Performance measurement in local economic development

Urban Affairs Review

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 646-672

  Lindblad, Mark Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Evaluation; Incentives; Policy adoption; Structure and agency

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING;

EID: 33645336044     PISSN: 10780874     EISSN: 15528332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1078087406286462     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aldrich, J. H., and F. D. Nelson. 1984. Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Edited by M. S. Lewis-Beck. Vol. 45, Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Ammons, D. N. 2001. Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Berman, E., and X. H. Wang. 2000. Performance measurement in US counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review 60 (5): 12
4. Bernstein, D. J. 2000. Local government performance measurement use: Assessing system quality and effects (Oregon, Virginia, Arizona, North Carolina). Ph.D. diss., School of Business and Public Management, George Washington University.
5. Bernstein, D. J. 2001. Local government measurement use to focus on performance and results. Evaluation and Program Planning 24 (1): 7
6. CFED. 2005. DevelopmentReportCard for the States. Available from http://cfed.org/publications/drc/drcdata2000.xls (accessed August 1, 2005).
7. de Lancer, Patria. 1997. Performance measures as knowledge and innovation: An elaborated model explaining utilization. Ph.D. diss., Public Administration, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
8. Epstein, Paul D. 1984. Using performance measurement in local government. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
9. Fleischmann, A., G. P. Green, and T. M. Kwong. 1991. What's a city to do? Explaining differences in local economic development policies. Western Political Quarterly 45 (3): 677-699.
10. Grassroots Policy Project, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, and Sustainable America. 1998. Public subsidies, public accountability: Holding corporations to labor and community standards. Washington, DC: Grassroots Policy Project.
11. Grizzle, Gloria A., and Carole D. Pettijohn. 2002. Implementing performance-based program budgeting: A system dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review 62 (1): 51-62.
12. Hall, John R. 1978. Factors related to local government use of performance measurement. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
13. Hammer, R. B., and G. P. Green. 1996. Local growth promotion: Policy adoption versus effort. Economic Development Quarterly 10 (4): 331-341.
14. Hatry, Harry P., and Donald M. Fisk. 1971. Improving productivity and productivity measurement in local governments. Washington, DC: National Commission on Productivity.
15. Iannone, Donald T., and Jean Spackman. 1999. An assessment of the costs, benefits, and overall impacts of the state of Ohio's economic development programs. Cleveland: Cleveland State University Urban Center.
16. Julnes, de Lancer P., and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review 61 (6): 693-708.
17. Ledebur, Larry C., and DouglasWoodward. 1990. Adding a stick to the carrot: Location incentives with clawbacks, recissions, and recalibrations. Economic Development Quarterly 4 (3): 221-237.
18. Lee, Robert D., and Robert C. Burns. 2000. Performance measurement in state budgeting: Advancement and backsliding from 1990 to 1995. Public budgeting and finance Spring: 38-53.
19. LeRoy, Greg. 1994. No more candy store: States and cities making job subsidies accountable. Chicago: Federation for Industrial Retention and Renewal and the Grassroots Policy Project.
20. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 2005. Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review 65 (2): 180-190.
21. Poister, T. H., and G. Streib. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59 (4): 11
22. Reese, L. A. 1997a. Local economic development policy: The United States and Canada. In ontemporary Urban Affairs edited by R. D. Bingham. New York: Garland Publishing.
23. Reese, L. A. 1997b. The use of planning methodologies in local economic development decisionmaking. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy 15 (3): 19-19.
24. Ridley, Clarence E., and Herbert A. Simon. 1943. Measuring municipal activities: A survey of suggested criteria for appraising administration. Chicago: International City Managers' Association.
25. Sullivan, D. M. 2002. Local governments as risk takers and risk reducers: An examination of business subsidies and subsidy controls. EconomicDevelopment Quarterly 16 (2): 115-126.
26. Sullivan, D. M., and G. P. Green. 1999. Business subsidies and municipal controls. Journal of Urban Affairs 21 (3): 267-280.
27. Wang, X. H., and E. Berman. 2001. Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: Findings from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11 (3): 25
28. Wolman, Harold, and David Spitzley. 1996. The politics of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly 10 (2): 115-150.