Fukuyama Is Right about Measuring State Quality: Now What?

Much has recently been written about how to best measure governance or “state quality.” Should we evaluate government performance by looking at what government achieves (outputs) as Robert Rotberg and Craig Boardman recently suggested? Or should we focus on measuring state capacity and bureaucratic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Governance (Oxford) 2014-10, Vol.27 (4), p.717-728
Main Authors: Holt, Jordan, Manning, Nick
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Autonomy
Bureaucracy
Fukuyama, Francis
Governance
Government
Government and politics
Indexes (Measures)
Management
Measurement
Political science
Public Administration
Public management
Public Sector
Services
State capacity
State government
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Much has recently been written about how to best measure governance or “state quality.” Should we evaluate government performance by looking at what government achieves (outputs) as Robert Rotberg and Craig Boardman recently suggested? Or should we focus on measuring state capacity and bureaucratic autonomy, as Francis Fukuyama concludes? This commentary argues in support of Fukuyama's approach by using a public administration lens to disaggregate the public sector into two domains: upstream bodies at the center of government and downstream delivery bodies that deliver, commission, or fund services under the policy direction of government. It goes further by recommending a measurement framework that focuses on identifying indicators that are behavioral and action worthy in relation to five public management systems ultimately owned and operated by the central, upstream agencies.
ISSN:0952-1895
1468-0491
DOI:10.1111/gove.12109