The political economy of results-oriented management in the "neoadministrative state" lessons from the MCDHHS experience

American Review of Public Administration

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 307-331

  Durant, Robert F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008645076     PISSN: 02750740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/02750749922064454     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ammons, D. N. (Ed.). (1995). Accountability for performance: Measurement and monitoring in local government. Washington, DC: International City/Council Management Association.
2. Ammons, D. N. (1996). Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Berman, E. M. (1998). Productivity in public and nonprofit organizations: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Brudney, J. F., Hebert, T., & Wright, D. S. (1999). Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 19-30.
5. Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Campbell, M. D. (1994). Building results: New tools for an age of discovery in government. Washington, DC: Council of Governors' Policy Advisors.
7. Champy, J. (1996). Reengineering management: The mandate for new leadership. New York: HarperBusiness.
8. Cohen, S., & Brand, R. (1993). Total quality management in government: A practical guide for the real world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Denhardt, R. B. (1993). The pursuit of significance. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
10. Dennis, S. T. (1998a). Council Dems see mandate. Retrieved November 6, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gazette.net/campaign98/html/mandate11698.html
11. Dennis, S. T. (1998b). Duncan's schedule. Retrieved August 28, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gazette.net/campaign98/html/duncanschedule82898.html
12. Department of Health and Human Services, Montgomery County, Maryland, (1996, March). Service integration status report. Montgomery County, MD: Author.
13. Department of Health and Human Services, Montgomery County, Maryland. (1996). Developing an outcomes measurement system for health and human services. Montgomery County, MD: Author.
14. Durant R F. (1998). Agenda setting, the "Third Wave," and the administrative state. Administration & Society, 30(3), 211-247.
15. Durant, R. F. (in press). Politics, paradox, and the "ecology" of public administration: Challenges, choices, and opportunities for a new century. In K. T. Liou (Ed.), Handbook of public management practice and reform. New York: Marcel Dekker.
16. Durant, R. F., & Diehl, P. F. (1989). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy: Lessons from the U.S. foreign policy arena. Journal of Public Policy, 9, 179-205.
17. Durant, R. F., Lyons, W., & Fitzgerald, M. R. (1989). Urban culture, service provision, and fiscal strain: The municipal reform movement revisited. In T. Clark (Ed.), Research in urban policy: Decisions on urban dollars. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
18. Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping: Reversible logic in the analysis of public policy. In K. Hanf & T.A.J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems: Questions of analysis and design (pp. 33-70). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijnoff.
19. Fiester, L. (1993, June 17). Community partnerships helping county to fill needs. The Washington Post, p. M1.
20. Foreman, C. H., Jr. (1988). Signals from the hill: Congressional oversight and the challenge of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O-M., Lester, J. P., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.
22. Golembiewski, R. T. (1969). Organization development in public agencies: Perspectives on theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 29, 367-368.
23. Golembiewski, R. T. (1985). Humanizing public organizations. Mount Airy, MD: Lomond.
24. Golembiewski, R. T. (1987). Public sector organization: Why theory and practice should emphasize purpose, and how to do so? In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 433-474). New York: Free Press.
25. Government Performance Project. (1999). Managing for results: 50-state average grade: C+. (http:// www.governing.com/gp9man.htm).
26. Greiner, L. E. (1967). Patterns of organizational change. Harvard Business Review, 45, 119-128.
27. Grifel, S. S. (1994, September). Organizational culture: Its importance in performance measurement. Public Management, pp. S19-S20.
28. Halachami, A., & Bouchaert, G. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational performance and measurement in the public sector: Toward service, effort, and accomplishment reporting. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
29. Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering. New York: HarperBusiness.
30. Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. A. (1995). The reengineering revolution. New York: HarperBusiness.
31. Holzer, M., & Callahan, K. (1998). Government at work: Best practices and model programs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Jeter, J., & Kevine, S. (1997, May 2). Montgomery agency handled boy's case correctly. The Washington Post, p. B1.
33. Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
34. Kettl, D. F. (1997, May 5). Reinventing government: Past, present, but is there a future? Lecture, University of Baltimore.
35. Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
36. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
37. Light, P. C. (1999). The true size of government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
38. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65, 545-601.
39. Mani, B. G. (1995). Old wine in new bottles tastes better: A case study of TQM implementation in the IRS. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 147-158.
40. Milward, H. B. (1994). Implications of contracting out: New roles for the hollow state. In P. W. Ingraham, B. S. Romzek, & Associates (Eds.), New paradigms for government (pp. 41-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Murphey, D. (1999). Presenting community-level data in an "outcomes and indicators" framework: Lessons from Vermont's experience. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 76-82.
42. O'Leary, R., Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & Weiland, P. S. (1999). Managing for the environment: Understanding the legal, organizational, and policy challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43. Peters, B. G. (1996). Governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
44. Popovich, M. (1998). Creating high-performance government organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. Rainey, G. H., & Rainey, H. G. (1986). Breaching the hierarchical imperative: The modularization of the social security claims process. In D. J. Calista (Ed.), Bureaucratic and governmental reform. Greenwich, CT: JAI Research Annual in Public Policy Analysis and Management.
46. Rainey, H. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. Robertson, P. J., & Seneviratne, S. J. (1995). Outcomes of planned organizational change in the public sector: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 547-558.
48. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1995, Spring). The context of management reforms. Public Manager.
49. Rosenbloom, D. H., & Ross, B. H. (1994). Administrative theory, political power, and government reform. In P. W. Ingraham, B. S. Romzek, and Associates (Eds.), New paradigms for government (pp. 145-167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50. Seidman, H., & Gilmour, R. (1986). Politics, position, and power. New York: Little, Brown.
51. Southern Growth Policies Board and the Southern Consortium of University Public Service Organizations. (1996). Results-oriented government: A guide to strategic planning and performance measurement in the public sector. Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
52. Stoker, R. P. (1989). A regime framework for implementation analysis: Cooperation and reconciliation of federalist imperatives. Policy Studies Review, 9(1), 29-49.
53. U.S. General Accounting Office. (U.S. GAO). (1992, May). Program performance measures: Federal agency collection and use of performance data. (GAO/GGD-92-65), May.
54. U.S. General Accounting Office. (U.S. GAO). (1995, June). Managing for results: Critical actions for measuring performance. (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-187).
55. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996, June). Executive guide: Effectively implementing the government performance and results act. (GAO/GGD-96-118).
56. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronald Press.
57. Wamsley, G., & Zald, M. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Lexington, MA: Heath.
58. Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K.E. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
59. Wholey, J. S., & Newcomer, K. E. (1989). Improving government performance: Evaluation strategies for strengthening public agencies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.