Abstract
Why do frequently‐criticised input controls survive in the management of public spending while apparently more enlightened output/outcome controls come and go? The question matters, because output/outcome controls are often assumed in Public Financial Management and related literature to lead to superior policy performance as compared with input‐focused approaches. We tackle the question by applying qualitative push‐pull analysis to compare one key type of input controls (administration cost controls) with one much‐discussed form of output/outcome controls (performance targets linked to spending allocations) in one major country case, the UK, over two decades. Drawing on documents and in‐depth interviews with 120 key political and bureaucratic players, we conclude that bureaucratic inertia at most only partially explains the survival of input administration cost controls in this case. The push/pull factors associated with the politics of blame and credit made the political players fair‐weather output controllers but all‐weather input controllers.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.