Performance indicators have had to endure severe criticism. They are said to lack accuracy, encourage gaming and ultimately fail to improve performance. Yet, despite their well-documented weaknesses, performance indicators abound in governance. This article asks under which conditions performance indicators can improve performance outcomes, despite these proven weaknesses and dysfunctions. Our case study is the stress test of the European banking system, a high-profile performance indicator used for risk regulation. Based on interviews with risk managers in Belgian banks as well as staff at the European Central Bank, the European Banking Authority and the National Bank of Belgium, we find that the process of calculating the stress test improves performance outcomes in itself. It does so by fostering banks’ capacity to self-regulate, tying into Foucault’s notion of governmentality. As such, practitioners and academics should not only pay attention to how performance results can be used, but also examine how the process of calculating the performance indicator might be designed to improve performance outcomes latently.
AndersonRW (2016) Stress Testing and Macroprudential Regulation: A Transatlantic Assessment. London: CEPR Press.
2.
BertenJLeiseringL (2017)
Social policy by numbers. How international organisations construct global policy proposals.International Journal of Social Welfare26(2): 151–167.
3.
BevanGHoodC (2006)
What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system.Public Administration84(3): 517–538.
4.
BevirM (2010)
Rethinking governmentality: Towards genealogies of governance.European Journal of Social Theory13(4): 423–441.
5.
BohteJMeierKJ (2000)
Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating.Public Administration Review60(2): 173–182.
6.
BoswellC (2008)
The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy.Journal of European Public Policy15(4): 471–488.
7.
BoswellC (2015)
The double life of targets in public policy: Disciplining and signalling in UK asylum policy.Public Administration93(2): 490–505.
8.
BouckaertGBalkW (1991)
Public productivity measurement: Diseases and cures.Public Productivity & Management Review15(2): 229.
9.
BoyneGAChenAA (2006)
Performance targets and public service improvement.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17(3): 455–477.
10.
BraithwaiteJ (2014)
Restorative justice and responsive regulation: The question of evidence.RegNet Research Paper51: 27.
11.
CecchettiSGSchoenholtzKL (2016)
Are European stress tests stressful enough?Moneyandbanking.com.
12.
ChristensenTFanY (2016)
Post-New Public Management: A new administrative paradigm for China?International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 389–404.
13.
DavisKEKingsburyBMerrySE (2012)
Indicators as a technology of global governance.Law & Society Review46(1): 71–104.
14.
De VriesMS (2010)
Performance measurement and the search for best practices.International Review of Administrative Sciences76(2): 313–330.
15.
DoigAMcIvorSTheobaldR (2006)
Numbers, nuances and moving targets: Converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.International Review of Administrative Sciences72(2): 239–252.
16.
DowdK (2015) Central bank stress tests: Mad, bad, and dangerous. Cato Journal 35(3): 507–524. Available at: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/23340/ (accessed 13 February 2019).
17.
DriskoJMaschiT (2015) Content Analysis.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
18.
DunleavyP, et al. (2005)
New Public Management is dead – Long live digital-era governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(3): 467–494.
FoucaultM (2011) The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College De France, 1982–1983. Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
FoucaultM, et al. (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
22.
GorurR (2015)
Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education36(4): 578–595.
23.
HoodCPetersG (2004)
The middle aging of New Public Management: Into the age of paradox?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 267–282.
24.
HoogenboezemJA (2004)
Local government performance indicators in Europe: An exploration.International Review of Administrative Sciences70(1): 51–64.
25.
JohnstonJ (2004)
Assessing government’s performance management capability: the case of the Australian electricity industry.International Review of Administrative Sciences70(1): 123–136.
26.
KaganRA (1995)
What socio-legal scholars should do when there is too much law to study.Journal of Law and Society22(1): 140.
27.
KelleyJGSimmonsBA (2015)
Politics by number: Indicators as social pressure in international relations.American Journal of Political Science59(1): 55–70.
28.
KlenkTReiterR (2019)
Post-New Public Management: Reform ideas and their application in the field of social services. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(1): 3–10.
29.
LemkeT (2011) Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique.
Colorado, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
30.
Levi-FaurD (2005)
The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1): 12–32.
31.
MacKenzieDA (2006) An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. MIT Press.
32.
MahmoodMWeerakkodyVChenW (2019) The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust. International Review of Administrative Sciences, doi: 10.1177/0020852318816798
33.
MertonRK (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press.
34.
MikułaŁKaczmarekU (2019)
From marketization to recentralization: The health-care system reforms in Poland and the post-New Public Management concept. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(1): 28–44.
35.
MolNPDe KruijfJAM (2004)
Performance management in Dutch central government.International Review of Administrative Sciences70(1): 33–50.
36.
NielsenPA (2014)
Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24(2): 431–458.
37.
O’NeillO (2002) A Question of Trust.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
38.
PiddM (2005)
Perversity in public service performance measurement.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management54(5/6): 482–493.
39.
PiresRRC (2011)
Beyond the fear of discretion: Flexibility, performance, and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies.Regulation & Governance5(1): 43–69.
40.
PollittC (2018)
Performance management 40 years on: A review. Some key decisions and consequences.Public Money & Management38(3): 167–174.
41.
PollittCTalbotC (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies.
London:
Routledge.
42.
PowerM (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
43.
PowerM (2003)
Auditing and the production of legitimacy.Accounting, Organizations and Society28(4): 379–394.
44.
RadinBA (2006) Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
45.
ReiterRKlenkT (2018)
The manifold meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – A systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(1): 11–27.
46.
RenouY (2017)
Performance indicators and the new governmentality of water utilities in France.International Review of Administrative Sciences83(2): 378–396.
47.
SarfatyG (2011)
Regulating through numbers: A case study of corporate sustainability reporting.Virginia Journal of International Law53: 575–624.
48.
Schwartz-SheaPYanowD (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Abingdon: Routledge.
49.
SmithP (1995)
Performance indicators and outcome in the public sector.Public Money & Management15(4): 13–16.
50.
StoneDA (2002) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
51.
TaylorJ (2011)
Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision making in Australian state agencies.Public Administration89(4): 1316–1334.
52.
Termeer CJaM, Dewulf A, Breeman G and Stiller SJ. (2013)
Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society47(6): 680–710. doi: 10.1177/0095399712469195
53.
TimmermansSTavoryI (2012)
Theory construction in qualitative research.Sociological Theory30(3): 167–186.
54.
Van DoorenWBouckaertGHalliganJ (2015) Performance Management in the Public Sector.
London:
Routledge.
55.
Van ThielSLeeuwFL (2002)
The performance paradox in the public sector.Public Performance & Management Review25(3): 267–281.
56.
WalkerRMDamanpourFDeveceCA (2011)
Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(2): 367–386.
57.
WalsheKHarveyGJasP (2010) Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public Services: From Knowing to Doing.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
58.
YanowDSchwartz-SheaP (2006) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
