Collaborative benchmarking, transparency and performance: Evidence from The Netherlands water supply industry

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how benchmarking affects transparency and economic performance in the public sector.Design/methodology/approach – The paper applies a quasi‐experimental method to 1989‐2000 time series data on benchmarking and non‐benchmarking water utilities in The Netherlands.Findings – Benchmarking immediately enhanced transparency, but only affected utility economic performance after benchmarking information entered the public domain. This confirms that benchmarking enhances transparency and performance. The findings do not support the yardstick regulation hypothesis that utility managers will only tighten financial discipline when benchmarking is embedded in a regime of managed competition.Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this study is its single‐industry scope. Further testing of benchmarking effects in other public services is needed to validate its findings.Originality/value – The paper presents evidence from the Dutch water supply ind...

[1]  Melissa Conley Tyler.  Benchmarking in the non‐profit sector in Australia , 2005 .

[2]  D. Osborne,et al.  Reinventing Government: How the En-trepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector , 1992 .

[3]  Danny Samson,et al.  BENCHMARKING AS A MIXED METAPHOR: DISENTANGLING ASSUMPTIONS OF COMPETITION AND COLLABORATION* , 1997 .

[4]  I. Vogelsang.  Incentive Regulation and Competition in Public Utility Markets: A 20-Year Perspective , 2002 .

[5]  M. Pollitt,et al.  Benchmarking and regulation: international electricity experience , 2000 .

[6]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  League Tables and Their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance , 1996 .

[7]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  BENCHMARKING AND REGULATION OF ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION UTILITIES: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE , 2001 .

[8]  K.L.H. Wynn‐Williams,et al.  Performance Assessment and Benchmarking in the Public Sector: An Example from New Zealand , 2005 .

[9]  Sue Llewellyn,et al.  Benchmarking in UK health: a gap between policy and practice? , 2005 .

[10]  Rosabeth Moss Kanter,et al.  Organizational Performance: Recent Developments in Measurement , 1981 .

[11]  Mahmoud M. Yasin,et al.  A framework for benchmarking in the public sector , 1998 .

[12]  Ellen Nolte,et al.  Benchmarking health systems: trends, conceptual issues and future perspectives , 2005 .

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

[14]  Alexander Kouzmin,et al.  Benchmarking and performance measurement in public sectors , 1999 .

[15]  O. Braadbaart.  Private versus public provision of water services: does ownership matter for utility efficiency? , 2002 .

[16]  A. Shleifer,et al.  A Theory of Yardstick Competition , 1985 .

[17]  David N. Ammons,et al.  Performance-Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participants' Perspectives , 2001 .

[18]  J. Donahue.  The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means , 1991 .

[19]  Adrienne Curry,et al.  Benchmarking: achieving best value in public‐sector organisations , 2003 .

[20]  R. Dattakumar,et al.  A review of literature on benchmarking , 2003 .

[21]  S. Parkinson,et al.  Leaders of the Pack: An analysis of the Canadian 'Sustainable Communities' 2000 municipal competition , 2002 .