IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Measures of Effectiveness for Governmental Organizations

Listed author(s):
  • 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)

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

Volume (Year): 45 (1999)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 42-58

in new window

Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:45:y:1999:i:1:p:42-58
Contact details of provider: Postal:
7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  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. 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.
  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 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)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.