Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA and PART

Public Administration Review

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 592-602

  Moynihan, Donald P ^a   Lavertu, Stéphane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862599091     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: 15406210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02539.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adler, Paul S., Barbara Goldoftas, and David I. Levine. 1999. Flexibility versus Efficiency?, A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science 10(1): 43-68.
2. Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review 68(2): 304-18.
3. Askim, Jostein, Åge Johnsen, and Knut-Andreas Christophersen. 2008. Factors behind Organizational Learning from Benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian Municipal Benchmarking Networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 297-320.
4. Barnow, Burt S., and Carolyn J. Heinrich. 2010. One Standard Fits All?, The Pros and Cons of Performance Standard Adjustments. Public Administration Review 70(1): 60-71.
5. Becker, Markus C. 2005. A Framework for Applying Organizational Routines in Empirical Research: Linking Antecedents, Characteristics, and Performance Outcomes of Recurrent Interaction Patterns. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(5): 817-46.
6. Bourdeaux, Carolyn, and Grace Chikoto. 2008. Legislative Influences on Performance Information Use. Public Administration Review 68(2): 253-65.
7. Breul, Jonathan D. 2007. Three Bush Administration Management Reform Initiatives: The President's Management Agenda, Freedom to Manage Legislative Proposals, and the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review 67(1): 21-26.
8. Chetkovich, Carol A. 2000. The NYPD Takes on Crime in New York City. Case Study no. CR16-00-1558.3, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
9. De Haven-Smith, Lance, and Kenneth C. Jenne. 2006. Management by Inquiry: A Discursive Accountability System for Large Organizations. Public Administration Review 66(1): 64-76.
10. Dull, Matthew. 2006. Why PART?, The Institutional Politics of Presidential Budget Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(2): 187-215.
11. Dull, Matthew. 2009 Results-Model Reform Leadership: Questions of Credible Commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(2): 255-84.
12. Frisco, Velda, and Odd J. Stalebrink. 2008. Congressional Use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting and Finance 28(2): 1-19.
13. Gilmour, John B., and David E. Lewis. 2006. Assessing Performance Assessment for Budgeting: The Influence of Politics, Performance, and Program Size in FY 2005. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(2): 169-86.
14. Hackman, J. Richard, and Ruth Wageman. 1995. Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 309-43.
15. Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2012. How Credible Is the Evidence, and Does It Matter?, An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review 72(1): 123-34.
16. Joyce, Philip G. 2003. Linking Performance and Budgeting: Opportunities in the Federal Budgeting Process. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
17. Joyce, Philip G. 2011. The Obama Administration and PBB: Building on the Legacy of Federal Performance-Informed Budgeting. Public Administration Review 71(3): 356-67.
18. Kamensky, John M. 2011. The Obama Performance Approach: A Mid-Term Snapshot. Public Performance and Management Review 35(1): 132-47.
19. Levitt, Barbara, and James G. March. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319-40.
20. Lipshitz, Raanan, Micha Popper, and Sasson Oz. 1996. Building Learning Organizations: The Design and Implementation of Organizational Learning Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32(3): 292-305.
21. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 2005. Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review 65(2): 180-90.
22. Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
23. Moynihan, Donald P. 2009. Through a Glass Darkly: Understanding the Effects of Performance Regimes. Public Performance and Management Review 32(4): 586-98.
24. Moynihan, Donald P., and Patricia W. Ingraham. 2004. Integrative Leadership in the Public Sector: A Model of Performance Information Use. Administration & Society 36(4): 427-53.
25. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(4): 849-66.
26. Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Setting the Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 143-64.
27. Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. Forthcoming. Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: Linking Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use. Governance.
28. Radin, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(1): 1-32.
30. Rosenbloom, David H. 2000. Retrofitting the Administrative State to the Constitution: Congress and the Judiciary's Twentieth-Century Progress. Public Administration Review 60(1): 39-46.
31. Stalebrink, Odd, and Velda Frisco. 2011. PART in Retrospect: An Examination of Legislator's Attitudes toward PART. Public Budgeting and Finance 31(2): 1-21.
32. Thompson, James R. 1999. Designing Administrative Reform That Works: The Example of the Reinvention Lab Program. Public Administration Review 59(4): 283-93.
33. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2000 Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-01-127.
34. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005 Performance Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program Performance, but More Can Be Done to Engage Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-06-28.
35. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2008 Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-08-1026T.
36. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2001 The President's Management Agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2011 The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012: Analytical Perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38. U.S. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. 1993 Report on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. [accessed April 9, 2012].
39. U.S. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 2010 Report on the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. [accessed April 9, 2012].
40. Van de Walle, Steven, and Wouter Van Dooren, eds. 2008. Performance Information in the Public Sector: How It Is Used. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.