The usefulness of key performance indicators to public accountability authorities in East Asia

Public Administration and Development

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 341-352

  Taylor, Jeannette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Accountability; East Asia; Hong Kong; Key performance indicators; Performance measurement and reporting; Singapore; Taiwan

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; DECISION MAKING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

ASIA; CHINA; EURASIA; FAR EAST; HONG KONG; SINGAPORE [SOUTHEAST ASIA]; SOUTHEAST ASIA; TAIWAN;

EID: 35748984405     PISSN: 02712075     EISSN: 1099162X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pad.460     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ammons DN. 1999. A proper mentality for benchmarking. Public Administration Review 59(2): 105-109.
2. Asian Development Bank. 1995. Governance: Sound Development Management. Asian Development Bank: Manila.
3. Audit Commission. 2005. Performance Measurement and Reporting in the Government. Audit Commission: Hong Kong.
4. Bavon A. 1995. Innovations in performance measurement systems: a comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration 18(2-3): 491-519.
5. Behn R. 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63(5): 586-607.
6. Boyne G, Gould-Williams J, Law J, Walker R. 2002. Plans, performance information and accountability: the case of best value. Public Administration 80(4): 691-710.
7. Cavalluzzo KS, Ittner CD. 2004. Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government Accounting. Organizations and Society 29(3-4): 243-267.
8. Cheung ABL. 1996. Performance pledges - power to the consumer or a quagmire in public service legitimation? International Journal of Public Administration 19(2): 233-259.
9. Cheung A. 2003. Government Reinvention in Taiwan. In Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm Shifts or Business as Usual? Cheung A, Scott I (eds). Routledge: London.
10. Cheung A. 2005a. State Capacity in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan: Coping with Legitimation, Integration and Performance. In Challenges to State Policy Capacity, Painter M, Pierre J (eds). Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, Hampshire.
11. Cheung A. 2005b. The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: paradigms and legacies, paths and diversities. Governance 18(2): 257-282.
12. Cheung A, Scott I. 2003. Governance and Public Sector Reforms in Asia. In Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm Shifts or Business as Usual? Cheung A, Scott I (eds). Routledge: London.
13. de Kool D. 2004. Monitoring and utilization: surveillance, struggle, symbol or source of inspiration? Conference of the European Group of Public Administration. 1-4 September, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
14. de Lancer Julnes P, 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): 693-708.
15. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160.
16. Efficiency Unit. 1995. Serving the Community - A Management Guide for Civil Servants. Efficiency Unit, Hong Kong SAR Government: Hong Kong.
17. Efficiency Unit. 2004. Performance Pledges in HKSAR Government. Efficiency Unit, Hong Kong SAR Government: Hong Kong.
18. Efficiency Unit. 2005. History of Public Sector Reform: Managing for Result. Efficiency Unit, Hong Kong SAR Government: Hong Kong.
19. Eisenhardt K. 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57-74.
20. Halachmi A. 2004. Symposium on public performance data and private decisions; introduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(1): 5-13.
21. Halachmi A. 2005. Performance measurement: test the water before you dive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(2): 255-266.
22. Heinrich C. 1999. Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(3): 363-393.
23. Ingraham P. 2005. Performance: promises to keep and miles to go. Public Administration Review 65(4): 390-395.
24. Lee T. 2005. Gestural politics: civil society in "new" Singapore. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 20(2): 132-154.
25. Lee EWY, Haque MS. 2006. The new public management reforms and governance in Asian NICs: a comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Governance 19(4): 605-626.
26. Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340-363.
27. Modell S. 2004. Performance measurement myths in the public sector: a research note. Financial Accountability and Management 20(1): 39-55.
28. Moynihan DP. 2005. Managing for results in an impossible job: solution or symbol? International Journal of Public Administration 28: 213-231.
29. Moynihan D, Ingraham P. 2001. When Does Performance Information Contribute to Performance Information Use? Putting the Factors in Place, Campbell Public Affairs Institute Working Paper, Syracuse University: New York.
30. Painter M. 2004. The politics of administrative reform in East and Southeast Asia: from gridlock to continuous self-improvement? Governance 17: 361-386.
31. Patten C. 1992. The Agenda for Hong Kong 1992 (extracts), Efficiency Unit: Hong Kong.
32. Noordegraaf M, Abma T. 2003. Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration 81(4): 853-871.
33. Poister T, Streib G. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government: assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-335.
34. RDEC (Research, Development and Evaluation Commission). 1990. Evaluation Procedures for Agencies Subordinate to the Executive Yuan. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
35. RDEC. 2002. Guidelines for Operational Evaluation of Agencies Subordinate to the Executive Yuan -, 2002. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
36. RDEC. 2005a. Introduction to Administrative Performance Assessment System. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
37. RDEC. 2005b. Schematic Diagram of Performance Objectives and Evaluation Indicators. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
38. RDEC. 2007a. Public Service. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
39. RDEC. 2007b. Evaluation of Executive Agencies. RDEC, Executive Yuan: Taiwan.
40. Ridley CE, Simon RA. 1943. Measuring Municipal Activities: A Survey of Suggested Criteria for Appraising Administration. International City Managers Association: Chicago.
41. Simon H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99-118.
42. Simon H. 1992. The Proverbs of Administration. In Classics of Public Administration, Shafritz J, Hyde AC (eds). Brooks/Cole Publishing: Pacific Grove, CA.
43. Tung. CH. 1997. Policy Address: Building Hong Kong for a New Era. Efficiency Unit, Hong Kong SAR Government: Hong Kong.
44. Turner M. 2002. Choosing items from the menu: new Public Management in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Public Administration 25(12): 1493-1512.
45. Vakkuri J, Meklin P. 2006. Ambiguity in performance measurement: a theoretical approach to organisational uses of performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management 22(3): 235-250.
46. Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
47. Williams D. 2003. Measuring government in the early twentieth century. Public Administration Review 63(6): 643-659.