The politics and consequences of performance measurement

Policy and Society

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-12

  Lewis, Jenny M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928825196     PISSN: 14494035     EISSN: 18393373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abernethy M.A., Chua W.F. A field study of control systems 'redesign': The impact of institutional processes on strategic choice. Contemporary Accounting Research 1996, 13:569-606.
2. Beer S. Decision and control: The meaning of operational research and management cybernetics 1966, Wiley, Chichester.
3. Behn R. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 2003, 63(5):586-606.
4. Bertelli A.M., John P. Performance measurement as a political discipline mechanism. University of Southern California Law School, Law and Economics Working Paper Series No. 112 2010, Berkeley Electronic Press, http://law.bepress.com/usclwps-lewps/art112.
5. Bevan G., Hood C. What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration 2006, 84(3):517-538.
6. Brignall S., Modell S. An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the 'new public sector'. Management Accounting Review 2000, 11:281-306.
7. Carter N. Performance indicators: 'Backseat driving' or 'hands off' control?. Policy and Politics 1989, 17(2):131-138.
8. Carter N., Klein R., Day P. How organisations measure success: The use of performance indicators in government 1992, Routledge, London and New York.
9. Damgaard B., Lewis J.M. Accountability and citizen participation. Oxford handbook of public accountability 2014, 258-272. Oxford University Press, Oxford. M. Bovens, R. Goodin, T. Schillemans (Eds.).
10. Easton D. A systems analysis of political life 1965, Wiley, New York.
11. Fine G.A. The chaining of social problems: Solutions and unintended consequences in the age of betrayal. Social Problems 2006, 53(1):3-17.
12. Gao J. Governing by goals and numbers: A case study in the use of performance measurement to build state capacity in China. Public Administration and Development 2009, 29:21-31.
13. Grizzle G.A. Performance measurement and dysfunction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance & Management Review 2002, 25(4):363-369.
14. Halchmi A. Performance measurement: Test the water before you dive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2005, 71(2):255-266.
15. Hood C. A public management for all seasons. Public Administration 1991, 69(1):3-19.
16. Hood C., Margetts H., 6 P. The drive to modernize. A world of surprises?. Paradoxes of modernization. Unintended consequences of public policy reform 2010, 3-16. Oxford University Press, Oxford. H. Margetts, P. 6, C. Hood (Eds.).
17. Hood C., Peters G. The middle aging of New Public Management: Into the age of paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2004, 14(3):267-282.
18. Jackson P.M. Governance by numbers: What have we learned over the past 30 years?. Public Money & Management 2011, 31(1):13-26.
19. Johnsen Å. What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management?. Public Money and Management 2005, 25(1):9-17.
20. Kanter R.M., Summers D.V. "Doing well while doing good": Dilemmas of performance measurement in non-profit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. The non-profit sector: A research handbook 1987, 98-110. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. W.W. Powell (Ed.).
21. Kerr S. An academy classic: On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive 1995, 9(1):7-14. first published in 1975.
22. Laswell H. Politics: Who gets what, when, how 1936, McGraw-Hill, New York.
23. Lerner J.S., Tetlock P.E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125(2):255-275.
24. Lewis J.M. Evidence based policy: A technocratic wish in a political world. Evidence-based health policy: Problems and possibilities 2003, 250-259. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. V. Lin, B. Gibson (Eds.).
25. Lowe T. New development: The paradox of outcomes - the more we measure, the less we understand. Public Money and Management 2013, 33(3):213-216.
26. Lukes S. Power. A radical view 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 2nd ed.
27. McKenzie J. Perform or else: From discipline to performance 2001, Routledge, London.
28. Merton R.K. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1936, 1:894-904.
29. Meyer J.W., Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 1977, 83:340-363.
30. Moe T.M. The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond 1990, 116-153. Oxford University Press, New York. O. Williamson (Ed.).
31. Moe T.M. Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1990, 6(Special Issue):213-253.
32. Moynihan D.P. The dynamics of performance measurement 2008, Georgetown, Washington, DC.
33. Pollitt C. The politics of performance assessment: Lessons for higher education?. Studies in Higher Education 1987, 12(1):87-98.
34. Pollitt C. Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2006, 16(1):25-44.
35. Pollitt C., Bouckaert G. Public management reform 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 3rd ed.
36. Radin B.A. Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values 2006, Georgetown University Press, Washington.
37. Ridgway V.F. Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative Science Quarterly 1956, 1(2):240-247.
38. Schick A. Getting performance measures to measure up. Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American Government 2001, Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, NY. D.W. Forsythe (Ed.).
39. Sieber S. Fatal remedies 1981, Plenum, New York.
40. Smith P. On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration 1995, 18(2-3):277-310.
41. Tilly C. Invisible elbow. Sociological Forum 1996, 11(4):589-601.
42. Van Dooren W., Bouckaert G., Halligan J. Performance management in the public sector 2010, Routledge, Oxon.
43. Van Thiel S., Leeuw F.L. The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review 2002, 25(3):267-281.
44. Weiss C.H. Ideology, interests and information: The basis of policy positions. Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis 1983, Plenum Press, New York. D. Callahan, B. Jennings (Eds.).