Scorecards for sustainable local governments

The current paper addresses the issue of performance measurement and benchmarking in local government. It briefly reviews some relevant international experiences and categorizes the existing assessment tools according to their general features. The authors argue that more than the benchmarking results themselves it is the evaluation process that matters. Furthermore, it is suggested that focusing only on effectiveness (e.g. ensuring the availability of certain public services) or efficiency (e.g. achieving good economic performance), is no longer consistent with the challenges that local decision-makers are now facing. Based on this, a conceptual model for benchmarking the “sustainability” of local governments is proposed. The illustrative municipal scorecard is presented for the city of Lisbon. The results show that using a comprehensive approach and a set of simple and carefully selected quantitative and qualitative indicators may empower citizens to act as “armchair auditors” and encourage local governments to realign their objectives.

[1]  Raili Pollanen,et al.  Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context , 2005 .

[2]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Revisiting the determinants of local government performance , 2014 .

[3]  L. Lynn,et al.  Governance and public management, an introduction , 2004 .

[4]  Sabine Kuhlmann,et al.  Competing, collaborating or controlling? Comparing benchmarking in European local government , 2013 .

[5]  John Martin,et al.  Strategic performance management: A balanced approach to performance management issues in local government , 2000 .

[6]  John Elkington,et al.  Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business , 1998 .

[7]  S. Berg,et al.  Conflict Resolution: Benchmarking Water Utility Performance , 2007 .

[8]  A. U.S.,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 2003 .

[9]  New development: All change? Performance assessment regimes in UK local government , 2013 .

[10]  Kennedy Stewart,et al.  Designing good urban governance indicators: The importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver , 2006 .

[11]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[12]  F. Bellavance,et al.  Blame Avoidance in Public Reporting , 2012 .

[13]  K. Callahan,et al.  Elements of Effective Governance: Measurement, Accountability and Participation , 2006 .

[14]  Perri,et al.  E-governance : styles of political judgement in the information age polity , 2004 .

[15]  R. Cunha Marques,et al.  Towards a benchmarking paradigm in European water utilities , 2010 .

[16]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  New development: The challenges of designing municipal governance indicators , 2013 .

[17]  David N. Ammons.  Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards , 1996 .

[18]  Paul Lanoie,et al.  Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators , 2010 .

[19]  Toby Lowe.  New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the less we understand , 2013 .

[20]  D. Aigner,et al.  P. Schmidt, 1977,?Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,? , 1977 .

[21]  Harold O. Fried,et al.  The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth , 2008 .

[22]  S. Van de Walle,et al.  Comparing Measures of Citizen Trust and User Satisfaction as Indicators of ‘Good Governance’: Difficulties in Linking Trust and Satisfaction Indicators , 2003 .

[23]  Tan Yigitcanlar,et al.  Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance : Results from the international comparison of Helsinki , 2013 .

[24]  M. Holden.  Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities , 2006 .