Identifying barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government

Public Management Review

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 241-262

  Navarro Galera, Andrés ^a   Ortiz Rodríguez, David ^a   López Hernández, Antonio M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Barriers in application; Benchmarking; Local administration; Performance indicators

Indexed keywords

EID: 41449106165     PISSN: 14719037     EISSN: 14719045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14719030801928706     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Ahmad, Y. and Broussine, M. (2003) The UK public sector modernization agenda. Public Management Review, 5:1, pp. 45-62.
2. Ammons, D. N. (1999) A proper mentality for benchmarking. Public Administration Review, 59:2, pp. 105-109.
3. Ammons, D. N. (2000) Benchmarking as a performance management tool: experiences among municipalities in North Carolina. Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting and Financial Management, 12:1, pp. 106-124.
4. Ammons, D. N., Coe, C. and Lombardo, M. (2001) Performance-comparison projects in local government: Participants' perspective. Public Administration Review, 61:1, pp. 100-115.
5. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales (1992) Citizen's Charter Indicators: Charting a Course, Audit Commission, London
6. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales (1994) Watching Their Figures: A Guide to the Citizen's Charter Indicators, HMSO, London
7. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales (2000) On Target: The Practice of Performance Indicators, Audit Commission, London
8. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales (2002) A Picture of Performance: Early Lessons from Comprehensive Performance Assessment, Audit Commission, London
9. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales (2002) Comprehensive Performance Assessments: Scores and Analysis of Performance for Single Tier and County Councils, 2002, Audit Commission, London
10. Barzelay, M. (2001) The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
11. Boadme, A. K. (2004) The technical efficiency of Canadian urban transit systems. Transportation Research Part E, 40:5, pp. 401-416.
12. Bowerman, M. and Ball, A. (2001) Authorities on Benchmarking?. The State of Benchmarking in the UK Local Government Sector, CIMA, London
13. Bowerman, M., Ball, A. and Francis, G. (2001) Benchmarking as a tool for the modernisation of local government. Financial Accountability & Management, 17:4, pp. 321-329.
14. Boyne, G., Martin, S. and Walker, R. (2004) Explicit reforms, implicit theories and public service improvement. Public Management Review, 6:2, pp. 189-210.
15. Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (2000) An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the 'new public sector'. Management Accounting Research, 11:3, pp. 281-306.
16. Brooks, J. (2000) Labour's modernization of local government. Public Administration, 78:3, pp. 593-612.
17. Brown, R. E. and Pyers, J. B. (1998) Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Has its time really come?. Public Budgeting & Finance, 18:4, pp. 101-113.
18. Burke, J. (2005) Ontario's municipal performance measurement program: fostering innovation and accountability in local government. Government Finance Review, 21:3, pp. 22-27.
19. Byatt, I. and Lyons, M. (2001) Role of External Review in Improving Performance, Treasury, Public Services Productivity Panel, London, HM
20. Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. and Wise, L. R. (2002) Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80:1, pp. 153-178.
21. Coe, C. (1999) Local government benchmarking: Lessons from two major multigovernment efforts. Public Administration Review, 59:2, pp. 110-123.
22. Coplin, W. D., Merget, A. E. and Bourdeaux, C. (2002) The professional researcher as change agent in the government performance movement. Public Administration Review, 62:6, pp. 699-711.
23. Davis, H., Downe, J. and Martin, S. J. (2001) The Impact of External Inspection on Local Government: Driving Improvement or Drowning in Detail?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York
24. De Borger, B. and Kerstens, K. (1996) Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: A comparative analysis of FDH, DEA and econometric approaches. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26:2, pp. 145-170.
25. De Borger, B. and Kerstens, K. (1996) Radial and nonradial measurement of technical efficiency: An empirical illustration for Belgian local governments using FDH reference technology. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7:1, pp. 41-62.
26. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTRL) (2002) Best Value Performance Indicators for 2002/2003, DTRL, London
27. Department of the Environment (DETR) (1999) Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. Volume One: The Performance Indicators Including the Publication of Information Direction 1999 (England), DETR, London
28. Department of the Environment (DETR) (1999) Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. Volume Two: Feedback, DETR, London
29. Downe, J., Hartley, J. and Rashman, L. (2004) Evaluating the extent of inter-organizational learning and change through the Beacon Council Scheme. Public Management Review, 6:4, pp. 531-553.
30. Drake, L. and Simper, R. (2002) X-efficiency and scale economies in policing: A comparative study using the distribution free approach and DEA. Applied Economics, 34:15, pp. 1859-1870.
31. Enticott, G., Walker, R. M., Martin, S. J., Boyne, G. A. and Ashworth, R. E. (2002) The Impact of Best Value on Local Government: First Survey of Local Authorities' Perceptions, ODPM, London
32. Few, P. K. and Vogt, A. J. (1997) Measuring the performance of local governments. Popular Government, 62:2, pp. 41-54.
33. Folz, D. H. (2004) Service quality and benchmarking the performance of municipal services. Public Administration Review, 64:2, pp. 209-220.
34. Fountain, J. R., Patton, T. K. and Steinberg, H. I. (2004) Improving performance reporting for government: New Guidance and resources. Journal of Government Financial Management, 53:1, pp. 60-66.
35. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (1994) Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting, GASB, Norwalk, CT
36. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (1998) Performance Measurement Information Clearinghouse for Governments, GASB, Norwalk, CT
37. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (1999) Concepts Statement on SEA Reporting: Performance Measurement Information Clearinghouse for Governments, GASB, Norwalk, CT
38. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (2003) Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication, GASB, Norwalk, CT
39. Guyomarch, A. (1998) Public service, public management, and the modernization of French public administration. Public Administration, 77:1, pp. 171-193.
40. Holloway, J. A., Francis, G. A. J. and Hinton, C. M. (1999) A Vehicle for Change? A Case Study of Performance Improvement in the 'New' Public Sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12:4, pp. 351-365.
41. Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons?. Public Administration, 69:1, pp. 3-19.
42. Hood, C. (1995) The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20:23, pp. 93-110.
43. Hoque, Z. (2005) Securing institutional legitimacy or organizational effectiveness? A case examining the impact of public sector reform initiatives in an Australian local authority. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18:4, pp. 367-382.
44. Huggins, R. (2003) Creating a UK competitiveness index: Regional and local benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37:1, pp. 89-96.
45. Hughes, O. E. (1994) Public Management and Administration, Macmillan Press, London
46. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) (1993) Managing Quality Improvements
47. Jones, A. (1997) Winston-Salem's participation in the North Carolina performance measurement project. Government Finance Review, 13:4, pp. 35-36.
48. Karlaftis, M. G. (2004) A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 152:2, pp. 354-364.
49. Kelly, J. (2003) The Audit Commission: Guiding, steering and regulating local government. Public Administration, 81:3, pp. 459-476.
50. Kopczynski, M. and Lombardo, M. (1999) Comparative performance measurement: Insights and lessons learned from consortium effort. Public Administration Review, 59:2, pp. 124-134.
51. Kouzmin, A., Löffler, E., Klages, H. and Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999) Benchmarking and performance measurement in public sectors. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12:2, pp. 121-144.
52. Lane, J. E. (2000) New Public Management, London, Routledge
53. Lozano, S., Villa, G. and Adenso-Díaz, B. (2004) Centralised target setting for regional recycling operations using DEA. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 32:2, pp. 101-110.
54. Martin, S. J. (1999) Learning to modernise: Building the capacity to transform local public services. Public Policy and Administration, 14:3, pp. 54-66.
55. Midwinter, A. (2001) New labour and the modernisation of British local government: A critique. Financial Accountability & Management, 17:4, pp. 311-320.
56. Minogue, M. (1998) Changing the State: Concepts and Practice in the Reform of the Public Sector. Beyond the New Public Management: Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
57. Mitchell, S. (2000) Modernising Social Services: The Management Challenge of the 1998 Social Services White Paper. Local Authority Social Services, Blackwell, Oxford
58. Morely, E., Bryant, S. P. and Hatry, H. P. (2001) Comparative Performance Measurement, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC
59. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004) Best Value Performance Indicators for 2004/2005: Supplementary Guidance and Feedback Document, ODPM, London
60. (2001) Public Sector Modernisation: A Ten Year Perspective, OECD, Paris
61. Osborne, S. P. (2006) The new public governance?. Public Management Review, 8:3, pp. 377-387.
62. Peters, G. B. (1997) Policy transfers between governments: The case of administrative reforms. West European Politics, 20:4, pp. 71-88.
63. Peters, G. B. (2001) The Future of Governing, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
64. Pollit, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services, Blackwell, Oxford
65. Pollit, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000) Public Management Reform, Oxford University Press, Oxford
66. Premfors, R. (1998) Reshaping the democratic state. Public Administration, 76:1, pp. 141-159.
67. Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2002) Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council Scheme. Public Administration, 8:3, pp. 523-542.
68. Rivenbark, W. C. and Carter, K. L. (2000) Benchmarking and cost accounting: The North Carolina approach. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12:1, pp. 125-137.
69. Rutherford, B. A. (2000) Construction and presentation of performance indicators in executive agency external reports. Financial Accountability & Management, 16:3, pp. 225-249.
70. Stewart, J. (2000) The Nature of British Local Government, Macmillan, Basingstoke
71. Tupper, H. C. and Resende, M. (2004) Efficiency and regulatory issues in the Brazilian water and sewage sector: An empirical study. Utilities Policy, 12:1, pp. 29-40.
72. Wall, A. and Borland, G. (2005) The publication of local government performance indicators in the republic of Ireland. Irish Accounting Review, 12:2, pp. 75-84.
73. Wall, A. and Martin, G. (2003) The disclosure of key performance indicators in the public sector: How Irish organizations are performing. Public Management Review, 5:4, pp. 491-509.
74. Worthington, A. C. (2000) Cost efficiency in Australian local government: A comparative analysis of mathematical programming and econometric approaches. Financial Accountability and Management, 16:3, pp. 201-221.