Citizen Perceptions and Informed Performance Measurement: Focus on the One-Window Service Offices in Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia

Bopha Khoem; Sivutha Onn; Sarom  Mok

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.6272

Bopha Khoem Preah Sihamoniraja Buddhist University, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Sivutha Onn Ministry of Civil Service, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Sarom Mok Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.6272

Keywords: Citizen Perceptions, Informed Performance Measurement, One-Window Service Offices, Cambodia

Abstract

The concepts of performance evaluation and citizen participation are fundamentally at odds with one another. Good governance and citizen input are important to district administration. Initiatives in this field are few because of the difficulties in integrating performance measurement with active citizen participation. This study examined district administration through the One-Window Services (OWSs) in Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia, utilizing a qualitative analysis to investigate the research issues. These services offered a rare chance to investigate whether citizen participation improves or impedes the ability to monitor district administration performance effectively. In the areas of organizational commitment and leadership, public management abilities, citizen participation, the use of performance measures, citizen outcomes, and organizational experience, the qualities required for implementing OWSs using Citizen Informed Performance Measurement (CIPM) that support democratic governance while maximizing efficiency. Three themes emerged from the study’s findings: (1) collaboration; (2) performance metrics; and (3) citizen perspective. The results showed that the most significant factor in performance measurement was the citizen perspective, which was followed by cooperation. There was less consensus regarding the impact of citizen participation in performance evaluation of certain programs and services. The study found that public management interpersonal skills, elected officials' commitment, shared decision-making with citizens, the use of performance measures for services continuous improvement, increased accountability to citizens, and prior experience of districts actively involving citizens are all essential components of a successful CIPM.

References

Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337-345.
Ammons, D. (1995). Accountability for performance: Measurement and monitoring in local government. Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Bouckaert, G. & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicator of "good governance": Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329-344.
Box, R., Marshall. G., Reed, B. & Reed, C. (2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608-626.
Callahan, K. (2007). Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability, and participation. Boca Raton: Auerbach Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. (3rd edition), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
De Lancer, J. & 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.
Downs, G., & Larkey, P. (1986). The search for government efficiency: From hubris to helplessness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Epstein, P., Coates, P., & Wray, L. (2006). Results That Matter. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative Methods in Social Research: McGraw-Hill.
Folz, D., Abdelrazek, R., & Chung Y. (2009). The adoption, use, and impacts of. performance measures in medium-size cities: Progress toward performance management. Public Performance & Management Review. 33(1), 63– 87.
Gibson, P., Lacy, D. & Dougherty, M. (2005). Improving performance and accountability in local government with citizen participation. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 10(1), 1-12.
Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Local government performance through the eyes of citizens. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12(1), 49-73.
Halachmi, A. & Holzer, M. (2011). Citizen participation and performance measurement: Operationalizing democracy through better accountability. Public Administration Quarterly, 34.3 (2011)
Ho, A. T.-K., & Coates, P. (2002). Citizen participation: Legitimizing performance measurement as a decision tool. Government Finance Review, 8-10.
Ho, A. T.-K., & Coates, P. (2004). Citizen involvement in performance measurement experience from the Iowa citizen-initiated performance assessment project. Paper
Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty- first century America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. presented at the EGPA 2004 Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Khoem, B., Mok, S., Onn, S., & Kao, B. (2026). The impact of district administration leadership characteristics on community resilience: Evidence from Kampong Thom provincial administration in Cambodia. Journal of Mathematics Instruction, Social Research and Opinion, 5(1), 929–948. https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i1.1303
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4).
Kinney, A.S. (2008). Current approaches to citizen involvement in performance measurement and questions they raise. National Civic Review. 97: 46-54. doi:10.1002/ncr.206.
Marshall, M., Wray, L., & Epstein, P. (1999). 21st century community focus: Better results by linking citizens, government, and performance measurement. Public Management, 81(10), 12-18.
Melkers, J. E., & Willoughby, K. G. (2001). Assessing the impact of performance budgeting: A survey of American states. Government Finance Review, 17(2), 25-30.
Ouk, S., Mok, S., & Chey, S. (2026). Leadership and good governance practices in the public sector: The case of district administration in Cambodia. Journal of Mathematics Instruction, Social Research and Opinion, 5(1), 841–862. https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i1.1283
Parr, J., & Gates, C. (1989). Assessing community interest and gathering community support in partnerships in local governance: Elective council-manager relations. Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Peters, B. G. ( 2001). The future of governing (2nd ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Poister, T., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325-335.
Poister, T. (2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass
Schneider, S. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Stillman, II, R. (1996). The American Bureaucracy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Terry, L. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administration Review. 58(3), 194-200.
Vinzant, J. & Vinzant D. (1996). Strategic management and total quality management: Challenges and choices. Public Administration Quarterly. 20(2), 201-219.
Wray, L. & Hauer, J. (1997). Performance measurement to achieve quality of life: Adding value through citizens. Public Management, 79, 4-5.
Yang, K. & Hsieh, J. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review,67(5), 861-980.
Yates, D. (1982). Bureaucratic democracy: The search for democracy and efficiency in
American government. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press.