Advancing the Empirical Study of Performance Management: What We Learned From the Program Assessment Rating Tool

American Review of Public Administration

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 499-517

  Moynihan, Donald P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

administrative reform; performance management

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880838984     PISSN: 02750740     EISSN: 15523357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0275074013487023     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Askim J.,Johnsen A.,Christophersen K. A.Factors behind organizational learning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2008;18:297-320.
2. Bertelli A. M.,John P.Government checking government: How performance measures expand distributive politics.Journal of Politics. 2010;72:545-558.
3. Chun Y. H.,Rainey H. G.Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2005;15:529-557.
4. Clinton J. D.,Bertelli A.,Grosse C.,Lewis D. E.Separated powers in the United States: The ideology of agencies, presidents and congress.American Journal of Political Science. 2012;56:341-354.
5. Clinton J. D.,Lewis D. E.Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences.Political Analysis. 2008;16:3-20.
6. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP, 2001). Implementing the government performance and results act for research. Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10106#toc.
7. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP, 2008). Evaluating research efficiency in the U.S. environmental protection agency. Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12150#toc.
8. Dull M.Why PART? The institutional politics of presidential budget reform.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2006;16:187-215.
9. Dull M.Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2009;19:255-284.
10. Durant R.Sharpening a knife cleverly: Organizational change, policy paradox, and the "Weaponizing" of administrative reforms.Public Administration Review. 2008;68:282-294.
11. Frederickson D. G.,Frederickson H. G.Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2006:.
12. Frisco V.,Stalebrink O. J.Congressional use of the program assessment rating tool.Public Budgeting and Finance. 2008;28:1-19.
13. Gallo N.,Lewis D. E.The consequences of presidential patronage for federal agency performance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22:195-217.
14. Gilmour J. B.Implementing OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Meeting the challenges of integrating budget and performance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government; 2006:.
15. Gilmour J. B.,Lewis D. E.Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2006;16:169-186.
16. Golden M.What motivates bureaucrats?. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2000:.
17. Greitens T. J.,Joaquin M. E.Policy typology and performance measurement: Results from the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).Public Performance & Management Review. 2010;33:555-570.
18. Gueorguieva V.,Accius J.,Apaza C.,Bennett L.,Brownley C.,Cronin S.,Preechyanud P.The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the government performance and results act: Evaluating conflicts and disconnections.American Review of Public Administration. 2009;39:225-245.
19. Heinrich C. J.Third-party governance under no child left behind: Accountability and performance management challenges.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2010;20:i59-i80.
20. Heinrich C. J.How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the program assessment rating tool.Public Administration Review. 2012;72:123-134.
21. James O.Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011;21:399-418.
22. Joyce P. G.The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance-informed budgeting.Public Administration Review. 2011;71:356-367.
23. Jung C. S.Navigating a rough terrain of public management: Examining the relationship between organizational size and effectiveness.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012a;:.
24. Jung C. S.Developing and validating new concepts and measures of program goal ambiguity in the U.S. federal government.Administration & Society. 2012b;44:675-701.
25. Lavertu S.,Lewis D. E.,Moynihan D. P.Administrative reform, ideology, and bureaucratic effort: Performance management in the Bush era. Paper presented at Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management annual meeting; 2012Baltimore, Maryland; 2012.
26. Lavertu S.,Moynihan D. P.Agency political ideology and reform implementation: Performance management in the Bush administration.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;:.
27. Lewis D. E.The politics of presidential appointments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2008:.
28. Moynihan D. P.The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2008:.
29. Moynihan D. P.,Ingraham P. W.Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use.Administration & Society. 2004;36:427-453.
30. Moynihan D. P.,Lavertu S.Does involvement in performance reforms encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART.Public Administration Review. 2012;7:592-602.
31. Moynihan D. P.,Pandey S. K.The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2010;20:849-866.
32. Moynihan D. P.,Roberts A. S.The triumph of loyalty over competence: The Bush administration and the exhaustion of the politicized presidency.Public Administration Review. 2010;70:572-581.
33. Moynihan D. P.,Wright B. E.,Pandey S.K.Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22:143-164.
34. Piotrowski S. J.,Rosenbloom D.Nonmission-based values in results oriented public management.Public Administration Review. 2002;62:643-657.
35. Posner P. L.,Fantone D. L.Assessing federal program performance: Observations on the U.S. office of management and budget's program assessment rating tool and its use in the budget process.Public Performance & Management Review. 2007;30:351-368.
36. Radin B.Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2006:.
37. Stamp J.Some economic factors in modern life. London, UK: P. S. King & Son; 1929:.
38. Rainey H.,Jung C. S.Program types, goal ambiguity, and performance in U.S. federal programs. Paper presented at the 2009 Public Management Research Conference; 2009Columbus, Ohio; 2009.
39. Redburn F. S.,Newcomer K.Achieving real improvement in program performance and policy outcomes: The next frontier. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration; 2008:.
40. Rosenbloom D. H.Reinventing administrative prescriptions: The case for democratic-constitutional impact statements and scorecards.Public Administration Review. 2007;67:28-39.
41. Rudalevige A.Managing the president's program: Presidential leadership and presidential policy formulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2002:.
42. Schneider A.,Ingram H.Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy.American Political Science Review. 1993;87:334-347.
43. Soss J.,Fording R.,Schram S.The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011;21:i203-232.
44. Stalebrink O. J.,Frisco V.PART in retrospect: An examination of legislator's attitudes toward PART.Public Budgeting and Finance. 2011;31:1-21.
45. Thomas C.,Fumia D.The effect of program size and goal ambiguity on performance: An analysis of PART assessments for 165 environmental programs. Paper presented at the National Public Management Research Conference; 2011Syracuse University, NY; 2011.
46. Thompson J.Devising administrative reform that works.Public Administration Review. 1999;59:283-293.
47. The president's management agenda. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2001:.
48. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2007). Program Assessment Rating Tool guidance 2007-02. Retrieved from http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA471562&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.
49. White J.Playing the wrong PART: The program assessment rating tool and the functions of the president's budget.Public Administration Review. 2012;72:112-121.
50. Wichowsky A.,Moynihan D. P.Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management.Public Administration Review. 2008;68:908-920.
51. Wilson J. Q.Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1989:.