Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 25-44

  Pollitt, Christopher ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645663318     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui045     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Batley, Richard, and George Larbey. 2004. The changing role of government: The reform of public services in developing countries. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.
2. Christensen, Tom, and Per Laegreid, eds. 2001. New Public Management: The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
3. De Bruijn, Hans. 2002. Managing performance in the public sector. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
4. Gains, Francesca. 1999. Understanding department - Next Steps agency relationships. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield.
5. _. 2004. Adapting the agency concept: Variations within "Next Steps." In Unbundled Government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation, ed. C. Pollitt and C. Talbot, 53-74. London: Taylor and Francis.
6. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Hogwood, Brian, David Judge, and Malcolm Me Vicar. 2000. Agencies and accountability. In Transforming British government, vol. 1: Changing institutions, ed. R. Rhodes. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
8. Holzer, Marc, and Kaifeng Yang. 2004. Performance measurement and improvement: An assessment of the state of the art. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70 (3): 15-31.
9. Ingraham, Patricia, Philip Joyce, and Amy Donahue. 2003. Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
10. Joustie, Heikki. 2001. Performance management in Finnish state administration. In Public management in Finland, 18-19. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.
11. Kaufman, Herbert. 1967. The forest ranger. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future.
12. Kettl, Don. 2000. The global public management revolution: A report on the transformation of governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
13. Kickert, Walter. 2000. Public governance in Europe: An international perspective. In Governance in modern society, ed. O. van Heffen, 223-55. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
14. Lewis, Derek. 1997. Hidden agendas: Politics, law and disorder. London: Hamish Hamilton.
15. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. London: Yale University Press.
16. _. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Governance forms and performance in 36 countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Lynn, Laurence, Carolyn Heinrich, and Carolyn Hill. 2001. Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
18. Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19. Mol, Nico, and Johan Kruijf. 2004. Performance management in Dutch central government. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70 (1): 33-50.
20. Molander, Per, Jan-Eric Nilsson, and Allen Schick. 2002. Does anyone govern? The relationship between the Government Office and the agencies in Sweden. Report from the SNS Constitutional Project. Stockholm: Center for Business and Policy Studies.
21. Mouritzen, Paul, and Jim Svara. 2002. Leadership at the apex: Politicians and administrators in western local governments. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
22. National Audit Office. 1998. Benefits Agency: Performance measurement.HC952. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
23. Office of Public Services Reform. 2002. Better government services: Executive agencies in the 21st century. Accessed March 9, 2002 at www.civilservice.gov.uk/improving_services/agencies_and_public_bodies/ publications/pdf/opsr-agencies.pdf.
24. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1997. In search of results: Performance management practices. Paris: Public Management Service/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
25. _. 1998. Budgeting in Sweden. Paris: Public Management Service/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
26. _. 2002. Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies. CCNM/GOV/PUBG(2002)2, 20 November. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Public Management Service.
27. Pierre, Jon. 2004. Central agencies in Sweden: A report from Utopia. In Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation, ed. C. Pollitt and C. Talbot, 203-14. London: Taylor and Francis.
28. Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependency and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251-67.
29. Pierson, Paul, and R. Kent Weaver. 1993. Imposing losses in pension policy. In Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad, ed. R. K. Weaver and B. A. Rockman, 110-50. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30. Pollitt, Christopher. 1986. Beyond the managerial model: The case for broadening performance assessment in government and the public services. Financial Accountability and Management 2(3): 155-70.
31. _. 2002. Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review 4 (1): 471-92.
32. _. 2003. The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press and McGraw Hill. Pollitt, Christopher, and
33. Geert Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Pollitt, Christopher, and Colin Talbot, eds. 2004. Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation. London: Taylor and Francis.
35. Pollitt, Christopher, Colin Talbot, Janice Caulfield, and Amanda Smullen. 2004. Agencies: how governments do things through semiautonomous organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
36. Smullen, Amanda. 2004. Lost in translation? Shifting interpretations of the concept of "agency": The Dutch case. In Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation, ed. C. Pollitt and C. Talbot, 184-202. London: Taylor and Francis.
37. Van Thiel, Sandra. 2004. Why politicians prefer quasi-autonomous organizations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16 (2): 175-201.
38. Weaver, R. Kent, and Bert Rockman, eds. 1993. Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
39. Whitley, Richard. 1988. The management sciences and management skills. Organization Studies 9 (1): 47-68.
40. _. 1989. On the nature of managerial tasks and skills: Their distinguishing characteristics and organization. Journal of Management Studies 26 (3): 209-24.
41. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
42. Wollman, Helmut. 1997. Modernization of the public section and public administration in the Federal Republic of Germany. In State and administration in Japan and Germany: A comparative perspective on continuity and change, ed. M. Murmatsu and F. Naschold. Berlin: de Gruyter.
43. Yesilkagit, Kutsal. 2004. Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands. Administration and Society 36 (5): 528-52.