IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v45y1999i1p42-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measures of Effectiveness for Governmental Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Kishore Gawande

    (Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131)

  • Timothy Wheeler

    (Environmental Risk Assessment and Regulatory Analysis Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185)

Abstract

For organizations whose objective is not necessarily the maximization of a financial quantity, there is little written in the economics and management literature about methods that quantify their effectiveness. Potential users of such methodologies are typically governmental organizations and agencies to whom Congress allocates funding periodically, but may also include many nonprofit organizations. Such research is importantly needed because government is no longer making outlay allocations on a merely historical basis, but is using as a criterion how effectively an organization uses its resources in meeting its objectives. In this paper we analyze the Maritime Safety Program of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which is responsible for monitoring the quality of vessels that sail in U.S. waters, and present measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for the Program. We do this at two levels of activity: at an overall program level (Level I) and at a component activity level (Level II). Poisson models are used to construct the MOEs using data on maritime casualties (accidents) between 1990--1993 from the real-time Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) database maintained by the Coast Guard. A feature of the empirical methodology is the Bayesian imputation of missing data. The MOEs constructed here have at least four important uses. First, as the name suggests, they perform the function that financial quantities such as returns on equity or returns on sales perform for private-sector organizations---that is, they are indicators of efficiency. Second, they can be used as inputs into allocative decisions within the organization. For example, the Level II MOEs can be used as inputs into a programming problem that determines the optimal allocation of resources among component activities. Third, internal performance evaluation across USCG Programs or across Port Units (called Marine Safety Offices) can be based on their respective Level I MOEs. Fourth, and possibly the most important long-run consideration, MOEs provide the basis for better regulation by the government. Without MOEs the nature of regulation is probably suboptimal. By adopting these MOEs as criteria, it will be easier for the government to redesign those aspects of its regulation of the Coast Guard which curtail incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Kishore Gawande & Timothy Wheeler, 1999. "Measures of Effectiveness for Governmental Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 42-58, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:1:p:42-58
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.45.1.42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.42
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.42?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cohen, Mark A, 1987. "Optimal Enforcement Strategy to Prevent Oil Spills: An Application of a Principal-Agent Model with Moral Hazard," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 23-51, April.
    2. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1995. "Regulation, moral hazard and insurance of environmental risks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 319-336, November.
    3. Baiman, S & Demski, Js, 1980. "Economically Optimal Performance Evaluation And Control-Systems," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18, pages 184-220.
    4. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1994. "The New Economics of Regulation Ten Years After," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 507-537, May.
    5. John E. Brandl, 1989. "How organization counts: Incentives and inspiration," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 489-494.
    6. Heckman, James J & Heinrich, Carolyn & Smith, Jeffrey, 1997. "Assessing the Performance of Performance Standards in Public Bureaucracies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 389-395, May.
    7. John M. Quigley & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1989. "What counts? analysis counts," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 483-489.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Singer, Marcos & Donoso, Patricio & Poblete, Francisco, 2002. "Semi-autonomous planning using linear programming in the Chilean General Treasury," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 517-529, July.
    2. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Stefan Staubli & Mark A. Cohen, 2016. "The Impact of Team Inspections on Enforcement and Deterrence," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 159-204.
    3. Kishore Gawande & Alok K. Bohara, 2005. "Agency Problems in Law Enforcement: Theory and Application to the U.S. Coast Guard," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(11), pages 1593-1609, November.
    4. Muehlenbachs, Lucija & Staubli, Stefan & Cohen, Mark A., 2013. "The Effect of Inspector Group Size and Familiarity on Enforcement and Deterrence," IZA Discussion Papers 7876, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Garrett, Richard A. & Sharkey, Thomas C. & Grabowski, Martha & Wallace, William A., 2017. "Dynamic resource allocation to support oil spill response planning for energy exploration in the Arctic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 272-286.
    6. maurice moffett & alok k. bohara & kishore gawande, 2005. "Governance and Performance: Theory-Based Evidence from US Coast Guard Inspections," Public Economics 0505002, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kishore Gawande & Alok K. Bohara, 2005. "Agency Problems in Law Enforcement: Theory and Application to the U.S. Coast Guard," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(11), pages 1593-1609, November.
    2. Arun Malik, 2007. "Optimal environmental regulation based on more than just emissions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Peter-J. Jost, 2023. "Auditing versus monitoring and the role of commitment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 463-496, June.
    4. Signe Anthon & Serge Garcia & Anne Stenger, 2010. "Incentive Contracts for Natura 2000 Implementation in Forest Areas," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 281-302, July.
    5. Xin Qu & Majella Percy & Fang Hu & Jenny Stewart, 2022. "Can CEO equity‐based compensation limit investment‐related agency problems?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2579-2614, June.
    6. Fiaz Ahmad Sulehri & Saba Sharif, 2022. "The Impact of Firm Sustainability on Firm Growth: Evidence from USA," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Church, Bryan K. & Kuang, Xi (Jason) & Liu, Yuebing (Sarah), 2019. "The effects of measurement basis and slack benefits on honesty in budget reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-84.
    8. Koray, Semih & Saglam, Ismail, 1997. "Justifiability of Bayesian Implementation in Oligopolistic Markets," MPRA Paper 4459, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Millock, Katrin & Xabadia, Angels & Zilberman, David, 2012. "Policy for the adoption of new environmental monitoring technologies to manage stock externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 102-116.
    10. Shouqiang Wang & Peng Sun & Francis de Véricourt, 2016. "Inducing Environmental Disclosures: A Dynamic Mechanism Design Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 371-389, April.
    11. Arguedas, Carmen & Rousseau, Sandra, 2009. "A note on the complementarity of uniform emission standards and monitoring strategies," Working Papers 2009/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    12. Helen Simpson, 2009. "Productivity In Public Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 250-276, April.
    13. Andersson, Fredrik & Skogh, Goran, 2003. "Quality, self-regulation, and competition: the case of insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 267-280, April.
    14. Slim Ben Youssef, 2010. "Adoption of a cleaner technology by a monopoly under incomplete information," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 734-743.
    15. Bickenbach, Frank, 2000. "Regulation of Europe's network industries: the perspective of the new economic theory of federalism," Kiel Working Papers 977, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    17. Dalton, P.S. & Gonzalez Jimenez, V.H. & Noussair, C.N., 2015. "Paying with Self-Chosen Goals : Incentives and Gender Differences," Discussion Paper 2015-021, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Erdogdu, Erkan, 2013. "A cross-country analysis of electricity market reforms: Potential contribution of New Institutional Economics," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 239-251.
    19. Berrone, Pascual & Gelabert, Liliana & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gomez-Mejia, Luis R., 2007. "Can institutional forces create competitive advantage? An empirical examination of environmental innovation," IESE Research Papers D/723, IESE Business School.
    20. Tangeras, Thomas P., 2002. "Collusion-proof yardstick competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 231-254, February.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:1:p:42-58. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.