Government performance evaluation has a long history. However, major differences of opinion regarding its role still exist both in Western and Chinese academia, from theoretical, and practical perspectives. In this article, we conduct an empirical measurement of the role played by government performance evaluation and construct a regression model to explore the major factors influencing public officials’ perception, relying on survey data from a district government of county level in Guangdong Province. The study reveals that the average value of 14 items measuring government performance evaluation was 3.36 points (out of a possible 5 points). The role of the government in setting annual objectives, tasks, and priorities, as well as strategic planning, and target setting, and strengthening departmental accountability, had the most significant effect on the perception of efficacy of performance evaluation, whereas departmental budget setting, resource allocation, and reduction of operating costs had the least effect. Furthermore, performance communication and feedback, as well as the validity of the performance indicator system, also significantly influence the perception of the role played by government performance evaluation. The article concludes with a discussion of the differences between government performance evaluation in the West and in China.
AmmonsD. N.RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.
2.
AmirkhanyanA. A.KimH. J.LambrightK. T. (2014). The performance puzzle: Understanding the factors influencing alternative dimensions and views of performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 1–34.
3.
AndersenL. B.BoesenA.PedersenL. (2016). Performance in public organizations: Clarifying the conceptual space. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 852–862.
4.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2006). Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration. In BoyneG.A.MeierK.J.O’TooleL.J.Jr.WalkerR.M. (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 14–34). Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaoG. X.ZhouY. F. (2010). Government performance evaluation in China: Review and forecast. Science of Science and Management of S. and T, 31(7), 105–111.
6.
BarbosaA. F.PozzebonM.DinizE. H. (2013). Rethinking e-government performance assessment from a citizen perspective. Public Administration, 91(3), n/a–762.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
9.
BellE.SmithK. (2022). Working within a system of administrative burden: How street-level bureaucrats’ role perceptions shape access to the promise of higher education. Administration & Society, 54(2), 167–211.
10.
BellE.Ter-MkrtchyanA.WehdeW.SmithK. (2021). Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 610–624.
11.
BianchiC.RivenbarkW. C. (2012). A comparative analysis of performance management systems: The cases of Sicily and North Carolina. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 509–526.
12.
BovairdT.StokerG.JonesT.LoefflerE.Pinilla RoncancioM. (2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 47–68.
13.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. M. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 233–257.
14.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2012). The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 741–751.
15.
BustosE. O. (2021). Organizational reputation in the public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 731–751.
16.
CallahanR. F. (2018). The emergence and divergence in performance: Management systems in California state government. Chinese Public Administration Review, 9(2), 128–147.
17.
CampbellJ. W.ImT. (2016). Perceived public participation efficacy: The differential influence of public service motivation across organizational strata. Public Personnel Management, 45(3), 308–330.
18.
CapraraG. V. (1993). Marginal deviations, aggregate effects, disruption of continuity, and deviation amplifying mechanisms. Foundations of personality, 72, 227–244.
19.
ChangD.MengT. (2023). Magnetic effect of government responsiveness on public participation: An empirical analysis based on the provincial Leadership Message Board in China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 14(2), 94–106.
20.
ChanH. S.GaoJ. (2009). Putting the cart before the horse: Accountability or performance?Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68, S51–S61.
21.
ChanH. S.GaoJ. I. E. (2013). Can the same key open different locks? Administrative values underlying performance measurement in China. Public Administration, 91(2), 366–380.
22.
ChenT. (2011). Reflections on the study of government performance management: Return to the duality of political and technical rationality. Journal of Zhejiang University, 41(4), 16–25.
23.
ChenT. (2017). Introduction to symposium on public administration institution reform. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 10(4), 1–4.
24.
ChepkoechC.SangH.ChepkowonyP. (2021). Influence of social networking sites as an emerging channel of communication on employee performance in county government of Kericho, Kenya. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 11(2), 613–618.
25.
ChristensenR. K.ImT.PorumbescuG. (2022). Softening performance’s pitfalls by integrating context and capacity: A government competitiveness framework. Public Administration Review, 82(5), 887–892.
26.
ChuC. C.TsaiT. J.WangC. Y.MengF. S. (2021). Effective citizen engagement in community policing: The lessons and experience of Taiwan. Chinese Public Administration Review, 12(2), 116–131.
27.
De BruijnH. (2003). Managing performance in the public sector. Routledge.
28.
DeLeonP. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 125–129.
29.
DesslerG. (2005). Human resource management (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
30.
DiduckA.SinclairJ.PratapD.HostetlerG. (2007). Achieving meaningful public participation in the environmental assessment of hydro development: Case studies from Chamoli District, Uttarakhand, India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(3), 219–231.
31.
Dimitrijevska-MarkoskiT.FrenchP. E. (2019). Determinants of public administrators’ use of performance information: Evidence from local governments in florida. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 699–709.
32.
DuY. G. (2020). The objectives and key results approach: Methodological options for government to enhance strategic execution in the new era. Leadership Science, 4, 41–44.
33.
DuY. G.GeM. L.ZhangY. P. (2018). Hierarchy of functions of government performance management: Cases studies based on China local governments. Public Administration and Policy Review, 7(3), 36–45.
34.
GaoJ. (2015). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: Some lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 86–96.
35.
GaoX. P.ShengM. K.LiuJ. (2011). The practice and theory of performance management in China. Social Sciences in China, 6, 4–14.
36.
GarnettJ. L.MarloweJ.PandeyS. K. (2008). Penetrating the performance predicament: Communication as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture’s impact on public organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 266–281.
37.
GeldersD.GaletzkaM.VerckensJ. P.SeydelE. (2008). Showing results? An analysis of the perceptions of internal and external stakeholders of the public performance communication by the Belgian and Dutch Railways. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), 221–238.
38.
GilmourJ. B.LewisD. E. (2006). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the office of management and budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 742–752.
39.
HasianyD. D.AhmanE.SuwatnoS.SantosoB. (2021). Implementation of management performance: SAKIP in strengthening bureaucratic reform (Research on PPPPTK TK and PLB). Aptisi Transactions on Management, 5(1), 30–45.
40.
HattkeF. (2020). When the red tape becomes policy: A critical assessment of administrative burdens. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 178–180.
41.
HeinrichC. J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363–394.
42.
HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2018). Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
HoA. T. K. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.
44.
HongS.KimY. (2019). Loyalty or competence: Political use of performance information and negativity bias. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 829–840.
HuangW. L. (2019). The impact of extrinsic rewards and public service motivation on public employees’ work performance: Does seniority matter?Chinese Public Administration Review, 10(1), 12–27.
47.
HvidmanU.AndersenS. C. (2016). Perceptions of public and private performance: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 111–120.
48.
IngrahamP. W.JoyceP. G.DonahueA. K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
IngramsA. (2016). Assessing open government performance through three public administration perspectives: Efficiency, democratic responsiveness, and legal-rational process. Chinese Public Administration Review, 7(1), 110–145.
50.
IsnalitaI. (2021). Information and communication technology in organizational performance of local government. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 127–140.
51.
JablinF. M.SiasP. (2000). Communication competence. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 17–25). Sage Publications.
52.
JakobsenM.JacobsenC. B.SerritzlewS. (2019). Managing the behavior of public frontline employees through change-oriented training: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 556–571.
53.
JiP. (2017). Research on the external evaluation system of local government performance. Dissertation of Nanjing Normal University.
54.
KaplanR. S.NortonD. P. (1992). The balance scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
55.
KeiserL. R.MillerS. M. (2020). Does administrative burden influence public support for government programs? Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 137–150.
56.
KellyG. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Routledge.
57.
KeulemansS.GroeneveldS. (2020). Supervisory leadership at the frontlines: Street-level discretion, supervisor influence, and street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 307–323.
58.
KravchukR. S.SchackR. W. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the government performance and results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348–358.
59.
KrollA.MoynihanD. P. (2018). The design and practice of integrating evidence: Connecting performance management with program evaluation. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 183–194.
60.
LagowskaU.SobralF.TavaresG. (2022). Joint effects of shared and transformational leadership on performance in street-level bureaucracies: Evidence from the educational sector. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 1042–1057.
61.
LanZ. Y.QinQ.Xue.J. G. (2018). Civil service motivation admist the integrated party and administrative reform. Chinese Public Administration, 401(11), 14–20.
62.
LaveeE. (2021). Who is in charge? The provision of informal personal resources at the street level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 4–20.
63.
LerusseA.Van de WalleS. (2022). Buying from local providers: The role of governance preferences in assessing performance information. Public Administration Review, 82(5), 835–849.
64.
LinM.ChenK. (2020). Participation Effectiveness of citizen participatory budgeting: The case of Yanjin County in China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 11(1), 6–24.
65.
LinM. H. (2018). An accurate grasp of the pathway system for the full implementation of budget performance management. Chinese Public Administration, 401(11), 6–7.
66.
LuC.ShenC. (2020). Do networks or performance impact the promotion of Chinese officials? Evidence from prefecture-level cities. Pacific Economic Review, 25(4), 539–573.
67.
LøbergI. B. (2023). Assessments of digital client representations: How frontline workers reconstruct client narratives from fragmented information. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 19–29.
68.
MacInnisD. J.MoormanC.JaworskiB. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53.
69.
MagnussonD.StattinH. (1998). Person–context interaction theories. John Wiley & Sons.
70.
MaherB. (1969). Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly. John Wiley & Sons.
71.
MaL. (2013). The diffusion of government microblogging: Evidence from Chinese municipal police bureaus. Public Management Review, 15(2), 288–309.
72.
MaL. (2016). Does super-department reform improve public service performance in China?Public Management Review, 18(3), 369–391.
73.
MaL. (2017). Performance management and citizen satisfaction with the government: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. Public Administration, 95(1), 39–59.
74.
MaL. (2018). Does citizen engagement in government performance measurement matter a multilevel analysis of Chinese cities. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 197(3), 113–124.
75.
MeierK. J.SongM.DavisJ. A.AmirkhanyanA. A. (2022). Sector bias and the credibility of performance information: An experimental study of elder care provision. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 69–82.
76.
MenesesG. D.PalacioA. B. (2005). Recycling behavior: A multidimensional approach. Environment and Behavior, 37(6), 837–860.
77.
MigchelbrinkK.Van de WalleS. (2022). Increasing the cost of participation: Red tape and public officials’ attitudes toward public participation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 644–662.
78.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
79.
MoynihanD. P. (2016). Political use of performance data. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 479–481.
80.
MoynihanD. P.KrollA. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 314–323.
81.
MoynihanD. P.LavertuS. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.
82.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2004). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 421–439.
83.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
84.
NeshkovaM. I.GuoH. (2018). Policy target populations and public participation in agency decision making. International Public Management Journal, 21(2), 297–325.
85.
NielsenP. A. (2014). Learning from performance feedback: Performance information, aspiration levels, and managerial priorities. Public Administration, 92(1), 142–160.
86.
NielsenP. A.MoynihanD. P. (2016). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283.
87.
NiX. (2008). Reflections on contemporary performance measurement practices in Chinese government. Journal of Sun Yatsen University, 3, 134–141.
88.
NiX. (2013). Innovation in Chinese government performance evaluation. People’s Publishing House.
89.
OsborneD.PlastrikP. (2000). The reinventor’s fieldbook: Tools for transforming your government. Jossey-Bass.
90.
PeñaD.PrietoF. J. (2000). The kurtosis coefficient and the linear discriminant function. Statistics & Probability Letters, 49(3), 257–261.
91.
PetrovskyN.MokJ. Y.León-CázaresF. (2017). Citizen expectations and satisfaction in a young democracy: A test of the expectancy-disconfirmation model. Public Administration Review, 77, 395–407.
92.
RangkutiM. H. B. (2018). Performance accountability in government agencies. Journal Akuntansi Bisnis & Public, 8(2), 93–101.
93.
RubinM. M.EbdonC. (2020). Participatory budgeting: direct democracy in action. Chinese Public Administration Review, 11(1), 1–5.
94.
SaphoresJ. D. M.NixonH.OgunseitanO. A.ShapiroA. A. (2006). Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: An application to California. Environment and Behavior, 38(2), 183–208.
95.
SchmidthuberL.IngramsA.HilgersD. (2021). Government openness and public trust: The mediating role of democratic capacity. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 91–109.
96.
ShangH. P. (2021a). The endogenous risks of the bureaucratic organization and their prevention and control during the national governance modernization–The contradictory movement and adjustment of “order–performance”. Academic Monthly, 54(1), 83–97.
97.
ShangH. P. (2021b). The law of ancient Chinese state’s prosperity and contemporary sublation–An exploratory explanation for the culture of “performance promotion. Administrative Tribune, 28(1), 129–138.
98.
ShangH. P. (2022). Endogenous risks and prevention and control of scientific organizational structure in the process of national governance modernization: The contradictory movement and regulation of “Order-Performance.”Academic Monthly, 54(1), 83–97.
99.
ShangH. P.HanQ. Y. (2019). The causes and values of unique government performance in China: An exploration based on 172 unique government performance cases in China from 2007 to 2017. Political Science Research, 2019(3), 81–93+127–128.
100.
ShangH. PLiW.LiuW. (2018). Innovation or imitation – A comparison of performance evaluation models in China. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 14(54), 138–154.
101.
ShangH. P.LiuH. M. (2020). Performance and factors influencing urban community waste classification: An evaluation from the perspective of comprehensive performance management—a non-interference study. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute, 2020(2), 34–45+125.
102.
ShangH. P.ZhangY. M.QianF. Z. (2016). The progress in China’s government performance accountability–A probe into 20 reform cases in China. Chinese Public Administration, 2, 33–39.
103.
ShengM.ZhangY. (2012). Basic experiences of performance management in foreign city governments and their implications for China. Gansu Social Sciences, 2012(1), 245–248. (in chinese).
104.
SongJ.TingY. (2010). Affects and limitations of performance assessment on government budget pecision: Analysis of bush’s program assessment rating tool. Chinese Public Administration, 9, 108–112.
105.
SongM.MeierK. J. (2018). Citizen satisfaction and the kaleidoscope of government performance: How multiple stakeholders see government performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 489–505.
106.
StanicaC. M.BalicaD.HendersonA. C.ŢiclăuT. C. (2022). The weight of service delivery: Administrative and rules burdens in street-level bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 240–257.
107.
StemlerS. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(4), 1–19.
108.
StruthersC. L.ScottT. A.FleischmanF.ArnoldG. (2022). The forest ranger (and the legislator): How local congressional politics shape policy implementation in agency field offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(4), 685–701.
109.
TaylorJ. (2006). Performance measurement in Australian and Hong Kong government departments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 334–357.
110.
TaylorJ. (2009). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision making. Public Administration, 87(4), 853–871.
111.
TaylorJ. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316–1334.
112.
ThomasJ. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. Jossey-Bass.
113.
EvansT. E. (2018). Exploring ethical agency in public service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 620–623.
114.
Van de WalleS.BouckaertG. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891–913.
115.
Van LoonN. M. (2017). From red tape to which performance results? Exploring the relationship between red tape and various dimensions of performance in healthcare work units. Public Administration, 95(1), 60–77.
116.
WalkerR. M.AndrewsR. (2015). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 101–133.
117.
WalkerR. M.WuJ. (2010). Future prospects for performance management in Chinese city governments. Administration & Society, 42(1_suppl), 34S–55S.
118.
WangJ. M.XiaoZ. K.XiaoM. Z. (2019). The practice of administrative performance appraisal in the USA Basic–Leve. Government and its enlightenment. Journal of Beijing Administration Institute, 3, 10–15.
119.
WholeyJ. S.KathrynE. N. (1997). Clarifying Goals, reporting results. In NewcomerK. E. (Ed.), Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs, New Directions for evaluation 75 (pp. 91–98). Jossey-Bass.
120.
WilsonJ. Q. (1995). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. China Social Science Press.
121.
WirtzB. W.WeyererJ. C.RöschM. (2019). Open government and citizen participation: An empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 566–586.
122.
WuJ. (2010). Will the “Chinese Model” become a global example?China Reform, 42–43.
123.
WuJ.MaL.YangY. (2013). Innovation in the Chinese public sector: Typology and distribution. Public Administration, 91(2), 347–365.
124.
WuJ. N.MaL.YangY. Q. (2011). Xiaonengjianshe in the comparative perspective: Performance improvement, innovation and service oriented government. Chinese Public Administration, 3, 35–40.
125.
YanB.WuJ. (2012). Performance-based accountability and response behavior of township government. Journal of Jiangsu Administration Institute, 2, 109–115.
126.
YangK. (2016). Creating public value and institutional innovations across boundaries: An integrative process of participation, legitimation, and implementation. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 873–885.
127.
YangK.HolzerM. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
128.
YangK.HolzerM. (2015). Plowing ahead: Introduction to symposium on the frontiers of performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 359–364.
129.
YangK.PandeyS. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892.
130.
YanH.TingY. (2018). The effectiveness of online citizen evaluation of government performance: A study of the perceptions of local bureaucrats in China. Public Personnel Management, 47, 419–444.
131.
YanH.YangJ. (2014). Effectiveness of internet-based public assessment and its contributing factors. Journal of Northeastern University, 4, 394–400.
132.
YanH.YangW. (2015). The SES performance appraisal system of the United States. Journal of Macao Studies, 2, 69–79.
133.
YeL.NiX. (2016). Assessing Agency-level performance evaluation reform in China: Can It truly serve as a management innovation?Chinese Public Administration Review, 7(1), 7–34.
134.
YeL. J.MaJ. (2003). Street–level–bureaucrat theory in public administration. Wuhan University Journal, 5, 612–618.
135.
YuW.MaL. (2015). External government performance evaluation in China: evaluating the evaluations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 144–171.
136.
ZengS. C.SangB.(2005). A review on the person–context interaction theories. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 28(5), 1256–1258.
137.
ZhangY. (2012). Building a citizen driving mechanism in local government performance evaluatio. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 5, 60–64.
138.
ZhengF.LiaoP. (2013). Government performance management: Target, positioning and top-level design. Chinese Public Administration, 5, 15–20.
139.
ZhouY.MiaoQ. (2014). Servant leadership and affective commitment in the Chinese public sector: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 381–395.
140.
ZhouZ. (2009). Study of government performance management in China: A historical review and critical assessment. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 2(1), 4–26.
141.
ZhouZ. (2011). Public participation in government performance measurement in China: A critical review and prospects. Chinese Public Administration Review, 6(3-4), 1–12.
142.
ZhouZ. R.XuY. Q. (2016). Performance regimes: A SINO–US Comparison and lessons for China. Chinese Public Administration, 4, 139–145.
143.
ZhuX. (2014). Mandate versus championship: Vertical government intervention and diffusion of innovation in public services in authoritarian China. Public Management Review, 16(1), 117–139.
144.
ZhuX.ZhangY. (2016). Political mobility and dynamic diffusion of innovation: The spread of municipal pro-business administrative reform in China. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 535–551.
