New development: Parliamentary ‘watchdogs’ taking a higher profile on government programme performance and accountability?

Abstract

The ‘Holy Grail’ of decades of public sector reform has been the public availability of readily-understandable, reliable and meaningful performance information about government activities and programmes. Maps have been drawn; processes have been developed; some actual progress has been made in a number of countries; but the end is not in sight. Put simply, particularly in Westminster government-type systems, it remains the case, at least in broad terms, that the government is responsible for policy; the public service for administration and service delivery; and the parliament for oversight and review. In reality, the situation has become more complicated with the growth of the ‘information economy’, internationalization, the greater involvement of the private sector in government activities generally and changing public views and expectations of government, not least in respect of trust and confidence in politicians and public institutions. At the very least, it is still a situation of ‘work-in-progress’ trying to catch up with the changing national and international environment.

Keywords:

• Evaluation
• evidence-based policy-making and implementation
• programme assessment and performance
• public confidence and trust
• public sector reforms

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pat Barrett AO

Pat Barrett is a Distinguished Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and former Auditor-General of Australia.