Author
Abstract
Most studies on public sector benchmarking focus on performance indicators, processes, and outcomes of managed benchmarking. This article, instead, explores the formation of spontaneous interstate benchmarking networks among U.S. state agency leaders. Informed by social comparison theory, we first recategorize benchmarking into best practice benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Then, we quantify two benchmarking networks with a survey dataset and employ the Exponential Random Graph Model to analyze both endogenous and exogenous factors in the formation of both types of benchmarking networks. We find that the best practice benchmarking network has a popularity effect, while the competitive benchmarking network has mutuality and transitivity effects. Both types of benchmarking networks are more likely to form among states with historical policy diffusion ties and similar economic and geographic characteristics. This study contributes to the literature on public sector benchmarking and network research by exploring the factors that influence the formation of benchmarking networks. 大多数关于公共部门标杆管理的研究聚焦于绩效指标、流程和标杆管理的结果。相反,本文探究了美国各州机构领导人之间自发的州际标杆管理网络的形成。根据社会比较理论,我们首先将标杆管理重新分类为标杆管理最佳实践和竞争性标杆管理。然后,我们使用一项调查数据集来量化两个标杆管理网络,并采用指数随机图模型来分析两种标杆管理网络形成中的内生因素和外生因素。我们发现,标杆管理最佳实践网络具有流行效应,而竞争性标杆管理网络具有相互性和传递性效应。这两种类型的标杆管理网络更有可能在“具有历史政策扩散联系和相似经济特征及地理特征”的州之间形成。本研究通过探究标杆管理网络形成的影响因素,进而为关于公共部门标杆管理和网络研究的文献作贡献。 La mayoría de los estudios sobre evaluación comparativa del sector público se centran en indicadores de desempeño, procesos y resultados de la evaluación comparativa gestionada. Este artículo, en cambio, explora la formación de redes interestatales espontáneas de evaluación comparativa entre líderes de agencias estatales de Estados Unidos. Informados por la teoría de la comparación social, primero recategorizamos el benchmarking en benchmarking de mejores prácticas y benchmarking competitivo. Luego cuantificamos dos redes de evaluación comparativa con un conjunto de datos de encuesta y empleamos el modelo de gráfico aleatorio exponencial para analizar los factores endógenos y exógenos en la formación de ambos tipos de redes de evaluación comparativa. Encontramos que la red de evaluación comparativa de mejores prácticas tiene un efecto de popularidad, mientras que la red de evaluación comparativa competitiva tiene efectos de mutualidad y transitividad. Es más probable que ambos tipos de redes de evaluación comparativa se formen entre estados con vínculos históricos de difusión de políticas y características económicas y geográficas similares. Este estudio contribuye a la literatura sobre evaluación comparativa del sector público e investigación de redes al explorar los factores que influyen en la formación de redes de evaluación comparativa.
Suggested Citation
Shuai Cao & Hongtao Yi, 2025.
"What shapes the formation of interstate benchmarking networks?,"
Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 42(3), pages 552-575, May.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:3:p:552-575
DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12604
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:3:p:552-575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.