What does appropriate performance reporting for political decision makers require?

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to focus on the question of what accounts for appropriate performance reports in the context of the new public management (NPM), and how they can deliver the information they need to politicians.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a survey of members of cantonal and federal members of governments and parliaments, where performance contracting has been introduced; 454 questionnaires answered.FindingsThe results of the study reflect the distinct roles of the parliament in the performance contracting process. On the content side of the reports, they are expected to contain general as well as detailed information. Outcome rather than output indicators are demanded, especially by parliamentarians. There is, also, a need for “early warning indicators” of long‐term threats, and extra‐ordinary incidents. Formally, a homogeneous reporting format across government should be realized. Reports are expected to be well visualized and to contain the most relevant indicators. Changes and deviations should be commented on. Reports should be printed, additional electronic publication would be accepted; external revision is considered to be necessary. Regarding time‐related aspects, the assumption is confirmed that political decision makers have very little time to deal with the reports. Reporting has to be as up to date as possible. Parliaments demand a one‐ or two‐year rhythm; governments require annual or even semi‐annual reports.Originality/valueUp to now, public management research has addressed the issue of appropriate performance reporting insufficiently, despite the fact that the central concept of outcomes is a political concept. The research question answered in this paper – what the essential components of appropriate performance reports under NPM conditions, and how should they be characterized in order to give politicians the performance information they need, provides some public management research in a Swiss context.

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

“…Low levels of appreciation and use are found in studies conducted at the central government level in the UK (Johnson and Talbot, 2007); at the state level (Bourdeaux, 2008) and the federal level (Stalebrink and Frisco, 2011) in the USA; in Estonia's central government (Raudla, 2012); in Dutch municipalities (ter Bogt, 2004); and in German and Italian local governments (Grossi et al, 2016). Other studies, however, show opposite, more 'positive' findings, especially Askim (2007) for Norwegian municipalities; Brun and Siegel (2006) for the Swiss central and intermediate governments; Saliterer and Korac (2013) for municipalities in Austria; and Ho (2006) for local governments in the USA's midwest. In addition, some studies show mixed findings, particularly © 2016 CIPFA ter Bogt et al (2015) for intermediate government in the Netherlands.…”

“…In general, survey-based studies that assess politicians' appreciation of performance information present 'positive' findings (Brun and Siegel, 2006;Ho, 2006). Field case studies about politicians' actual use of performance information have indicated, however, that this is minimal, or even absent (Bourdeaux, 2008;Raudla, 2012;Grossi et al, 2016).…”

Self-Selection and Misreporting in Legislative Surveys

“…In doing so, we supplement the ParlEval survey dataset (Brun and Siegel, 2006;Bütikofer, 2014;Deschouwer and Depauw, 2014;Feh Widmer, 2014;Strebel, 2014).…”

Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: results from an international survey

“…A related body of research has looked at how politicians use performance information (ter Bogt, 2004;Brun and Siegel, 2006;Pollitt, 2006;Askim, 2007). A common finding is that politicians often do not value performance information: for example the best educated and most experienced local politicians in Norway were found to make the least use of performance information (Askim, 2009).…”