The Effect of New Legislation on the Disclosure of Performance Indicators: The Case of Spanish Local Governments

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 35, Issue 13, 2012, Pages 873-885

  Martí, Caridad ^a   Royo, Sonia ^a   Acerete, Basilio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

accountability; budgetary and service performance indicators; financial; Spanish local governments

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868291979     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2012.686032     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. AECA. 2002. Un Sistema de Indicadores de Gestión para los Ayuntamientos, Madrid: Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas, Comisión de Contabilidad de Gestión.
2. Ammons, D.N. and Rivenbark, W.C. 2008. Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review, 68(2): 304-318.
3. ANAO. 2002. Performance information in portfolio budget statements, Better practice guide, Canberra: Australian National Audit Office.
4. Askim, J. 2007. How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3): 453-472.
5. Bendor, J., Taylor, S. and Gaalen, R.V. 1985. Bureaucratic experience vs. legislative authority: A model of deception and monitoring in budgeting. American Political Science Review, 79: 1041-1060.
6. Boyne, G. A. and Law, J. 1991. Accountability and local authority annual reports: The case of Welsh district councils. Financial Accountability & Management, 7(3): 179-194.
7. Brignall, S. and Modell, S. 2000. An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the new public sector. Management Accounting Research, 11(3): 281-306.
8. Caba, C., Rodríguez, M.P. and López, A. 2008. e-Government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3): 379-400.
9. Cameron, W. 2004. Public accountability: Effectiveness, equity, ethics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4): 59-67.
10. Cavalluzzo, K.S. and Ittner, C.D. 2004. Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(2-3): 243-267.
11. Chan, J. 2003. Government accounting: An assessment of theory, purposes and standards. Public Money & Management, 23(1): 13-20.
12. Clark, D. 1996. Open government in Britain: Discourse and practice. Public Money and Management, 16(1): 23-30.
13. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.
14. Elsacker, W.J., van, ter Bogt, H.J. and van Helden, G.J. 2008. Role variations of performance measurement in Dutch local government. The Irish Accounting Review, 15(1): 51-72.
15. Falkman, P. and Tagesson, T. 2008. Accrual accounting does not necessarily mean accrual accounting: Factors that counteract compliance with accounting standards in Swedish municipal accounting. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(3): 271-283.
16. Federación Navarra de Municipios y Concejos. 1986. Sistemas de Información y Evaluación por Indicadores de la Gestión Pública Local, Pamplona: Federación Navarra de Municipios y Concejos.
17. FEMP. 2007. Guía para la implantación de un sistema de costes en la administración local. Federación Española de Municipios y Provincias, Madrid: FEMP.
18. FEMP. 2009. Guía para la evaluación de las políticas culturales locales. Federación Española de Municipios y Provincias, Madrid: FEMP.
19. o 23. Barcelona: Fundació Carles Pi i Suyer.
20. Hildebrank, R. and McDavid, J.C. 2011. Joining public accountability and performance management: A case study of Leithbridge, Alberta. Canadian Public Administration, 54(1): 41-72.
21. Hyndman, N. S. and Anderson, R. 1995. The use of performance information in external reporting: An empirical study of UK executive agencies. Financial Accountability and Management, 11(1): 1-17.
22. Hood, C. 1995. The new public management in the 1980's: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organisations and Society, 20(2-3): 93-109.
23. IFAC. 2000. Perspectives on cost accounting for government, International Federation of Accountants Public Sector Committee, Study 12. New York: IFAC.
24. IGAE. 2007. Indicadores de gestión en el ámbito del sector público, Madrid: Intervención General de la Administración del Estado, Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda.
25. Jansen, P. 2008. New public management: Perspectives on performance and the use of performance information. Financial Accountability and Management, 24(2): 169-191.
26. Johnsen, A. August 31-September 3 2005. Determinants of Non-Mandatory Performance Measurement in Norwegian Local Government: A Comparison of Political, Economic and Sociological Explanations, August 31-September 3, Switzerland: Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference, University of Bern.
27. Kopits, G. and Kraig, D. 1998. Transparency in Government Operations. IMF Occasional Papers 158, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
28. Kulhmann, S. 2011. Performance measurement in European local governments: A comparative analysis of reform experiences in Great Britain, France, Sweden and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2): 331-345.
29. Lee, J. 2008. Preparing performance information in the public sector: An Australian perspective. Financial Accountability and Management, 24(2): 117-149.
30. Lonti, Z. and Gregory, R. 2007. Accountability or countability? Performance measurement in the New Zealand Public Service, 1992-2002. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4): 468-484.
31. Mayston, D.J. 1985. Non-profit performance indicators in the public sector. Financial Accountability and Management, 1(1): 51-74.
32. Meijer, A.J. 2007. Publishing public performance results on the Internet. Do stakeholders use the Internet to hold Dutch public service organizations to account?. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1): 165-185.
33. Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.
34. Meyer, J. W. and Scott, W. R. 1985. Organizational environments, ritual and rationality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 295-296.
35. Moynihan, D.P. and Pandey, S.P. 2010. The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 20(4): 849-866.
36. Navarro, A., Ortiz, D. and López, A.M. 2008. Identifying barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government. Public Management Review, 10(2): 241-262.
37. Neale, A. and Anderson, B. 2000. Performance reporting for accountability purposes: Lessons, issues, future. International Public Management Journal, 3(1): 93-106.
38. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic response to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179.
39. Panozzo, F. 2000. Management by decree. Paradoxes in the reform of the Italian public sector. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16: 357-373.
40. Peters, B.G. 2007. "Performance-based accountability. In". In Performance accountability and combating corruption, Edited by: Shah, A. 15-32. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
41. Pina, V., Torres, L. and Acerete, B. 2007. Are ICTs promoting government accountability? A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(5): 583-602.
42. Poister, T. and Streib, G. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4): 325-335.
43. Pollitt, C. 2006. Performance information for democracy: The missing link. Evaluation, 12(1): 38-55.
44. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. 2000. Public management reform: A comparative analysis, 2nd, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Ribeiro, J.A. and Scapens, R.W. 2006. Institutional theories and management accounting change: Complementarities, issues and paths for development. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 3(2): 94-111.
46. Sanger, M.B. 2008. From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68(s1): 70-85.
47. Serrano, C., Rueda, M. and Portillo, P. 2009. Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administrations. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(2): 355-378.
48. Siverbo, S. and Johansson, T. 2006. Relative performance evaluation in Swedish local government. Financial Accountability and Management, 22(3): 271-290.
49. Steccolini, I. 2004. Is the annual report an accountability medium? An empirical investigation into Italian local governments. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(3): 327-350.
50. Taylor, J. 2007. The usefulness of key performance indicators to public accountability authorities in East Asia. Public Administration and Development, 27(4): 341-352.
51. Torres, L. 2004. Trajectories in public administration reforms in European continental countries. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63: 99-112.
52. Torres, L. and Pina, V. 2001. Public-private partnership and private finance initiatives in the EU and Spanish local governments. The European Accounting Review, 10(3): 601-619.
53. Torres, L. and Pina, V. 2004. Reshaping public administration: The Spanish experience compared to the UK. Public Administration, 82(2): 445-464.
54. Torres, L., Pina, V. and Acerete, B. 2006. E-Governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government's relationship with citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administrations, and Institutions, 19(2): 277-302.
55. Torres, L, Pina, V. and Marti, C. September 8-10 2010. Performance Measurement in Spanish Local Governments. An empirical study into the State of the Art, September 8-10, Toulouse, France: Paper presented at the 33th EGPA Annual Conference.
56. Van Dooren, W. 2005. What makes organizations measure? Hypotheses on the causes and conditions for performance measurement. Financial Accountability and Management, 21(3): 363-383.
57. Wall, A. and Martin, G. 2003. The disclosure of key performance indicators in the public sector. Public Management Review, 5(4): 491-509.
58. Wang, X. 2002. Assessing administrative accountability. Results from a national survey. American Review of Public Administration, 32(3): 350-70.
59. Zimmerman, J.L. 1977. The municipal accounting maze: An analysis of political incentives. Journal of Accounting Research, 15(SUPPL.): 107-144.