"At the heart of the notion of ‘performance paradox’, thus, is the baffling observation that measures such as the imposition of targets, performance management, evidence-based policy-making, pressures to evaluate the extent to which arts project have the socio-economic impact that policy makers presume they do - or in other words a whole range of measures introduced with the aim to improve transparency and accountability in the public sector - might have resulted, in reality, in more bullshit being produced and injected in public discourses around policies for the cultural sector, and in opaque political messages amounting to little more than doublespeak."It is widely observed that means-testing and other ways of assessing tax / benefit outcomes simply encourage gaming and dishonesty (this is one of the arguments for the Citizens' Basic Income - an idea that seems good in principle but one that currently lacks an accompanying implementation manual).
Surely the same is true of bureaucracies and politicians? They have to answer for outcomes. If they are micromanaged and subject to extraordinary demands for accountability and transparency, they will simply 'game' the system or circumvent it.
And they will often get caught doing so.
And when this happens, everyone will throw up their hands in despair at how terrible politicians are.
The thing that a lot of transparency campaigners don't seem to have understood is that this is the desired outcome on the libertarian right - where many of these demands for transparency emanate.