This article examines performance measurement and management practices of the Roman Empire during the reign of Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE). The main thesis is that the administration of imperial provinces possessed some of the underlying concepts of modern public performance measurement and management practices developed more recently as part of the New Public Management movement. The article uses the 121 letters in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger as Imperial Governor (Legatus Augusti) of the Province of Bithynia and Pontus (110–113 CE) in modern day Turkey and Emperor Trajan to demonstrate that performance measurement and management practices is more ancient than its development as part of the New Public Management movement.
AlkadryM. G. (2002). Bureaucracy: Weber’s or Hammurabi’s? ideal or ancient?Public Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 317–345.
2.
AmmonsD. N. (2022). Performance management research for State and local government: Where it should go next. State and Local Government Review, 54(3), 195–201.
3.
AmmonsD. N.RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.
4.
BehnR. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon?Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381295
5.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public administration review, 63(5), 586–606.
6.
BerelsonB. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.
7.
BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2008). Managing performances: International comparison. Routledge.
8.
ChenJ.WangE. H.ZhangX. (2021). Leviathan’s offer: State-building with elite compensation in early medieval China (SSRN 3893130). SSRN.
9.
De VisserD. (2009). Exploiting superstition: the power of religion in Greek and Roman political and military activity: JA Barsby essay. Scholia: Studies in Classical Antiquity, 18(1), 177–184.
10.
DrogulaF. K. (2015). Commanders and command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire. UNC Press Books.
11.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739.
12.
GamberiniF. (1983). Stylistic theory and practice in the Younger Pliny. Olms-Weidmann.
GillN. (1944). Municipal research bureaus. American Council on Public Affairs.
15.
GreenS. J. (2009). Malevolent gods and promethean birds: Contesting augury in Augustus’s Rome*. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 139(1), 147–167.
16.
HanX.MoynihanD. (2022). Does managerial use of performance information matter to organizational outcomes?The American Review of Public Administration, 52(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211048891
17.
HarriesJ. (2001). Law and empire in late antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
18.
HatryH. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. Urban Institute Press.
19.
HicksB. W. (2011). The process of imperial decision-making from Augustus to Trajan. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick.
20.
HoA. T. K. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.
21.
HolstiO. R. (1968). Content analysis. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 596–692). Addison-Wesley.
22.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
23.
JamesO.OlsenA. L.MoynihanD. P.Van RyzinG. G. (2020). Behavioral public performance: How people make sense of government metrics. Cambridge University Press.
24.
KettlD. F. (2005). The global public management revolution (2nd ed.). Brookings Institution Press.
25.
KrollA. (2013). The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use. Public Administration Review, 32(2), 265–276.
26.
KrollA. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13312
27.
KrollA.MoynihanD. P. (2021). Tools of control? Comparing congressional and presidential performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 599–609.
28.
McDonaldB. D.III. (2010). The Bureau of Municipal Research and the development of a professional public service. Administration & Society, 42(7), 815–835.
29.
MouraL. F.PinheirodeLimaE.DeschampsF.Van AkenE.GouveadaCostaS. E.TreintaF. T.CestariJ. M. A. P. (2019). Designing performance measurement systems in nonprofit and public administration organizations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(8), 1373–1410.
30.
MoynihanD. P. (2009). Through a glass, darkly: Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.
31.
MoynihanD. P.IngrahamP. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453.
32.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
33.
NoreñaC. F. (2007). The social economy of Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan. American Journal of Philology, 128(2), 239–277.
34.
Pliny, the Younger. (1936). The letters of Pliny the Younger. G. E. Stechert.
35.
PoisterT. H. (2010). Performance monitoring. In WhoelyJ.HatryH.NewcomerK. (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 98–125). Jossey-Bass.
36.
PoisterT. H.AristiguetaM. P.HallJ. L. (2015). Managing and measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations: An integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons.
37.
RichardsonJ. (1994). The administration of the Empire. In CrookJ.A.LintottA.RawsonE. (Eds.), The Cambridge ancient history (2nd ed.. pp. 564–598). Cambridge University Press.
38.
SalwayB. (1994). What’s in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice from c. 700 BC to AD 700. The Journal of Roman Studies, 84, 124–145.
39.
Sherwin-WhiteA. N. (1969). Pliny, the man and his letters. Greece & Rome, 16(1), 76–90.
40.
SirksA. J. (2001). Making a request to the Emperor: Rescripts in the Roman Empire. In De BloisL. (Ed.), Administration, prosopography and appointment policies in the Roman Empire (pp. 121–135). Brill.
41.
StraussB. (2019). Ten Caesars. Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine. Simon & Schuster.
42.
TantardiniM. (2019). Routine and nonroutine performance information: An assessment about substitution and complementarity. Public Management Review, 21(5), 755–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1523452
43.
TantardiniM. (2022). Organizational social capital and performance information use: The mediating role of public service motivation. State and Local Government Review, 54(3), 202–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X221113366
44.
TantardiniM.KrollA. (2015). The role of organizational social capital in performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071163
45.
Van den BerghR. (2010). A shared law. Fundamina: A Journal of Legal History, 16(1), 443–458.
46.
Van DoorenW.BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.
47.
WalkerD.DartC. J. (2011). Frontinus—A project manager from the Roman Empire era. Project Management Journal, 42(5), 4–16.
48.
WallaceJ. (2018). Roman leadership patterns in antiquity. The Journal of Student Leadership, 2(2), 47–58.
