ABSTRACT
Departments in the civil service in Singapore and the public service in New Zealand have developed a range of performance indicators for the key areas of performance measurement and have, in many cases, set yearly targets based on those indicators. The first part of this chapter considers, in light of the reforms in New Zealand and Singapore, the main types of performance measurement used, the arrangements under which performance measurement has been undertaken, and the incentives introduced within these arrangements to spur better performance. The second part discusses the limitations and drawbacks of performance measurement as a means for evaluating the work of the civil service or public service, which has become evident in the two countries. The main drawback with performance measurement in the public services, as experienced in New Zealand and Singapore, is that many of the outputs and outcomes of public services are not commensurable with precision and accuracy resulting in vague and overly general measures.
