Assessing the impact of performance-based budgeting: A comparative analysis across the United States, Taiwan, and China

Public Administration Review

Volumn 69, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages

  Lee, Jack Yun Jie ^a   Wang, Xiaohu ^b  

^a NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449371698     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: 15406210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02090.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Breul, Jonathan D. 2007. GPPA - A Foundation for Performance Budgeting. Public Performance and Management Review 30 (3 312 331.
2. Carroll, James D. 1995. The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review 55 (3 302 312.
3. China Development and Research Foundation (CDRF). 2006. Handbook of Public Budgeting [in Chinese]. Beijing : CDRF.
4. Cope, Glen Hahn. 1995. Budgeting for Performance in Local Government. In The Municipal Yearbook 1995, 42 52. Washington, DC : International City/County Management Association.
5. De Lancer Julnes, Patria, and Marc Holzer. 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.
6. Grizzle, Gloria A., and Carole D. Pettijohn. 2002. Implementing Performance-Based Program Budgeting: A System-Dynamics Perspective. Public Administration Review 62 (1 51 62.
7. Jordan, Meagan M., and Merl M. Hackbart. 1999. Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance 19 (1 68 88.
8. Joyce, Philip G. 1993. The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform: Is There Anything New in Federal Budgeting? Public Budgeting and Finance 13 (3 36 48.
9. Lee, Robert D., and Robert C. Burns. 2000. Performance Measurement in State Budgeting: Advancement and Backsliding from 1990 to 1995. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (1 38 54.
10. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 1998. The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review 58 (1 66 73.
11. Newcomer, Kathryn, 2007. How Does Program Performance Assessment Affect Program Management in the Federal Government? Public Performance and Management Review 30 (3 332 350.
12. Niu, Meili, Alfred Ho, and Ma Jun. 2006. Performance-Based Budgeting in China: A Case Study of Guangdong. Paper Presented at the Second International Conference on Public Management: 21st Century Opportunities and Challenges, University of Macau, China.
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Developing Performance Measures for Public Financial Management. Paris : OECD.
14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2005a. Challenges for China's Public Spending: Toward Greater Effectiveness and Equity. Paris : OECD.
15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2005b. Economic Survey of China 2005. Reforming Public Finances to Better Serve Growth. Paris : OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3343,en-2649-34595-35343711-1- 1-1-1,00.html. [accessed August 17, 2009].
16. Perrin, Burt. 2003. Implementing the Vision: Addressing Challenges to Results-Focused Management and Budgeting. Paris : OECD.
17. Sung, Yu-Hsieh. 2008. Economy Experience Sharing - Chinese Taipei. Presentation at the APEC Workshop on Government Performance and Results Management Report.
18. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office. GAO-01-1084SP.
19. Wang, XiaoHu. 2008. Convincing Legislators with Performance Measures. International Journal of Public Administration 31 (6 654 667.
20. Willoughby, Katherine G., and Julia E. Melkers. 2000. Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success. Public Budgeting and Finance 20 (1 105 120.
21. Willoughby, Katherine G., and Julia E. Melkers. 2005. Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review 65 (2 180 190.