Guest editorial

Citation

Radcliffe, J. (2009), "Guest editorial", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 22 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm.2009.04222eaa.001

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 22, Issue 5

About the Guest Editors

James RadcliffePrincipal Lecturer in Health Policy in the Faculty of Health, Staffordshire University. His research interests include philosophical issues in public policy, organisational change and health care management.

Geoffrey HeathLecturer in Public Sector Accounting at Keele University and a Chartered Management Accountant. His research interests concern resource utilisation and management, performance evaluation and accountability in the public sector. He has been engaged for some time in collaborative research and evaluation projects in health, social care, community safety and urban renewal.

A key problem in public sector management and governance is the relationship between the centre and local delivery of services (Clarke and Newman, 1997). In particular, this relates to the need for adequate reporting techniques and measures which enable some accountability in the performance of agencies and their use of public monies. A range of methodologies for evaluation of policy implementation and outcomes has been developed to attempt to ensure that service delivery is clearly identified with the aims and objectives of government. However, writers (Pollitt, 1990) on the development of managerialist approaches to public sector activity have identified the problems that can result. Importantly, they include the way in which local government and other service providers are encouraged to develop services which respond to local need; while being controlled by a central government agenda which sets the context within which such local decision making has to take place (Newman, 2005). This problematic relationship is reflected in the papers which form this special edition.

Bonnie L. Lewis, John Boulahanis and Erin Matheny use complexity theory to consider the way in which local responses to homelessness are constrained within a funding process which requires a combination of competitive approaches to funding and a centrally directed collaborative process, in a context of declining resources. This has led to improvements in the way in which agencies co-operate to deliver the goal of reductions in homelessness, but such improvements have been established within a very tightly structured approach to accountability. This utilises a system of reporting requirements which works against the interests of small, faith-based organisations to the benefit of larger, well-established and funded agencies and neglects efforts at prevention. Indeed, the technical requirements of the reporting system required significant support. In this context, whilst “joined-up” governance is attempted, the participation of organisations seems to depend on size, longevity and the quality of leadership.

Collaborative structures are also evident within the Swedish system for providing services to children and young people, including education and social services. However, Jan Persson and Ulrika Westrup identify significant dysfunctional elements in the way in which resources are allocated, following the development of the new public management in Sweden. This relates especially to the way in which information is communicated between individuals and levels of organisations. Simultaneously, there has emerged a stress on the use of resource utilisation mechanisms, such as internal markets, which lead organisations to concentrate on their own interests and on collaborative endeavours which require cross-organisational dialogue for efficient allocation of resources. Thus, they note that the need for clear performance targets has meant that activities have to be “delimited […] in order for performance targets to be clearly defined”. However, this is at odds with an emphasis on collaborative working. Consequently, Persson and Westrup note the need for significant improvements in the way in which such collaboration is developed, making use of a dialogue-oriented approach which encourages greater communication. This is particularly important, given that the competitive nature of budgetary allocation results in staff identifying their interests with their own agency, or part of the organisation, potentially at the expense of client groups.

Similar problems associated with performance measurement in emergency ambulance services are identified by James Radcliffe and Geoffrey Heath. They found a considerable increase in emergency calls had been experienced by an ambulance trust, most of which were cancellations. However, the term “cancellation” may be misleading as it carries connotations of wasted resources, but many of the actions carried out under this heading seemed potentially worthwhile and in line with central government policy. In this case, the reliance on a fairly limited set of performance measures centred on the role of ambulance services as transports for patients to hospital, with an emphasis on speed of response. Such an emphasis directed from the centre may well have an impact on the way in which professional ambulance crews perceive the client group they are serving, leading to significant differences around perceptions of appropriateness of call outs. This situation appears to inhibit somewhat the development of a more responsive service, in the sense that changes in the nature of the service and the skill changes amongst staff are not fully recognised. As with the Swedish case, the “delimitation” of activity in order to enable clearly measurable performance may conflict with improved service delivery. The complexity of policy implementation is thus reinforced.

Steve Suckling, Paul Ryan and Mike Dent come to perhaps a more optimistic conclusion when they examine the use of a tailored model for the implementation and evaluation of a local programme, designed to increase the physical activity of “at risk” young people in a deprived city in the UK. They developed a model, influenced by the work of Checkland (2007) and his soft systems approach, which led to significantly increased levels of participation. This was achieved by addressing the subjects’ attitudes towards sport and the perceived barriers to their taking part in organised physical activity. Changes in organisational culture were a significant part of the intervention.

The paper by Brian Jacobs concerns local strategic partnerships in England, which exist to promote collaborative “joined-up” working between local authorities and partner organisations. In this paper, aspects of soft systems methodology are also utilised, along with insights from the configuration school of strategy (Mintzberg et al., 2003; Ghoshal and Bartlett, 2005), as a way of developing a more co-operative approach to partnership in the delivery of urban development. Again, this issue is characterised by the need for cultural change; towards “focal” management in an area where the involvement of disparate stakeholders frequently leads to significant barriers to effective policy implementation. Also, this paper picks up the theme of collaboration between various agencies in responding to the paradox of the top-down imposition of central government agendas through modes of performance measurement and the encouragement of multi-agency delivery of outcomes on the ground.

Similarly, Suzana Grubnic and Margaret Woods examine the way in which central government has used performance regimes to direct or even control the activities of local authorities, utilising Ouchi’s (1979, 1980) framework of hierarchical control. The focus is on the extent of command and control by central government, the use of rewards and sanctions and the alignment of government policies and discrimination of performance; via the exercise of authority and application of rules. They found that, over time, a more sophisticated performance management regime has emerged, which allows less close inspection of the more successful councils but closer inspection and directional support to poorer performing authorities. This is in line with traditional concepts of central/local relations within the context of new public management (Hood, 1991) and again raises the issue of the tension between central government’s desires to devolve and to direct. However, this paper also suggests a potential resolution of this problem.

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of most of the papers in this special edition were presented at the 9th Annual Dilemmas in the Public Sector International Research Conference at the University of East London in 2005. Brief versions of some of the papers were included in the conference proceedings publication. The Guest Editors thank the participants at that conference for their contributions to the event and to this special edition. The Guest Editors would also like to acknowledge the constructive views of all the referees in the preparation of the papers for publication.

James Radcliffe, Geoffrey HeathGuest Editors