Introduction: Evidence from the comparison of public service performance

Evaluation

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 5-12

  James, Oliver ^a   Wilson, Deborah ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Comparison; Explanatory evaluation; Performance information systems; Public services

Indexed keywords

EID: 74349124987     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389009350022     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Atkinson, T. (2005) Atkinson Review: Final Report: Measurement of Government Output and Productivity for the National Accounts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Behn, R. (2003) Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures, Public Administration Review 63(5): 586-606.
3. Bevan, G. and C. Hood (2006) What's Measured is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in Healthcare in England, Public Administration 84(3).
4. Blalock, A.B. (1999) Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement: From Estrangement to Useful Integration?, Evaluation 5(2): 117-49.
5. Boyne, G., P. Day and R. Walker (2002) The Evaluation of Public Service Inspection: A Theoretical Framework, Urban Studies 39: 1197-1212.
6. Boyne, G., O. James, P. John and N. Petrovsky (2009) Does Political Change Affect Senior Management Turnover? An Empirical Analysis of Top-Tier Local Authorities in England, Public Administration 87(4).
7. Buckley, J. and M. Schneider (2003) Shopping for Schools: How do Marginal Consumers Gather Information about Schools?, Policy Studies Journal 31(2): 121-45.
8. Burgess, S., C. Propper and D. Wilson (2007) The Impact of School Choice in England: Implications from the Economic Evidence, Policy Studies 28(2): 129-43.
9. Davies, H., S. Nutley and P. Smith (2000) Introducing Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services, in H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (eds) What Works: Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services, pp. 1-12. Bristol: Policy Press.
10. Davies, H.T.O., S.M. Nutley and P. Smith (2007) WUsing Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.
11. Dowding, K., P. John and S. Biggs (1995) Residential Mobility in London: A Micro Test of the Behavioural Assumptions of the Tiebout Model, British Journal of Political Science 25: 379-97.
12. Hatry, H.P. (1999) Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
13. Haubrich, D. and I. McLean (2006) Assessing Public Service Performance in Local Authorities through CPA: A Research Note on Deprivation, National Institute Economic Review 197(1): 93-105.
14. Heinrich, C.J. (2003) in B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds) Measuring Public Sector Performance, Handbook of Public Administration, pp. 25, 37. London: SAGE.
15. Hood, C.C., O. James and C.D. Scott (2000). Regulation in Government: Has it Increased, is it Increasing, Should it be Diminished?, Public Administration 78(2): 283-304.
16. Hood, C. C., O. James, B. G. Peters and C. D. Scott (eds) (2004) Controlling Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
17. Hood, C.C., G.W. Scott, O. James, G. Jones and T. Travers (1999) Regulation inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police and Sleazebusters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Jacobs, R., M. Goddard and P. Smith (2006) Public Services: Are Composite Measures a Robust Reflection of Performance in the Public Sector? Centre for Health Economics Research Paper, 16. York: University of York.
19. James, O. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest versus Bureau-shaping Explanations. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
20. James, O. (2004) The UK Core Executive's Use of Public Service Agreements as a Tool of Governance, Public Administration 82(2): 397-418.
21. James, O. (2009) Evaluating the Expectations Disconfirmation and Expectations Anchoring Approaches to Citizen Satisfaction with Local Public Services, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 107-23.
22. James, O. and P. John (2007) Public Management at the Ballot Box: Performance Information and Electoral Support for Incumbent English Local Governments, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 567-80.
23. Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review 70(1): 71-9.
24. Knack, S., M. Kugler and N. Manning (2003) Second Generation Governance Indicators, International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3): 345-64.
25. Mayne, E. and R. Rist (2006) Studies are Not Enough: The Necessary Transformation of Evaluation, Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 21(3): 93-120.
26. Mayne, J. (2007) Challenges and Lessons in Implementing Results-based Management, Evaluation 13(1): 87-109.
27. Nielsen, S.B. and N. Ejler (2008) Improving Performance? Exploring the Complementarities between Evaluation and Performance Management, Evaluation 14(2): 171-92.
28. Oecd (2007) Towards Better Measurement of Government. OECD Working Paper on Governance 2007/1. Paris: OECD.
29. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004) Public Management Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Propper, C., D. Wilson and S. Burgess (2006) Extending Choice in the English Health Care System, Journal of Social Policy 35(4): 537-57.
31. Segerholm, C. and E. Astrom (2007) Goverance through Institutionalised Evaluation, Evaluation 13(1): 48-67.
32. Stern, E. (2005) Evaluation Research Methods: Sage Benchmarks in Social Research Series. London: SAGE.
33. Stern, E. (2008) Evaluation: Critical for Whom and Connected to What?, Evaluation 14(2): 249-57.
34. Van Thiel, S. and F.L. Leeuw (2002) The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector, Public Performance and Management Review 25(3): 267-81.
35. Wilson, D. and A. Piebalga (2008) Performance Measures, Ranking and Parental Choice: An Analysis of the English School League Tables, International Public Management Journal 11(3): 344-66.