IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v4y1985i3p519-531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity Measurement And The Public Organization

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Dalton
  • Linda C. Fitzpatrick

Abstract

This article applies a broad theoretical framework identifying factors which provide an understanding of the relationship between electoral politics, organizational reform and institutional change. In focusing upon product i v i t y reforms undertaken in the 1970's and early 1980's. the authors find that political conflicts over measures of public performance may contribute to a life cycle in which organizational structures are reconstituted and subjects of regulation o r services redefined in ways that are potentially inconsistent with the demand for public accountability. The conjunction of such factors may contribute to a crisis of legitimacy resulting in the redefinition of the boundaries between public and private realms of responsibility, as expressed in the electoral process. Today liberal reformers are confronted by a dilemma of productivity and legitimacy involved in the cycle of reform and retrenchment in which the goal of public accountability is undermined by erosion of the rights of the subject. The attempt to break this bind requires, in part, an explicitness on the part of liberals about the presuppositions regarding the subject underpining the measures and strategies by which organizational reforms are undertaken.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Dalton & Linda C. Fitzpatrick, 1985. "Productivity Measurement And The Public Organization," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 4(3), pages 519-531, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:4:y:1985:i:3:p:519-531
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00252.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00252.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00252.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:4:y:1985:i:3:p:519-531. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.