The Design and Execution of Performance Management Systems at State Level: A Comparative Analysis of Italy and Malaysia

ABSTRACT

This comparative study analyses the experience of Italy and Malaysia in the design and execution of performance management systems at the state level. The article investigates how performance management systems have changed over the past decades, the motivations behind their metamorphoses, their common elements across the two countries, and what accounts for the respective progress. It also investigates the role that the institutional framework plays in making performance management systems robust. The study presents policy recommendations on how governments can create more robust performance management systems for enhanced accountability and transparency in an age of resource constraint.

Keywords:

• Institutions
• legislation
• public management reform
• performance management
• public administration paradigm

Notes

^1. As core activities of internal control, the legislator emphasized the following: “benchmarking costs and yields, monitoring the achievement of objectives and the proper and efficient allocation of public resources, and the evaluation over the fairness and value of administration.”

^2. To this end, it requires that each year—within April 10—the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) submits to the parliament an “Economic and Financial” document (DEF). This is a key step of the planning cycle. Referred to this document, an updating report must also be submitted each year to the parliament by the MEF, within September 20. Within October 15, each year, the government must then submit to the parliament a “stability law proposal,” as well as a law proposal for the approval of the state’s financial plan. The “stability law” outlines public finance policies adopted for the next 3 years by the Italian public sector (not only at state level).

^3. Disputes between political parties also have hindered progress in the area of system development and cultural change, and this has been exacerbated by the scarcity of public resources, due to the economic crisis and by the rigidity of current expenditures.

^4. According to the Act No.125/2013, the latter role has become the only one attributed to this Committee, whose name has been changed into “National Authority for Anti-corruption and Transparency in the Public Administration.”

^5. Treasury Circular No. 5: Federal Budget Estimates, 1969. (Kuala Lumpur: Budget Division, Treasury).

^6. Treasury Circular No. 11: Preparation of the 1990 Expenditure Proposals under the Modified Budgeting System (Kuala Lumpur: Budget Division, Treasury).

^7. Performance reporting is carried out yearly through the exception report. The exception report requires an agency to submit—by February of the following year—a report on all performance that are inconsistent with the targets set—under- or overachievement—reasons for the inconsistent performance and the action to be taken to remedy such performance to prevent its recurrence.

^8. Prime Minister’s Department (1992). Development Administration Circular No. 3/92: Guidelines on Micro Accounting System (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^9. Prime Minister’s Department (1991). Development Administration Circular No. 6/91: Guidelines on Productivity Improvement in the Public Sector (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^10. Prime Minister’s Department (1992). Development Administration Circular No. 1/92: Guidelines on Total Quality Management for the Public Service (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^11. Prime Minister’s Department (1993). Development Administration Circular No. 3/93: Guidelines on Clients’ Charter (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^12. Prime Minister’s Department (1996). Development Administration Circular No. 2/96: Guidelines on MS ISO 9000 (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^13. Prime Minister’s Department (1999). Development Administration Circular No. 1/99: Guidelines on Benchmarking (Kuala Lumpur: MAMPU).

^14. Prime Minister’s Department (2005). Development Administration Circular No. 2/05: Guidelines on Establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Implementing Performance Measurement in Government Agencies (Putrajaya: MAMPU).