Taking stock: Assessing and improving performance budgeting theory and practice

Public Performance and Management Review

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 426-458

  Lu, Elaine Yi ^a   Mohr, Zachary ^b   Ho, Alfred Tat Kei ^c  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

GPRA; PART; PBB; Performance budget; Performance management; Performance based budget

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957100432     PISSN: 15309576     EISSN: 15579271     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2015.1006470     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (73)

1. Andrews, M. (2004). Authority, acceptance, ability and performance-based budgeting reforms. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 332-344.
2. Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517-538.
3. Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5-25.
4. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
5. Bourdeaux, C. (2006). Do legislatures matter in budgetary reform? Public Budgeting & Finance, 26(1), 120-142.
6. Bourdeaux, C. (2008). Integrating performance information into legislative budget processes. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 547-569.
7. Breul, J. (2007). GPRA - A foundation for performance budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 312-331.
8. Burns, R. C., & Lee, R. D. (2004). The ups and downs of state budget process reform: Experience of three decades. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(3), 1-19.
9. Chi, K. S. (2008). Four strategies to transform state governance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/ChiReport.pdf, accessed February 21, 2013.
10. Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2003). Performance funding in federal agencies: A case study of a federal job training program. Public Budgeting & Finance, 23(3), 22-48.
11. Curristine, T. (2005). Performance information in the budget process: Results of the OECD 2005 questionnaire. OECD Journal, 5(2), 87-131.
12. Dull, M. (2006). Why PART? The institutional politics of presidential budget reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 187-215.
13. Franklin, A. L. (2002). An examination of the impact of budget reform on Arizona and Oklahoma appropriations. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(3), 26-45.
14. Frisco, V., & Stalebrink, O. J. (2008). Congressional use of the program assessment rating tool. Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(2), 1-19.
15. Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2006a). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 169-186.
16. Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2006b). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget's PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 742-752.
17. Greitens, T. J., & Joaquin, M. E. (2010). Policy typology and performance measurement: Results from the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 489-508.
18. Grizzle, G. A., & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). Implementing performance-based program budgeting: A system-dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51-62.
19. Gueorguieva, V., Accius, J., Apaza, C., Bennett, L., Brownley, C., Cronin, S., & Preechyanud, P. (2009). The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the Government Performance and Results Act: Evaluating conflicts and disconnections. American Review of Public Administration, 39(3), 225-245.
20. Handley, D. M., & Howell-Moroney, M. (2010). Ordering stakeholder relationships and citizen participation: evidence from the Community Development Block Grant program. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 601-609.
21. Ho, A. T. (2007). The governance challenges of the Government Performance and Results Act: A case study of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(1), 35-46.
22. Ho, A. T. (2011). PBB in American local governments: Not just for budgeting, and more than a management tool. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 391-401.
23. Ho, A. T., & Coates, P. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment - The initial Iowa experience. Public Performance and Management Review, 27(3), 29-50.
24. Ho, A. T., & Im, T. (2013). Challenges in building an effective and competitive government in developing countries: An institutional perspective. American Review of Public Administration. doi:10.1177/0275074013501856
25. Ho, A. T., & Ni, A. (2005). Have cities shifted to outcome-oriented performance reporting? A content analysis of city budgets. Public Budgeting and Finance, 25 (2), 61-83.
26. Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: Approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515-521
27. Hou, Y., Lunsford, R. S., Sides, K. C., & Jones, K. A. (2011). State performance-based budgeting in boom and bust years: An analytical framework and survey of the states. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 370-388.
28. Jordan, M. M., & Hackbart, M. (2005). The goals and implementation success of state performance-based budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 17(4), 471-487.
29. Joyce, P. G. (1993). Using performance measures for federal budgeting: Proposals and prospects. Public Budgeting & Finance, 13(4), 3-17.
30. Joyce, P. G. (2003). Linking performance and budgeting: Opportunities in the federal budget process. Arlington, VA: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/PerformanceandBudgeting.pdf, accessed February 21, 2013.
31. 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.
32. Kamensky, J. M. (2012). Is the performance glass half empty or half full? Public Administration Review, 72(4), 603-604.
33. Kasdin, S. (2010). Reinventing reforms: How to improve program management using performance measures. Really. Public Budgeting & Finance, 30(3), 51-78.
34. Kasymova, J. T., & Schachter, H. L. (2014). Bringing participatory tools to a different level. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(3), 441-464.
35. Kelly, J. M., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2008). Budget theory in local government: The process-outcome conundrum. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 20(4), 457-481.
36. Key, V. O. (1940). The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1137-1144.
37. Kim, S., & Schacter, H. L. (2013). Citizen participation in the budget process and local government accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 456-471.
38. Klase, K. A., & Dougherty, M. J. (2008). The impact of performance budgeting on state budget outcomes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 20(3), 277-298.
39. Lee, J., & Wang, X. (2009). Assessing the impact of performance-based budgeting: A comparative analysis across the United States, Taiwan, and China. Public Administration Review, 69, S60-S66.
40. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.
41. Long, E., & Franklin, A. L. (2004). The paradox of implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top-down direction for bottom-up implementation. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 309-319.
42. Lu, Y. (2007). Performance budgeting: The perspective of state agencies. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27(4), 1-17.
43. Lu, Y. (2008). Managing the design of performance measures: The role of agencies. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(1), 3-20.
44. Lu, Y. (2011). Individual engagement to collective participation: The dynamics of participation pattern in performance budgeting. Public Budgeting & Finance, 31(2), 79-98.
45. Lu, Y., & Willoughby, K. (2012). Performance budgeting in the states: An assessment. Business of Government Magazine, fall/winter, 71-75.
46. Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., & Arnett, S. (2009). Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 266-287.
47. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.
48. Martin, L. L., & Singh, K. K. (2004). Using government performance management data to identify new business opportunities: Examples from government services outsourcing in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(1), 65-76.
49. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
50. Melkers, J. E., & Willoughby, K. G. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190.
51. 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.
52. Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592-602.
53. Mullen, P. R. (2006). Performance-based budgeting: The contribution of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting & Finance, 26(4), 79-88.
54. National Performance Management Advisory Commission (NPMAC). (2010). A performance management framework: From measurement and reporting to management and improving for state and local government. Available at http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/APerformanceManagementFramework.pdf, accessed April 10, 2014.
55. Newcomer, K. (2007). How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.
56. Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development. (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALMGMT/Resources/313217-1196229169083/4441154-1196275288288/4444688-1196378494429/PerformanceBudgetinginOECDCountries.pdf, accessed February 21, 2013.
57. O'Toole, L. J. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181-210.
58. Pitsvada, B., & LoStracco, F. (2002). Performance budgeting - The next budgetary answer. But what is the question? Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(1), 53-73.
59. Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325-335.
60. Posner, P. L., & Fantone, D. M. (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(3), 351-368.
61. 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.
62. Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
63. Radin, B. A. (2011). Federalist no. 71: Can the federal government be held accountable for performance? Public Administration Review, 71, S128-S134.
64. Reddick, C. G. (2007). State resource allocation and budget formats: Towards a hybrid model. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 19(2), 221-244.
65. Rivenbark, W. C., & Kelly, J. M. (2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 35-46.
66. Shah, A., & Shen, C. (2007). A primer on performance budgeting. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ShahandShenpaper.pdf, accessed August 31, 2012.
67. Sterck, M. (2007). The impact of performance budgeting on the role of the legislature: A four-country study. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 189-203.
68. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003, April). Performance budgeting: Current developments and future prospects. GAO-03-595 T. Available at http://gao.gov/assets/110/109766.pdf, accessed February 21, 2013.
69. Van Dooren, W., De Caluwe, C., & Lonti, Z. (2012). How to measure public administration performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 489-508.
70. Waldo, D. (1956). Perspectives on administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
71. Wichowsky, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 71, S128-S134.
72. Willoughby, K. G., & Melkers, J. E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 105-120.
73. Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.