National Performance Management (UK Experience)

National Performance Management-National Public Performance Management

The United Kingdom has a management structure that implements rational management models well. The secret of the Anglo Saxon World's rejection of the distinction between public administration and private sector management is the understanding of management based on reason. Because this understanding treats the public-private distinction only as a question of scale. For this reason, the title of my article is not the UK's National Public Performance Management, but only the National Performance Management. However, this distinction is included in the article for clarity.

Public Performance Management Structure and Emphasis in the Historical Process

Public performance management (KPY) has been changing over the course of history. For KPY as a logic model, this change primarily occurs in processes. While performance management has been applied in the public sector in the last forty years, the emphasis on KPY has evolved from inputs to outputs and results.

The expansion in the criteria that give color to the KPY has also changed the classical structure of the performance that needs to be managed. National performance is added to institutional performance, team performance, and individual performance. Accordingly, the criticisms made also change and transform over time.

Public Service is Public Trust That Provides Citizen Satisfaction

Public service is public trust[1] and provides legitimacy to governments. Sustainable legitimacy, on the other hand, requires continuous reforms to ensure citizens' satisfaction. These reforms have tended to close the deficits in finances in the budget, trust in citizens, performance in organizations and quality in services, and thus meet the increasing expectations and demands of citizens by overcoming the crises.

While the UK has been developing its public administration with continuous interrelated reforms for the last three half-century, the place of the recent New Public Administration (YKY)/New Public Service (YKH) reforms in practice is gaining importance. How did these reforms, including the Top-Down Public Performance Management (YAPY) model and applying private sector understanding and techniques, “develop”? “Has it been successful”?

Why was the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Closed?

The hundred-year-old story of the Forensic Science Service (FSS-), which was closed by the British Government in 2011, can be instructive before we move on to the findings and conclusions regarding these questions. The 366-page review report prepared by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on this decision of the government summarizes very well the pragmatism of British public administration reforms, the NPM/YKH and business orientation, and the main criticisms of them (S&T Committee: Written Evidence Forensic Science Service: 17 February 2011).

Criticisms of the closure decision are based on the lack of information sharing, joint work, public service quality and sufficient expertise of the private sector, as well as the reservations regarding the measurement that the contribution to the defense of the public sphere and the fight against crime cannot be measured, and the social risks that concern employees and their families.

FSS, whose roots go back almost a century, was a monopoly in 1981 and gained executive agency status within the framework of the privatization program that started ten years later. The institution, which was converted to commercial fund status less than four years after becoming the world's first DNA bank in April 1995, became a PPP in 2002 and finally a PPP in 2005 with around 2,000 employees and 100 experts, all under the Ministry of Interior. The government benefited from EU funds, besides the 50 million Pounds allocated for restructuring in 2009, there was a need for just as much cash. In the fall of 2010, the loss reached two million every month, and the cash shortage had reached its peak. The institution could not continue its business and could not solve the problems. The previous government's completion of the DNA Expansion Program and the increase in productivity driven by the work of prosecutors had greatly narrowed the forensic market. As a matter of fact, while the size of the market decreased to 170 million Pounds per year in 2009, it was expected to decrease to 110 million by 2015. Whereas FSS held 80% of the market in 2005, it could only hold 60% today.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) proposed the closure of the institution in its report, and in 2011 the 92-year-old institution was now closed. While explaining the reasons for the closure, the lack of competition, the lowest cost and the inability to achieve the best results, the lack of rewarding and participatory management, the shrinking of the market share of the institution and the market, the protection of the rights of the citizens who are more taxpayers, the insufficient performance, the lack of quality standards and research and innovation. was considered scarce. It could cost £50,000 to catch a thief who stole £8,000. In fact, Budowle, Kayser, and Sajantila (2011:2) in their article titled "Closing the FSS: Lack of Innovation and Development" reduces this to the stagnation of innovation. Thus, an institution that has 4.5 million DNA samples and can process more than 40,000 data per day, fails to measure performance, cannot meet quality standards, cannot be effective in governance practices and cannot innovate (during its journey from public to PPP, from privatization to the public) desired citizen satisfaction. He was closed as a punishment for failing to provide.

Triplets: New Public-Business-Performance Management

The summary FSS story above shows that performance management reforms, as well as NPM and Enterprise management, have been implemented very tightly by the central government, including rewards and punishments.

The points raised in this study are concrete: the general applicability, features and degree of success of the YKH/KPY reforms, of which we present a small example of the UK (UK) practice…

The practices that are the source of these findings have affected the public administration in general, and the KPY in particular, resulting in the following results:

The Traditional Model of Public Administration: The Northcote-Trevelyen Report

Contrary to what is known, the traditional public administration model and bureaucracy did not start with the American Wilson and the German Weber; long before that, it was set out in the UK's 1854 Northcote-Trevelyen Report, which advocated the merit system and aimed at providing neutral public service against the system of political patronage.

The New Public Administration Model: The Fulton Report

Similarly, the 1968 Fulton Report shows that the predecessor of NPM was the UK as much, and perhaps more, than the USA. Because this report showed the inadequacy of the classical public administration, which grew and became clumsy with the welfare state policies, in the face of citizen demands. It proposes competitive, customer-oriented and market-based solutions to this failure as a mixture of theory, ideology and practice.

Consumer Choice and Market-Based Public Administration

The decisive role of consumer preference and market system, rather than bureaucratic commands, gained importance in the entire Anglo-Saxon world, with the triggering of currents symbolized by these developments in the UK and the subsequent publication of the "Intellectual Crisis of the American Public Administration".

The New Intellectual Crisis

Today, the UK is entangled in a serious intellectual crisis and its leading role has been eroded. For this reason, especially in terms of NPM and KPY, practice comes before theory and the effort to reach theory from practice draws attention.

Public administration, which is based on concrete data and sees all public administration as a laboratory, and does not respect developments other than unprepared results in this field of experiment, brings intellectual shallowness. Of course, this impasse is a clear and strong pointer to the main source of erosion in the country's leading role.

Master-Uşak Distinction

Next steps in the UK where decision-makers and service providers were separated were reforms, and in the United States reforms that reinvented government, leading to the policy-making and public-service-providing segregation, brought policy decision-makers to the fore.

These reforms, which were implemented in the UK in the 1990s, have been criticized for turning politicians into masters and bureaucrats into servants who implement their decisions. This approach was transferred to many countries in the early 2000s. Undoubtedly, our country has also been deeply affected by this approach, and the bureaucracy has weakened in the face of politics.

Stability and Braking System: New Public Administration and Governance

What will make the relationship between politician and bureaucracy not be that of master and servant is the effective entry of the public into the equation.

Transparency and accountability as well as leading governance have increased the importance of other actors in the field. Thus, in the last 15 years, NPM, which strongly emphasizes the separation of responsibility and authority in public administration, and governance, which envisages organizational coordination, cooperation and close communication, have developed as two dominant perspectives.

Metal Fatigue

Of these two orientations, NPM is meticulously applied in British public administration, while the second orientation, the practice of direct democracy, has serious problems. Metal fatigue paralyzes governance.

As an important element of the corporate governance approach in central government, the establishment of boards of directors in ministries and non-ministerial units has been ensured by reforms. However, governance practices that are assumed to develop better at the level of local governments cannot be adequately implemented due to the dominance of the central government, overconfidence and the weakness of local democracy. It's called the "consultation breakdown".

“Citizen Choice” and “Open Government Policies” Obligation

Governance paralyzed by the oppressive central government and the accepted British Caste System is the scene of efforts to bring it back to life, even if it is benevolent. Because governments, which claim to solve the needs of all individuals from different social groups, cannot neglect the general acceptance of components of good governance, such as participation, working with stakeholders, transparency, understanding of equality, ethical and honest behavior, accountability and sustainability. For this reason, after 2008, they chose to delegate authority to the citizens. In this framework, serious governance practice deficiencies[2] in the decision-making phase of the public service are sought to be eliminated by the new management paradigm, which operates on the public sector and is market-oriented and gives the right to “citizen preference” to users. This was followed by clear government policies in 2010, and at least it was aimed to ensure governance at the stage of inspection of services. In order to establish standards for all public services offered and to hold the relevant institution accountable to the citizens in case the service is provided below the declared standards, the information and standards in the service area, complaint authorities and complaint procedures must be published and announced to the public. The implementation gains meaning through promotional brochures, booklets, books and websites, complaint mechanisms and obtaining information.

New Public Administration Application and Customer Satisfaction

NPM, which is perceived as a broad term in the UK as well as all over the world, is used to classify reforms and ideas related to the administration. In this framework, focusing on effective results for customer and user satisfaction, flexibility in human resources and financial structure, emphasis on performance management, decentralization, market and market-based public entrepreneurship and privatization, entrepreneurial professional manager, rewarding and result control related to resource allocation, competitiveness. dissemination, outsourcing, discipline and thrift in resource use, and implementation of private sector management practices in the public sector come to the fore.

Use of Market and Business Management in the Public

NPM, which has found a strong application area with reforms here, has two branches: Market and performance management where incentives such as privatization and external procurement, quasi-market and customer preference are used, and business management where private sector techniques and ideas such as quality management and innovation are used.

Distinction between Public Administration and Private Sector Management Abolishes

In the last half century, business management and market orientation work together in public administration, and as a result, the private sector and public administration are similar. As a matter of fact, with the NPM process, the focus of the public sector has shifted from the understanding of monitoring public administration policies and legislation to efficient management of resources and result-oriented. With the new understanding, as the government and NGOs move away from the bureaucratic thinking of the industrial revolution, they are beginning to resemble the business world in terms of default service delivery, regulation and growth. British business management has instruments such as management by purpose and results, value for money, performance and quality management, innovation and proximity to the customer, all of which are implemented under the strategic leadership of central management. While the art and practice of government is formed by appointed and elected leaders, the radical changes made by the elected and the strategic leadership of the government gain importance.

Centralized New Public Administration

The centralized prefix of the New Public Administration, which is supposed to be governance-oriented, can be seen as cynical. However, the application unfortunately allows this naming. Because, in the UK public administration, NPM is applied from top to bottom with all its elements.

A bottom-up structure can never be mentioned in the country, including democracy. As a matter of fact, as in quality and performance management models, NPM's policies such as privatization and market-semi-market are implemented in the public sector by suppressing them from the top down – but successfully.

The long-term single-party governments and the similar NPM view of the changing governments, strong and top-down central guidance and monitoring, result-oriented and pragmatist approach ensured that the reforms were continuous, uninterrupted and successful.

The Threat on Local Governments: Centralized Practice

Undoubtedly, the central administration has a primary importance in the successful implementation of the New Public Administration approach. However, the UK's strict central government policies pose a clear and serious threat to local democracy and local governments. Low-intensity local governments, which are perceived as an "necessary part of the British democratic administration", do not have constitutional guarantees and due to the unitary and excessively centralized structure, the central government, which has a majority in the Parliament (as a result of practices such as legal regulation and spending control, policy and standards creation, resource allocation) is widespread. and is under intense threat. Closure of the Northern Ireland Parliament, transfer of some municipal duties to the central administration, regional autonomous organizations, quangos and voluntary organizations, use of only a quarter of the resources by municipalities, scarcity of own resources (50%), central determination of expenditures (78%), number of local administrations to quarter in 40 years Depression, tutelage over local decisions also hurts local democracy.

Criticisms of UK New Public Administration Practice

In the UK, the success of the NPM is still unclear despite "everything is done according to the book" in the first place, and the main purpose of decreasing cost and increasing efficiency is vague but the new audit bureaucracy is clear, and the system also damages the public service by erasing the concept of "commitment to public service". criticized for. In addition, it is voiced that it lacks a consistent content, encourages the entrepreneurial manager to encourage illegality, and is self-seeking like the previous ones in the new elite he created. The criticisms made in the literature have led to the preference of the concept of "citizen" satisfaction instead of "customer", and then the concept of YKH (New Public Service) instead of YKY.

Theoretical Model Revealed by the Application: BKKYR

The UK has the UK Public Administration Reform (BKKYR) Model, driven by practice rather than theory. Typically, it can be said that these reforms have shifted from the hierarchical bureaucracy to the market, semi-market and network (e-government) in the centralization of public services as decision makers and especially in the delivery of public services. This model consists of dozens of reforms, large and small, built on the classical structure and leading to a paradigm shift.

Central to the model is the vision of “better public service for all”, which aims to make every element of public service delivered “the best in the world” and promises “world-class public service”. In addition to market incentives to increase the quality and efficiency of public services, the influence of beneficiaries in the shaping of services, and the competence and capacity to provide service delivery, the model has four elements, Top-Down Public Performance Management (YAPY), which is the most basic element.

Top-Down Public Performance Management Model Preference

In UK public organizations, citizens are seen as empowering (whether mandatory or representative) customers and to be satisfied. For this reason, performance measurement and evaluation in the public sector is preferred because it holds the public accountable to society, employees to their superiors and elected officials, external suppliers to public institutions that purchase these services, and public service providers to taxpayers and payers.

Top-Down Public Performance Management Model Process

The YAKPY model has been gradually formed in about half a century with the public administration reforms, which started with the "Fulton Report" and continued with the "Excellence and Fairness Report" and gained momentum with Open Government Practices.

Like other reforms, the single-party government, strong prime minister and central administration, and the public administration perspective, which does not change with changing governments, allow the YAKPY Pyramid construction.

Components of the Top-Down Public Performance Management Model

LAPY is all about radical structural changes aimed at ensuring openness at all levels, accountability, control and resource allocation, and responding to changing needs. However, the basis of the model is "ambitious result targets", which are applied from the top down and tried to be realized with Public Service Contracts (KHS), "standard setting and regulation" that includes minimum service standards determined qualitatively and quantitatively, "performance evaluation" that reveals the level of meeting the minimum standards of service providers. ” and “direct intervention”, which includes sanctions and rewards based on performance results.

KHS, Expenditure Review Reports (HGGR) and Resource Based Financial Management System (KTMYS) together suppress and control public organizations. Better public service provision is largely achieved when elements such as national compelling output targets, performance evaluation, standard setting and regulation, and direct intervention are also used.

The government, which assumes the strategic leadership role, does this by suppressing it from above, focusing on priority areas (health-education-transport-home affairs), setting limited and decreasing national targets (1998/600-2007/30) and using external indicators for results (graduated). number of beneficiaries, success rate of graduates and decrease in unemployment).

KPY components in the UK can be counted as strategic openness, consensus and sharing, adoption, future orientation, learning culture, accountability, holism, centralized leadership, strong reward and punishment.

Criteria of Top-Down Public Performance Management Model

The criteria of the model can be listed in order of being countable, perpetuating the public interest, and increasing importance in the use of the service:

Countable economy, efficiency and effectiveness;

Legality, transparency and accountability that make the public interest sustainable;

There are equality, fairness and quality criteria that increase in importance in the provision and/or utilization phase of the service.

Emphasis on Public Performance Management

With NPM practices, including Public Performance Management, the government is no longer a monopoly in service delivery in the UK, as it is in many countries. Increasingly, the private and voluntary sectors play an important role. The weight of the private sector and the market in the UK public service delivery, the differentiation of citizen/individual expectations and the more fragmentation of the public have required measuring results, coordinating and creating added value for every penny spent, instead of controlling the difficult and expensive processes. Therefore, while the emphasis on KPY evolves from inputs to outputs, results and final results, public service providers are expected to be results-oriented and meet the needs of citizens from different backgrounds.

Public Performance Management Implementation Results

Model application includes notable achievements and criticisms that should not be neglected.

First of all, the UK achieves important results with the private sector-based YAKPY model that it has successfully implemented. With this model application, competent schools, hospitals, universities and internal security (police) units that provide better public service, which many countries of the world admire, have been established. For example, in secondary schools, the number of schools, of which at least 70% achieved the General Certificate of Secondary Educations (GCSEs), has increased from 83 to 891 today, long hospital queues have disappeared, crime rates have fallen by a third, and universities have attracted large numbers of outside students. is seen.

On the other hand, it is seen that this success is not widespread, public services are not provided well enough in some places, public programs are often completed late and far above the planned cost, and even they do not work as intended.

For example, Paddington Health Campus, which was completed at three times the planned cost and completion time, the high-cost defense project Legion, widespread infection outbreaks in hospitals, fraud issues in many social security institutions are still examples that cannot be considered within the scope of exception that public services are not provided well in certain places.

On the other hand, KPY criticisms that lost their sharpness focused on the ally of management and NPM, public space defense and how to measure performance. However, the most important deficiency of the UK public administration regarding KPY is that governance, decentralization and delegation of authority are not used for a long time and until it is understood that the desired purpose cannot be achieved, contrary to the understanding of NPM. Undoubtedly, the claim of perfection does not remain as a mere claim, it is related to the implementation of governance practices with great wealth and the cultivation of local democracy. This situation gives the impression of conflict with the general structure of the YAKPY model at first glance. In fact, a good adaptation is inevitable for the sustainability of the system.

The Place of Reward and Punishment in the Public Performance Management model

Unrewarded high performance falls below average or even below average. For this reason, reward and punishment are applied together and as a strong motivation in British public administration.

When the institutional performance is found to be successful with the evaluation made in practice, the institution gets rid of being closed and has the chance to add an additional budget to its budget. Since closing the institution will mean that the employees will lose their jobs, this situation also creates pressure on individual performance, thus forcing the performance to increase at both levels.

The Magic at the Center of Transformation: Customer/Citizen Satisfaction

While the information society and demands necessitate a structuring for "customer satisfaction" over time, logic models such as KPY and KY, which are the devices of the NPM understanding, are increasingly similar to each other despite some differences. For this reason, it allows many models such as ISO, Citizen's Charter, TKY, BSC and PSEM, EFQM and CAF to be called both performance and quality models in the UK. The excessive emphasis on economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the models can be seen as an effort to replace the surplus value that disappeared with the abolition of colonialism. It can also shed light on what we call the inner cause, the crisis in seeking relief.

No matter how successfully the YAKPY is implemented, its success is limited when it is not supported by governance. The trigger of the 2008 crisis has already shown that for the success of KPY in UK practice to be at a high pace and sustainable, communicative rationality must rise and participation must be effective at every stage. In this framework, it can be expected that the governance in the country will become more dominant, even if for pragmatist reasons, the importance of the ruler-managed distinction will decrease. As a matter of fact, within the framework of the British government tradition, the old alliance of liberal democracy and innovations brought by technology, and the understanding of open government, which is expected to activate the surveillance and control of citizens (Open Government, 2010), the control part of governance is made public by means of open information and transparency devices. Undoubtedly, this theoretical infrastructure may look good, but the necessity of saving caused by the developments brought about by the crisis leads to the closure of the local Courts of Accounts, while the government not only eliminates the fiscal deficit in the budget by removing the financial burden of the audit, but also wants to eliminate the lack of confidence with the people to whom it has delegated this task. However, it is clear that time is still needed for governance to function at the decision stage and for local democracy to be strengthened. In other words, British democracy, which is not easily injured by the definition of a Parliamentary monarchy and a Queen, can suffer serious damage through the KPY's two allies, its democracy dress on governance and local governments, as a result of an elite power holding the administration and its concentration in the executive and bureaucracy. For this reason, governance and local democracies, which are two important components of the climate in which the KPY can mature, are injured and the democratic pillar of the system is disrupted. However, British pragmatism is trying to get rid of the financial burden of control and to make governance work in one aspect, by delegating authority to the people, even if not for the sake of democracy. However, in order for this transfer of authority, which leads to savings in inputs and adoption in results, to cease to be an illusion, governance must operate from the decision-making stage.

In the UK public administration, the YAKPY model flourishes in the favorable climate of the UK Public Service Reform Model (KHRM), where NPM is applied with all its elements. In the context of the UK example, while the differences between market and business management practices and between the private and public sectors have decreased in parallel with the global approach, the national level KPY application shows that the difference between the two sectors gains importance in terms of whether there is a strong central structure, not in terms of scale, which has a serious place in the theory. . This practice, which clearly demonstrates the effects of the country's historical, cultural and political structure, provides strong evidence that the democratic identity of US-style bottom-up political and social structures is surprisingly impeding for national KPY practices. In other words, the problem is not in scale but in structuring, and strong central administrations are found to be more useful than federal structures in terms of YAKPY. The implementation of the BK YAKPY Model on a national scale makes the Weberian organizational structure important again. Even though the organization has become relatively flat, the power concentration at the head of the pyramid maintains its importance.

Preferring the provincial organization of the central authority without localization instead of decentralization in the British public administration does not only cause this structure to be fragmented and too many, but also requires the establishment of a national level KPY model (YAPY) that can penetrate every institution as much as necessary.

Although economy, efficiency and effectiveness are the basic principles as required by market and business management practices, the necessity of structuring the public administration on the basis of equality and fairness causes these principles to increase.

While business administration becomes public administration, public administration gives its own color to business administration. The fact that the public service is increasingly being provided by the public-private and third sector instead of the monopoly state, and the frequent use of privatization, market, import and competition elements cause the emphasis on inputs and processes in KPY to turn to results. The fact that the business administration has injured the public commitment to some extent in practice and the criticisms made have led to some terminological changes in the public administration. For example, YKY turns into YKH, and customer satisfaction turns into citizen satisfaction. On the other hand, private sector managements have gone beyond a dry profit calculation and have started to show their sensitivity such as environment, health and public trust in terms of sustainability in business management and see them as a part of their management.

While KPY is applied at institutional and individual level, carrots and sticks are used together. According to this level, it may be remuneration according to individual performance and loss of job, as well as placing additional appropriations in the corporate budget and closing the institution. This application reflex is not different from the reflexes of the private sector in case of profit and loss.

In short, the UK, which has one of the important political and administrative management experiences in the world, has developed a system that is completely unique to itself and parallel to its social structure and has developed a KPY model suitable for its own historical, political and cultural structure. Since this model is used as a laboratory all over the country while transitioning from practice to theory, it provides important empirical information based on practice. The implementation of KPY, which developed based on NPM management and governance in the UK, in public administration also affected the development of KPY theory. For example, national public performance management, individual, team and corporate performance management, besides the nomenclature, "primary work level", "manager level", emphasized by Lynn (2001:37/Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004:17) as the four levels of public administration reform, The “institutional framework level” and the “global/national/cultural environment level” will be moved to this KPY area.

The implementation of KPY at the national level in the UK is not only a first, but also includes meanings. First of all, the public administration reforms implemented here and KPY have been shaped by a wide application as well as the theoretical infrastructure. The understanding, which is based on a result-oriented strong executive rather than compliance with the legislation, prioritizes practice and its results over theory, in accordance with its pragmatist and flexible structure that prefers tradition over the written Constitution. This, on the other hand, has created the opportunity for gradual progress based on empirical knowledge, in accordance with the historical and cultural structure of the public administration, which prefers to progress step by step rather than revolution. This cumulative tradition supports its claim to be a theoretical approach based on step-by-step practices. Thus, the differences created by the application of globally accepted theoretical approaches and the effects of these differences on the development of KPY reveal the applicability of special management techniques in public administration, while causing the distinctive color of the public administration in general and the UK in particular to be felt gradually. The country's elite management structure, accustomed to holding the geographical and worldwide power attached to the island, combined with the intellectual limitations it brings, causes the illusion that the power of their dreams but remains in history still exists. This can be seen in the model's claim to be the best and perfect in the world, and it is the weakest aspect of the model.

While KPY is in a structural change and development within itself in the historical process, on the other hand, the UK practice in the same time period differs due to the specific aspects of the country. While KPY theoretically moves towards business management, BK YAKPYM uses democratic understandings such as governance and decentralization, which are allies of YKY, only to the extent that it sees its benefits in practice and to a limited extent. In line with the results of the application, the most important effects of the UK on KPY theory can be determined as result orientation, competition and market at the beginning of the 40-50 year period, standard setting and citizen/customer satisfaction in the middle, and the implementation of business management at the national level at the end.

Business management can be applied in public administration, but this also creates some differences in the structure of business administration. It makes it possible to implement performance management in the public sector as it is in the private sector, since the public service is started to be given by the public-private and third sector instead of the monopoly state, and the development of privatization, market, import and competition elements, and the emphasis on inputs and processes is directed to results. However, in this framework, besides the principles of market and business management such as economy, efficiency and effectiveness, new principles such as equality and equity on which public administration is built will be needed. This technique, which is applied as a pure form of business management, hurts public commitment to some extent and criticisms may also require terminological modification. For example, while YKY evolved into YKH, customer satisfaction turned into citizen satisfaction.

Conclusion:

The implementation of performance management in public administration is parallel to the understanding of NPM, and this parallelism has a facilitating effect on the implementation of KPY, which is one of the business management techniques, in the public administration of the UK.

KPY, kamu hizmetlerinin devlet yanında özel sektöre ve üçüncü sektör eliyle de verilmeye başlanmasıyla vurgusunu zaman içinde girdilerden çıktılara ve sonuçlara doğru yöneltmiştir. Bu vurgu müşteri memnuniyetini temel, kullanıcı katılımını da zorunlu kıldığından kamu hizmetlerinde vatandaş memnuniyetini tek taraflı olarak sağlamayı gelenek haline getiren BK’ta yönetişim tekniklerinin demokrasi ideali uğruna olmasa da yararını gördükçe uygulanmasını zorunlu kılmaktadır. 

Kamu sektöründe ulus düzeyinde performans yönetimimin uygulanması, güçlü merkezi yönetim ve bürokratik örgütlenme gerektirdiğinden yerel demokrasi ve yerel yönetimler bundan olumsuz etkilenmektedir.

KPY, genel ilkeleri büyük ölçüde aynı kalsa bile, uygulandığı ülkenin değişik şartlarına göre farklılıklar gözetebilir. BK’taki güce dayalı bürokratik ve siyasi kültür, özellikle elit ve pragmatist yapısı nedeniyle yönetişim pratiklerinin gelişmesini önlemektedir.   Öte yandan aynı pragmatizm ve sonuç odaklılık vatandaş memnuniyetinin sağlanması açısından süreçlere ilgili aktörlerin katılımına ters yönde baskı yaparak izin de vermektedir.  Ancak bu yararı yüksek olduğu ölçüde ve sınırlı tutulmakta, bu çerçevede yönetim süreçlerinin karar aşamasından çok yenice denetim aşamasında yer verilmektedir. 

Performans yönetiminin BK kamu yönetiminde uygulanması kamu ve özel yönetim ayrımını ölçek sorununa indirgeyen anlayışa güçlü kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Ancak BK uygulaması asıl sorunun ölçekten çok yapılanma sorunu olduğunu göstermektedir. KPY’nin ulus düzeyinde uygulanması için devletin merkezi yapılanması kolaylaştırıcıdır. Bu ölçekteki uygulamada aşağıdan yukarı siyasi yapılanmalar, özellikle federal yapılanmalar zorlaştırıcıdır.

KPY kurumsal ve bireysel düzeyde uygulanırken, ceza ve ödüllendirmenin birlikte kullanılması çalışanların verimliliğine etki etmektedir. Uygulamada bireysel performansa göre ücretlendirme ve işini kaybetme, kurumsal düzeyde ise bütçeye ek ödenek ve kurumun kapatılması biçimindeki bu müdahale sistemin dinamizmini ayakta tutmakta ve özel sektördeki benzer etkiyi göstermektedir.  

Footnotes:

^[1] Reubin O’Donovan (1971) Florida Valisi (Julnes  vd., 2008:ix). 

^[2] “Yönetişim pratikleri” ile ürün ve hizmetlerden yararlanacak ya da etkilenecek birey, grup ya da diğer yararlanıcı ve etkilenicilerin ürün/hizmetin karar verilme safhasından, ürün/hizmet üretim ve sunum safhasına kadar her aşamada yönetimle birlikte söz sahibi olduğu, yönetime eşit katılma uygulamaları kastedilmektedir.