Softening Performance's Pitfalls by Integrating Context and Capacity: A Government Competitiveness Framework

• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Author: Robert K. Christensen,Tobin Im,Gregory Porumbescu
• Date: 01 September 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13434

Softening Performance’s Pitfalls by Integrating Context and Capacity: A Government Competitiveness Framework 887

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 82, Iss. 5, pp. 887–892. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13434.

Softening Performance’s Pitfalls by Integrating Context and

Capacity: A Government Competitiveness Framework

Robert K. Christensen

Tobin Im

Gregory Porumbescu

Brigham Young University

Seoul National University

School of Public Affairs and Administration,

Rutgers-Newark

Authors listed alphabetically to denote equal contribution.

Viewpoint Article

Abstract: This article argues that government performance is better understood and managed within a broader

competitiveness framework. Government competitiveness recursively integrates performance with organizational

capacity and context. We illustrate this more holistic view with recent COVID-19 examples as well as recent

scholarship, including some recent PAR publications related to this topic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic,

governments were frequently compared

and ranked using performance metrics such

as testing capacity, the reproduction number, the

daily death count, and (more recently) the number

of vaccines administered. By informing external

evaluations of government performance, these simple

metrics shaped priorities and impacted the way

governments responded to the pandemic. Yet to what

extent did these numbers accurately depict how well a

given government responded to the pandemic?

As this example of response to COVID-19 illustrates,

performance management efforts that rely on holding

governments accountable for quantified performance

outcomes are widespread. They are also fraught. A

common critique of efforts to evaluate government

performance using quantitative performance

indicators is that this reductionist approach will

underemphasize administrative processes and overlook

the crucial but intangible forms of support that public

institutions offer. For example, while there has been

a strong emphasis on COVID-19 vaccination rates

in the United States, less attention has been paid to

addressing health equity concerns and overcoming

structural barriers preventing access to healthcare,

such as vaccines (Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention2021). Not surprisingly, a closer look at

vaccination data in the United States points to marked

gaps between racial and ethnic groups. An important

question, therefore, is to what extent performance

outcomes that are easily operationalized, such as the

number of individuals vaccinated, are prioritized over

values that are more difficult to operationalize, such

as equity.

Evidence suggests that the risk of such displacement

is real and is abetted by performance management

regimes that emphasize outcome-based accountability,

among other things. By shifting the locus of

performance away from processes and toward

individual managers, these performance regimes

tacitly emphasize readily observable and easily

quantifiable performance outcomes as a basis

for accountability and emphasize personal over

organizational responsibility (Jakobsen et al.2018).

The net effect is often detrimental. In one prominent

example from the United States Veterans Health

Administration Facilities, administrators responded to

results-driven management practices by prioritizing

waiting times over treatment, resulting in veterans

going without treatment and ultimately dying

(Lamothe2014). In another case stemming from

the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers and school

administrators in Atlanta, Georgia admitted to

altering students’ standardized exams due to pressure

from the high-stakes testing practices employed by the

school district, in which principals and teachers were

pressed to achieve high marks on standardized tests by

any means (Flock2011).

While evidence of the pitfalls of relying on

performance regimes that stress quantitative

performance measures abound, efforts to address these

shortcomings often focus on increasingly sophisticated

measurement schemes but neglect broader correlates

of performance. This article advocates the adoption

of performance management regimes that are

contextualized in a competitiveness framework. Ho

and Im(2012, 13) define competitiveness as “the

power of government to, in light of various constraints,

take resources from in and outside of the country and

improve social, economic and cultural conditions of

the nation in order to sustainably enhance citizens’

Department of Public Administration,

Yonsei University

Robert K. Christensen is Professor

and George W. Romney Research Fellow

at the Romney Institute of Public Service

and Ethics in the Marriott School of

Management at Brigham Young University.

His research examines pro- and anti-social

motives and behaviors among public service

employees. He co-edits the Cambridge

University Press Elements Series in Public

and Nonprofit Administration.

Email: rc@byu.edu

Tobin Im is professor and public

administration scholar at the Graduate

School of Public Administration at Seoul

National University. He specializes in public

management, organization theory, and

comparative administration. Im serves

as director of Center for Government

Competitiveness.

Email: tobin@snu.ac.kr

Gregory Porumbescu is associate

professor in the School of Public Affairs

and Administration (SPAA) at Rutgers

University–Newark. He is the interim

executive director of the New Jersey Policy

Lab and the associate director of the

Transparency and Governance Center (TGC).

His research interests primarily relate to

public sector applications of information

and communications technology and digital

inclusion.

Email: greg.porumbescu@rutgers.edu