Characteristics of Performance Measurement in the Municipal Reform Period

Thus far, this lesson has outlined the most important factors that facilitated the promotion of performance measurement in the public sector during the municipal reform period. To gain a deeper understanding of the evolution of performance measurement, it is also important for you to be able to describe the main characteristics of performance measurement during this period. This understanding will make it possible for us to compare and contrast the distinguishing features of each of the four periods that are covered in this lesson and the next. A summary of the characteristics associated with the municipal reform period is provided in Table 2.1. As you can see, this table describes the various characteristics in three different columns, including the purpose of the reform, the underlying belief system, and the scope of use.

Purpose of the Reform

Column 1 outlines the purpose of the reform. As discussed earlier in this lesson, performance measurement was largely introduced for the purpose of combating government corruption and inefficiency. This purpose was described relatively thoroughly on page 4 of this lesson.

The Belief System

Column 2 summarizes the belief system held by the proponents of the reforms (i.e., the New York Bureau and other municipal bureaus). As you can see, the municipal reforms during this period rested on five core beliefs:

1. First, the reforms rested on a belief that there was one correct solution for solving administrative problems. As discussed earlier in this lesson, it was believed that this correct solution would be identified via scientific research.
2. A second and related belief was that this correct solution could be transferred seamlessly across sectors. Hence, it was assumed that managerial practices were independent of sector. According to the reformers, this assumption would hold true as long as administrators could be effectively shielded from politics.
3. A third belief was that politics could be effectively separated from administration. This would allow administrators to carry out their activities in an efficient manner. As noted earlier in this lesson, reformers believed that there were "virtually no barriers to the ability to improve government" (Ketti, 2000, p. 9) as long as these could be separated.
4. A fourth belief was that individual decision making ought to play a very limited role in the pursuit of effective government. In essence, it was believed that the solutions identified through scientific research ought to instruct individuals about how specific tasks should be carried out. The role of individual organizational members was therefore reduced to carrying out a set of instructions. An immediate implication of this, of course, was that no attention was placed on how one might use performance measures for the purpose of influencing people’s behavior. As indicated in Lesson 1, such use transcends performance measurement into performance management. Performance management, thus, was outside the scope of these early reforms.
5. The fifth belief was that agencies could be entrusted to implement policy in a value-free manner. This belief follows from the progressive movement's faith in expertise and professionalism. 

Scope of Use

Column 3 indicates the scope of use. As indicated throughout this lesson, performance measurement during this time period centered on realizing efficiency improvements. In essence, it was assumed that the solution to maximizing effectiveness (and thus minimizing waste in government) lay in improving the efficiency by which the tasks involved in program execution were carried out. Hence, the framework of analysis did not question policies or objectives. It was simply assumed that government spending would be effective.

Table 2.1. Characteristics of Performance Measurement in the Municipal Reform Period

Time frame	Purpose	Underlying assumptions/belief system	Scope of use
Early 20th Century–1930s	Combat fraud and inefficiency	Faith in science to find the one right way to conduct operations (i.e., one correct solution) Individual decision making plays limited role in the quest for efficiency Application of administrative practices is independent of sector Administration can and should be shielded from politics Administrative units are capable of implementing programs in a value-free manner	Efficiency

The above characteristics paint a picture of performance measurement that is relatively limited in scope and use. In essence, it is confined to a focus on efficiency, with no emphasis placed on effectiveness. Furthermore, there is no consideration of the use of performance measurement in influencing organizational members toward improving performance. Despite this limited scope of use, however, it is important to note that the adoption of performance measurement during the municipal reform periods still represented a great leap forward in terms of moving toward result-oriented governance. As noted earlier, accountability systems in government had been largely input-oriented prior to the municipal reform period, within which budget information systems centered on specifying amounts that agencies could spend on resources (i.e., production inputs) during an upcoming budget year (i.e., line-item budgeting).

As we continue our review of the evolution of performance measurement in the next lesson, you will learn about how the scope of use of performance measurement is further expanded for purposes of

• enhancing the transparency and accountability about how well public monies are spent;
• helping decision makers allocate scarce public resources across government programs (i.e., policy making); and
• helping managers within administrative units to make better decisions.

In addition, you will learn that the concept “performance management” is introduced in the more recent performance-oriented reforms. The above characteristics will serve as an important benchmark for comparing past and current characteristics of results-oriented governance.

---

References

Kettl, D. F. (2000). Public administration at the millennium: The state of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 7–34.