METHODS FOR EVALUATING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Abstract

The assessment on the state administration is among the key ones questions on the modern publicly management, so as from quality on administrative structures depend as performance on public policies , as well as trust in institutions , sustainability on management processes and ability on the state yes reacts on public challenges . In the conditions on growing expectations for efficiency, transparency, accountability and orientation to the results, the need from reliable methods for evaluation on the administration becomes everything more significant.

In theory and practice are developed diverse approaches for measurement on administrative capacity and quality on management. Part from them is founded on matrices for assessment on the condition, others use key indicators for performance (KPI), and third you serve with proxy indicators for measurement on difficult observable phenomena, and fourth summarize multitude indicators in composite indexes. Each from these approaches there is own advantages, limitations and specifics areas on application. Therefore, the question it's not who method is universal best, and which one is most suitable for the specific research purpose and for the specific aspect on the public administration, which is evaluates. The goal on The current study is to do comparative review on the main ones methods for assessment on the state administration and yes show their analytical opportunities . For this one goal are considered four basic groups tools: dies for assessment on status, proxy indicators, KPIs and composites indexes. Except the theoretical review , included and attached to the study example through construction on approximate Bulgarian KPI Maturity Index, through which is illustrates the possibility for creation on own composite tool for assessment on specific characteristic on public governance . The results show that Bulgaria has a relatively good strategic and digital foundation, average quality of KPI construction, but weaker actual use of KPIs in governance and problematic accountability/transparency. The scientific contribution of the study lies in encouraging other researchers to apply similar methodology when assessing different aspects of public governance or other countries.