Early attempts to encourage a results orientation within government
typically focused on the identification of performance measures at the
bureau or program level. The U.K. government’s Next Steps Initiative (NSI),
begun in 1988, is still one of the most advanced examples of a system of
bureau-based performance reporting.Under NSI, 130 agencies are required
to make annual public reports on their success in achieving performance targets.
The U.S. Government Performance and Results Act, adopted in 1993,
is mainly intended to establish a similar system of bureau-based performance
reporting within the U.S. federal government. Canada’s “business planning”
reforms and its Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, begun in
2 Alasdair Roberts
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1332067
1995, is yet another illustration of an attempt to encourage bureau-based
performance reporting within a national government. A large majority of
subnational governments in the United States and Canada have undertaken
similar initiatives (Melkers and Willoughby 1998).
A few governments have attempted to push the idea of performance
reporting even further. Their aim is to complement bureau-level performance
reports with a system of performance planning and report for government
as a whole. The concrete result that is aimed for is a governmentwide
performance plan that identifies specific measures of societal well-being that
are regarded as important, and assesses the effectiveness of government as a
whole in improving those measures. A legislative requirement to develop a
governmentwide performance plan was included in the U.S. Government
Performance and Results Act, and the Canadian government also committed
to the development of a governmentwide performance plan in 1995. A
handful of states and provinces are also experimenting with governmentwide
performance plans