RESEARCH ARTICLE
Does public sector performance information impact stakeholders? Evidence from a meta-analysis
Xue Meng,
Chaoping Li,
Xue Meng
School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Chaoping Li
School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Chaoping Li, School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorXue Meng,
Chaoping Li,
Xue Meng
School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Chaoping Li
School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Chaoping Li, School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Performance information (PI) has received significant attention in public administration research. However, evaluating the impact of public sector PI on stakeholders is challenging due to varying empirical results. Drawing on information propagation theory, as well as social and cognitive psychology, we conduct a meta-analysis to examine the effect of public sector PI. Using 461 effect sizes from 75 studies, the meta-analysis reveals PI's positive effects on stakeholder attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of performance. Moreover, the effects tend to be stronger when PI is sent by third parties, received by citizens, delivered with positive valence, presented in absolute forms, and disseminated in law enforcement administrative subfields and in societies characterized by low power distance. The findings reinforce the significance of public sector PI and illuminate the complex interplay between it and stakeholder responses.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| puar13924-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfPDF document, 549.7 KB | Online Appendix S1. Supporting Information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Alon-Barkat, Saar, and Sharon Gilad. 2017. “Compensating for Poor Performance with Promotional Symbols: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(4): 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux013.
- Backhaus, Leonie, and Rick Vogel. 2022. “Leadership in the Public Sector: A Meta-Analysis of Styles, Outcomes, Contexts, and Methods.” Public Administration Review 82(6): 986–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13516.
- Baekgaard, Martin. 2015. “Performance Information and Citizen Service Attitudes: Do Cost Information and Service Use Affect the Relationship?” International Public Management Journal 18(2): 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1022676.
- Baekgaard, Martin, and Soren Serritzlew. 2016. “Interpreting Performance Information: Motivated Reasoning or Unbiased Comprehension.” Public Administration Review 76(1): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12406.
- Barrows, Samuel, Michael Henderson, Paul E. Peterson, and Martin R. West. 2016. “Relative Performance Information and Perceptions of Public Service Quality: Evidence from American School Districts.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(3): 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw028.
- Battaglio, R., Jr., Paolo Belardinelli Paul, Nicola Bellé, and Paola Cantarelli. 2019. “Behavioral Public Administration Ad Fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality, Cognitive Biases, and Nudging in Public Organizations.” Public Administration Review 79(3): 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994.
- Behn, Robert D. 2003. “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public Administration Review 63(5): 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322.
- Bevan, Gwyn, and Christopher Hood. 2006. “What's Measured Is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System.” Public Administration 84(3): 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x.
- Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P. T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. West Essex, England: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386.
- Boyne, George A., Oliver James, Peter John, and Nicolai Petrovsky. 2009. “Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Governments.” The Journal of Politics 71(4): 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990089.
-
Brunner, Eric J., Mark D. Robbins, and Bill Simonsen. 2022. “Citizen Perceptions of Public School Efficiency: Evidence from the U.S.” Public Management Review 26(6): 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2158211.
10.1080/14719037.2022.2158211 Google Scholar
- Cantarelli, Paola, Nicola Belle, and Jeremy L. Hall. 2023. “Information Use in Public Administration and Policy Decision-Making: A Research Synthesis.” Public Administration Review 83(6): 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13735.
- Christensen, Julian. 2018. “Biased, Not Blind: An Experimental Test of Self-Serving Biases in Service Users' Evaluations of Performance Information.” Public Administration 96(3): 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12520.
-
Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid. 2021. “ Performance Management: Experiences and Challenges.” In The Routledge Handbook of Public Administration, 4th ed., edited by B. Hildreth, E. Lindquist, and J. Miller, 210–222. London: Routledge.
10.4324/9780429270680-22 Google Scholar
- Dahlke, Jeffrey A., and Brenton M. Wiernik. 2019. “psychmeta: An R Package for Psychometric Meta-Analysis.” Applied Psychological Measurement 43(5): 415–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618795933.
- Demaj, Labinot. 2017. “What Can Performance Information Do to Legislators? A Budget-Decision Experiment with Legislators.” Public Administration Review 77(3): 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12713.
- Festinger, Leon. 1954. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations 7: 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.
- Filtenborg, Anders Foged, Frederik Gaardboe, and Jesper Sigsgaard-Rasmussen. 2017. “Experimental Replication: An Experimental Test of the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory of Citizen Satisfaction.” Public Management Review 19(9): 1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1295099.
-
Fuenzalida, Javier, Gregg G. Van Ryzin, and Asmus Leth Olsen. 2021. “Are Managers Susceptible to Framing Effects? An Experimental Study of Professional Judgment of Performance Metrics.” International Public Management Journal 24(3): 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1752338.
10.1080/10967494.2020.1752338 Google Scholar
- George, Bert, Bram Steijn, Sanjay K. Pandey, Adelien Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2021. “Red Tape, Organizational Performance, and Employee Outcomes: Meta-Analysis, Meta-Regression, and Research Agenda.” Public Administration Review 81(4): 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327.
- Geys, Benny, and Rune J. Sorensen. 2018. “Never Change a Winning Policy? Public Sector Performance and Politicians' Preferences for Reforms.” Public Administration Review 78(2): 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12824.
-
Glass, Gene V. 1976. “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.” Educational Researcher 5(10): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003.
10.3102/0013189X005010003 Google Scholar
- Hansen, Jesper Asring, and Poul Aaes Nielsen. 2022. “How Do Public Managers Learn from Performance Information? Experimental Evidence on Problem Focus, Innovative Search, and Change.” Public Administration Review 82(5): 946–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13533.
- Higgins, Julian P. T., and Simon G. Thompson. 2002. “Quantifying Heterogeneity in a Meta-Analysis.” Statistics in Medicine 21(11): 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.
- Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Hood, Christopher. 2007. “What Happens when Transparency Meets Blame-Avoidance?” Public Management Review 9(2): 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701340275.
- Hood, Christopher. 2012. “Public Management by Numbers as a Performance-Enhancing Drug: Two Hypotheses.” Public Administration Review 72(s1): S85–S92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02634.x.
- James, Oliver. 2011. “Performance Measures and Democracy: Information Effects on Citizens in Field and Laboratory Experiments.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq057.
- James, Oliver, Sebastian Jilke, Carolyn Petersen, and Steven Van de Walle. 2016. “Citizens' Blame of Politicians for Public Service Failure: Experimental Evidence About Blame Reduction through Delegation and Contracting.” Public Administration Review 76(1): 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12471.
- James, Oliver, Sebastian Jilke, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2017. Experiments in Public Administration Research: Challenges and Opportunities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- James, Oliver, and Alice Moseley. 2014. “Does Performance Information about Public Services Affect Citizens' Perceptions, Satisfaction, and Voice Behaviour? Field Experiments with Absolute and Relative Performance Information.” Public Administration 92(2): 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12066.
- James, Oliver, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2017. “Incredibly Good Performance: An Experimental Study of Source and Level Effects on the Credibility of Government.” American Review of Public Administration 47(1): 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015580390.
- Kroll, Alexander. 2013. “The Other Type of Performance Information: Nonroutine Feedback, its Relevance and Use.” Public Administration Review 73(2): 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02648.x.
- Kroll, Alexander. 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/10.1080/15309576.2015.1006469.
- Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1948. The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
- Marvel, John D. 2015. “Public Opinion and Public Sector Performance: Are Individuals' Beliefs About Performance Evidence-Based or the Product of Anti-Public Sector Bias?” International Public Management Journal 18(2): 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.996627.
- Meier, Kenneth J., Miyeon Song, Jourdan A. Davis, and Anna A. Amirkhanyan. 2022. “Sector Bias and the Credibility of Performance Information: An Experimental Study of Elder Care Provision.” Public Administration Review 82(1): 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13425.
- Mizrahi, Shlomo, and Yizhaq Minchuk. 2019. “The Relevance and Reliability of Performance Information for Accountability: A Survey Experiment Exploring Citizens' Views.” Public Administration 98(1): 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12623.
- Moynihan, Donald P. 2008a. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book13015.
-
Moynihan, Donald P. 2008b. “ Advocacy and Learning: An Interactive-Dialogue Approach to Performance Information Use.” In Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it Is Used, edited by Wouter Dooren and Steven Walle, 24–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-1-137-10541-7_3 Google Scholar
- Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 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.
- Nielsen, Poul Aaes, and Martin Baekgaard. 2015. “Performance Information, Blame Avoidance, and Politicians' Attitudes to Spending and Reform: Evidence from an Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(2): 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut051.
- Nielsen, Poul Aaes, and Christian Botcher Jacobsen. 2018. “Zone of Acceptance under Performance Measurement: Does Performance Information Affect Employee Acceptance of Management Authority?” Public Administration Review 78(5): 684–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12947.
- Nielsen, Poul Aaes, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2017. “How Do Politicians Attribute Bureaucratic Responsibility for Performance? Negativity Bias and Interest Group Advocacy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(2): 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060.
- Olsen, Asmus Leth. 2015a. “Citizen (Dis)Satisfaction: An Experimental Equivalence Framing Study.” Public Administration Review 75(3): 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12337.
- Olsen, Asmus Leth. 2015b. “The Numerical Psychology of Performance Information: Implications for Citizens, Managers, and Policymakers.” Public Performance & Management Review 39(1): 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071167.
- Olsen, Asmus Leth. 2017. “Compared to What? How Social and Historical Reference Points Affect Citizens' Performance Evaluations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(4): 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux023.
- O'Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2015. “Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(1): 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu011.
- Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund. 2020. “How the Source of Performance Information Matters to Learning on the Front-Lines: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” International Public Management Journal 23(2): 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1699214.
- Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund, Trine V. Laumann, and Morten Jakobsen. 2019. “Acceptance or Disapproval: Performance Information in the Eyes of Public Frontline Employees.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29(1): 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy035.
- Pollitt, Christopher. 2013. “The Logics of Performance Management.” Evaluation 19(4): 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013505040.
- Pollitt, Christopher. 2018. “Performance Management 40 Years on: A Review. Some Key Decisions and Consequences.” Public Money & Management 38(3): 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1407129.
- Porumbescu, Gregory A., Donald Moynihan, Jason Anastasopoulos, and Asmus Leth Olsen. 2022. “When Blame Avoidance Backfires: Responses to Performance Framing and Outgroup Scapegoating during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Governance 36(3): 779–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12701.
- Porumbescu, Gregory A., Milena I. Neshkova, and Meghan Huntoon. 2019. “The Effects of Police Performance on Agency Trustworthiness and Citizen Participation.” Public Management Review 21(2): 212–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473473.
- R Core Team. 2023. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
- Ringquist, Evan. 2013. Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
- Rosenthal, R., and M. R. DiMatteo. 2001. “Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews.” Annual Review of Psychology 52: 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59.
-
Schmidt, Frank, and John Hunter. 2015. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.4135/9781483398105 Google Scholar
- Schyns, Birgit, and Jan Schilling. 2013. “How Bad Are the Effects of Bad Leaders? A Meta-Analysis of Destructive Leadership and its Outcomes.” Leadership Quarterly 24(1): 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001.
- Valant, Jon, and Daniel A. Newark. 2020. “The Word on the Street or the Number from the State? Government-Provided Information and Americans' Opinions of Schools.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30(4): 674–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa010.
- van den Bekerom, Petra, Joris van der Voet, and Johan Christensen. 2021. “Are Citizens More Negative About Failing Service Delivery by Public than Private Organizations? Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31(1): 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa027.
- Walker, Richard M., M. Jin Lee, Oliver James, and Samuel M. Y. Ho. 2018. “Analyzing the Complexity of Performance Information Use: Experiments with Stakeholders to Disaggregate Dimensions of Performance, Data Sources, and Data Types.” Public Administration Review 78(6): 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12920.
- Walker, Richard M., M. Oliver James, Jae Moon, and Wen Wen. 2024. “A Cross-Cultural Replication of ‘Citizens’ Blame of Politicians for Public Service Failure: Experimental Evidence About Blame Reduction through Delegation and Contracting.” Public Administration Review. Forthcoming: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13845.
- Webeck, Sean, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2020. “How Historical and Social Comparisons Influence Interpretations of Performance Information.” International Public Management Journal 23(6): 798–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1550129.
- Williams, Daniel W. 2003. “Measuring Government in the Early Twentieth Century.” Public Administration Review 63(6): 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00329.
- Zhang, Jiasheng, Hui Li, and Kaifeng Yang. 2022. “A Meta-Analysis of the Government Performance-Trust Link: Taking Cultural and Methodological Factors into Account.” Public Administration Review 82(1): 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13439.
