Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T00:09:12.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Knowledge from inspection: external oversight and information to improve performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Steve Martin
Edited by
Kieran Walshe ,
Gill Harvey  and
Pauline Jas
Steve Martin
Affiliation:
Cardiff Business School
Kieran Walshe
Affiliation:
Manchester University
Gill Harvey
Affiliation:
Manchester University
Pauline Jas
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the role that inspection plays in the creation and consumption of knowledge about the performance of public services. It first defines public services inspection. Section two then analyses the increasing importance of inspection in the management of public services. Section three considers theories of inspection. The fourth section explores the different kinds of knowledge generated by inspection and the uses to which this is put by policy-makers, practitioners and the public. The final section identifies some implications for future policy and research.

What is public services inspection?

In most Western democracies local public services are subject to a variety of external oversight mechanisms. They are usually governed by legal duties and constraints and often subject to central government plans and directives. Their performance is usually overseen by local politicians through a range of formal and informal processes. Consumer organisations, the voluntary sector and community groups all scrutinise performance, as do the press and broadcast media, often by highlighting service failures. And the public can express views about the state of public services through the ballot box. The varied nature of these oversight mechanisms is reflected in the academic literature. Terms such as regulation, scrutiny and inspection are defined in different ways by different scholars and they are often used interchangeably in policy debates. So before focusing specifically on the role of inspection it is important to define terms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public Services
From Knowing to Doing
 , pp. 16 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,Accounts Commission (2004). Holding to Account, Helping to Improve: Strategic Statement for Public Audit in Scotland 2004–06. Edinburgh: Accounts Commission.Google Scholar
Andrews, R. (2004). ‘Analysing Deprivation and Local Authority Performance: The Implications for CPA’, Public Money and Management 24: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, R. and Martin, S. (2007). ‘Has Devolution Improved Public Services?’, Public Money and Management 27: 149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, R., Boyne, G., Law, J. and Walker, R. (2005). ‘External Constraints on Local Service Standards: The Case of Comprehensive Performance Assessment in English Local Government’, Public Administration 83: 639–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Audit Commission (2001). Changing Gear: Best Value Annual Statement 2001. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Commission, Audit (2009). Final Score: The Impact of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of Local Government 2002–08. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. and Cave, M. (1999). Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, M. (2007). Instruction to Deliver: Tony Blair, Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets. London: Politico's Publishing.Google Scholar
Barzelay, M. (1997). ‘Central Audit Institutions and Performance Auditing: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Strategies in the OECD’, Governance 10: 235–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, J. (2006). Central Governments' Policy Approaches towards Local Government on the Issues of Performance and Cost-Effectiveness. Brussels: Council of European Municipalities.Google Scholar
Boyne, G., Day, P. and Walker, R. (2002). ‘The Evaluation of Public Service Inspection: A Theoretical Framework’, Urban Studies 39: 1197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brimblecombe, N., Ormston, M. and Shaw, M. (1996). ‘Teachers’ Perceptions of Inspection', in Earley, P., Fidler, B. and Ousten, J. (eds.), Improvement through Inspection: Complementary Approaches to School Development. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
Bundred, S. (2005). ‘Regulating Reformed Services’, in M. Bichard and C. Grace (eds.), Perspectives on the Third Term: The Way Ahead. London: Solace Foundation Imprint.Google Scholar
Bundred, S. and Grace, C.(2008). ‘Holistic Approaches to UK Public Services Regulation’, in Davis, H. and Martin, S. J. (eds.), Public Services Inspection. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Byatt, I. and Lyons, M.(2001). The Role of External Review in Improving Performance. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
,Cabinet Office (2006). The UK Government's Approach to Public Service Reform: A Discussion Paper. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. (2008). ‘Performance Paradoxes: The Politics of Evaluation in Public Services’, in Davis, H. and Martin, S. J. (eds.), Public Services Inspection. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 120–34.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997). The Managerial State. London: Sage.Google Scholar
,Commission for Health Improvement (2004). A Commentary on Star Rating 2002/2003. London: CHI.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (2000). ‘The Demise of Professional Self-regulation: A Moment to Mourn?’, in Clarke, J., Gerwitz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (eds.), New Managerialism, New Welfare?London: Sage.Google Scholar
Davis, H. and Martin, S. (2008). Public Services Inspection in the UK. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Downe, J. and Martin, S. (2006). ‘Joined Up Policy in Practice? The Coherence and Impacts of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda’, Local Government Studies 32: 465–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, L. and Skaerbaek, P. (2007). ‘Performance Auditing and the Modernization of the Public Sector’, Financial Accountability and Management 23: 239–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, S. ( 2007). ‘Ontario's Performance Improvement Regimes’, in Solace Foundation Imprint, July. London: Solace Foundation, pp. 72–4.Google Scholar
Fouchet, R. and Guenoun, M. (2007). ‘Performance Management in Intermunicipal Authorities’, International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management 1: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, C. (2005). ‘Change and Improvement in Audit and Inspection: A Strategic Approach for the 21st Century’, Local Government Studies 31: 575–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, W. N. (1999). ‘Improvement or Control? A US View of English Inspection’, in Cullingford, C. (ed.), An Inspector Calls – OFSTED and its Effect on School Standards. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Haubrich, D. and McLean, I. (2006). ‘Evaluating the Performance of Local Government: A Comparison of the Assessment Regimes in England, Scotland and Wales’, Policy Studies 27: 271–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, F. and Tops, P. (2003). ‘Local Public Management Reforms in the Netherlands: Fads, Fashions and Winds of Change’, Public Administration 81: 301–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggett, P. (1996). ‘New Modes of Control in the Public Service’, Public Administration 74: 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2007). ‘Public Service Management by Numbers: Why Does it Vary? Where Has it Come From? What are the Gaps and the Puzzles?’, Public Money and Management 27: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. and Peters, G. (2004). ‘The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. and Scott, C. (1996). ‘Bureaucratic Regulation and New Public Management in the United Kingdom: Mirror-image Developments?’, Journal of Law and Society 23: 321–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C., James, O. and Scott, C. (2000). ‘Regulation Inside Government: Has it Increased, Is it Increasing, Should it be Diminished?’, Public Administration 78: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C., Rothstein, H. and Baldwin, R.(2001). The Government of Risk. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C., Scott, C., James, O., Jones, G. and Travers, T. (1999). Regulation Inside Government. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G., Mears, R. and Winch, C. (1997). ‘An Inspector Calls? Regulation and Account-ability in Three Public Services’, Policy and Politics 25: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R. and Goddard, M. (2007). ‘How Do Performance Indicators Add up? An Examination of Composite Indicators in Public Services’, Public Money and Management 27: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. (2000). ‘Regulation Inside Government: Public Interest Justifications and Regulatory Failures’, Public Administration 78: 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. and John, P. (2007). ‘Public Management at the Ballot Box: Performance Information and Electoral Support for Incumbent English Local Governments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17: 567–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. (2008). ‘Inspection of Education and Skills’, in Davis, H. and Martin, S., pp. 55–70.
Martin, S. (2004). ‘The Changing Face of Public Inspection’, Public Money and Management 24: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. (2008). The State of Local Services. London: Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Martin, S. (2010). ‘Regulation and Public Service Improvement’, in Ashworth, R., Boyne, G. and Entwistle, T. (eds.), Theories of Public Service Improvement. Oxford University Press, pp. 36–59.Google Scholar
McLean, I., Haubrich, D. and Gutierrez-Romero, R. (2007). ‘The Perils and Pitfalls of Performance Measurement: The CPA Regime for Local Authorities in England’, Public Money and Management 27: 111–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midwinter, A. and McGarvey, N. (2001). ‘In Search of the Regulatory State: Evidence from Scotland’, Public Administration 79: 825–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (1998). ‘Managerialism and Social Welfare’, in Hughes, G. and Lewis, G. (eds.), Unsettling Welfare: The Reconstruction of Social Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. (2002). A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
,OPSR (2003). Inspecting for Improvement. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Platt, D. (2005). ‘The Role of Social Care Inspection’, Paper presented to the ESRC Seminar Series on: The Development of Scrutiny across the UK, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. ((2003). ‘Performance Auditing in Western Europe: Trends and Choices’, Critical Perspectives in Accounting 14: 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. (1994). The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Power, M. (2003). ‘Evaluating the Audit Explosion’, Law and Policy 25: 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, J. (2008). ‘Inspection and the Criminal Justice Agencies’, in Davis, H. and Martin, S., pp. 91–105.
Reichard, C. (2003). ‘Local Public Management Reforms in Germany’, Public Administration 81: 345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G. ( 1981). Inspectorates in British Government. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2000). ‘Research and Inspection: HMI and Ofsted, 1981–1996 – A Commentary’, Oxford Review of Education 26: 333–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1972). A Brief Guide to Social Legislation. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (2007). ‘Improving Performance – A European Perspective’, in Solace Foundation Imprint, July. London: Solace Foundation, pp. 65–7.Google Scholar
,The Stationery Office (1999). Modernising Government. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Weiner, G. (2002). ‘Auditing Failure: Moral Competence and School Effectiveness’, BritishEducational Research Journal 28: 789–804.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×