Individual Engagement to Collective Participation: The Dynamics of Participation Pattern in Performance Budgeting

Public Budgeting and Finance

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 79-98

  Lu, Yi ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958794327     PISSN: 02751100     EISSN: 15405850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5850.2011.00980.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. T. P. LauthBudget reform in the United States and the State of Georgia (TaiPei, Taiwan: Shih Hsin University2004
2. P. G. Joyce"Linking Performance and Budgeting: Opportunities in the Federal Budget Process," in Managing for Performance and Results (Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government2003
3. J. M. Kelly, and W. C. RivenbarkPerformance Budgeting for State and Local Government (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc.2003
4. J. E. Melkers, and K. G. WilloughbyStaying the Course: The Use of Performance Measurement in State Governments (IBM Center for the Business of Government2004
5. B. A. Radin"The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 10, no. 12000111-135
6. X. Wang"Performance Measurement in Budgeting: A Study of County Governments," Public Budgeting & Finance 20, no. 32000102-118
7. P. deLancer Julnes"Does Participation Increase Perceptions of Usefulness An Evaluation of a Participatory Approach to the Development of Performance Measures," Public Performance & Management Review 24, no. 42001403-418
8. P. deLancer Julnes and M. Holzer"Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation," Public Administration Review 61, no. 62001693-708
9. K. Yang and J. Y. Hsieh"Managerial Effectiveness of Government Performance Measurement: Testing a Middle-Range Model," Public Administration Review 67, no. 52007861-879
10. K. G. Willoughby and J. E. MelkersImplementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success," Public Budgeting & Finance 20, no. 12000105-120
11. A. Ho and P. Coates"Citizen-Initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience," Public Performance and Management Review 327, no. 3200429-50
12. Y. LuPerformance BudgetingThe Perspective of State Agencies," Public Budgeting & Finance 27, no. 420071-17
13. Yang and Hsieh2007
14. deLancer Julnes2001
15. K. I. Miller and P. R. MongeParticipation, Satisfaction and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review," Academy of Management Journal 29, no. 41986727-753
16. D. McGregorThe Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co1960
17. P. E. Connor"Decision-Making Participation Patterns: The Role of Organizational Context," Academy of Management Journal 35, no. 11992218-231
18. A. Sagie"Participative Decision Making and Performance: A Moderator Analysis," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 30, no. 21994227-246
19. J. A. Scully and S. A. Kirkpatrick, et al."Locus of Knowledge as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation on Performance, Affect, and Perceptions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61, no. 31995276-288
20. P. W. Ingraham"Transforming Management, Managing Transformation," in Transforming Government: Lessons from the Reinvention Laboratories, eds. P. W. Ingraham, J. R. Thompson, and R. P. Sanders (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, 241-256); deLancer Julnes and Holzer2001
21. One exception is the research done by DeLancer Julnes (2001), which resembles the contingency model. This study found that a participative approach may work best under uncertainty2001
22. deLancer Julnes2001 B. F. Burke and B. C. Costello, "The Human Side of Managing for Results," American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 3 (2005)270-286
23. Yang and Hsieh2007Y. Lu, "Managing the Design of Performance Measures: The Role of Agencies," Public Performance & Management Review 3220083-20
24. C. Bourdeaux"Integrating Performance Information into Legislative Budget Processes," Public Performance & Management Review 31, no. 42008547-569
25. T. P. Lauth"Performance Evaluation in the Georgia Budgetary Process," Public Budgeting & Finance 5, no. 1198567-82
26. Joyce 2003
27. X. Wang and G. A. Gianakis"Public Officials' Attitudes toward Subjective Performance Measures," Public Productivity & Management Review 22, no. 41999537-553Willoughby and Melkers2000
28. R. D. Behn"Why Measure Performance Different Purposes Require Different Measures," Public Administration Review 63, no. 5 (2003)586-6062008
29. Government Accounting Standards Board. Report on Survey of State and Local Government Use and Reporting of Performance Measures: First Questionnaire Results (Norwalk, CT1997
30. T. H. Poister and G. Streib"Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice," Public Administration Review 59, no. 41999325-335
31. J. Y. H. Kaifeng Yang"Managerial Effectiveness of Government Performance Measurement: Testing a Middle-Range Model," Public Administration Review 67, no. 52007861-879
32. M. Sanger"Getting to the Roots of Change: Performance Management and Organizational Culture," Public Performance & Management Review 31, no. 42008621-653
33. Burke and Costello2005
34. J. R. Thompson"The Dual Potentialities of Performance Measurement: The Case of the Social Security Administration," Public Productivity & Management Review 23, no. 32000267-281
35. C. Coe"Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovernment Efforts," Public Administration Review 59, no. 21999110-1232000
36. D. W. Forsythe"Pitfalls in Designing and Implementing Performance Management System" in Quicker, Better, Cheaper: Managing Performance in American Government, ed. D. W. Forsythe (Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press2001519-551
37. R. D. BehnThe Psychological Barriers to Performance Management," Public Performance & Management Review 26, no. 120025-25
38. Willoughby and Melkers2000
39. Bourdeaux2008
40. Y. Lu and K. Willoughby, et al."Legislating Results: Examining the Legal Foundations of PBB Systems in the States," Public Performance & Management Review 33, no. 22009266-287
41. A. Ho, and P. Coates"Citizen Participation: Legitimizing Performance Measurement As a Decision Tool," Government Finance Review20028-10
42. Ho and Coates20022004
43. C. Bourdeaux"Do Legislatures Matter in Budgetary Reform," Public Budgeting & Finance 26, no. 12006120-142
44. G. A. Grizzle"Linking Performance to Funding Decisions: What is the Budgeter's Role," Public Productivity Review 10, no. 3198733-44
45. E. M. WheatThe Activist Auditor: A New Player in State and Local Politics," Public Administration Review 51, no. 51991385-392
46. M. M. Jordan and M. M. Hachbart"Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment," Public Budgeting & Finance 19199968-88
47. Three waves of the survey were sent in 2005. The first wave was sent around mid-July, the second wave at the end of September, and the third wave around mid-December, 2005. Phone calls to non-respondents were made one month after the second wave was sent2005
48. Total 194 surveys were sent. Among theses, 16 surveys came back, self-indicating that they were out of the target population. Therefore, 178 surveys were sent to people who were in the target population.
49. To assess how different the agency respondents are from their non-respondents, various aspects between these two groups were compared, including (1) attached agencies/authorities versus agencies listed in The Governor's Budget Report; (2) fiscal officers versus agency heads; (3) total appropriation (FY and (4) state appropriation (FY 2005). Among the four aspects examined, only one aspect of difference is statistically significant-attached agencies/authorities versus agencies listed in The Governor's Budget Report. The suspected reason is that the high response rate of these agencies is mainly due to the fact that most of the Fiscal/Budget Officers in this subset were interviewed in addition to surveyed. In conclusion, the respondents are not statistically different from the non-respondents, therefore, the survey data reflect a reasonably good representation of responses from the overall target population2005
50. J. Wholey"Quality Control: Assessing the Accuracy and Usefulness of Performance Measurement System," in Performance Measurement: Getting Results, ed. H. P. Hatry (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press2006267-286
51. deLancer Julnes2001409
52. J. Gill and K. J. Meier"Public Administration Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto," Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory2000157
53. J. E. Melkers and K. G. Willoughby"Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects," Public Administration Review 65, no. 22005180-190
54. S. Fernandez and H. G. Rainey"Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector," Public Administration Review 66, no. 22006168-176
55. D. P. Ashmos and D. Duchon, et al."What A Mess! Participation as a Simple Managerial Rule to "Complexify" Organizations," Journal of Management Studies 39, no. 22002189-206
56. Willoughby and Melkers2000
57. P. H. Garsombke and J. Schrad"Performance Measurement Systems: Results from a City and State Survey," Government Finance Review 15, no. 119999-12
58. Hanfbauer, G1993Activist Performance Auditing in Cincinnati. Available from accessed June 122009
59. N. Caiden"Public Budgeting Amidst Uncertainty and Instability," Public Budgeting & Finance 11, no. 119816-19