This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Van Der Knaap, P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Responsive Evaluation and Performance Management

Overcoming the Downsides of Policy Objectives and Performance Indicators

Netherlands Court of Audit, The Hague

Worldwide, governments are under increasing pressure to deliver results. There is general recognition of the importance of performance measurement and a results-oriented focus for effective public management. The shift from inputs to outputs and outcomes is accompanied by an increased use of performance indicators and policy targets. Critics point to the negative effects of static forms of performance-measuring and governance: simplification, resistance to change and a strategic use of indicators. They stress the need for an approach to governance that respects and is responsive to diversity and dynamism. Such an approach to public policy should recognize the importance of stakeholders’ opinions and motives and, hence, dialogue. Herein, policy evaluation can help by systematically questioning the validity of policy goals and performance indicators. Based upon recent experiences with results-oriented budgeting in the Netherlands, this article outlines a possible approach to a responsive, ‘verifying’ policy evaluation. Against the background of the traditional functions of evaluation in results-oriented management (assessing efficiency and effectiveness), the paradoxical nature of performance indicators is considered: on the one hand they are ‘frozen ambitions’, yet on the other they must facilitate dialogue and learning. Building on these attributes, a dynamic perspective on evaluation is put forward. In this, using information and insights from stakeholders, policy evaluation should explicitly question the validity of the policy objectives and performance indicators without compromising their value and significance altogether. In this way, the evaluator may fulfil the ambition of the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy evaluation: to help to raise the quality of dialogue and decision-making between stakeholders.

Key Words: accountability • performance management • policy-oriented learning • results-oriented budgeting • responsive evaluation

Evaluation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 278-293 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389006069135


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?