This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Zapico-Goñi, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Matching Public Management, Accountability and Evaluation in Uncertain Contexts

A Practical Suggestion

Evaluation Unit, DG Budget of the European Commission, zapicobenavides{at}telefonica.net

Whenever policy logic and outcomes are uncertain, the traditional public management reform model, focused on efficiency and effectiveness, seems to be weak. Uncertainty requires not only devolution and follow-up information on results but also the encouragement of an appropriate management approach. Incentives from accountability and performance assessment may facilitate or impede management improvement if they are not coherently oriented. These systems need to be consistent with public managers' roles and circumstances, so that their feedback encourages a management role adequate to contextual characteristics. Uncertainty pressures management to be focused on innovation.This may be reinforced by positive oriented accountability and participatory evaluation. Beyond a conceptual proposal these notes might be a very useful suggestion for public management reform proposals.The example of fighting labour accidents in Spain shows that the model proposed is more pragmatic and feasible than it may sound in theory.

Key Words: management in uncertainty • participatory evaluation • positive accountability

References

• Ballart, X. and E. Zapico (forthcoming) `Evaluation Knowledge for Strategic Budgeting', in R. Rist and N. Stame (eds) From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative Systems. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Bemelmans, M. L., R. Rist and E. Vedung, eds ( 2003) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Boyle, R. (2005) `Assessment Reports: A Comparative Perspective ', in R. Schwartz and J. Mayne (eds) Quality Matters, pp. 279—97. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Carter, N. (1991) `Learning to Measure Performance: The Use of Indicators in Organizations', Public Administration 69: 85—101.[CrossRef]
• Coleman, J. (1988) `Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital ', American Journal of Sociology 94 (suppl.): 95—120.[CrossRef]
• European Commission (2004) Evaluating EU Activities: A Practical Guide for the Commission Services. Luxembourg: Publication Office.
• Feinstein, O. and D. Puetz (2000) `Synthesis and Overview', in World Bank, Evaluation and Poverty Reduction, pp. 3—16. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Gregory, A. (2000) `Problematizing Participation', Evaluation 6(2): 179—99.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: SAGE.
• Insht (1998) Plan de Acción sobre la Siniestralidad Laboral. Madrid. Available at: www.mtas.es/INSHT/practice/f_planaccion.htm
• Jackson, E. (2000) `The Front-End Costs and Downstream Benefits of Participatory Evaluation', in World Bank Evaluation and Poverty Reduction, pp. 115—26. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Leeuw, F., R. Rist and R. Sonnichsen, eds (1994) Can Governments Learn? Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation and Organizational Learning. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Mayne, J. and E. Zapico (eds) (1999) Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Metcalfe, L. (1993) `Public Management: From Imitation to Innovation ', in J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Government, pp. 173—89. London: SAGE.
• Metcalfe, L. and S. Richards (1990) Improving Public Management. London: SAGE.
• Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2000 ) Annual Labour Statistics. Madrid. Available at: www.mtas.es
• Nicholson, C. (1996) `Police Performance Monitoring', in J. Mayne and E. Zapico (eds) Performance Monitoring in Public Sector Monitoring, pp. 00—00. London: Transaction Publishers.
• Oakley, P. (1991) Projects with People. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
• Oecd (1993) Performance Measurement. Paris: OECD.
• Oecd (1996) Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government. Paris: OECD.
• Oecd (2001) The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: OECD.
• Oecd (2005) Performance Information in the Budget Process: Results of OECD 2005 Questionnaire. Final Report, Public Governance Committee, Paris: OECD.
• Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration. Chicago: Row, Peterson & Co.
• Smith, D. (1978) `Value Biases in Performance Assessment', paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Association.
• Stake, R. E., ed. (1975) Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Wildavsky, A. (1993) `¿Qué necesita saber el manager público? Una formación para la gestión pública', Ekonomiaz 26(2): 120—9.
• World Bank (1994) Annual Report of the World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Evaluation, Vol. 13, No. 4, 421-438 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389007082130


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

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Zapico-Goñi, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?