Systems for assessing the comparative performance of organizations providing public services are increasingly apparent across service sectors and jurisdictions. This article sets out an agenda of research themes about these systems.The themes include the performance concepts and measures adopted, purposes of systems (with variation from information-gathering to incorporation in systems of judgement and decision-making by a range of stakeholders), the reasons for the increasing prevalence of the systems, and the impacts of systems on public services — both intended and unintended.The article argues that the comparative analysis of comparative performance systems is a valuable approach, with comparison looking across both jurisdictions and public service domains. While such analysis is currently at an early stage of development, drawing together the findings of the articles contained in this special issue illustrates some of the insights that can be gained into these themes.
Atkinson, T. ( 2005) Atkinson Review: Final Report: Measurement of Government Output and Productivity for the National Accounts. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
Behn, R. ( 2003) ‘Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures’, Public Administration Review63(5): 586-606.
3.
Bevan, G. and C. Hood ( 2006) ‘What’s Measured is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in Healthcare in England’, Public Administration 84(3).
4.
Blalock, A.B. ( 1999) ‘Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement: From Estrangement to Useful Integration?’, Evaluation5(2): 117-49.
5.
Boyne, G., P. Day and R. Walker ( 2002) ‘The Evaluation of Public Service Inspection: A Theoretical Framework’, Urban Studies39: 1197-1212.
6.
Boyne, G., O. James, P. John and N. Petrovsky ( 2009) ‘Does Political Change Affect Senior Management Turnover? An Empirical Analysis of Top-Tier Local Authorities in England’ , Public Administration87(4).
7.
Buckley, J. and M. Schneider ( 2003) ‘Shopping for Schools: How do Marginal Consumers Gather Information about Schools?’, Policy Studies Journal31(2): 121-45.
8.
Burgess, S., C. Propper and D. Wilson ( 2007) ‘The Impact of School Choice in England: Implications from the Economic Evidence’, Policy Studies28(2): 129-43.
9.
Davies, H., S. Nutley and P. Smith ( 2000) ‘Introducing Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services’, in H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (eds) What Works: Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services, pp. 1-12. Bristol: Policy Press.
10.
Davies, H.T.O., S.M. Nutley and P. Smith ( 2007) WUsing Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services . Bristol: Policy Press.
11.
Dowding, K., P. John and S. Biggs ( 1995) ‘Residential Mobility in London: A Micro Test of the Behavioural Assumptions of the Tiebout Model’, British Journal of Political Science25: 379-97.
Haubrich, D. and I. McLean ( 2006) ‘Assessing Public Service Performance in Local Authorities through CPA: A Research Note on Deprivation’, National Institute Economic Review197(1): 93-105.
14.
Heinrich, C.J. ( 2003) in B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds) ‘Measuring Public Sector Performance’, Handbook of Public Administration, pp. 25, 37. London: SAGE.
15.
Hood, C.C., O. James and C.D. Scott ( 2000). ‘Regulation in Government: Has it Increased, is it Increasing, Should it be Diminished?’, Public Administration78(2): 283-304.
16.
Hood, C. C., O. James , B. G. Peters and C. D. Scott (eds) (2004) Controlling Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
17.
Hood, C.C., G.W. Scott, O. James, G. Jones and T. Travers ( 1999) Regulation inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police and Sleazebusters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Jacobs, R., M. Goddard and P. Smith ( 2006) Public Services: Are Composite Measures a Robust Reflection of Performance in the Public Sector? Centre for Health Economics Research Paper, 16. York: University of York .
19.
James, O. ( 2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest versus Bureau-shaping Explanations. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
20.
James, O. ( 2004) ‘The UK Core Executive’s Use of Public Service Agreements as a Tool of Governance’, Public Administration82(2): 397-418.
21.
James, O. ( 2009) ‘Evaluating the Expectations Disconfirmation and Expectations Anchoring Approaches to Citizen Satisfaction with Local Public Services’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(1): 107-23.
22.
James, O. and P. John ( 2007) ‘Public Management at the Ballot Box: Performance Information and Electoral Support for Incumbent English Local Governments’ , Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17(4): 567-80.
23.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton ( 1992) ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance’ , Harvard Business Review70(1): 71-9.
24.
Knack, S., M. Kugler and N. Manning ( 2003) ‘Second Generation Governance Indicators’ , International Review of Administrative Sciences69(3): 345-64.
25.
Mayne, E. and R. Rist ( 2006) ‘Studies are Not Enough: The Necessary Transformation of Evaluation’, Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation21(3): 93-120.
26.
Mayne, J. ( 2007) ‘Challenges and Lessons in Implementing Results-based Management’, Evaluation13(1): 87-109.
27.
Nielsen, S.B. and N. Ejler ( 2008) ‘Improving Performance? Exploring the Complementarities between Evaluation and Performance Management’, Evaluation14(2): 171-92.
28.
Oecd (2007) Towards Better Measurement of Government. OECD Working Paper on Governance 2007/1. Paris: OECD.
29.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert ( 2004) Public Management Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
Propper, C., D. Wilson and S. Burgess ( 2006) ‘Extending Choice in the English Health Care System’ , Journal of Social Policy35(4): 537-57.
31.
Segerholm, C. and E. Astrom ( 2007) ‘Goverance through Institutionalised Evaluation’ , Evaluation13(1): 48-67.
32.
Stern, E. ( 2005) Evaluation Research Methods: Sage Benchmarks in Social Research Series. London: SAGE.
33.
Stern, E. ( 2008) ‘Evaluation: Critical for Whom and Connected to What?’, Evaluation14(2): 249-57.
34.
Van Thiel, S. and F.L. Leeuw ( 2002) ‘The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector’ , Public Performance and Management Review25(3): 267-81.
35.
Wilson, D. and A. Piebalga ( 2008) ‘Performance Measures, Ranking and Parental Choice: An Analysis of the English School League Tables’, International Public Management Journal11(3): 344-66.
