Why and how do state governments adopt and implement "managing for results" reforms?

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 219-243

  Moynihan, Donald P ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844486966     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui012     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Aristigueta, Maria Pilar. 1999. Managing for results in state government. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
3. Ban, Carolyn. 1995. How do public managers manage? Bureaucratic constraints, organizational culture and the potential for reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Barzelay, Michael. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Brudney, Jeffrey L., F. Ted Hebert, and Deil S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59 (1): 19-30.
7. deLeon, Peter. 1999. The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation research. Policy Studies Review 16 (3): 311-38.
8. DiIulio, John, Jr. 1987. Governing prisons. New York: Free Press.
9. _. 1990. Managing a barbed-wire bureaucracy: The impossible job of corrections commissioner. In Impossible jobs in public management, ed. Edwin C. Hargrove and John C. Glidewell, 49-71. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
10. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Woody W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (4): 147-60.
11. Edelman, Murray. 1964. The symbolic uses of politics. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
12. Feldman, Martha S., and James G. March. 1981. Information as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly 26:171-86.
13. Franklin, Aimee L. 2000. An examination of bureaucratic reactions to institutional controls. Public Performance and Management Review 24 (1): 8-21.
14. Gahan, Celia, and Mike Hannibal. 1998. Doing qualitative research using QSR NUDIST. London: Sage.
15. Goodsell, Charles T. 1994. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
16. Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 2000. State and local government case studies and the effects of using performance measures for budgeting, managing and reporting. Available at http://www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/ case_studies.shtml.
17. Hou, Yilin, Sally C. Selden, Patricia W. Ingraham, and Stuart I. Bretschneider. 2000. Decentralization of human resource management: Driving forces and implications. Review of Public Personnel Administration 20 (4): 9-23.
18. Ingraham, Patricia W. 1993. Of pigs in pokes and policy diffusion: Another look at pay-for-performance. Public Administration Review 53 (4): 348-56.
19. Ingraham, Patricia W., Philip G. Joyce, and Amy K. Donahue. 2003. Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
20. Ingraham, Patricia W., and Donald P. Moynihan. 2001. Beyond measurement: Managing for results in state government. In Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government, ed. Dall Forsythe, 309-35. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
21. Ingraham, Patricia W., Jessica E. Sowa, and Donald P. Moynihan. Forthcoming. Public sector integrative leadership: Linking leadership to performance in public organizations. In The art of governance: Analyzing management and administration, ed. Patricia W. Ingraham and Laurence E. Lynn Jr, 152-70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22. Joyce, Philip O., and Susan Tompkins. 2002. Using performance information for budgeting: Clarifying the framework and investigating recent state experience. In Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government, ed. Kathryn Newcomer, Cheryl Broom Jennings, and Allen Lomax, 61-96. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
23. Kellough, J. Edward, and Haoran Lu. 1993. The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: Persistence of a problematic procedure. Review of Public Personnel Administration 13 (2): 45-64.
24. Kellough, J. Edward, and Sally C. Selden. 2003. The reinvention of public personnel administration: An analysis of the diffusion of personnel management reforms in the states. Public Administration Review 63 (2): 165-76.
25. Kingdon, John. 1984. Agenda, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
26. Lin, Ann Chih. 2000. Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Liner, Blaine, Harry Hatry, Elisa Vinson, Ryan Allen, Pat Dusenbery, Scott Byrant, and Ron Snell. 2001. Making results-based state government work. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/ UploadedPDF/results-based-stategovt.pdf.
28. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1983. Organizing political life: What administrative reform tells us about government. American Political Science Review 77 (2): 281-96.
29. _. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.
30. Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and public policy. New York: University Press of America.
31. Meier, Kenneth. 2000. Politics and the bureaucracy. 4th ed. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
32. Melkers, Julia E., and Katherine G. Willoughby. 1998. The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review 58 (1): 66-73.
33. _. 2001. Budgeters' views of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review 61 (1): 54-64.
34. Moe, Terry. 1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science 28:739-77.
35. Moynihan, Donald P. 2001. The sate of the states in MFR. Campbell Public Affairs Institute Working Paper. Available at http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/ pdfs/The_State_of_the_States_In_MFR.pdf.
36. _. Forthcoming a. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review.
37. _. Forthcoming b. Managing for results in an impossible job: Solution or symbol? International Journal of Public Administration.
38. _. Forthcoming c. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review.
39. Moynihan, Donald P., and Patricia W. Ingraham. 2003. Look for the silver lining: Managing for results in state government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 469-90.
40. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. 1997. A report on performance-based program budgeting in context: History and comparison. Tallahassee, FL: OPPAGA Report Production.
41. Osborne, David E., and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial government is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.
42. O'Toole, Larry. 2000. Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 263-88.
43. Overman, E. S., and K. J. Boyd. 1994. Best practice research and postbureaucratic reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4 (1): 67-83.
44. Pressman, Jeffery L., and Aaron Wildavksy. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45. Radin, Beryl A. 2000. The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes. Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory 10(1): 111-35.
46. Ragin, Charles. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
47. Schick, Allen. 1999. Opportunity, strategy, and tactics in reforming public management. Paper presented at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Symposium, "Government of the Future: Getting from Here to There," Paris, 14-15 September.
48. Selden, Sally C., Patricia W. Ingraham, and Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human resources practices in state government: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review 61 (5): 598-607.
49. Siegelman, Don. 2000. Achieve: Achieving accountability for Alabama. Montgomery, AL: Government Printing Press.
50. Snell, Ron, and Jennifer Grooters. 2000. Governing-for-results: Legislation in the states. A report to the Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/results-based-stategovtpdf.
51. Thompson, Fred. 1994. Mission-driven, results-oriented budgeting: Fiscal administration and the New Public Management. Public Budgeting and Finance 14 (3): 90-105.
52. Walters, Jonathan. 2000. Raising Alabama. Governing, October: 28-33.
53. Weaver, R. Kent, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. 1993. Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
54. Wildavsky, Aaron, and Naomi Caiden. 2003. The new politics of the budgetary process. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
55. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
56. Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.