In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Symbolic benefits For elected officials the symbolic benefits of performance management are more important than the instrumental benefits. The symbolic benefits are based on the ability to communicate to a variety of audiences that government is being run in a rational, efficient, and results-oriented manner and that bureaucrats are being held accountable for their performance. As elected officials and appointees convince audiences of these claims, they are more likely to accrue benefits that are important to them: a positive public image in the media, improved chances for reelection, and a greater capacity to implement the policies that they want. In Vermont the espoused purpose of new performance management reporting requirements was to provide a rational way to make choices about what programs to cut during a budget crunch in the mid-1990s. But performance information did not inform resource reductions or other budget decisions. Even if such information was not required or used, its availability provided a sense of legitimacy to the budgeting process. In Alabama the image of effective and efficient government was seen as having tremendous potential benefits in terms of revenue-raising. A narrow revenue base had constricted the inflow of taxes to the government, but this tax structure could not be changed without constitutional reform (see appendix B for more detail). There is little electoral incentive in advocating for tax reform when much of the population perceives government as wasteful. A member of Governor Siegelman’s office noted: “If you read the letters to the editor almost any day of the week there will be one letter in there saying ‘Why are they talking about this stupid tax reform? The government has lots of money, if they just stopped wasting it, it would be enough.’ However, if public perceptions could be swayed toward a belief that a more efficient government was in place, then the possibility for tax reform becomes more likely: “The governor has a pretty strongly felt view that Alabamians are really suspicious of state government, of governments generally, state and local governments, and until people are going to be convinced that their money will be well spent they are not about to support tax reform.” There is a historical connection between revenue-raising efforts and performance management in Alabama. A predecessor to Siegelman, Governor Fob James (1979–83), also tried to introduce performance budgeting while seeking to change the revenue system of the state. Similarly, Siegelman’s successor, Bob Riley, introduced his performance budgeting initiative to demonstrate to the public the efficiency of public services after his constitutional initiative failed to gain public support (see appendix B for more detail). Apart from the general public, the audiences for performance management symbols in Alabama are other branches of government. Two of five pilot agencies undertaking performance management (Mental Health and Corrections) were se68 Chapter Four lected at least partially because of their high-profile interactions with the courts. Agencies under court oversight could point to formal goals that they are pursuing to satisfy court orders, reducing the risk of more constrictive court orders. The existence of strategic plans and performance measures help justify to legislators and the public the increased resources required by court mandates. In this way, performance management serves as a symbol for a number of constituencies who are unlikely to ever actually view or use the performance information, representing purposeful, efficient, and prudent spending of public money. As the Alabama strategic plan noted: “Through this plan, we present a direction, we set goals, and we provide measures for accountability and efficiency. This plan, along with performance-based budgeting, means we will give Alabama taxpayers more accountability for how tax dollars are spent, and we will advance Alabama further and faster toward our strategic goals.”22 Alabama is an extreme example of how popular perceptions of government inefficiency , though largely uninformed by evidence, are tenaciously held.23 Elected officials believed that the public supported the idea of making government more accountable, results oriented, and efficient. For elected officials the adoption of a reform that appears to satisfy these requirements is an appropriate response, regardless of whether the reform actually has these effects. While the public may be uninterested in the specific performance information generated by performance management, the adoption of such reforms offers symbolic reassurance that there is some effort to make government more accountable, effective, and efficient.24 Virginia maintains not only the most comprehensive performance management system of the three states, but also the greatest awareness among employees about...

Share