Resultatbaseret statsstyring af lokal kernevelfærd
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v20i2.27653Resumé
Results based management is an example of a management approach affecting policy implementation through specific policy tools. It is legitimized as a way to strengthen control with public expenses and to produce more effective welfare services.
The article is based on a systematic literature review of results based state management of local welfare in three policy areas (primary school, employment and social service) and focuses on what happens when results based management is implemented in welfare organizations.
The results from the review point to a range of non-intended consequences and the argument put forward is that they are related to a discrepancy between performance goals and welfare professional work. Besides theory on unintended consequences of results based-management, the article draws on frontline theory and sociology of professions. More specific, we use a concept of classification to explain what happens when results based management meets welfare professionals with a large room of discretion.
Referencer
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderschou, S. B. and Harrits, G. S. (2014). Mellem viden og styring: En analyse af teknologiske forandringer i relationen mellem stat og profession. In: G. S. Harrits, M. B. Johansen, J. E. Kristensen, L. T. Larsen and S. G. Olesen, ed., Professioner Under Pres. Systime Academic.
Andersen, S. C. (2008). The impact of public management reforms on student perfor-mance in Danish schools. Public Administration, vol. 86(2), pp. 541-558.
Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 73(3), pp. 453-472.
Barnow, B. (2000). Exploring the relationship between performance management and program impact: A case study of the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Pol-icy Analysis and Management, vol. 19(1), pp. 118-141.
Barnow, B. S. and Smith, J. A. (2004). Performance Management of U.S. Job Training Programs: Lessons from the Job Training Partnership Act. Public Finance and Management, vol. 4(3), pp. 247-287.
Berkel, R. and Knies, E. (2016). Performance Management, Caseloads and the Frontline Provision of Social Services. Social Policy & Administration, vol. 50(1), pp. 59-78.
Bovaird, T. (2014). Attributing Outcomes to Social Policy Interventions - 'Gold Standard' or 'Fool's Gold' in Public Policy and Management?. Social Policy and Admin-istration, vol. 48(1), pp. 1-23.
Bouckaert, G. and Peters, B. G. (2002). Performance Measurement and management. The Achilles’ Heel in Administrative Modernization. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 25(4), pp. 359-362.
Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2006). Performance and Performance Measurement. In: G. B. Peters and J. Pierre, ed., Handbook of Public Policy, 1.st ed. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 443-459.
Boyne, G. A. and Chen, A. A. (2006). Performance Targets and Public Service Im-provement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 17(3), pp. 455-477.
Boyne, G. A. (2008). What is public service improvement?. Public Administration, vol. 81(2), pp. 211-227.
Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J. and Walker, R. M. (2005). Where next? Research directions on performance in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 15(4), pp. 633-639.
Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cragg, M. (1997). Performance Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol. 13(1), pp. 147-168.
Dahler-Larsen, P. and Pihl-Thingvad, S. (2014). How performance management may lead to stress: a group-level analysis of performance measurement and employees' stress. Danish journal of management & business, vol. 78(3/4), pp. 46-61.
de Bruijn, H., de Bruijne, M. and Steenhuisen, B. (2008). Managing infrastructure Performance. An Empirical Study on the Use of Performance Management Systems in Two Network Industries. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, vol. 9(1), pp. 75-91.
Dias, J. J. and Maynard-Moody, S. (2007). For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Performance Paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 17(2), pp. 189-211.
Ejler, N., Seiding, H. R., Bojsen, D. S., Nielsen, S. B. and Ludvigsen, F.,(2008). Når måling giver mening. Resultbaseret styring og dansk velfærdspolitik i forvandling. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S. and Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eriksen, M. (2008). Den logiske model – et værktøj til at planlægge, gennemføre og evaluere sociale indsatser. Aarhus: KREVI.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic. Cambridge: Polity.
Grimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og skjønn. In: A. Molander and L. I. Terum, ed., Profesjonsstudier, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Harrits, G. S. and Møller, M. Ø. (2016). Forebyggelse og bekymring I professionel praksis. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Heinrich, C. J. (1999). Do Government Bureaucrats Make Effective Use of Performance Management Information?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, vol. 9(3), pp. 363-393.
Holm-Petersen, C., Wadmann S. and Andersen N. B. V. (2015). Styringsreview på hospitalsområdet. København: KORA - Kommunernes og Regionernes Forsknings- og Analyseinstitut.
Hood, C. and Dixon, R. (2015). A Government that Works Better and Costs Less?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, J. and Shackley, S. (1999). Reconceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva, vol. 37(2), pp. 141-164.
Jansen, E. P. (2008). New public management: perspectives on performance and the use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management, vol. 24(2), pp. 169- 191.
Kaspersen, L. B and Knudsen, J. N. (2015). Ledelseskrise i konkurrencestaten. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Kravchuk, R. and Schack, R. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, vol. 56(4), pp. 348-358.
Kristiansen, M. B., ed. (2014). Resultatstyring i den offentlige sektor. København: Jurist- og Økonomiforbundets Forlag.
Lerborg, L. (2013). Styringsparadigmer i den offentlige sektor, 3rd ed. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P. and Bond, S. (2014). The 'New Public Governance' and Employability Services in an Era of Crisis: Challenges for Third Sector Organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, vol. 92(1), pp. 192-207.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy – Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th Anniversary, Expanded Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lowe, T. (2013). New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the less we understand. Public Money & Management, vol. 33(3), pp. 213-216.
May, P. J. and Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 19(3), pp. 453-476.
Meagher, G. and Healy, K. (2003). Caring, controlling, contracting and counting: Governments and non-profits in community services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 62(3), pp. 40-51.
Millar, H. (2013). Comparing accountability relationships between governments and non‐state actors in Canadian and European international development policy’, Canadian Public Administration, vol. 56(2), pp. 252-269.
Mitchell, G. E. (2014). Why will we ever learn? Measurement and evaluation in international development NGOs. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 37(4), pp. 605-631.
Moynihan, D. P. and Hawes, D. P. (2012). Responsiveness to Reform Values: The Influence of the Environment on Performance Information Use. Public Administration Review, vol. 72, pp. 95-105.
Møller, M. Ø. and Stensöta, H. O. (2017). Welfare State Regimens and Caseworkers’ Problem Explanation, Administration & Society,
DOI: 10.1177/0095399717700224, pp. 1-29
Møller, M. Ø., Iversen, K. and Andersen, V. N. (2016). Review af resultatbaseret styring. Resultatbaseret styring på grundskole-, beskæftigelses- og socialområdet. København: København: KORA - Kommunernes og Regionernes Forsknings- og Analyseinstitut.
Møller, M. Ø. (2016). “She isn’t Someone I Associate with Pension”—a Vignette Study of Professional Reasoning. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 6(1), pp. 1-20.
Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Learning from Performance Feedback: Performance Information, Aspiration Levels, and Managerial Priorities. Public Administration, vol. 92(1), pp. 142-160.
Ohemeng, F. and Mccall-Thomas, E. (2013). Performance management and "undesirable" organizational behaviour: Standardized testing in Ontario schools. Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada, vol. 56(3), pp. 456-477.
Olsen, A. L. (2013). Leftmost-Digit-Bias in an Enumerated Public Sector? An Experiment on Citizens' Judgment of Performance Information. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pp. 365-371.
Pires, R. R. C. (2011). Beyond the Fear of Discretion: Flexibility, Performance, and Accountability in the Management of Regulatory Bureaucracies. Regulation and Governance, vol. 5(1), pp. 43-69.
Pollitt, C., Harrison, S., Dowswell, G., Jerak-Zuiderent, S. and Bal, R. (2010). Performance Regimes in Health Care: Institutions, Critical Junctures and the Logic of Escalation in England and the Netherlands. Evaluation, vol. 16(1), pp.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Sciulli, D. (2009). Professions in civil society and the state: invariant foundations and consequences. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 18(2), pp. 277-310.
Socialstyrelsen. (2013). Viden til gavn. Politik for udvikling og anvendelse af evidens. Odense: Socialstyrelsen.
Soss, J., Fording, R., and Schram, S. F. (2011). The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 21, pp. I203-I232.
Tummers, L. L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. and Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 25(4), pp. 1099-1126.
Tummers, L. (2017). The Relationship Between Coping and Job Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 27(1), pp. 150-162.
van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London; New York: Routledge.
Van Thiel, S. and Leeuw, F. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 25(3), pp. 267-281.
Walker, R. M. and Andrews, R. (2013). Local government management and performance: a review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 25(1), pp. 101-133.
Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The Professionalization of Everyone?. American Journal of Sociology, vol 70(2), pp. 137-158.
Woelert, P. (2015). The ‘logic of escalation’ in performance measurement: An analysis of the dynamics of a research evaluation system. Policy and Society, vol. 34(1), pp. 75-85.
Anderschou, S. B. and Harrits, G. S. (2014). Mellem viden og styring: En analyse af teknologiske forandringer i relationen mellem stat og profession. In: G. S. Harrits, M. B. Johansen, J. E. Kristensen, L. T. Larsen and S. G. Olesen, ed., Professioner Under Pres. Systime Academic.
Andersen, S. C. (2008). The impact of public management reforms on student perfor-mance in Danish schools. Public Administration, vol. 86(2), pp. 541-558.
Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 73(3), pp. 453-472.
Barnow, B. (2000). Exploring the relationship between performance management and program impact: A case study of the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Pol-icy Analysis and Management, vol. 19(1), pp. 118-141.
Barnow, B. S. and Smith, J. A. (2004). Performance Management of U.S. Job Training Programs: Lessons from the Job Training Partnership Act. Public Finance and Management, vol. 4(3), pp. 247-287.
Berkel, R. and Knies, E. (2016). Performance Management, Caseloads and the Frontline Provision of Social Services. Social Policy & Administration, vol. 50(1), pp. 59-78.
Bovaird, T. (2014). Attributing Outcomes to Social Policy Interventions - 'Gold Standard' or 'Fool's Gold' in Public Policy and Management?. Social Policy and Admin-istration, vol. 48(1), pp. 1-23.
Bouckaert, G. and Peters, B. G. (2002). Performance Measurement and management. The Achilles’ Heel in Administrative Modernization. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 25(4), pp. 359-362.
Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2006). Performance and Performance Measurement. In: G. B. Peters and J. Pierre, ed., Handbook of Public Policy, 1.st ed. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 443-459.
Boyne, G. A. and Chen, A. A. (2006). Performance Targets and Public Service Im-provement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 17(3), pp. 455-477.
Boyne, G. A. (2008). What is public service improvement?. Public Administration, vol. 81(2), pp. 211-227.
Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J. and Walker, R. M. (2005). Where next? Research directions on performance in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 15(4), pp. 633-639.
Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cragg, M. (1997). Performance Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from the Job Training Partnership Act. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol. 13(1), pp. 147-168.
Dahler-Larsen, P. and Pihl-Thingvad, S. (2014). How performance management may lead to stress: a group-level analysis of performance measurement and employees' stress. Danish journal of management & business, vol. 78(3/4), pp. 46-61.
de Bruijn, H., de Bruijne, M. and Steenhuisen, B. (2008). Managing infrastructure Performance. An Empirical Study on the Use of Performance Management Systems in Two Network Industries. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, vol. 9(1), pp. 75-91.
Dias, J. J. and Maynard-Moody, S. (2007). For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Performance Paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 17(2), pp. 189-211.
Ejler, N., Seiding, H. R., Bojsen, D. S., Nielsen, S. B. and Ludvigsen, F.,(2008). Når måling giver mening. Resultbaseret styring og dansk velfærdspolitik i forvandling. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S. and Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eriksen, M. (2008). Den logiske model – et værktøj til at planlægge, gennemføre og evaluere sociale indsatser. Aarhus: KREVI.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic. Cambridge: Polity.
Grimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og skjønn. In: A. Molander and L. I. Terum, ed., Profesjonsstudier, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Harrits, G. S. and Møller, M. Ø. (2016). Forebyggelse og bekymring I professionel praksis. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Heinrich, C. J. (1999). Do Government Bureaucrats Make Effective Use of Performance Management Information?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, vol. 9(3), pp. 363-393.
Holm-Petersen, C., Wadmann S. and Andersen N. B. V. (2015). Styringsreview på hospitalsområdet. København: KORA - Kommunernes og Regionernes Forsknings- og Analyseinstitut.
Hood, C. and Dixon, R. (2015). A Government that Works Better and Costs Less?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, J. and Shackley, S. (1999). Reconceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva, vol. 37(2), pp. 141-164.
Jansen, E. P. (2008). New public management: perspectives on performance and the use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management, vol. 24(2), pp. 169- 191.
Kaspersen, L. B and Knudsen, J. N. (2015). Ledelseskrise i konkurrencestaten. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Kravchuk, R. and Schack, R. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, vol. 56(4), pp. 348-358.
Kristiansen, M. B., ed. (2014). Resultatstyring i den offentlige sektor. København: Jurist- og Økonomiforbundets Forlag.
Lerborg, L. (2013). Styringsparadigmer i den offentlige sektor, 3rd ed. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P. and Bond, S. (2014). The 'New Public Governance' and Employability Services in an Era of Crisis: Challenges for Third Sector Organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, vol. 92(1), pp. 192-207.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy – Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th Anniversary, Expanded Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lowe, T. (2013). New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the less we understand. Public Money & Management, vol. 33(3), pp. 213-216.
May, P. J. and Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 19(3), pp. 453-476.
Meagher, G. and Healy, K. (2003). Caring, controlling, contracting and counting: Governments and non-profits in community services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 62(3), pp. 40-51.
Millar, H. (2013). Comparing accountability relationships between governments and non‐state actors in Canadian and European international development policy’, Canadian Public Administration, vol. 56(2), pp. 252-269.
Mitchell, G. E. (2014). Why will we ever learn? Measurement and evaluation in international development NGOs. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 37(4), pp. 605-631.
Moynihan, D. P. and Hawes, D. P. (2012). Responsiveness to Reform Values: The Influence of the Environment on Performance Information Use. Public Administration Review, vol. 72, pp. 95-105.
Møller, M. Ø. and Stensöta, H. O. (2017). Welfare State Regimens and Caseworkers’ Problem Explanation, Administration & Society,
DOI: 10.1177/0095399717700224, pp. 1-29
Møller, M. Ø., Iversen, K. and Andersen, V. N. (2016). Review af resultatbaseret styring. Resultatbaseret styring på grundskole-, beskæftigelses- og socialområdet. København: København: KORA - Kommunernes og Regionernes Forsknings- og Analyseinstitut.
Møller, M. Ø. (2016). “She isn’t Someone I Associate with Pension”—a Vignette Study of Professional Reasoning. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 6(1), pp. 1-20.
Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Learning from Performance Feedback: Performance Information, Aspiration Levels, and Managerial Priorities. Public Administration, vol. 92(1), pp. 142-160.
Ohemeng, F. and Mccall-Thomas, E. (2013). Performance management and "undesirable" organizational behaviour: Standardized testing in Ontario schools. Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada, vol. 56(3), pp. 456-477.
Olsen, A. L. (2013). Leftmost-Digit-Bias in an Enumerated Public Sector? An Experiment on Citizens' Judgment of Performance Information. Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pp. 365-371.
Pires, R. R. C. (2011). Beyond the Fear of Discretion: Flexibility, Performance, and Accountability in the Management of Regulatory Bureaucracies. Regulation and Governance, vol. 5(1), pp. 43-69.
Pollitt, C., Harrison, S., Dowswell, G., Jerak-Zuiderent, S. and Bal, R. (2010). Performance Regimes in Health Care: Institutions, Critical Junctures and the Logic of Escalation in England and the Netherlands. Evaluation, vol. 16(1), pp.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Sciulli, D. (2009). Professions in civil society and the state: invariant foundations and consequences. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 18(2), pp. 277-310.
Socialstyrelsen. (2013). Viden til gavn. Politik for udvikling og anvendelse af evidens. Odense: Socialstyrelsen.
Soss, J., Fording, R., and Schram, S. F. (2011). The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 21, pp. I203-I232.
Tummers, L. L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. and Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 25(4), pp. 1099-1126.
Tummers, L. (2017). The Relationship Between Coping and Job Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 27(1), pp. 150-162.
van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. London; New York: Routledge.
Van Thiel, S. and Leeuw, F. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 25(3), pp. 267-281.
Walker, R. M. and Andrews, R. (2013). Local government management and performance: a review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 25(1), pp. 101-133.
Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The Professionalization of Everyone?. American Journal of Sociology, vol 70(2), pp. 137-158.
Woelert, P. (2015). The ‘logic of escalation’ in performance measurement: An analysis of the dynamics of a research evaluation system. Policy and Society, vol. 34(1), pp. 75-85.
Downloads
Publiceret
2017-06-01
Citation/Eksport
Østergaard Møller, M., & Normann Andersen, V. (2017). Resultatbaseret statsstyring af lokal kernevelfærd. Politik, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v20i2.27653
Nummer
Sektion
Tema
Licens
Forfattere, der publicerer deres værker via dette tidsskrift, accepterer følgende vilkår:
- Forfattere bevarer deres ophavsret og giver tidsskriftet ret til første publicering, samtidigt med at værket er omfattet af en Creative Commons Attribution-licens, der giver andre ret til at dele værket med en anerkendelse af værkets forfatter og første publicering i nærværende tidsskrift.
- Forfattere kan indgå flere separate kontraktlige aftaler om ikke-eksklusiv distribution af tidsskriftets publicerede version af værket (f.eks. sende det til et institutionslager eller udgive det i en bog), med en anerkendelse af værkets første publicering i nærværende tidsskrift.
- Forfattere har ret til og opfordres til at publicere deres værker online (f.eks. i institutionslagre eller på deres websted) forud for og under manuskriptprocessen, da dette kan føre til produktive udvekslinger, samt tidligere og større citater fra publicerede værker (se The Effect of Open Access).
