Benchmarking the financial performance of local councils in Ireland

Geraldine Robbins 1 , Gerard Turley 1 , and Stephen McNena 1
  • 1 J. E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, and Whitaker Institute for Innovation and Societal Change, NUI Galway


It was over a quarter of a century ago that information from the financial statements was used to benchmark the efficiency and effectiveness of local government in the US. With the global adoption of New Public Management ideas, benchmarking practice spread to the public sector and has been employed to drive reforms aimed at improving performance and, ultimately, service delivery and local outcomes. The manner in which local authorities in OECD countries compare and benchmark their performance varies widely. The methodology developed in this paper to rate the relative financial performance of Irish city and county councils is adapted from an earlier assessment tool used to measure the financial condition of small cities in the US. Using our financial performance framework and the financial data in the audited annual financial statements of Irish local councils, we calculate composite scores for each of the thirty-four local authorities for the years 2007–13. This paper contributes composite scores that measure the relative financial performance of local councils in Ireland, as well as a full set of yearly results for a seven-year period in which local governments witnessed significant changes in their financial health. The benchmarking exercise is useful in highlighting those councils that, in relative financial performance terms, are the best/worst performers.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73 (3), 453–72.

  • Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63 (5), 586–606.

  • Boedker, C., & Chua, W. F. (2013). Accounting as an affective technology: A study of circulation, agency and entrancement. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38 (4), 245–67.

  • Bowerman, M., Francis, G., Ball, A., & Fry, J. (2002). The evolution of benchmarking in UK local authorities. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9 (5), 429–49.

  • Boyle, R. (2000). Performance measurement in local government [CPMR discussion paper 15]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

  • Boyle, R. (2014). Public sector reform in Ireland: Views and experiences from senior executives [State of the Public Service Series, research paper no. 13]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

  • Brown, K. W. (1993). The 10-point test of financial condition: Towards an easy-to-use assessment tool for smaller cities. Government Finance Review, 9 (6), 21–6.

  • Brown, K. W. (1996). Trends in key ratios using the GFOA financial indicators database 1989–1993. Government Finance Review, 12 (6), 30–4.

  • Brusca, I., & Montesinos, V. (2006). Are citizens significant users of government financial information? Public Money and Management, 26 (4), 205–9.

  • Cabaleiro, R., Buch, E., & Vaamonde, A. (2013). Developing a method to assessing the municipal financial health. American Review of Public Administration, 43 (6), 729–51.

  • Carmeli, A. (2002). A conceptual and practical framework of measuring performance of local authorities in financial terms: Analysing the case of Israel. Local Government Studies, 28 (1), 21–36.

  • Chapman, C. (1997). Reflection on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22 (2), 189–205.

  • County and City Managers’ Association. (2013). Report to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Retrieved from [2 March 2016].

  • Department of Finance. (2010). EU/IMF programme of financial support for Ireland. Retrieved from [1 July 2015].

  • Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2011). Public service reform. Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

  • Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2015). Annual progress report on the public service reform plan 2014–16. Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

  • Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. (2012). Putting people first: Action programme for effective local government. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

  • Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (1996). Better local governmentA programme for change. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

  • Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (2008). Green paper on local government reform: Stonger local democracy – options for change. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

  • Espeland, W. N. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1), 1–40.

  • Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (2), 171–86.

  • Francis, G., & Holloway, J. (2007). What have we learned? Themes from the literature on best-practice benchmarking. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (3), 171–89.

  • Game, C. (2006). Comprehensive performance assessment in English local government. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55 (6), 466–79.

  • García-Sánchez, I. M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Frías-Aceituno, J. V., & Mordan, N. (2012). A new predictor of local financial distress. International Journal of Public Administration, 35 (11), 739–48.

  • Health Information and Quality Authority. (2013). Guidance on developing key performance indicators and minimum data sets to monitor healthcare quality. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority.

  • Hendrick, R. (2004). Assessing and measuring the fiscal heath of local governments. Urban Affairs Review, 40 (1), 78–114.

  • Hong, P., Hong, S. W., Roh, J. J., & Park, K. (2012). Evolving benchmarking practices: A review for research perspectives. Benchmarking, 19 (4), 444–62.

  • 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 & Management, 27 (2), 95–102.

  • Humphreys, P. (2002). Effective consultation with the external customer [CPMR discussion paper 23]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

  • Hyndman N., & McGeough, F. (2008). NPM and performance measurement: A comparative study of the public sectors in Ireland and the UK. Irish Accounting Review, 15 (2), 29–57.

  • Järvinen, J. (2009). Shifting NPM agendas and management accountants’ occupational identities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22 (8), 1,187–210.

  • Jordan, S., & Messner, M. (2012). Enabling control and the problem of incomplete performance indicators. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37 (7), 544–64.

  • Julnes, P. D. L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61 (6), 693–708.

  • Kleine, R., Kloha, P., & Weissert, C. S. (2003). Monitoring local government fiscal health: Michagan’s new 10-point scale of fiscal distress. Government Finance Review, 19 (3), 18–23.

  • Kloha, P., Weissert, C. S., & Kleine, R. (2005a). Developing and testing a composite model to predict local fiscal distress. Public Administration Review, 65 (3), 313–23.

  • Kloha, P., Weissert, C. S., & Kleine, R. (2005b). Someone to watch over me: State monitoring of local fiscal conditions. American Review of Public Administration, 35 (3), 236–55.

  • Knox, C. (2012). The reform of public administration in Northern Ireland: A squandered opportunity? Administration, 60 (1), 117–38.

  • Kuhlmann, S., & Jäkel, T. (2013). Competing, collaborating or controlling? Comparing benchmarking in European local government. Public Money and Management, 33 (4), 269–76.

  • Local Government Audit Service. (2014). Activity report. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

  • Local Government Efficiency Review Implementation Group. (2013). Further report to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

  • Magd, H., & Curry, A. (2003). Benchmarking: Achieving best value in public-sector organisations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 10 (3), 261–86.

  • Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (5), 870–99.

  • Martin, S., Downe, J., Grace, C., & Nutley, S. (2013). New development: All change? Performance assessment regimes in UK local government. Public Money & Management, 33 (4), 277–80.

  • McAteer, M., & Stephens, A. (2013). New development: The role of benchmarking in supporting improvement in local government – Scottish and Welsh practitioners’ perspectives. Public Money & Management, 33 (4), 281–4.

  • Mercer, T., & Gilbert, M. (1996). A financial condition index for Nova Scotia municipalities. Government Finance Review, 12 (5), 36–8.

  • Modell, S. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note. Financial Accountability & Management, 20 (1), 39–57.

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (4), 849–66.

  • Northcott, D., & Llewellyn, S. (2005). Benchmarking in UK health: A gap between policy and practice? Benchmarking, 12 (5), 419–35.

  • Nutley, S., Downe, J., Martin, S., & Grace, C. (2012). Policy transfer and convergence within the UK: The case of local government performance improvement regimes. Policy and Politics, 40 (2), 193–209.

  • Pidd, M. (2012). Measuring the performance of public services: Principles and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (1), 25–44.

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform – a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Putting People First – a summary. (2012, Autumn/Winter). Local Authority Times, 16 (3 & 4), 1–7.

  • Robbins, G., & Lapsley, I. (2005). NPM and the Irish public sector – From reluctant reformer to statutory codification. In J. Guthrie, C. Humphrey, O. Olson & L. Jones (Eds), International public financial management reform: Progress, contradictions and challenges. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

  • Robbins, G., & Lapsley, I. (2014). The success story of the Eurozone crisis? Ireland’s austerity measures. Public Money & Management, 34 (2), 91–8.

  • Robbins, G., Turley, G., & McNena, S. (2014). From boom to bust? The financial performance of city and county councils. Administration, 62 (1), 119–51.

  • Simon, H. A. (1937). Comparative statistics and the measurement of efficiency. National Municipal Review, 26, 524–7.

  • Trosa, S., & Williams, S. (1996). Performance measurement in government. Paris: OECD.

  • Turley, G., & Flannery, D. (2013). The impact of the economic boom and bust on local government budgets in Ireland. Administration, 61 (2), 33–56.

  • Turley, G., Robbins, G., & McNena, S. (2015). A framework to measure the financial performance of local governments. Local Government Studies, 41 (3), 401–20.

  • Wynn-Williams, K. L. H. (2005). Performance assessment and benchmarking in the public sector: An example from New Zealand. Benchmarking, 12 (5), 482–92.

  • Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: Then and now. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9 (3), 217–43.

  • Yetano, A. (2013). What drives the institutionalization of performance measurement and management in local government. Public Performance and Management Review, 37 (1), 59–86.

  • Zafra-Gómez, J. L., López-Hernández, A. M., & Hernández-Bastida, A. (2009a). Developing an alert system for local governments in financial crisis. Public Money & Management, 29 (3), 175–81.

  • Zafra-Gómez, J. L., López-Hernández, A. M., & Hernández-Bastida, A. (2009b). Evaluating financial performance in local government: Maximizing the benchmarking value. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75 (1), 151–67.


Journal + Issues