the performance management mechanism, and the trend of the results. We also compared the education and police sectors. Our findings indicate that, overall, citizens feel that performance information has only a low‐to‐medium effect on their lives, and assign a similar level of reliability to that information. The configuration of performance information helps explain this perceived impact only to a limited extent. These findings question the usefulness of performance reporting mechanisms as a major tool for strengthening accountability and raise serious doubts about the possible ways to improve these mechanisms and make them more effective.

Information use in public administration and policy decision‐making: A research synthesis

“…In other words, the variability of key aspects of information being considered when data use is concerned is high, with just a handful of features recurring more frequently. The most frequent features being studied are: information content (19 studies focused on that feature alone, and 6 additional articles investigate content in conjunction with other information features) (e.g., Bel et al, 2021; Blom‐Hansen et al, 2021; DeLeo & Duarte, 2022; Harrits, 2019; Hong & Kim, 2019; Mizrahi & Minchuk, 2020; Walker et al, 2018; Wang & Niu, 2020) and information purpose (18 studies) (e.g., Choi & Woo, 2022; George & Desmidt, 2018; Korac et al, 2020; Meyfroodt & Desmidt, 2021; Micheli & Pavlov, 2020; Nitzl et al, 2019; Ruijer et al, 2023; Tantardini, 2022), followed by evidence‐based information (16 studies with exclusive focus and 1 study with an additional focus) (e.g., Hall & van Ryzin, 2019; Head, 2016; Petty et al, 2018; Turner et al, 2022; Wagner et al, 2021), information relativity (16 studies) (e.g., George, Baekgaard, et al, 2020; Holm, 2017; Hong et al, 2020; Petersen et al, 2019; van der Voet & Lems, 2022), information availability (10 studies) (e.g., Boer et al, 2018; Wit & Bekkers, 2020), and framing of information (10 studies interested on framing alone and an additional study interested on its framing and purpose) (e.g., Belardinelli et al, 2018; Mikkelsen et al, 2022; Porumbescu et al, 2021).…”

Only hearing what they want to hear: Assessing when and why performance information triggers intentions to coproduce

“…Academics, practitioners, and civil society organizations promote performance information disclosure as a means of improving the quality of democratic governance. At its core, this argument rests on a conviction that public disclosure of performance information is necessary for governments to meaningfully engage the public in processes that govern the creation, delivery, and evaluation of public services (James and Moseley 2014;Mizrahi and Minchuk 2020). Yet while such advocacy has inspired a number of reform movements that seek to make government more open and the public more engaged and collaborative, evidence indicates that the relationship between efforts to increase public access to government information and different forms of civic engagement is, at best, opaque and unpredictable' (Kosack and Fung 2014, p. 66).…”

Trust in public performance information: The effect of data accessibility and data source

“…These efforts of strengthening government transparency should improve public accountability and enhance citizens' perception of government activities including trust in government and performance evaluation (Cucciniello et al, 2017; Ingrams, Piotrowski, & Berliner, 2020; McDermott, 2010; Schmidthuber et al, 2021). However, these intended outcomes might only become effective if citizens believe that public information can be trusted (Mizrahi & Minchuk, 2020; Moynihan & Ingraham, 2004). This is why we are interested in the antecedents of citizens' trust in public performance information, defined as a characteristic of a trustor (Grimmelikhuijsen & Knies, 2017).…”