Disaggregation, Evidence, and Legitimacy: An Examination of the Nexus of Institutionalization, Performance Measurement, Social Services, and New Public Management

• In Event: Country studies on the impact of New Public Management on nonprofit service providers

Abstract

The infusion of private-sector management practices into public sector administration has been a consistently documented phenomenon of the past forty years (Hood, 1991; Hyndman & Lapsley, 2016; Lapuente & Van de Walle, 2020; Powell, 2007). First described as New Public Management (NPM), this “set of broadly similar administrative doctrines” (Hood, 1991, p. 3) espoused the virtues of market reforms over the preceding bureaucratic models of public administration (Christensen & Lægreid, 2011; Osborne, 2006). While scholars continue to debate the permanency of NPM as a reform movement (Hyndman & Lapsley, 2016; Osborne, 2006), they have also pinpointed three persistent elements that underscore the lasting influence of NPM: competition, incentivization, and disaggregation (Dunleavy et al., 2006; Lapuente & Van de Walle, 2020). Respectively, these elements emphasise the contracting out of public sector functions, performance-based contracting, and separation of financing from delivery (Lapuente & Van de Walle, 2020).
These elements have influenced the administration of the public sector in many advanced democracies across the globe (Lapuente & Van de Walle, 2020). However, the impact of these changes on social service administration deserves closer attention due to the nuanced responses resulting from the complexity of service provision. Academic literature has paid close attention to the subsequent importance of performance measurement, evaluation, and reporting to meet the evolving demands placed on the social sector (Dahler-Larsen, 2014; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014).
The research at the centre of this paper aimed to extend our understanding of performance measurement and evaluation within a sample of Australian charitable organisations. A naturalistic review of published reports was conducted, however a surprising observation emerged during this process. Specifically, although aged care and disability support services were a core focus and source of revenue for the charities studied, these services were rarely the focus of published performance reports.
In the Australian context, aged care and disability support services are a notable pairing. They exemplify some of the country’s most pronounced NPM reforms, characterized by a “black-box” approach to state administration (Considine, 2022). Consequently, qualitative interviews were conducted with charity executives, managers, and industry professionals to explore this observation.
Our findings provide new insights into the role of performance data and evidence in governing social services, including the fulfilment of accountability requirements. Building on established theories concerning the institutionalization of performance measurement and social services (Dahler-Larsen, 2011; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), we examine the impact of state-enforced competition, incentivization, and disaggregation on the coupling of organizational units and service models within charitable organizations. The dynamics and external pressure of NPM disrupt organizational strategy, culture, and evidence-based governance. Adopting a critical lens, this study provides new perspectives on role of performance measurement in granting legitimacy to social services, and the impact this may have on service recipients.

References

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4
Considine, M. (2022). The Careless State: Reforming Australia’s Social Services. Melbourne University Press.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2011). The Evaluation Society. Stanford University Press.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the Scale and Scope of Social Performance. California Management Review, 56(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Hyndman, N., & Lapsley, I. (2016). New Public Management: The Story Continues. Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12100
Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12502
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2). https://doi.org/doi/abs/10.1086/226550
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
Powell, M. (2007). Understanding the Mixed Economy of Welfare. Policy Press.

Author

• Elizabeth-Rose Ahearn, The University of Queensland