【導讀】的績效衡量和評價上（經濟合作與發(fā)展組織［OECD］，1996；Pollitt&Bouckaert，基于結果的管理是各級公共部門一整天的話題，從。地方、區(qū)域、國家，甚至前國家。上的數(shù)據和信息制造，如果可能的話，也包括對績效結果的影響。1997，2020）甚至提到“審計爆炸”或“審計的社會”。將一個高度優(yōu)先事項歸于計量產出和成果。他們旨在根據這種理想信息基礎上的。新政策和管理活動，使得政策的執(zhí)行更有效率和效力。員發(fā)表的改善政府工作表現(xiàn)的聲明中仍然是一個重要的組成部分。的后果，不僅可能會廢止公共部門績效的結論，也會消極地影響這個績效。最后，我們將就如何處理公共部門中運用績效評估造成的問題提出。公共部門的日常運作，特別是公共支出，存在不菲的價值。單位和部門被賣出進入準自治非政府組織。破案率下降，表明警方的績效在不斷惡化。在英國國民健康服務中心，與會者一致認為，患者為做手術而等待的。府，監(jiān)察局，消防部門的監(jiān)督。因此，在住宅區(qū)經營的授權被

　　

【正文】 the performance assessment system should be investigated. When an organization is strongly guided by user manuals, lists of frequently asked questions, and procedures on how to handle are quest from an auditor, the occurrence of a performance paradox increases. Performance assessment in the public sector has to take the nature of public 外文翻譯 稿和原稿 411 services into account (McGuire, 2020). The way professional services are produced and consumed (delivered) and the way public services are valued by the munity have implications for performance monitoring (McGuire, 2020, ). In the public sector, consumers participate in the service delivery process。 affecting output and oute (cf. Fountain, 2020, ). Moreover, most products are intangible. Performance indicators should therefore reflect quality and reliability rather than hard product attributes. Public services are not only about efficiency and effectiveness but also about justice, fairness, equity, and accountability. Fountain (2020) warns that the application of private sector techniques, such as performance indicators, as propagated by NPM, cannot replace, indeed may obscure, such political or democratic outes of public service provision. McGuire (2020) discusses an example of a performancemonitoring framework that seems to take into account some of the lessons discussed before. This framework was developed for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) by the Productivity Commission to benchmark the performance in the education, health, housing, and munity services (available on the Inter at ).The framework is developed in cooperation with all governments in Australia. It discusses the limitations of performance indicators at length, as well as the plexity of measuring human service provision. It includes program and operational indicators, measuring both efficiency (output) and effectiveness (outes) along a number of different dimensions. Quantitative measures are bined with contextual analyses of the service systems. The COAG performance information is used by government agencies to assess performance and determine needs and resources. The framework improves the transparency of performance and accountability. However, this transparency also increases rather than resolves political conflict over the distributional consequences of providing public services (McGuire, 2020, p. 17). Because political conflict increases the opportunities for accountability, it should not necessarily be considered to be a negative consequence of performance assessment. Conclusion The increase in performance assessment in the public sector following the administrative reforms of the 1980s and 1990s has had several unintended consequences, threatening in sight into performance and performance itself. To counteract these consequences, performance assessment systems should take the 外文翻譯 稿和原稿 412 special characteristics of the public sector into account. The contested nature of performance indicators requires the use of multiple indicators, referring to different aspects of policy implementation (tangible and nontangible)and reflecting the interests of all stakeholders( politicians, managers, funders, providers, purchasers, and consumers).Moreover, a balance has to be found between too much and not enough measure pressure. The rise of a number of new monitoring mechanisms could prove helpful in the fight against unintended consequences like the performance paradox (cf. also Power, 1997). For instance, the Inter makes information on public sector performance accessible for everybody, increasing the risk for cheating executive agents to get caught. Second, Citizen Charters, the open government code of practice and new plaint procedures, increases the opportunities for unsatisfied customers to address illperforming organizations. These new, more horizontal forms of performance evaluation will supplement performance assessment systems in the public sector. Finally, academics should start to formulate and test theories that can explain the occurrence of a performance paradox and other perverse effects (see, ., Scott, 2020). More knowledge on organizational behavior and the influence of institutions and public sector characteristics on the use of performance indicators can help to truly achieve the projected advantages of performance indicators in the public domain.