Benchmarking the financial performance of local councils in Ireland

Open access


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) 1187–210.

  • 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 Studies50 (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 information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 594 276 7
PDF Downloads 308 157 6