Performance evaluation, public management improvement and democratic accountability: Some lessons from Latin America

Public Management Review

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 229-251

  Ospina, Sonia ^a   Grau, Nuria Cunill ^b   Zaltsman, Ariel ^c  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo CLAD   (Venezuela)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Latin America; Management improvement; New public management; Performance evaluation; Representative democracy; Results oriented management reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 26844472432     PISSN: 14719037     EISSN: 14719045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1471903042000189119     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Arellano-Gault, D., Ramón Gil, J., Ramírez Macias J., and Rojano, A. (2000) Nueva Gerencia Publica enacción: Procesos de Modernización Presupuestal. Un Análisis Inicial en Terminos Organizativos (Nueva Zelanda, Reino Unido, Australia y México). Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 17: June pp. 9-44. Caracas, Venezuela.
2. Arellano-Gault, D. and Ramírez Macias, J. J. (2000) Presupuesto Dirigido a Resultados: Los Dilemas de la Evaluacion por Desempeño en Contextos Latinoamericanos. Lecciones desde México. Paper presented at Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 24-27 October. Available at http://www.clad.org.ve/siare/biblo/biblo_a.html.
3. Armijo, M. (2003) La Evaluacion de la Gestion Publica en Chile in N. C. Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluación de Resultados para úna Gestión Pública Moderna y Democrática: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
4. Behn, R. D. (1998) The New Public Management Paradigm and the Search for Democratic Accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1: 2 pp. 131-64.
5. Behn, R. D. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
6. Borgman, A. (1992) Crossing the Postmodern Divide, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. Borins, S. (1998) Lessons from the New Public Management in Commonwealth Nations. International Public Management Journal, 1: 1 pp. 37-58.
8. Box, R. C., Marshall, G. S., Reed, B. J. and Reed, C. M. (2001) New Public Management and Substantive Democracy. Public Administration Review, 61: 5 pp. 608-19.
9. Boyne, G., Gould-Williams, J., Law, J. and Walker, R. (2002) Plans, Performance Information and Accountability: The Case of Best Value. Public Administration, 80: 4 pp. 691-710.
10. Brudney, J. L., Hebert, F. T. and Wright, D. S. (1999) Reinventing Government in the American States: Measuring and Explaining Administrative Reform. Public Administration Review, 59: 1 pp. 19-30.
11. Caiden, G. E. and Caiden, N. J. (c. 1997) Approaches and Guidelines for Monitoring, Measuring and Evaluating Performance in Public Sector Programs. Presented at the Conference on Modernization of the State, organized by Development Alternatives, Inc., Washington, DC.
12. CEPAL (1998) El Pacto Fiscal: Fortalezas, Debilidades, Desafíos, Chile: Comision Economica para America Latina y el Caribe, Naciones Unidas.
13. CLAD (2000) La Responsabilizacion (Accountability) en la Nueva Gestion Publica Latinoamericana in CLAD (ed.) La Responsabilización en la Nueva Gestión Publica Latinoamericana. Buenos Aires: CLAD-BID-Eudeba.
14. Cunill Grau, N. and Ospina Bozzi, S. (2003a) Una Agenda de Investigation sobre la Evaluacion de los Resultados de la Gestion Publica in N. Cunill Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluación de Resultados para una Gestión Publica Moderna y Democratica: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
15. Cunill Grau, N. and Ospina Bozzi, S. (2003b) La Evaluacion de los Resultados de la Gestion Publica: Unaherramienta Técnica y Política in N. Cunill Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluation de Resultados para una Gestion Publica Moderna y Democratica: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
16. De Lancer Julnes, P. and 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 pp. 693-708.
17. DeLeon, L. and Denhardt, R. B. (2000) The Political Theory of Reinvention. Public Administration Review, 60: 2 pp. 89-97.
18. Divorski, S. (1998) Evaluation in the Federal Government of Canada in Keith Mackay (ed.) Public Sector Performance: The Critical Role of Evaluation. Selected Proceedings form a World Bank Seminar, Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
19. Dos Santos, L. A. and Dos Santos Cardoso, R. L. (2001) Avaliable de Desempenho da A^ao Governamental no Brasil: Problemas e Perspectivas. Primer Premio XV Concurso de Ensayos del CLAD Control y Evaluation del Desempeño Gubernamental, Caracas. Available at http://www.clad.org.ve/siare/biblo/biblo_a.html.
20. Freijido, E. (2003) El Sistema de Evaluación de la Gestión Publica por Resultados en Uruguay in N. Cunill Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluation de Resultados para una Gestión Publica Moderna y Democrática: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
21. Glynn, J. J. and Murphy, M. P. (1996) Public Management: Failing Accountabilities and Failing Performance Review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9: 5/6 pp. 125-37.
22. Hood, C. (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons?. Public Administration, 69: Spring pp. 3-19.
23. Hyndman, N. S. and Eden, R. (2002) Executive Agencies, Performance Targets and External Reporting. Public Money and Management, 22: 3 pp. 17-24.
24. Kettl, D. F. (1995) Building Lasting Reform: Enduring Questions, Missing Answers in D. F. Kettl and J. J. DiIulio (eds) Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising Government Reform, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
25. Kettl, D. F. (1997) The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16: 3 pp. 446-62.
26. Kettl, D. F. (2000) The Global Public Management Revolution, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27. Lin, A. C. (1998) Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26: 1 pp. 162-80.
28. Mackay, K. (1998a) Editors Preface in K. Mackay (ed.) Public Sector Performance: The Critical Role of Evaluation. Selected Proceedings from a World Bank Seminar, Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
29. Mackay, K. (1998b) The Development of Australias Evaluation System in K. Mackay (ed.) Public Sector Performance: The Critical Role of Evaluation. Selected Proceedings from a World Bank Seminar, Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
30. Mawhood, C. (1997) Performance Measurement in the United Kingdom (1985-1995) in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31. Moore, M. H. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Mora Quiros, M. (2000) Responsabilizacion por el Control de Resultados in CLAD (ed.) La Responsabilización en la Nueva Gestión Publica Latinoamericana, Buenos Aires: CLAD-BID-Eudeba.
33. Mora Quiros, M. (2003) El Sistema Nacional de Evaluacion de Costa Rica in N. Cunill Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluation de Resultados para una Gestion Publica Moderna y Democratica: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
34. Moynihan, D. P. (2002) Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Dallas, TX, 7-9 November.
35. Neirotti, N. (2001) La Funcion de Evaluacion de Programas Sociales en Chile, Brasil y Argentina. Paper presented at the VI Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administration Publica, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5-9 November. Available at http://www.clad.org.ve/siare/biblo/biblo_a.html.
36. Norman, R. (2002) Rethinking the Thermostat: Paradoxes and a Pendulum Swing in the Performance
37. Management Systems of New Zealands Public Sector. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Dallas, TX, 7-9 November.
38. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39. Ospina Bozzi, S. (2001) Evaluation de la Gestion Publica: Conceptos y Aplicaciones en el CasoLatinoamericano. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 19: February pp. 89-122. Caracas, Venezuela.
40. Ospina Bozzi, S. and Ochoa, D. (2003) El Sistema Nacional de Evaluacion de Resultados de la Gestion Publica (SINERGIA) de Colombia in N. Cunill Grau and S. Ospina Bozzi (eds) Evaluacióon de Resultados para una Gestion Publica Moderna y Democmtica: Experiencias Latinoamericanas. Caracas: CLAD, AECI/MAP/FIIAPP.
41. Ramos Torres, D. (2001) Nueva Estructura Programaticay Sistema de Evaluacion al Desempeño: Elementos Claves para la Transparencia y Mejores Resultados con el Presupuesto Publico, México: Centro de Estudios para las Decisiones.
42. Richardson, R. (2001) Responsabilizacion Política y Gerencia del Desempeño del Sector Publico: Examinando Vínculos y Lecciones. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 19: February pp. 163-92. Caracas, Venezuela.
43. Rist, R. C. (1990) Program Evaluation and the Management of Government: Patterns and Prospects across Eight Nations, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
44. Schick, A. (1998) Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand Reforms. The World Bank Research Observer, 13: 1 pp. 123-31.
45. Smith, D. C. and Barnes, R. A. (1998) Making Management Count: Toward Theory-Based Performance
46. Management. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Research Conference Association for Public Policy and Management, New York, October 29-31.
47. State Services Commission (1999) Improving Accountability: Setting the Scene. Occasional Paper No 10. Available at http://www.ssc.govt.nz.
48. Thoenig, J.-C. (1999) Evaluation as Usable Knowledge for Public Management Reforms, PUMA/SGF (99)6.
49. US General Accounting Office (1995) Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/GGD-95-120, Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
50. US General Accounting Office (1997) The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109, Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
51. US General Accounting Office (2001) Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. Request for Views. GAO-01-1084SP, Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
52. US General Accounting Office (2002a) Managing for Results: Agency Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budgets and Financial Statements. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, US Senate. GAO-02-236, Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
53. US General Accounting Office (2002b) Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries Performance Management Initiatives. Report to Congressional Subcommittees. GAO-02-862, Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office.
54. Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, New York: Basic Books.
55. Wise, L. R. (2002) Public Management Reform: Competing Drivers of Change. Public Administration Review, 62: 5 pp 555-67.