Convergence without diffusion? A comparative analysis of the choice of performance indicators in tax administration and social security

Abstract

This article cross-nationally compares the choice of performance indicators in two core fields of state activity, tax administration and social security. Exploring the selection of performance indicators in six countries (Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US), the article analyses the driving forces for the choice of particular indicators in the context of national administrative traditions and more recent reform agendas on the one hand and the trend towards international exchange and `benchmarking' on the other hand. The article explores the relative significance and interaction of different driving forces of choice and how this shapes the development and application of performance indicators. To that end, it combines instutionalist approaches with the literature on the mechanisms and effects of international exchange and policy diffusion. Our analysis suggests that existing broad similarities are linked to similarities in core activities and values underlying contemporary public service reforms. Variation in the choice of performance indicators (PIs) reflects domestic factors such as governance arrangements through which broad reform trends are filtered. These arrangements also mediate any direct international learning.

Points for practitioners This article aims to contribute to the debate around how organizations could learn from the experience of others in designing performance indicators and management systems. Potential for cross-national and cross-sectional learning is particularly high in categories where a particular organization has not yet developed performance indicators but others have done so already. But any cross-reading from other countries' choices should take into account that the definition and use of performance indicators is to a substantial extent driven by domestic institutional traditions, governance arrangements and wider national approaches to performance management. The design of performance indicators should in particular take into account the accountability relations in which agencies are embedded.

Keywords

domain- and paradigm-related factors domestic and international driving forces international benchmarking social security targets tax administration typology of performance indicators

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ATO (Australian Taxation Office ) (2005) `The Commissioner of Taxation Annual Report 2004-05'. Canberra: ATO.

Belastingdienst (2007) `Beheersverslag Belastingdienst 2006', The Hague : Ministry of Finance.

Black, J. , (2005) `Tomorrow's Worlds: Frameworks for Understanding Regulatory Innovation', in J. Black , M. Lodge and M. Thatcher (eds) Regulatory Innovation. A Comparative Analysis, pp. 16-44. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P. (2000) Global Business Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) ( 2005) `CCRA Annual Report to Parliament 2004-05', Ottowa, ONT: CCRA.

CIAT (2003) `Structure and Functions of the Tax Administration of the Netherlands', Panama City : Inter-American Centre for Tax Administrations

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) `The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields', American Sociological Review 48: 147-60.

Gill, J.B.S. (2000) `A Diagnostic Framework for Revenue Administration', World Bank Technical Paper No. 472. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Halligan J. (2004) `The Quasi-autonomous Agency in an Ambiguous Environment: the Centrelink Case', Public Administration and Development 24: 147-56.

10.

HMRC (2006) `Annual Report 2005/2006' . London: HMRC.

11.

Hood, C. (2006) `Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services', Public Administration Review 66(4): 515-21.

12.

Hood, C. (2007) `Public Service Management by Numbers: Why Does it Vary? Where Has it Come From? What Are the Gaps and the Puzzles?', Public Money and Management 27(2): 95-102.

13.

Hood, C. and Lodge, M. (2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

James, O. and Lodge, M. (2003) `The Limitations of "Policy Transfer" and "Lesson Drawing" for Contemporary Public Policy Research', Political Studies Review 1(2): 179-93.

15.

Lodge, M. (2002) On Different Tracks: Designing Railway Regulation in Britain and Germany. Westport, CT: Praeger.

16.

Lodge, M. and Wegrich, K. (2005) `Control over Government: Institutional Isomorphism and Governance Dynamics in German Public Administration', Policy Studies Journal 33(2): 213-33.

17.

Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (2003) `Comparative Historical Analysis', in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, pp. 3-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

NAO (2006) `International Benchmark of Fraud and Error in Social Security Administrations' (HC 1387, Session 2005-2006).

19.

National Taxpayer Advocate (2005) `2005 Annual Report to Congress', IRS Publication 2104, Catalog Number 23655L.

20.

OECD (2004a) Tax Administration in OECD and Selected Non-OECD Countries: Comparative Information Series. Paris: OECD.

21.

OECD (2004b) `OECD Comparative Information Series on Tax Administrations', http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/2/33866659.pdf (accessed August 2006).

22.

Peters, B.G. (1997) `The Diffusion of Administrative Reform', West European Politics 20(4): 71-88.

23.

Peters, B.G. (2005) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, 2nd edn. London: Continuum.

24.

Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Pollitt, C. (2002) `Clarifying Convergence: Striking Similarities and Durable Differences in Public Management Reform', Public Management Review 4(1): 471-92.

26.

Pollittt, C. (2006) `Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 25-44.

27.

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

SSA (Social Security Administration) (2006 ) `The 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds' .

29.

Thelen, K. (2003) `Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis' , in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, pp. 208-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

UK DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) ( 2005) `Public Service Agreement 2005-2008, Technical Note'. London: DWP.

31.

Wilson, J.Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books .