IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance measurement in global governance: Ranking and the politics of variability


  • Mehrpouya, Afshin
  • Samiolo, Rita


The past thirty years have witnessed the spread of rankings, ratings and league tables as governance technologies which aim to regulate the provision of public goods by means of market pressures. This paper examines the process of company analysis underlying the production of a ranking known as the Access to Medicine Index. We conceptualize the Index as a “regulatory ranking” with the explicit mission of addressing a perceived regulatory gap and market failure: the lack of access to medicine in the Global South. The Index, which ranks the world's largest pharmaceutical companies with regards to their access to medicine policies and practices, aspires to help address the problem of access to medicine through stakeholder consultation, transparency and competition. This study unbundles the epistemic work underlying the performance measurement process leading to the creation of the Index. We trace how the goal of stakeholder consensus, the need to project objectivity and the aspiration to govern through competition shape analysts' epistemic work. We discuss how through notions such as “the good distribution” and “aspirational indicators”, performance measurement and ranking become entangled in a “politics of variability” whereby company data need to be variably interpreted in order to optimise the possibilities of intervening in companies through competitive pressures, while at the same time complying with the imperatives to remain in the space of perceived stakeholder consensus and to provide a faithful representation of companies performance to inform public debates. We reflect on the challenges posed by these analysis processes for the regulatory aspirations of the ranking.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehrpouya, Afshin & Samiolo, Rita, 2016. "Performance measurement in global governance: Ranking and the politics of variability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 12-31.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:12-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.09.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Qu, Sandy Q. & Cooper, David J., 2011. "The role of inscriptions in producing a balanced scorecard," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 344-362.
    2. Tim Büthe & Walter Mattli, 2011. "The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9470.
    3. Chua, Wai Fong, 1995. "Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images: A story of the representation of three public hospitals," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(2-3), pages 111-145.
    4. Martin Kornberger & Chris Carter, 2010. "Manufacturing competition: how accounting practices shape strategy making in cities," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(3), pages 325-349, March.
    5. Ezzamel, Mahmoud & Lilley, Simon & Willmott, Hugh, 2004. "Accounting representation and the road to commercial salvation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 783-813, November.
    6. Burchell, Stuart & Clubb, Colin & Hopwood, Anthony & Hughes, John & Nahapiet, Janine, 1980. "The roles of accounting in organizations and society," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 5-27, January.
    7. Callon, Michel, 2009. "Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 535-548, April.
    8. Dambrin, Claire & Robson, Keith, 2011. "Tracing performance in the pharmaceutical industry: Ambivalence, opacity and the performativity of flawed measures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 428-455.
    9. Bloomfield, Brian P & Vurdubakis, Theo, 1997. "Visions Of Organization And Organizations Of Vision: The Representational Practices Of Information Systems Development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 639-668, October.
    10. MacKenzie, Donald, 2009. "Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 440-455, April.
    11. Free, Clinton & Salterio, Steven E. & Shearer, Teri, 2009. "The construction of auditability: MBA rankings and assurance in practice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 119-140, January.
    12. Strathern, Marilyn, 1997. "‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(03), pages 305-321, July.
    13. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2013. "Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51294, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Pollock, Neil & D’Adderio, Luciana, 2012. "Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings, graphic visualisations and sociomateriality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 565-586.
    15. Jeacle, Ingrid & Carter, Chris, 2011. "In TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 293-309.
    16. Claire Dambrin & Keith Robson, 2011. "Tracing performance in the pharmaceutical industry: ambivalence, opacity and the performativity of flawed measures," Post-Print hal-00687848, HAL.
    17. Power, Michael, 1999. "The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296034.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:aosoci:v:64:y:2018:i:c:p:55-68 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:eee:aosoci:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:12-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.