Performance budgeting in OECD countries

Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries

Volumn 9789264034051, Issue , 2007, Pages 1-222

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957735732     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1787/9789264034051-en     Document Type: Book

References (113)

1. Anderson, B., T. Curristine and O. Merk (2006), "Budgeting in Norway", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 6(1), pp. 7-43.
2. Barankay, Iwan and Ben Lockwood (2006), "Decentralization and the Productive Efficiency of Government: Evidence from Swiss Cantons", IZA Discussion Paper No. 2477, December, IZA (Institute for the Study of Labor), Bonn, Germany, www.iza.org.
3. Behn, Robert D. (1998), "The New Public Management Paradigm and the Search for Democratic Accountability", International Public Management Journal, 1(2), pp. 131-164.
4. Bertok, J., J. Hall, D.J. Kraan, J. Malinska, N. Manning and E. Matthews (2006), "Issues in Outcome Measurement for Government at a Glance". OECD GOV Technical Paper 3, GOV/PGC(2006)10/ANN3, OECD, Paris.
5. Bevan, G. and C. Hood (2006), "What's Measured Is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System", Public Administration, 84(3), pp. 517-538.
6. Blöndal, J. (2003), "Accrual Accounting and Budgeting: Key Issues and Recent Developments", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 3(1), pp. 43-59.
7. Blöndal, J. (2004), "Issues in Accrual Budgeting", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 4(1), pp. 103-119.
8. Blöndal, J. and T. Curristine (2005), "Budgeting in Chile", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 4(2), pp. 7-45.
9. Bouckaert, G. and W. Balk (1991), "Public Productivity Measurement: Diseases and Cures", Public Productivity and Management Review, 15(2), pp. 229-235.
10. Bouckaert, G. and B.G. Peters (2002), "Performance Measurement and Management The Achilles' Heel in Administrative Modernization", Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), pp. 359-362.
11. Boyne, G. (2003), "Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), pp. 767-794.
12. Brewer, G.A. (2005), "In the Eye of the Storm: Frontline Supervisors and Federal Agency Performance", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, pp. 505-527.
13. Brewer, G.A. and S. Selden (2000), "Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, pp. 685-711.
14. Carlin, T. (2006), "Victoria's Accrual Output Based Budgeting System - Delivering as Promised Some Empirical Evidence", Financial Accountability and Management, 22(1), pp. 1-19.
15. Carlin, T. and J. Guthrie (2000), "A Review of Australian and New Zealand Experiences with Accrual Output Based Budgeting", paper presented at the third bi-annual conference of the International Public Management Network, 4-6 March, Sydney, Australia, www.inpuma.net/research/papers/sydney/carlinguthrie.html.
16. Coelli, T., D.S. Prasada Rao and G.E. Battese (2001), An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer, Netherlands.
17. Crain, W. and J. O'Roark (2004), "The Impact of Performance-based Budgeting on State Fiscal Performance", Economics of Governance, Springer, Vol. 5(2), pp. 167-186.
18. Curristine, T. (2005a), "Performance Information in the Budget Process: Results of the OECD 2005 Questionnaire", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), pp. 87-131.
19. Curristine, T. (2005b), "Government Performance: Lessons and Challenges", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1), pp. 127-151.
20. Donahue, A.K., S.C. Selden and P.W. Ingraham (2000), "Measuring Government Management Capacity: A Comparative Analysis of Human Resources Management Systems", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), pp. 381-411.
21. Dooren, Wouter van (2006), Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach, Faculty of Social Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, http://soc.kuleuven.be.
22. Downs, A. (1967), Inside Bureaucracy, Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois, United States.
23. Downs, G. (1986), The Search for Government Efficiency: From Hubris to Helplessness, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
24. Duncombe, W., J. Miner and J. Ruggiero (1997), "Empirical Evaluation of Bureaucratic Models of Inefficiency", Public Choice, 93(1), pp. 1-18.
25. Dunleavy, P. (1991), Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.
26. Dunn, D.D. (1997), Politics and Administration at the Top: Lessons from Down Under, University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, United States.
27. Ebel, R.D. and S. Yilmaz (2002), "On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization", Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS2809, The World Bank, Washington DC.
28. Ellis, Randall P. (1998), "Creaming, Skimping and Dumping: Provider Competition on the Intensive and Extensive Margins", Journal of Health Economics, 17(5), pp. 537-556.
29. Freeman, R. and J. Medoff (1984), What Do Unions Do, Basic Books, New York, United States.
30. GAO (General Accounting Office) (1997), "The Government Performance and Results Act; 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven", GAO/GGD-97-109, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
31. GAO (2000), Managing for Results: Continuing Challenges to Effective GPRA Implementation, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
32. Gilmour, John and David Lewis (2006), "Does Performance Budgeting Work An Examination of the Office of Management and Budget's PART Scores", Public Administration Review, 66(5), pp. 742-752.
33. Halachmi, A. (2002), "Performance Measurement: A Look at Some Possible Dysfunctions", Work Study, 51(5).
34. Halachmi, A. and M. Holzer (1987), "Merit Pay, Performance Targeting, and Productivity", Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7(8), pp. 80-91.
35. Holzer, M. and J. Rabin (1987), "Public Service: Problems, Professionalism and Policy Recommendations", Public Productivity Review, 11(1), pp. 3-13.
36. Holzer, M. and Kaifeng Yang (2004), "Performance Measurement and Improvement: An Assessment of the State of the Art", International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(1), pp. 15-31.
37. Hood, C. (1991), "A Public Management for All Seasons", Public Administration, 69(1).
38. Hou, Yilin, Donald P. Moynihan and Patricia W. Ingraham (2003), "Capacity, Management and Performance: Exploring the Links", American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), pp. 295-315.
39. Huther, J. and A. Shah (1998), "Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate on Fiscal Decentralization", Working Paper No. 1894, The World Bank, Washington DC.
40. Ingraham, P.W. (1993), "Of Pigs in Pokes and Policy Diffusion: Another Look at Pay for Performance", Public Administration Review, 53(4), pp. 348-356.
41. Jordan, M. and M. Hackbart (1999), "Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment", Public Budgeting and Finance, 19(1), pp. 68-88.
42. Kaufman, H. (1976), Are Government Organizations Immortal, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
43. Ketelaar, Anne, Nick Manning and Edouard Turkisch (2007), "Performance-based Arrangements for Senior Civil Servants: OECD and other Country Experiences". OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 2007/5, OECD Publishing, Paris, doi : 10.1787/160726630750.
44. Laking, R. (2005), "Agencies: Their Benefits and Risks", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 4(4), pp. 7-25.
45. Manning, N., D.J. Kraan and J. Malinska (2006), "How and Why Should Government Activity Be Measured in Government at a Glance OECD GOV Technical Paper No. 1, GOV/PGC(2006)10/ANN1, OECD, Paris.
46. Melkers, J. and K. Willoughby (2005), "Models of Performance Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication and Lasting Effects", Public Administration Review, 65(2), pp. 180-190.
47. Moynihan, D.P. and S.K. Pandey (2005), "Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, pp. 421-439.
48. Murray, R. (1992), "Measuring Public Sector Output: The Swedish Report" in Z. Griliches (ed.), Output Measurement in the Service Sectors, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
49. Musgrave, R.A. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance, McGraw-Hill, New York, United States.
50. Nelson Lisa S., Mark D. Robbins and Bill Simonsen (1998), "Introduction to the Special Issue on Governance", Social Science Journal, 35(4), pp. 477-491.
51. Netherlands Ministry of Finance (2004), Policy Budgets and Policy Accountability: Evaluation: Lessons from Practice, Inter-ministerial Consultations for Financial and Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, The Hague, www.minfin.nl.
52. New Zealand Treasury (2003), Managing For Outcomes Guidance, The Treasury, Wellington, www.treasury.govt.nz.
53. Niskanen, W. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
54. OECD (1997), Managing Across Levels of Government, OECD, Paris.
55. OECD (2004), Learning for Tomorrow's World: First Results from PISA 2003, OECD Publishing, Paris.
56. OECD (2005a), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris.
57. OECD (2005b), "Using Performance Information for Managing and Budgeting: Challenges, Lessons and Opportunities", GOV/PGC/SBO(2005)3, OECD, Paris.
58. OECD (2005c), Reallocation: The Role of Budget Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris.
59. OECD (2005d), "Trends in Human Resources Management Policies in OECD Countries: An Analysis of the Results of the OECD Survey on Strategic Human Resources Management", GOV/PGC/HRM(2004)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris.
60. OECD (2005e), "Paying for Performance: Policies for Government Employees", OECD Policy Brief, May, OECD, Paris.
61. OECD (2005f), "Performance Information in the Budget Process: Results of OECD 2005 Questionnaire. Final Report", GOV/PGC/SBO(2005)6/FINAL, OECD, Paris.
62. OECD (2005g), Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World: First Measures of Cross-curricular Competencies from PISA 2003, OECD Publishing, Paris.
63. OECD (2006), "Summary of Key Findings from the 2006 Meeting of the Senior Budget Officials (SBO) Network on Performance and Results", GOV/PGC/RD(2006)5, OECD, Paris.
64. OECD E-government Task Force (2003), "The Case for E-government: Excerpts from the OECD Report""The E-government Imperative", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 3(1), pp. 61-92.
65. OECD and World Bank (2003), "OECD/World Bank Budget Practices and Procedures Database", www.oecd.org/gov/budget/database.
66. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley, New York, United States.
67. Paulsson, G. (2006), "Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: Experiences from the Central Government in Sweden", Financial Accountability and Management, 22(1), pp. 47-62.
68. Perrin, Burt (2006), Moving From Outputs to Outcomes: Practical Advice from Governments Around the World, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington DC, www.businessofgovernment.org.
69. Peters, B.G. (2003), "The Capacity to Coordinate", paper presented at the international workshop on state policy capacity, 5-6 October, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, www.cityu.edu.hk.
70. Pierre, J. (2004), "Central Agencies in Sweden: A Report from Utopia" in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds.), Unbundled Government A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, Routledge Studies in Public Management No. 1, pp. 203-214, Routledge, London and New York.
71. Pollitt, Christopher (2000), "Is the Emperor in his Underwear An Analysis of the Impacts of Public Management Reform", Public Management: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2(2), pp. 181-199.
72. Pollitt, Christopher (2001), "Integrating Financial Management and Performance Management", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(2), pp. 7-37.
73. Pollitt, Christopher (2004), "Theoretical Overview" in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds.), Unbundled Government. A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, Routledge Studies in Public Management No. 1, pp. 319-342, Routledge, London and New York.
74. Pollitt, C., K. Bathgate, J. Caulfield, A. Smullen and C. Talbot (2001), "Agency Fever Analysis of an International Policy Fashion", Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 3(3), November, pp. 271-290.
75. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004), Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
76. Reddick, Christopher (2003), "Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision-Making in the US States", Financial Accountability and Management, 19(4), pp. 315-340.
77. Robinson, M. and J. Brumby (2005), "Does Performance Budgeting Work An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature", Working Paper WP05/210, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
78. Rubin, I. and J. Kelly (2005), "Budget and Accounting Reforms" in E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, Jr. and C. Pollitt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, pp. 590-639, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
79. Scheers, B., M. Sterck and G. Bouckaert (2005), "Lessons from Australian and British Reforms in Results-oriented Financial Management", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), pp. 133-162.
80. Schick, A. (1996), The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of Change (A Report Prepared for the State Services Commission and the Treasury, New Zealand), State Services Commission, Wellington, www.ssc.govt.nz.
81. Schick, A. (2001), "The Changing Role of the Central Budget Office", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(1), pp. 9-26.
82. Schick, A. (2003), "The Performing State: Reflection on an Idea Whose Time Has Come but Whose Implementation Has Not", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 3(2), pp. 71-103.
83. Selden, S. (1997), The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, United States.
84. Smith, P. (1995), "On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector", International Journal of Public Administration, 18, pp. 277-310.
85. Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004), Public Sector Performance. An international comparison, SCP, The Hague, www.scp.nl.
86. Sterck, M. and B. Scheers (2006), "Trends in Performance Budgeting in Seven OECD Countries", Public Performance and Management Review, 30(1), September, pp. 47-72.
87. United Kingdom House of Commons, Public Administration Select Committee (2003), On Target Government by Measurement (Fifth report of Session 2002-03; Volume 1), The Stationery Office Ltd, London, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubadm/62/62.pdf.
88. Verhoest, Koen (2005), "Effects of Autonomy, Performance Contracting and Competition on the Performance of a Public Agency", Policy Studies Journal, 33(2).
89. Wildavsky, A.B. (1974), The Politics of the Budget Process, Little Brown and Company, New York, United States.
90. Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York, United States.
91. Wilson, J.Q. (1989), Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, Basic Books, New York, United States.
92. ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) (2003), Annual Performance Reporting, Audit Report No. 11, November, Canberra.
93. ANAO (2007), Application of the Outcomes and Outputs Framework, Audit Report No. 23 for 2006/07, February, Canberra.
94. ANAO and Department of Finance and Administration (1996), Better Practice Principles for Performance Information, 1 November, Canberra.
95. ANAO and Department of Finance and Administration (2004), Better Practice in Annual Performance Reporting, Canberra.
96. Commonwealth of Australia (1996), National Commission of Audit 1996: Report to the Commonwealth Government, June, www.finance.gov.au/pubs/ncoa/coaintro.htm, Canberra.
97. Department of Finance and Administration (1998), Specifying Outcomes and Outputs - Implementing the Commonwealth's Accrual-based Outcomes and Outputs Framework, Canberra.
98. JCPAA (Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit) (2002), Review of the Accrual Budget Documentation, Report No. 388, June, Canberra.
99. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (1990), Not Dollars Alone: Review of the Financial Management Improvement Program, September, www.aph.gov.au Canberra.
100. SCFPA (Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration) (1999), The Format of the Portfolio Budget Statements, Second Report, Canberra.
101. SCFPA (2000), The Format of the Portfolio Budget Statements, Third Report, Canberra.
102. SCFPA (2007), Transparency and Accountability of Commonwealth Public Funding and Expenditure, March, Canberra.
103. International Monetary Fund (2006), Kingdom of the Netherlands-Netherlands: Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes - Fiscal Transparency Module, and the Aide- Mémoire Regarding the Fiscal Framework, IMF Country Report No. 06/124, March, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, www.imf.org.
104. Ministry of Finance (2004), Policy Budgets and Policy Accountability: Final Report. Lessons from Practice, Interministerial Consultations for Financial and Economic Affairs (IOFEZ), December, The Hague, www.minfin.nl.
105. Gershon, Peter (2004), Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, July, Crown copyright, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
106. Government of the United Kingdom (2002), Audit and Accountability in Central Government. The Government's Response to Lord Sharman's Report "Holding to Account", March, Cm 5456, London.
107. HM Treasury (2002), Opportunity and Security for All: Investing in an Enterprising, Fairer Britain (New Public Spending Plans 2003-2006), 2002 spending review presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by Command of Her Majesty, July, Cm 5570, London.
108. HM Treasury (2004), 2004 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 2005-2008, Cm 6238, London.
109. HM Treasury (1998), Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability (Comprehensive Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 1999-2002), presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury by Command of Her Majesty, December, Cm 4181, London.
110. HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office, Audit Commission and Office for National Statistics (2001), Choosing the Right FABRIC: A Framework for Performance Information, March, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/EDE/5E/229.pdf, London.
111. OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris.
112. Sharman, Lord of Redlynch (2001), Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, February, London.
113. GAO (Government Accountability Office) (2004), Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO- 04-174, 30 January, Washington DC.