On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector

TLDR

Performance indicator schemes in the public sector are assumed to improve efficiency and equity, yet their potential costs have been largely overlooked. The paper identifies eight unintended consequences of publishing performance data and illustrates them with UK examples, proposing mitigation strategies. The authors use UK public sector cases to demonstrate the phenomena and outline mitigation approaches. The study concludes that performance indicator philosophy relies on inadequate production and control models, and that schemes will fail unless these deficiencies are addressed.

Abstract

Most performance indicator schemes in the public sector have been implemented on the assumption that they will yield benefits in terms of efficiency and equity. Less attention has been paid to the potential costs of such schemes. Drawing on experience from a range of sources, this paper identifies eight consequences of publishing performance data that are not necessarily intended, and which are likely to be dysfunctional. The paper gives examples of such phenomena from the UK public sector, and suggests ways in which they can be mitigated. While not challenging the desirability of publishing performance data, the paper concludes that the performance indicator philosophy is based on inadequate models of production and control. Most performance indicator schemes will therefore fail unless serious consideration is given to the deficiencies described in this paper.