The relevance of performance measurement systems in Local Authorities

Author/s Cardillo Eleonora, Rizza Carmela, Ruggeri Daniela
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/3
Language Italian Pages 26 P. 143-168 File size 304 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2020-003007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In the last decades, public organisations have been subject to several institutional changes, aimed at increasing their efficiency through the introduction of management control tools. The proliferation of management accounting tools planned for public companies has not always generated a corresponding diffusion of these tools in practice, widening the gap between theoretical models and practice. This gap is due to the divergence between meanings and roles assigned to performance measurement by theoretical models and practical dimensions. Focusing on the Local government context, this paper aims to understand the practical relevance of performance measurement systems in public organizations, verifying how these systems can affect the logics and behaviours of actors involved in the decision making process. The theoretical insights coming from literature review are used to interpret the practical relevance of performance measurement systems in a case study of a Local government placed in the South of Italy. The empirical evidence showed that the actors’ interests and objectives can affect the Performance Plan contents and its implementation, activating interpretive processes that are not always consistent with the underlying logics to which the measurement should be inspired. The case study showed how the practical relevance of the performance Plans is greater for those projects in which there was a sharing of the measurement meanings by political and administrative actors, which affects the definition of the Performance Plan contents and its implementation.

Keywords: Measurement of performance, Local Authorities, practical relevance

  1. Anessi-Pessina E., Nasi G., Steccolini I. (2010), Accounting innovations: a contingent view on Italian LGs. Public Budget Accounting, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 22(2), pp. 250-271.
  2. Anselmi L. (1995), Il processo di trasformazione della pubblica amministrazione. Il percorso aziendale, Torino, Giappichelli.
  3. Aristigueta M.P., Van Dooren W. (2007), Toward a Performing Public Sector: The Roles of Context, Utilization, and Networks: Introduction, Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4) (Jun.), pp. 463-468.
  4. Askim J. (2009), The demand side of performance measurement: explaining councillors’ utilization of performance information in policymaking, International Public Management Journal, 12(1), pp. 24-47.
  5. Atkinson, A.A., McCrindell, J.Q. (1997). Strategic performance measurement in government, CMA Magazine, April, pp. 20-23.
  6. Augier M., March J.G. (2007), The pursuit of relevance in management education, California Management Review, 94, pp. 129-146.
  7. Baldvinsdottir G., Mitchell F., Nørreklit H. (2010), Issues in the relationship between theory and practice, Management Accounting Research, 21(2), pp. 79-82.
  8. Berland N., Dreveton B. (2006), Management control system in public administration: beyond rational myths, Accounting Reform in the Public Sector: Mimicry fad or Necessary, pp. 21-37.
  9. Black S., Briggs S., Keogh W. (2001), Service quality performance measurement in public/private sectors, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(7), pp. 400-405.
  10. Borgonovi E. (2005), Principi e Sistemi Aziendali per le Amministrazioni Pubbliche, Milano, EGEA.
  11. Calciolari S. (2009), Performance Management nelle Pubbliche Amministrazioni, Economia e Management, 1, pp. 105-119.
  12. Caldarelli A., Spanò R. Ferri L., Casciello R. (20209, Accounting change in public sector. Towards an integrated interpretation, Management Control, 1, pp. 11-34, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001002
  13. Nyhan R.C., Martin L.L. (1999), Comparative performance measurement, Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), pp. 348-64.
  14. Cardillo E., Ruggeri D. (2016), Performance measurement innovations in the organizational routines: theoretical insights and empirical evidences from an Italian local government, in Marchi L., Lombardi R., Anselmi L. (2016), Il governo aziendale tra tradizione e innovazione. Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  15. Castellano N. (2011), Modelli e misure di performance aziendale: analisi della letteratura e spunti di ricerca, Management Control, 1, pp. 41-63. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2011-001003
  16. Cavalluzzo K.S., Ittner C.D. (2004), Implementing Performance Measurement Innovations: Evidence from Government, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), pp. 243-267.
  17. Cerase F.P. (2017), La “performance” e l’efficienza del settore pubblico in chiave comparata, Amministrare, il Mulino, pp. 95-138.
  18. Chang H. (2006), Development of performance measurement systems in quality management organisations, The Service Industries Journal, 26(7), pp. 765-786.
  19. Chapman C.S., Hopwood A.G., Shields M.D. (2007), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
  20. Chapman C.S., Kern A. (2012), What do Academics do? Understanding The Practical Relevance of Research, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 9(3), pp. 279-281.
  21. Chiucchi M.S. (2014), Editoriale. Il gap tra teoria e prassi nel Management Accounting: il contributo della field-based research, Management Control, 3, pp. 5-9. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2014-003001
  22. Chua W.F. (2011), In search of “successful” accounting research, European Accounting Review, 20(1), pp. 27-39.
  23. Cohen D.J. (2007), The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap, Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 1013-1019.
  24. D’Alessio L. (2012), Logiche e criteri nelle recenti normative di riforma della contabilità pubblica, Azienda Pubblica, 1, pp. 23-51.
  25. D’Amore G. (2019), La performance delle aziende pubbliche tra misurazione, trasparenza e accountability, Milano, FrancoAngeli, pp. 1-169.
  26. Del Bene L. (2008), Lineamenti di pianificazione e controllo per le amministrazioni pubbli-che, Torino, Giappichelli.
  27. Del Bene L. (2014), L’applicazione del D.lgs. 150/2009 negli enti locali tra opportunità e rischi. L’esperienza del Comune di Livorno, Azienda Pubblica, 1, pp. 39-56.
  28. Del Bene L., Fiorillo F., Cavallini I., Caporaletti B. (2018), Accounting change negli enti locali. Quali condizioni per il miglioramento nell’ottica gestionale? Management Control.
  29. Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (1994), Preface, in N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. ix-xii). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
  30. Ferraris Franceschi R. (2006), Elementi di criticità negli studi di economia aziendale, Rivista italiana di ragioneria e di economia aziendale, 102(5-6), pp. 250-258.
  31. Gianakis G. (2002), The promise of public sector performance measurement: anodyne or placebo?, Public Administration Quarterly, 26(1/2), pp. 35-64.
  32. Giani M., Giovannetti R. (2006), Performance management systems in italian local governments, Liuc Papers, 192, Serie Economia Aziendale, 26.
  33. Giovannoni E., Quarchioni S. (2019), Exploring the generative power of performance measurement systems design, British Accounting Review, 51(2), pp. 211-225.
  34. Gubrium J.F., Holstein J.A. (1997), The new language of qualitative method, New York, Oxford University Press.
  35. Han Chun Y., Rainey H.G. (2005), Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), pp. 529-557.
  36. Ittner C., Larcker D. (2003), Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement, Harvard Business Review, 81(11), pp. 88-95.
  37. Jansen E.P. (2008), New public management: perspectives on performance and the use of performance information, Financial, Accountability and Management, 24(2), May, pp. 0267-4424.
  38. Kieser A., Wellstein B. (2008), Do activities of consultants and management scientists affect decision making by managers?, in Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Starbuck W.H. (eds), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making, pp. 493-516. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  39. Liguori M., Sicilia M., Steccolini I. (2012), Some Like it Non-Financial …, Public Management Review, 14(7), pp. 903-922.
  40. Liguori M., Rota S., Steccolini I. (2014), Un approccio gattopardiano alle riforme: il caso del governo centrale italiano, Azienda Pubblica, 1, pp. 13-34.
  41. Luft J.L., Shields M.D. (2002), Zimmerman’s contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research, European Accounting Review, 11(4), pp. 795-805.
  42. Luhmann N. (1993), Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  43. Lukka K. (2005), Approaches to case research in management accounting: the nature of empirical intervention and theory linkage, in Jönsson S., Mouritsen J., a cura di, Accounting in Scandinavia – The northern lights, Malmö, Liber & Copenaghen Business School Press.
  44. Malmi T., Granlund M. (2009), In search of management accounting theory, The European Accounting Review, 18(3), pp. 597-620.
  45. Marasca S., Gatti M. (2020), Il gap tra teoria e prassi negli studi di management accounting nel settore pubblico: alcune riflessioni, Management Control, 1, pp. 5-10.
  46. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001-00
  47. Micheli P., Mari L. (2014), The theory and practice of performance measurement, Management Accounting Research, 25, pp. 147-156.
  48. Nardo M.T. (2005), Controllo e valutazione negli enti locali. Un approccio economico aziendale, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  49. Nardo M.T., Nisio A., Romanazzi P. (2019), Il principio della programmazione e il ciclo di gestione della performance. Quale integrazione? L’esperienza di tre comuni “sperimentatori”, Management Control, 2, pp. 157-181. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2019-002007
  50. Neely A., Bourne M. (2000), Why measurement initiatives fail, Measuring Business Excellence, 4 (4), pp. 3-7.
  51. Nicolai A., Seidl D. (2010), That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical Relevance in Management Science, Organization Studies, 31(09&10), pp. 1257-1285.
  52. Nicoliello M., Trecchia D. (2014), La misurazione della performance nel settore pubblico: il caso del trasporto pubblico locale, Management Control, 1, pp. 35-53. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2014-001003
  53. Nisio A., De Carolis R., Losurdo S. (2012), Il ciclo della performance negli Enti Locali: un’analisi empirica sull’adozione del piano della performance, Management Control, Suppl. 2, pp. 13-31. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2012-SU2002
  54. Nisio A., De Carolis R., Losurdo S. (2013), L’introduzione del Performance Measurement, Management and Improvement: l’esperienza di alcune amministrazioni locali italiane, Azienda Pubblica, 2, pp. 221-246.
  55. Nõmm K., Randma-Liiv T. (2012), Performance Measurement and Performance Information in New Democracies: A Study of the Estonian Central Government, Public Management Review, 14(7), pp. 859-879.
  56. Padovani E., Yetano A., Levy Orelli R. (2010), Municipal performance measurement and management in practice: which factors matter?. Public Administration Quarterly, 3, pp. 591-635.
  57. Palmer, A., 1993. Performance measurement in local government, Public Money and Management, October-December, pp. 31-36.
  58. Pavan A, Fadda I. (2013), I controlli interni nel processo internazionale di convergenza del settore pubblico italiano, Azienda Pubblica, 4, pp. 425-443.
  59. Pollanen R.M. (2005), Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(1), pp. 4-24.
  60. Preite D. (2011), Misurare la performance nelle Amministrazioni Pubbliche. Logiche, metodi, strumenti ed esperienze, Milano, EGEA.
  61. Radin B.A. (2006), Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity and Democratic Values, Washington, Georgetown University Press.
  62. Rizza C., Ruggeri D. (2016), Ambiguità e validità della misurazione delle performance. Dimensione teorica e pratica, Aracne.
  63. Scapens R.W., Roberts J. (1993), Accounting and control: a case study of resistance to ac-counting change, Management Accounting Research, 4(1), pp. 1-32.
  64. Starkey K., Madan P., 2001. Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research, British Journal of Management, 12, pp. 3-26.
  65. Talbot C. (2005), Performance Management, in Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. Jr, and Pollit Ch, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford University Press.
  66. Ter Bogt H.J., Van Helden G.J. (2000), Accounting Change in Dutch Government: Exploring the Gap Between Expectations and Realizations, Management Accounting Research, 11(2), pp. 263-279.
  67. Ter Bogt H.J. (2004), Politicians in Search of Performance Information? Survey of Research on Dutch Aldermen’s Use of Performance Information, Financial Accountability and Management, 20(3), pp. 221-252.
  68. Triantafillou P. (2007), Benchmarking in the Public Sector: A Critical Conceptual Framework, Public Administration, 85(3), pp. 829-846.
  69. Van der Meer-Kooistra J., Vosselman E. (2012), Research paradigms, theoretical pluralism and the practical relevance of management accounting knowledge, Management accounting knowledge, 9(3), pp. 245-264.
  70. Van Dooren W., Bouckaert G., Halligan J. (2010), Performance Management in the Public Sector, Abingdon, Routledge.
  71. Van Helden G. J., Northcott D. (2010), Examining the practical relevance of public sector management accounting research, Financial Accountability & Management, 26(2), pp. 213-240.
  72. Verbeeten F.H.M. (2008), Performance Management Practices in Public Sector Organizations: Impact on Performance, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(April), pp. 427-454.
  73. Walker R., Boyne G. (2006), Public management reform and organizational performance: an empirical assessment of the UK Labour Government’s public service improvement strategy, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), pp. 371-393.
  74. Zimmerman J. (2001), Conjectures regarding empirical management accounting research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32 (1-3), pp. 411-427.

Cardillo Eleonora, Rizza Carmela, Ruggeri Daniela, La rilevanza pratica dei sistemi di misurazione delle performance negli Enti Locali: analisi di un caso in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 3/2020, pp 143-168, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-003007