ABSTRACT
A central tenet of the evidence movement is that enhanced information on the performance of public services, by initiatives such as above, and in particular through greater use of randomized trials and systematic reviews, will lead to more informed political decision making. But are politicians using this evidence? An OECD (2007) overview found that of 32 countries surveyed, in only six cases was it reported that the legislature is involved in monitoring progress against performance measures. Similarly, again in only six countries was it reported that the legislature applies performance results in resource allocation and/or program or
policy decisions. Pollitt (2006) in a review of the use of performance information by politicians and citizens further notes that:
This picture is further corroborated by Johnson and Talbot (2007), who undertook a review of UK parliamentary select committee scrutiny of Public Service Agreements (PSAs, high level output, and outcome focused targets). They found that departmental select committees scrutinize only a small proportion of PSA targets, and that those that are scrutinized are often only touched on lightly in the course of discussion and debate. They conclude:
Nor is this limited use of evaluative evidence on performance by politicians restricted to Anglo Saxon experience. Bogt (2004) carried out research amongst Dutch local government politicians (aldermen), and found that the majority of aldermen see limited value in the outputoriented performance information available to them. They prefer meetings and consultations with civil servants as a means of communicating and receiving evidence: “In general, all aldermen seemed to prefer rich, verbal information to sources of written information probably because they work in a relatively complex and uncertain political environment” (Bogt, 2004, p. 241).
