Using performance measures for budgeting: A new beat, or is it the same old tune?

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 1997, Issue 75, 1997, Pages 45-61

  Joyce, Philip G ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39049129866     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.1079     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allison, G. “Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” In F. Lane (ed.), Current Issues in Public Administration. (5th ed.) New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
2. Anthony, R., and Young, D. Management Control in Nonprofit Organizations. (5th ed.) Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1994.
3. Bramlett, R. W. “The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board: An Introduction for Non-Accountants.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 1991, 11 (4), 11–19.
4. Broom, C., and McGuire, L. “Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 1995, 15 (4), 3–17.
5. Campos, E., and Pradhan, S. “Budgetary Institutions and Expenditure Outcomes.” Policy Research Working Paper #1646. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Policy Research Department, Sept. 1996.
6. Congressional Budget Office. Using Performance Measures in the Federal Budget Process. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
7. Dahl, R. “The Science of Administration: Three Problems.” Public Administration Review, 1947, 7 (1), 1–11.
8. Foreman, C. “The NPR Meets Congress.” In D. Kettl and J. DiIulio, Jr. (eds.), Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising Governmental Reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1995.
9. General Accounting Office. Performance Budgeting: State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1993.
10. General Accounting Office. Office of Management and Budget: Changes Resulting from the OMB 2000 Reorganization. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1995a.
11. General Accounting Office. Budget Account Structure: A Descriptive Overview. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1995b.
12. Goodnow, F. Politics and Administration. New York: Russell and Russell, 1900.
13. Gore, A., Jr. Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993a.
14. Gore, A., Jr. Mission Driven, Results Oriented Budgeting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993b.
15. Hager, G., and Pianin, E. Mirage. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997.
16. Harris, J. “Service Efforts and Accomplishments Standards: Fundamental Questions of an Emerging Concept.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 1995, 15 (4), 18–37.
17. Hatry, H., and Fountain, J. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come, An Overview. Norwalk, Conn.: Governmental Accounting Standards Board, 1990.
18. Joyce, P. G. “Using Performance Measures in the Federal Budget Process: Proposals and Prospects.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 1993, 13 (4), 3–17.
19. Kamensky, J. “Role of the ‘Reinventing Government’ Movement in Federal Management Reform.” Public Administration Review, 1996, 56 (3), 247–255.
20. Lewcock, T. F. Statement before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 102nd Congress, May 12, 1991.
21. National Academy of Public Administration. Toward Useful Performance Measurement: Lessons Learned from Initial Pilot Performance Plans Under the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration, 1994.
22. Newcomer, K. E. “Performance Measurement in the Federal Budgetary Process: Will It Stick This Time?” Paper presented at the 56th annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, San Antonio, Tex., July 1995.
23. Office of Management and Budget. Federal Financial Management Status Report and Five-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996.
24. Oregon Progress Board. Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon's Strategic Plan. Salem: Oregon Progress Board, 1997.
25. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1995.
26. Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
27. Riley, A. C. “Reporting of Performance Measures for Federal Agencies: The Initial Impact of the Chief Financial Officer (sic) Act of 1990.” International Journal of Public Administration, 1995, 18 (2 and 3), 521–580.
28. Rosenbloom, D. “Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers.” Public Administration Review, 1983, 43 (3), 219–227.
29. Schick, A. “A Death in the Bureaucracy: The Demise of Federal PPB.” Public Administration Review, 1973, 33 (2), 146–156.
30. Waldo, D. The Administrative State. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948.
31. Wildavsky, A. “Rescuing Policy Analysis From PPBS.” Public Administration Review, 1969, 29 (2), 189–202.
32. Wildavsky, A. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1988.