How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the dynamics of performance information

Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public Services: From Knowing to Doing

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 33-54

  van de Walle, Steven ^a,b   van Dooren, Wouter ^c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863830718     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511762000.004     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. Askim, J. (2006). Local Politicians as Decision-makers: How Important is Performance Information? Survey Evidence from Norway. Mimeo.
2. Askim, J. (2008). ‘Determinants of Performance Information Utilization in Political Decision Making’, in W. Van Dooren and S. Van de Walle (eds.), pp. 125–39.
3. Audit Commission (2008). In the Know: Using Information to Make Better Decisions: A Discussion Paper. London: Audit Commission.
4. Augoustinos, M. and I. Walker (1996). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction. London: Sage.
5. Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (5th edn.). New York: Wiley.
6. Beyer, J. M. and H. M. Trice (1982). ‘The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings’, Administrative Science Quarterly 27(4): 591–622.
7. Broom, C., M. Jackson, V. Vogelsangs Coomb and J. Harris (1998). Performance Measurement Concepts and Techniques. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
8. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Davies, H. T., S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (2000). ‘Introducing Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services’, in H. T. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (eds.), What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 1–11.
10. de Lancer Julnes, P. and M. 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.
11. Feldman, M. S. and J. G. March (1981). ‘Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol’, Administrative Science Quarterly 26(2): 171–86.
12. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
13. Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (1997). Performance Measurement at the State and Local Levels: A Summary of Survey Results. Washington, DC: GASB.
14. Government Performance Project (GPP) (2003). Paths to Performance in State and Local Government. A Final Assessment from the Maxwell School of Public Affairs. Syracuse, NY: Maxwell School of Public Affairs.
15. Hatry, H. P. (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
16. Herzog, R. J. and R. G. Claunch (1997). ‘Stories Citizens Tell and How Administrators Use Types of Knowledge’, Public Administration Review 57(5): 374–9.
17. Ho, A. T.-K. (2005). ‘Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 217–37.
18. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
19. Janis, I. L. and L. Mann (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
20. Jones, B. D. (2003). ‘Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 395–412.
21. Jones, B. D. and F. R. Baumgartner (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. University of Chicago Press.
22. Jones, B. D. and W. Williams (2007). The Politics of Bad Ideas: The Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Politics and Public Policy.
23. Katz, E. and P. Lazarsfeld (1956). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
24. Kingdon, J. (1984). ‘Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies’. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
25. Learmonth, M. and N. Harding (2006). ‘Evidence-based Management: The Very Idea’, Public Administration 84(2): 245–66.
26. Lewin, K. (1947). ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics’, Human Relations 1(2): 5–41.
27. March, J. G. (1987). ‘Ambiguity and Accounting: The Elusive Link between Information and Decision Making’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(2): 153–87.
28. March, J. G. (ed.) (1988). Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
29. March, J. G. and G. Sévon (1988). ‘Gossip, Information and Decision-making’, in J. G. March (ed.), pp. 429–42.
30. Marra, M. (2000). ‘How Much Does Evaluation Matter? Some Examples of the Utilization of the Evaluation of the World Bank’s Anti-corruption Activities’, Evaluation 6(1): 22–36.
31. Mayston, D. (1985). ‘Non Profit Performance Indicators in the Public Sector’, Financial Accountability and Management 1(1): 51–74.
32. Moynihan, D. (2005). ‘Goal-based Learning and the Future of Performance Management’, Public Administration Review 65(2): 203–16.
33. Moynihan, D. (2006). ‘What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Performance? Dialogue Theory and Performance Budgeting’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 151–68.
34. Moynihan, D. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
35. Nutley, S. M. and J. Webb (2000). ‘Evidence and the Policy Process’, in H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (eds.), What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 13–41.
36. OECD (2003). OECD/World Bank Budget Practices and Procedures Database. Paris: OECD.
37. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector from Schoolhouse to Statehouse, City Hall to the Pentagon. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
38. Parsons, W. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
39. Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Pollitt, C. (2006). ‘Performance Information for Democracy: The Missing Link?’, Evaluation 12(1): 38–55.
41. Stewart, R. (2002). Evidence-based Management: A Practical Guide for Health Professionals. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press.
42. Tsoukas, H. (1997). ‘The Tyranny of Light’, Futures 29(9): 827–43.
43. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1982). ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–20.
44. US General Accounting Office (2000). Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits from Selected Agencies’ Use of Performance Agreements. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
45. Van de Walle, S. and T. Bovaird (2007). Making Better Use of Information toDriveImprovement in Local Public Services: A Report for the Audit Commission. Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies.
46. Van de Walle, S. and T. Bovaird (2008). ‘In the Know or Out of the Loop?’, Public Money and Management 28(4): 196–8.
47. Van de Walle, S. and A. Roberts (2008). ‘Publishing Performance Information: An Illusion of Control?’, in W. Van Dooren and S. Van de Walle (eds.).
48. Van Dooren, W. (2005). ‘What Makes Organisations Measure? Hypotheses on the Causes and Conditions for Performance Measurement’, Financial Accountability and Management 21(3): 363–83.
49. Van Dooren, W. (2006). Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach. Leuven: Faculty of Social Sciences, diss. doct.
50. Van Dooren, W. (2008). ‘Nothing New Under the Sun? Change and Continuity in the 20th Century Performance Movements’, in W. Van Dooren and S. Van de Walle (eds.).
51. Van Dooren, W. and S. Van de Walle (eds.) (2008). Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Houndmills: Palgrave.
52. Walsh, J. P. (1988). ‘Selectivity and Selective Perception: An Investigation of Managers’ Belief Structures and Information Processing’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 873–96.
53. Wang, X. and E. Berman (2000). ‘Hypotheses About Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 403–28.
54. Webber, D. J. (1991). ‘The Distribution and Use of Policy Knowledge in the Policy Process’, Knowledge and Policy 4(4): 6–35.
55. Weiss, C. H. (1979). ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization’, Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–31.
56. Weiss, C. H. (1980). ‘Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381–404.
57. Weiss, C. H. and M. J. Bucuvalas (1980). ‘Truth Tests and Utility Tests: Decisionmakers’ Frames of Reference for Social Science Research’, American Sociological Review 45(2): 302–13.
58. Weiss, J. A., J. E. Gruber and R. H. Carver (1986). ‘Reflections on Value: Policy Makers Evaluate Federal Information Systems’, Public Administration Review 46: 497–505.