Introduction

This chapter examines national indicators that attempt to measure performance in cohesion interventions. The importance of such an issue lies in the critical significance of performance management in what has been termed the ‘managerial state’, and which has been a key element of New Labour's approach to centralising control and devolving responsibility for delivery. On the one hand, such performance management systems seek to control the actions of delivery agencies; on the other hand, and as suggested by governmentality scholars, they represent processes of social construction as government creates and frames social realities through performance indicators (PIs), which often go on to inform future policy choices (Power, 1999; Stone, 2002). This chapter will engage with the literature on performance management, social identity and ‘place’, with the purpose of evaluating the impact of the on community cohesion performance management arrangements.

Performance management, identity and place

The ‘managerial state’ and rise of performance management

Notwithstanding its uneven and incomplete nature, neoliberal tendencies have been notably dominant within governing systems over the last 30 years. This has led to processes of privatisation and marketisation of public services, and the widespread but uneven adoption of principles of New Public Management (NPM), as well as the transition to what has been described as a ‘managerial state’, ‘regulatory state’ or ‘audit society’. There are differences between these perspectives but their broad argument states that the transition from hierarchical structures has been accompanied by the proliferation of state and quasi agencies at multiple geographical sites, decentralised responsibility for delivery to the private sector and civil society, and the growth in the importance of networks. Within such an environment the nation state has sought to implement new forms of control and management to ensure compliance from these heterogeneous bodies in the absence of trust, most notably through the enactment of the ‘audit society’ (Power, 1999). This involves the state working through formal regulations and regulatory bodies to control state and quasi-autonomous bodies, ensuring bureaucratic and political accountability, as well as utilising a range of auditing and performance management mechanisms. This is what Dean (1999, p 6) has termed the ‘governmentalization of government’, with the state folding back the ends of government upon its instruments. Within this framework, there is a belief that subjective reality can be verified and, through quantified rationalised decision-making frameworks, brought under control and surveillance (Talbot, 2008).