Performance measurement and benchmarking as “reflexive institutions” for local governments. Germany, Sweden and England compared

• Date: 14 May 2018
• Published date: 14 May 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0004
• Pages: 543-562
• Author: Sabine Kuhlmann,Joerg Bogumil
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Performance measurement

and benchmarking as

“reflexive institutions”

for local governments

Germany, Sweden and England compared

Sabine Kuhlmann

Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Universitat Potsdam,

Potsdam, Germany, and

Joerg Bogumil

Department of Social Sciences, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to discuss different approaches of performance measurement and

benchmarking as “reflexive institutions”for local governments in England, Germany and Sweden from a

comparative perspective.

Design/methodology/approach –These three countries have been selected because they represent typical

(most different) cases of European local government systems and reforms. The existing theories on

“institutional reflexivity”point to the potential contribution of benchmarking to public sector innovationand

organizational learning. Based on survey findings, in-depth case studies, interviews and document analyses

in these three countries, the paper addresses the major research question as to what extent and why

benchmarking regimes vary across countries. It derives hypotheses about the impacts of benchmarking on

institutional learning and innovation.

Findings –The outcomes suggest that the combination of three key features of benchmarking,

namely –“obligation”,“sanctions”and “benchmarking authority”–in conjunction with country-specific

administrative context conditions and local actor constellations –influences the impact of benchmarking

as a reflexive institution.

Originality/value –It is shown in the paper that compulsory benchmarking on its own does not lead to

reflexivity and learning, but that there is a need for autonomy and leeway for local actors to cope with

benchmarking results. These findings are relevant because policy makers must decide upon the specific

“governance mix”of benchmarking exercises taking their national and local contexts into account if they

want them to promote institutional learning and innovation.

Keywords Benchmarking, Administration, Local government reform

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Public administrations and local governments do not have external standards of comparison

to measure and improve their performance. To a certain extent, this gap can be filled by

benchmarkingexercises that are supposed tosubstitute a real market-basedcompetition with

the aim of improving the quality of service, and saving taxpayers’money. The use of

comparative performance data obtained by way of benchmarking is meant to be a tool for

identifying and adopting more efficient and effective practices, hence a learning and

adjustment tool.As such, benchmarking is regarded lessas a technique of measurement than

as a way of thinking, a disposition toward comparative assessment and learning (Grace and

Fenna, 2013,p. 235; Kuhlmann, 2010; Proeller andSiegel, 2009). In an attempt to introduceand

implement tools of performance measurement, performance comparison and benchmarking,

a striking convergence in administrative modernization processes of the European

countriescan be identified (Bouckaert andHalligan, 2008; Van Doorenand van de Walle, 2008;

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 31 No. 4, 2018

pp. 543-562

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0004

Received 2 January 2017

Revised 26 June 2017

24 August 2017

Accepted 2 October 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

543

Performance

measurement

and

benchmarking

De Lancer, 2009;Kuhlmann, 2010). They are stronglyshaped by the new public management

(NPM) concept of the 1980/1990s (Wollmann, 2003; Kuhlmann et al., 2008; Pollitt and

Bouckaert, 2011). Moreover, the expansion of common quality assessment systems

(e.g. common assessment framework), performance comparisons and benchmarking within

and between European public administrations have been intensified as a result of the

European integration process (Wallace, 2005, p. 85). In this context, horizontal cooperation of

member states has developed as an independent mode of EU policy. Furthermore, the EU

introduced a requirement to evaluate its structural funding programs by the textbook in a

sequence of ex ante,on-goingandex post evaluations, which has ushered in a distinct

upgradingof performance and effects monitoringin the public administrations of EU member

states (Wollmann, 2004, p. 25).

Irrespective of the discourse and concept convergence regarding performance-related

reforms (Bouckaert and Halligan, 2008; Van Dooren and van de Walle, 2008), however,

conspicuous differences among European countries can be noticed in the implementation,

use and effects of performance measurement and benchmarking (Grace and Fenna, 2013;

Kuhlmann and Jäkel, 2013). This variation occurs (inter alia) due to national or local political

and institutional contexts where benchmarking activities take place as well as on the

objectives which relevant actors pursue with it (Van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002; Van Dooren

et al., 2010; Grace and Fenna, 2013). Nevertheless, comparative public administration still

lacks systematic research and empirical evidence about benchmarking regimes and impacts

from a cross-country comparative perspective. Against this background, the following

contribution is aimed at analyzing different approaches of local government benchmarking

in three European countries: the UK/England, Germany and Sweden. The relevance of this

topic lies not only in the fast diffusion or imitation of benchmarking exercises across

countries and jurisdictions. Moreover, the question as to whether and under which

conditions these techniques lead to learning and innovation needs to be addressed by

comparative research. This paper aims to contribute to filling this gap. The three countries

selected here may be regarded as representing typical (most different) cases of European

local-level benchmarking regimes. Whereas in England, for a long time, the type of

compulsory top-down benchmarking with severe sanctions prevailed, for Germany and

Sweden, a predominantly voluntary approach has been characteristic. In Sweden, however,

benchmarking is virtually practiced all over the country which is not the case in Germany.

Against this background, the selection of these three most different country cases

promises fruitful insights into the causal mechanisms of benchmarking and innovation. Our

guiding questions are to what extent these benchmarking regimes vary across countries

and what difference it makes for the innovation capacities of local governments, especially

with regard to the expected contribution to strengthening local communities by way of

evidence-based organizational learning.

Conceptually, the paper draws on the theory of “institutional reflexivity”borrowed from

Manger and Moldaschl (2010) which we apply to public administration, specifically local

governments. This theory focuses on the causal relationship between reflexive institutions

(i.e. benchmarking) and innovation capacities of organizations that are in the center

of our analysis. The paper is aimed at identifying and explaining the institutional

differences in benchmarking exercises between (and partly within) the three countries in

order to finally generate hypotheses on the causal relationship between benchmarking as a

“reflexive institution”and the actual innovation capacities of local governments.

Our empirical basis are findings obtained from two research projects combined in this

contribution. In these projects, besides secondary analyses about local-level

benchmarking activities in Germany, England and Sweden, primary research was

conducted drawing on experts interviews in the three countries, and a standardized

survey in German municipalities.

544

IJPSM

31,4