The Proliferation of Performance Measurement in Government

Prior to the introduction of scientific management practices, there were no practices or methods in place governments that systematically tracked how well public monies were spent. In essence, information about public spending was confined to budget information systems centered on specifying specific amounts that agencies could spend on specific resources (i.e., production inputs) during an upcoming budget year (i.e., line-item budgeting). This so-called input-orientation made it possible to hold agencies accountable based on whether they had spent the funds in accordance with the budget. But again, there was no systematic way of holding agencies accountable based on how well these resources were managed or whether they produced sought for outcomes or results. Furthermore, it is unclear whether considerations of efficiency were important to public administrators and managers, prior to the municipal reform movement. The efforts of the scientific management movement was pivotal in adding a focus on efficiency (i.e., the production of outputs using minimum possible amount of resources). It also represents the first time in modern U.S. history that attempts to adopt performance measurement were widespread. There are two important reasons for this:

1. There was general support for progressive ideas. In particular, the emphasis placed on science as a source for curing the ills of society was an important factor that explains why a number of mayors from U.S. cities expressed faith in these reforms. As noted earlier, many of these cities were able to gain political support for setting up their own Bureaus of Municipal Research including, but were not limited to, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Memphis, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Hoboken, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Rochester, San Francisco, and Seattle.
2. The scope and magnitude of the inefficiencies that was present in the public sector. These inefficincies had emerged during the industrial revolution (1820–1870) and culminated in the early 20th century. As noted earlier, the recognition of the widepread corruption and the efficiencies that were present provided a fertile setting to gain support for the proliferation of reforms aimed at systematically identifying and revealing government waste.

Having said this, it is important to note that it is difficult to determine the impact that the efficiency orientation had in practice. Nevertheless, it is clear that it placed efficiency on the agenda of government reform efforts.