The impact of performance information on congressional appropriations

Public Performance and Management Review

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 100-124

  Rhee, Dong Young ^a  

^a Hallym University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

appropriations; performance budgeting; Program Assessment Rating Tool

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907550189     PISSN: 15309576     EISSN: 15579271     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576380105     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Ashby, B. (2005, January 1). Earmark madness (Federal budget spending analysis). Industrial Heating, 72(1), www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-128110284.html.
2. Auten, G.; Bozeman, B.; & Cline, R. (1984). A sequential model of congressional appropriations. American Journal of Political Science, 28(3), 503-523.
3. Blanchard, L.A. (2008). PART and performance budgeting effectiveness. In F.S. Redburn, R.J. Shea, & T.F. Buss (Eds.), Performance management and budgeting: How governments can learn from experience (pp. 67-91). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
4. Bozeman, B. (1977). The effect of economic and partisan change on federal appropriations. Western Political Quarterly, 30(1), 112-124.
5. Brook, D.A., & Candrewva, P.J. (2007). Business management reform in the Department of Defense in anticipation of declining budgets. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27(3), 50-70.
6. Dalrymple, M. (2002, February 9). Performance and politics. Special report: Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget. CQ Weekly, 60(6), 366.
7. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
8. Dull, M. (2006). Why PART? The institutional politics of presidential budget reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 187-215.
9. Fenno, R. (1966). The power of the purse. Boston: Little, Brown.
10. Figueiredo, J.D., & Silverman, B.S. (2004, March). How does the government (want to) fund science? Politics, lobbying and academic earmarks. Working Paper 4484-4404. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Business, Cambridge, MA.
11. Foley, M., & Owens, J.E. (1996). Congress and the presidency: Institutional politics in a separated system. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
12. Frisco, V., & Stalebrink, O.J. (2008). Congressional use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(2), 1-19.
13. Gilmour, J.B., & Lewis, D.E. (2006a). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget: PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 742-752.
14. Gilmour, J.B., & Lewis, D.E. (2006b). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 169-186.
15. Gruber, A. (2003a, June 13). OMB ratings have little impact on Hill budget decisions. GovExec.com. Available at www.govexec.com/management/2003/06/omb-ratingshave-little-impact-on-hill-budget-decisions/14324/, accessed May 2006.
16. Gruber, A. (2003b, July 2). OMB to brief appropriators about federal program ratings. GovExec.com. Available at www.govexec.com/management/2003/07/omb-to-briefappropriators-about-federal-program-ratings/14461/, accessed May 2006.
17. Gruber, A. (2004, July 27). Bush's management agenda lacks congressional support, executives say. GovExec.com. Available at www.govexec.com/management/2004/07/ bushs-management-agenda-lacks-congressional-support-executives-say/17254/, accessed May 2006.
18. Heinrich, C.J. (2012). How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review, 72, 123-134.
19. Ho, Alfred. (2007). GPRA after a decade: Lessons from the Government Performance and Results Act and related federal reforms: Introduction. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 307-311.
20. Joyce, P.G. (1993). The reiterative nature of budget reform: Is there anything new in federal budgeting? Public Budgeting and Finance, 13(3), 36-48.
21. Joyce, P.G. (2011). The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance informed budgeting? Public Administration Review, 71(3), 356-367.
22. Key, V.O. (1940). The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1137-1144.
23. Kiewiet, D.R., & McCubbins, M.D. (1985). Appropriations decisions as a bilateral bargaining game between president and Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(2), 181-201.
24. Kravchuk, R.S., & Schack, R.W. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the government performance and results. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348-358.
25. Law, M.T., & Tonon, J.M. (2006). The strange budgetary politics of agricultural research earmarks. Public Budgeting and Finance, 26(3), 1-21.
26. Lewis, V.B. (1952). Toward a theory of budgeting. Public Administration Review, 12(1), 42-54.
27. Meier, K.J. 2000. Politics and the bureaucracy: Policy-making in the fourth branch of government (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College.
28. Moynihan, D.P. (2006). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 151-168.
29. Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
30. Moynihan, D.P. (2013). Advancing the empirical study of performance management: What we learned from the Program Assessment Rating Tool. American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 499-517.
31. Mullen, P.R. (2006). Performance-based budgeting: The contribution of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting and Finance, 26(4), 79-88.
32. Nathan, R. (2005). Presidential address: "Complexifying" performance oversight in America's governments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 207-215.
33. Newcomer, K. (2007). How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.
34. Norcross, E., & Adamson, J. (2008). An analysis of the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for fiscal year 2008. Working paper. Government Accountability Project, George Mason University.
35. Posner, P.L., & Fantone, D.L. (2007). 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, 30, 351-368.
36. Quirk, P.J., & Nesmith, B. (1998). Divided government and policy making: Negotiating the laws. In M. Nelson (Ed.), The presidency and the political system (5th ed., pp. 531-554). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
37. Radin, B.A. (2000). 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, 10(1), 111-135.
38. Rubin, I.S. (1993). Who invented budgeting in the United States? Public Administration Review, 53(5), 438-444.
39. Rubin, I.S. (2006). The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending (5th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40. Sharkansky, I. (1968). Agency requests, gubernatorial support and budget success in state legislatures. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1220-1231.
41. Stalebrink, O.J., & Frisco, V. (2011). PART in retrospect: An examination of legislators' attitudes toward PART. Public Budgeting & Finance, 31(2), 1-21.
42. Stewart, J., & Ranson, S. (1988). Management in the public domain. Public Money and Management, 8(1/2), 13-19.
43. Streeter, S. (2004). Earmarks and limitations in appropriations bills. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Washington, DC.
44. Terman, J., & Yang, K. (2010). Contracting and the Performance Assessment Tool: Politicization or sound management? Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 400-433.
45. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Management reform: Continuing progress in implementing initiatives in the president's management agenda. GAO-03-556T. Washington, DC.
46. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004a). Performance budgeting: Observations on the use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the fiscal year 2004 budget. GAO-04-174. Washington, DC.
47. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004b). Performance budgeting: OMB's Performance Rating Tool presents opportunities and challenges for evaluating program performance. GAO-04-550T. Washington, DC.
48. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Analytical perspectives, budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
49. Whicker, M.L. (1992). An academician's response: Toward a grander budget theory. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 601-603.
50. Willoughby, K., & Melkers, J.E. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting systems in 47 of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-73.
51. Yang, K. (2011). The Sisyphean fate of government-wide performance accountability reforms. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(1), 149-176.