A Comparative Assessment of Performance Management on Public Service Delivery in Paraguay and USA
Abstract
Experiences of South America‘s development over the last two decades have consistently demonstrated the need for more intensive efforts towards effectively addressing the continent‘s major development challenges, the degree of which varies from country to country. The state-of-the-art techniques and practices currently in operation in Western organisations can undoubtedly be of great benefit to organisations in developing countries. This study on performance management and public service delivery in comparison of Paraguay and the USA is therefore motivated by the need to establish and understand the factors that affect and influence improvement in public sector and ultimately improvement in the quality of public service delivery. This study adopted both an explorative case study research design and descriptive survey research design. Descriptive survey research design was used to analyze the patterns in the performance management in the two countries under study. The target population was the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) under the Public service commission. The study used personnel in USA from the National Performance Management Commission to obtain qualitative data for the study. The data was analyzed using Chisquare and T-test. The chi square statistics indicated that there was no significant relationship (0.209>0.05) between the various techniques; balance score card, 360 degrees, behavioral assessment, ranking method and the written essay method on public service delivery service. This implied that there existed no significant relationship between the performance management methods used and public service delivery in Paraguay. The t-test results reported a significant difference on comparison of United states and Paraguay where health had a significance level of (0.014<0.05), Agriculture (0.0066<0.05), Education (0.0466<0.05), Security (0.002<0.05) and thus implied that the performance management systems used in the United States and those in Paraguay had a significance effect on public service delivery. In addition, the difference can be associated with the difference in development of systems and institutions in United States and Paraguay since the United States is a developed economy while Paraguay is developing economy.
Keywords: Comparative Assessment, Performance Management, Service Delivery, Paraguay & USA.
References
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1-22.
Bach, S., & Kolins Givan, R. (2019). Varieties of new public management? The reform of public service employment relations in the UK and USA. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(11), 2349-2366.
Borgonovi, E., Anessi-Pessina, E., & Bianchi, C. (Eds.). (2018). Outcome-based performance management in the public sector. Springer.
Brass, C. T. (2020). Changes to the government performance and results act (GPRA): overview of the new framework of products and processes.
Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.
Buick, F., Blackman, D. A., O'Donnell, M. E., O'Flynn, J. L., & West, D. (2015). Can enhanced performance management support public sector change?. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 271-289.
Chandler, J. (2017). Questioning the new public management. Routledge.
Chimkono, M. E. M., & Deya, J. (2019). Determinants of Implementation of National Government Strategic Initiatives in Paraguay. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(9).
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2017). Transcending new public management. Taylor & Francis.
Condrey, S. E. (2020). Public human resource management: Current concerns, future challenges.
Darby, K., & Kinnevy, S. C. (2010). GPRA and the development of performance measures. Journal of evidence-based social work, 7(1-2), 5-14.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664-672.
Eriksson, L. (2016). Public choice theory. In Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48-66.
Gilmour, J. B. (2017). Implementing OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), 1-40.
Hedström, P., & Stern, C. (2017). Rational Choice Theory. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 1-7.
Hyndman, N., & Lapsley, I. (2016). New public management: The story continues. Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 385-408.
Kearney, R. (2018). Public sector performance: management, motivation, and measurement. Routledge.
Knies, E., Boselie, P., Gould-Williams, J., & Vandenabeele, W. (2017). Strategic human resource management and public sector performance: context matters.
Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2018). Public choice and political science: a view from Europe. Public Choice, 175(3-4), 245-257.
Lee, D. R. (Ed.). (2020). Public Choice, Past and Present: The Legacy of James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock (Vol. 28). Springer Science & Business Media.
Longenecker, C. O., & Nykodym, N. (2016). Public sector performance appraisal effectiveness: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 25(2), 151-164.
Majeed, R. (2018). Building a culture of results: Institutionalizing rapid results initiatives in Paraguay, 2005-2009. Innovations for Successful Societies.
Moynihan, D. P., & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 314- 323.
National Performance Management Advisory Commission, NPMAC (2018), A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Government: From measurement and reporting to management and improving.
National Performance Management Advisory Commission. (2015). A performance management framework for state and local government: From measurement and reporting to management and improving. Chicago: Author.
OIG (2017) Office of Inspector General Reports. Retrieved from; https://oig.hhs.gov/about- oig/about-us/index.asp
OIG (2018) Office of Inspector General Reports. Retrieved from; https://oig.hhs.gov/about- oig/about-us/index.asp
Pollitt, C. (2016). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25-44.
Radin, B. A. (2013). A comparative approach to performance management: Contrasting the experience of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1355-1376.
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S., & Glennon, R. (2016). Public management theory. In Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Riccucci, N. M., & Naff, K. C. (2018). Personnel Management in Government Politics and Process Sixth Edition. Public Administration and Public Policy-New York-, 132.
Rubin, M. M., & Willoughby, K. G. (2020). Measuring Government Performance: The Intersection of Strategic Planning and Performance Budgeting. In Developments in Strategic and Public Management (pp. 41-58). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Savas, E. S. (2019). Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance. Routledge.
Stephens, T. S., Birky, A. K., & Ward, J. (2014). Vehicle technologies program government performance and results Act (GPRA) report for fiscal year 2015 (No. ANL/ESD-14/3). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States).
Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2016). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Springer.
Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2016). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Springer.
World Bank (2018). Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How the World Bank’s Learns. Evaluation 1. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2019). The World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society and Behavior. Washington, DC: World Bank.
