Performance Information for Democracy: The Missing Link?

Evaluation

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 38-55

  Pollitt, Christopher ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

citizens; evaluation; performance information; politicians

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747080793     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389006064191     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. BBC News (1999) ‘UK Politics: Government Puts Gloss on its Goals’, 26 July (http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/403993.stm, accessed 13 Oct. 2004).
2. BBC News (2000) ‘Annual Report: A Hostage to Fortune?’, 13 July (http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/831585.stm, accessed 13 Oct. 2004).
3. Behn, R. (2003) ‘Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures’, Public Administration Review 63(5): 586–606.
4. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L. (1989) ‘Dutch Experience in the Utilization of Evaluation Research: The Procedure of Reconsideration’, Knowledge in Society 2(4): 31–48.
5. Bogt, ter, H. (2004) ‘Politicians in Search of Performance Information? Survey Research on Dutch Aldermen's Use of Performance Information’, Financial Accountability and Management 20(3): 221–252.
6. Brunsson, N. and J. Olsen (1993) The Reforming Organization. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Bussmann, W. (1996) ‘Democracy and Evaluation's Contribution to Negotiation, Empowerment and Information: Some Findings from Swiss Experience’, Evaluation 2(3): 307–319.
8. Chelimsky, E. (1997) ‘The Political Environment of Evaluation and What it Means for the Development of the Field’, in E. Chelimsky and W. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook, pp. 53–68. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9. Chelimsky, E. and W. Shadish, eds (1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10. Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1999) Public Services for the Future: Modernization, Reform, Accountability: Comprehensive Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 1999–2002.March, Supplement Cm 4315. London: Stationery Office.
11. Clarke, J. (2004) Changing Welfare, Changing States: New Directions in Social Policy. London: SAGE.
12. Davies, H., S. Nutley and P. Smith, eds (2000) What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.
13. De Bruijn, H. (2002) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London and New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis.
14. European Commission (1997) Evaluating EU Expenditure Programmes: A Guide. DGXIX/02. Brussels: European Commission.
15. European Parliament (2002) Report on the Commission's Evaluation Activities (The Heaton-Harris Report). Committee on Budgetary Control, A5–0284/2002 FINAL. Brussels: European Commission.
16. Floc'hlay, B. and E. Plottu (1998) ‘Democratic Evaluation: From Empowerment Evaluation to Public Decision-Making’, Evaluation 4(3): 261–277.
17. General Accounting Office (2005) Performance Budgeting: States’ Experiences can Inform Federal Efforts.GAO-05–215 (www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05–215).
18. Gregory, A. (2000) ‘Problematizing Participation: A Critical Review of Approaches to Participation in Evaluation Theory’, Evaluation 6(2): 179–199.
19. Ho, A. and P. Coates (2004) ‘Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience’, Public Performance and Management Review 27(3): 29–50.
20. Hofstee, W. (1992) ‘From the Citizen's Point of View: The Positioning of Program Evaluation’, in J. Mayne, M. Bemelmans-Videc, J. Hudson and R. Conner (eds) Advancing Public Policy Evaluation: Learning from International Experiences, pp. 277–283. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
21. Hood, C., C. Scott, O. James, G. Jones and A. Travers (1999) Regulation inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-Busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Ingraham, P., P. Joyce and A. Donohue (2003) Government Performance: Why Management Matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23. Ipsos-Reid Corporation (2002) Survey of Parliamentarians. Submitted to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
24. James, O. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Perspectives. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. James, O. (2004) ‘The UK Government's Use of Public Service Agreements as a Tool of Governance’, Public Administration 82(2): 397–419.
26. Jenkins, W. and A. Gray (1992) ‘Evaluation and the Consumer: The UK Experience’, in J. Mayne, M. Bemelmans-Videc, J. Hudson and R. Conner (eds) Advancing Public Policy Evaluation: Learning from International Experiences, pp. 285–299. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27. Joyce, P. (1997) ‘Using Performance Measures for Budgeting: A New Beat or is it the Same Old Tune?’, in K. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public And Nonprofit Programs: New Directions in Evaluation 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28. Karlsson, O. (1996) ‘A Critical Dialogue in Evaluation: How can the Interaction between Evaluation and Politics be Tackled?’, Evaluation 2(4): 405–416.
29. Leviton, L. and E. Hughes (1981) ‘Research on the Utilizations of Evaluations: A Review and Synthesis’, Evaluation Review 5: 525–548.
30. Lewis, D. (1997) Hidden Agendas: Politics, Law and Disorder. London: Hamish Hamilton.
31. Mayne, J., M. Bemelmans-Videc, J. Hudson and R. Conner (1992) Advancing Public Policy Evaluation: Learning from International Experiences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32. Murray, R. (2002) ‘Citizens’ Control of Evaluations: Formulating and Assessing Alternatives’, Evaluation 8(1): 81–100.
33. OECD (2003) ‘Public Sector Modernisation’, OECD Observer(Oct.): 1–8.
34. Osborne, D. and P. Plastrik (2000) The Reinventor's Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming your Government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35. Patton, M. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36. Pollitt, C. (1999) ‘Stunted by Stakeholders? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation’, Public Policy and Administration 14(2): 77–90.
37. Pollitt, C. (2006) ‘Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 25–44.
38. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Pollitt, C. and H. O'Neill (1999) An Evaluation of the Process of Evaluation of EC External Aid Programmes. Brussels: EU Commission.
40. Pollitt, C., X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa and M. Waerness (1999) Performance or Compliance: Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Pollitt, C., C. Talbot, J. Caulfield and A. Smullen (2004) Agencies: How Governments Do Things through Semi-Autonomous Organizations. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Propper, C. and D. Wilson (2003) The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector. CMPO Working Paper Series 03/073. Bristol: University of Bristol.
44. Radin, B. (2000) ‘The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(1): 111–135.
45. Sanderson, I. (2004) ‘Getting Evidence into Practice: Perspectives on Rationality’, Evaluation 10(3): 366–379.
46. Themessl-Huber, M. and M. Grutsch (2003) ‘The Shifting Locus of Control in Participatory Evaluations’, Evaluation 9(1): 92–111.
47. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (1996) Evaluation Report: Improved Reporting to Parliament Project. Available at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/irp (accessed 25 April 2005).
48. Walker, R. (2001) ‘Great Expectations: Can Social Science Evaluate New Labour's Policies?’, Evaluation 7(3): 305–330.
49. Weiss, C. (1979) ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization’, Public Administration Review 39 (Sept./Oct.): 426–431.
50. Weiss, C. (1983) ‘Ideology, Interests and Information: The Basis of Policy Positions’, in D. Callahan and B. Jennings (eds) Ethics, Social Science and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum Press.
51. Wholey, J. and K. Newcomer (1997) ‘Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results’, in K. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Non-Profit Programs: New Directions for Evaluation 75: 91–98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52. Wholey, J., K. Newcomer and Associates (1989) Improving Government Performance: Evaluation Strategies for Strengthening Public Agencies and Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.