The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM
Abstract
This paper presents a challenge to public sector managers, policy-makers and interested academics. Drawing on the findings of previous international comparative studies of new public financial management (NPFM) reforms, it concludes that public services and their providers are caught in an ‘evaluatory trap’. The continual promotion of NPFM reforms, despite their evident repeated failure to meet specified achievements, is argued to be generating a cycle of ever-decreasing public services at ever-increasing costs per service unit. As the legitimacy of public services increasingly rests on the need to be seen as efficient and effective and as definitions of efficiency frequently demand adoption of the latest set of NPFM reforms, it follows that the future for public services is in question.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING REFORM: EVOLUTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION IN FLEMISH MUNICIPALITIES
Christiaens, J., & Van Peteghem, V. (2007) · Financial Accountability & Management · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2007.00434.x · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Olson, O., Humphrey, C., & Guthrie, J.
- Venue
- European Accounting Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 505-522
- ISSN
- 0963-8180 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4497
- OpenAlex
- W2159289141
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09638180126799
- The paper
- Olson, O., Humphrey, C., & Guthrie, J. (2001). Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM. European Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180126799
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
