Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 169-186

  Gilmour, John B ^a   Lewis, David E ^b  

^a Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645146836     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muj002     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1993. Performance budgeting: State experiences and implications for the federal government. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2. _. 2004. Performance budgeting: Observations on the use of OMB's program assessment rating tool for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04174.pdf (accessed November 7, 2005).
3. Gilmour, John, and David E. Lewis. 2006a. Does performance budgeting work? An examination of OMB's PART scores. Public Administration Review, forthcoming.
4. _. 2006b. Political appointees and the competence of federal program management. American Politics Research, forthcoming.
5. Gruber, Amelia. 2003. OMB ratings have little impact on Hill budget decisions. Government Executive Magazine, 13 June. Available at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0603/061303al.htm (accessed November 22, 2005).
6. _. 2004a. Bush seeks $1 billion in cuts for subpar programs. Government Executive Magazine, 30 January.
7. _. 2004b. Program cuts figure into Bush plan to control deficit. Government Executive Magazine, 2 February.
8. _. 2004c. President and CEO: George W. Bush's ambitious management reform agenda is only beginning to show results. Government Executive Magazine, 15 July:36-46.
9. Joyce, Philip G. 1999. Performance-based budgeting. In Han dbook of Government Budgeting, ed. Roy T. Meyers, 597-619. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Key, V. O., Jr. 1940. The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review 34: 1137-44.
11. Knott, Jack, and Thomas Hammond. 1980. A zero-based look at zero-based budgeting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Books.
12. Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 1998. Requiring bureaucracies to perform: What have we learned from the U.S. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)? Working Paper, University of Chicago. Available at http://harrisschool.uchicago. edu/About/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_lynn.pdf (accessed November 7, 2005).
13. McCarty, Nolan. 2004. The appointments dilemma. American Journal of Political Science 48:413-428.
14. Melkers, Julia E., and Katherine G. Willoughby. 2001. Budgeters' view of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review 61:54-64.
15. Merton, Robert K. 1968. Bureaucratic structure and personality. In Social Theory and Social Structure, by R. K. Merton, 195-206. New York: Free Press.
16. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Performance and management assessments, budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2004. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
17. Wildavsky, Aaron B. 1975. Budgeting: A comparative theory of budgetary processes. Boston: Little, Brown.
18. Willoughby, Katherine G., and Julia E. Melkers. 2001. Assessing the impact of performance budgeting: A survey of American states. Government Finance Review 17:25-30.
19. _. 1998. The state of the states: performance-based budgeting systems in 47 of 50. Public Administration Review 58:66-73.
20. Ziegler, Mollie. 2004. Budget axe weeds out poor performers: 15 programs get the ax. Federal Times, 2 February.