Consensus Among Public Managers as Strategy for Standardization of Performance Indicators

International Public Management Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 371-398

  Rodríguez, David Ortiz ^a   Galera, Andrés Navarro ^a   López Hernández, Antonio M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009578814     PISSN: 10967494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10967490601077129     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Ahmad, Y. and M. Broussine. 2003. “The UK Public Sector Modernization Agenda.” Public Management Review 5(1): 45-62.
2. Ammons, D. N. 1999. “A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking.” Public Administration Review 59(2): 105-109.
3. Ammons, D. N. 2000. “Benchmarking as a Performance Management Tool: Experiences Among Municipalities in North Carolina.” Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting and Financial Management 12(1): 106-124.
4. Ammons, D. N. 2001. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Ammons, D. N., C. Coe, and M. Lombardo. 2001. “Performance-Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participants' Perspective.” Public Administration Review 61(1): 100-115.
6. Aristigueta, M. 1999. “Measuring Performance in State Government.” Pp. 347-361 in J. J. Gargan, ed., Handbook of State Government Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker.
7. Asociacion Espanola de Contabilidad y Administracion de Empresas (AECA). 2002. Un Sistema de Indicadores de Gestion para los Ayuntamientos. Madrid, Spain: AECA.
8. Audit Commission. 1992. Citizen's Charterlndicators: Charting a Course. London, UK: Audit Commission.
9. Audit Commission. 1994. Watching their Figures. A Guide to the Citizen's Charter Indicators. London, UK: HMSO.
10. Audit Commission. 1999a. Best Assured. The Role of the Audit Commission in Best Value. London, UK: Audit Commission. Also available online at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk
11. Audit Commission. 1999b. Review of Audit Commissions Role in Setting Statutory Pis. A Consultation Document. London, UK: Audit Commission. Also available online at http:// www.audit-commission.gov.uk
12. Audit Commission 1999c. Audit Commissions Role in Setting Statutory Performance Indicators. Consultation feedback. London, UK: Audit Commission.
13. Audit Commission 2000. On Target. The Practice of Performance Indicators. London, UK: Audit Commission. Also available online at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk
14. Audit Commission and Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA). 2003. Suggested Local Performance Indicators for Inclusion in the Library of Local Pis. London, UK: Audit Commission & IDeA.
15. Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF). 1996. Financial Reporting by Local Governments. Caulfield, Australia: AARF.
16. Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF). 1998. Financial Reporting by Govern­ments Department. Caulfield, Australia: AARF.
17. Behn, R. D. 2002. “The Psychological Barriers to Performance Management, or Why isn’t Everyone Jumping on the Performance Management Bandwagon?” Public Performance & Management Review 26(1): 5-25.
18. Behn, R. D. 2003. “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public Administration Review 63(5): 586-606.
19. Berstelsmann Foundation. 1997. Comparative Performance Measurement for Local Governments. Germany: Berstelsmann Foundation.
20. Bowerman, M. and A. Ball. 2001, Authorities on Benchmarking? The State of Benchmarking in the UK Local Government Sector. London: CIMA.
21. Bowerman, M., A. Ball, and G. Francis. 2001. “Benchmarking as a Tool for the Modernis­ation Of Local Government.” Financial Accountability & Management 17(4): 321-329.
22. Brooks, J. 2000. “Labours Modernization of Local Government.” Public Administration 78(3): 593-612.
23. Brown, R. E. and J. B. Pyers. 1998. “Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Has its Time Really Come?” Public Budgeting & Finance 18(4): 101-113.
24. Burke, J. 2005. “Ontario’s Municipal Performance Measurement Program: Fostering Inno­vation and Accountability in Local Government.” Government Finance Review 21(3): 22-27.
25. Burke, B. F. and B. C. Costello. 2005. “The Human Side of Managing for Results.” American Review of Public Administration 35(3): 270-286.
26. Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation (CCAF). 2002. Reporting Principles: Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level. Ottawa, Canada: CCAF-FCVI Inc.
27. Christiaens, J. 1999. “Financial Accounting Reform in Flemish Municipalities: An Empirical Investigation.” Financial Accountability & Management 15(1): 21-40.
28. Coe, C. 1999. “Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovem- ment Efforts.” Public Administration Review 59(2): 110-123.
29. Cohen, S. and W. Eimicke. 1998. Tools for Innovators: Creative Strategies for Managing Public Sector Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. de Lancer Julnes, P. and M. Holzer. 2001. “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Mea­sures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementario.” Public Administration Review 61(6): 693-708.
31. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1999a. Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. Volume One: The Performance Indicators including The Publication of Information Direction 1999 (England). London, UK: DETR.
32. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1999b. Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. Volume Two: Feedback. London, UK: DETR.
33. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 2000. Best Value Per­formance Indicators for 2001/2002. London, UK: DETR.
34. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTRL). 2002. Best Value Performance Indicators for 2002/2003. London, UK: DTRL.
35. Durant, R. F. 1999. “The Political Economy of Results-oriented Management in the ‘Neoad- ministrative State’: Lessons from the MCDHHS experience.” American Review of Public Administration 29(4): 307-331.
36. Ferlie, E., L. Ashbumer, L. Fitzgerald, and A. Pettigrew. 1996. The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Few, P. K. and A. J. Vogt, 1997. “Measuring the Performance of Local Governments.” Popular Government 62(2): 41-54.
38. Flynn, N. 2002. “Explaining the New Public Management: The Importance of Context.” In K. McLaughlin, S. P. Osborne, and E. Ferlie, eds., The New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London, UK: Routledge.
39. Flynn, N. and F. Strehl. 1996. Public Management in Europe. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice- Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf.
40. Folz, D. H. 2004. “Service Quality and Benchmarking the Performance of Municipal Services.” Public Administration Review 64(2): 209-220.
41. Fountain, J. R., T. K. Patton, and H. I. Steinberg. 2004. “Improving Performance Reporting for Government: New Guidance and Resources.” The Journal of Government Financial Management 53(1): 60-66.
42. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 1994. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Norwalk, CT: GASB.
43. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 1998. Performance Measurement Information Clearinghouse for Governments. Norwalk, CT: GASB.
44. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 1999. Concepts Statement on SEA Reporting. Performance Measurement Information Clearinghouse for Governments. Norwalk, CT: GASB.
45. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 2003. Reporting Performance Infor­mation: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication. Norwalk, CT: GASB.
46. Guthrie, J., O. Olson, and C. Humphrey. 1999. “Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward.” Financial Accountability & Management 15(3&4): 209-228.
47. Hatry, H. P. 1999. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
48. Hoemig, H. and M. Seasons. 2004. “Monitoring of Indicators in Local and Regional Planning Practice: Concepts and Issues.” Planning, Practice & Research 19(1): 81-99.
49. Holloway, J. A., G. A. J. Francis, and C. M. Hinton. 1999. “A Vehicle for Change? A Case Study of Performance Improvement in the ‘New’ Public Sector.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 12(4): 351-365.
50. Holzer, M. and V. Gabrielian. 1998. “Five Great Ideas in Public Administration.” Pp. 49-101 in J. Rabin, W. Hildreth and G. Miller, eds., Handbook of Public Administration, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
51. Hood, C. 1991. “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration 69(1): 3-19.
52. Hood, C. 1995. “The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2&3): 93-110.
53. Hoque, Z. 2005. “Securing Institutional Legitimacy or Organizational Effectiveness? A Case Examining the Impact of Public Sector Reform Initiatives in an Australian Local Authority.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 18(4): 367-382.
54. Huggins, R. 2003. “Creating a UK Competitiveness Index: Regional and Local Benchmark­ing.” Regional Studies 37(1): 89-96.
55. Hughes, O. E. 1994. Public Management and Administration. London, UK: Macmillan Press Ltd.
56. Jones, A. 1997. “Winston-Salem’s Participation in the North Carolina Performance Measure­ment Project.” Government Finance Review 13(4): 35-36.
57. Kamensky, J. M. 1995. “Program Performance Measures: Designing a System to Manage for Results.” Pp. 239-246 in A. Halachmi and M. Holzer, eds., Competent Government: Theory and Practice. The Best of Public Productivity and Management Review, 1985- 1993. Burke, VA: Chantelaine Press.
58. Keehley, P., S. Medlin, S. A. MacBride, and L. Longmire. 1997. Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59. Kopczynski, M. and M. Lombardo. 1999. “Comparative Performance Measurement: Insights and Lesson Learned from Consortium Effort.” Public Administration Review 59(2): 124-134.
60. Kouzmin, A., E. Loffler, H. Klages, and N. Korac-Kakabadse. 1999. “Benchmarking and Performance Measurement in Public Sectors.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 12(2): 121-144.
61. Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham. 2004. “What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-first century.” Academy of Management Review 29(3): 388-403.
62. Loffler, E. 2001. “Quality Awards as a Public Sector Benchmarking Concept in OECD Member Countries: Some Guidelines for Quality Award Organizers.” Public Administration and Development 21(1): 27-40.
63. Midwinter, A. 2001. “New Labour and the Modernisation of British Local Government: A Critique.” Financial Accountability & Management 17(4): 311-320.
64. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1999. Performance Monitoring in the Planning System: A Handbook of Municipally Tested Indicators. Toronto, Canada: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
65. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2000. Municipal Performance Measurement Pro­gram: Year 200 Performance Measures and Definitions. Toronto, Canada: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
66. Mitchell, S. 2000. “Modernising Social Services: The Management Challenge of the 1998 Social Services White Paper.” In M. Hill, ed., Local Authority Social Services. Oxford: Blackwell.
67. Morely, E., S. P. Bryant, and H. P. Hatry. 2001. Comparative Performance Measurement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
68. Mussari, R. 1999. “Some Considerations on the Significance of the Assets and Liabilities Statement in Italian Local Government Reform.” In E. Capperchione and R. Mussari, eds., Comparative Issues in Local Government Accounting. Nonvell. MA: Kluwer.
69. OECD. 1999. In Search of Results: Performance Management Practice Key and Performance Management Issues. Available online at http://www.oecd.org
70. OECD. 2001. Public Sector Modernisation: A Ten Year Perspective. Paris, France: OECD.
71. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003. Best Value Performance Indicators for 2003-2004. London, UK: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
72. Pallot, J. 2001. “Transparency in Local Government: Antipodean Initiatives.” The European Accounting Review 10(3): 645-660.
73. Percy, I. 2001. “The Best Value Agenda for Auditing.” Financial Accountability & Management 17(4): 351-361.
74. Peters, B. G. 2001. The Future of Governing, 2nd ed., revised. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
75. Premchand, A. 1993. Public Expense Management. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
76. Rivenbark, W. C. and K. L. Carter. 2000. “Benchmarking and Cost Accounting: The North Carolina Approach.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management 12(1): 125-137.
77. Rutherford, B. A. 2000. “Construction and Presentation of Performance Indicators in Executive Agency External Reports.” Financial Accountability & Management 16(3): 225-249.
78. Smith, K. A. 2004. “Voluntary Reporting Performance Measures to the Public: A Test of Accounting Reports from U.S. Cities.” International Public Management Journal 7(1): 19-48.
79. ter Bogt, H. J. and G. J. van Helden. 2000. “Management Control and Performance Measurement in Dutch Local Government.” Management Accounting Research 11(2): 263-279.
80. The Industry Commission. 1997. Review of Commonwealth/State Government Service Provision. Melbourne, Australia: The Industry Commission.
81. Vela, J. M. 1996. “Latest Accounting Developments in Local Government Accounting in Spain.” Financial Accountability & Management 12(3): 205-224.
82. Vickers, M. H. and A. Kouzmin. 2001. “New Managerialism and Australian Police Organiza­tions: A Cautionary Research Note.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 14(2): 7-26.
83. Wholey, J. S. and K. E. Newcomer. 1997. “Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results.” Pp. 91-98 in K. E. Newcomer, ed., Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs, New Directions for Evaluation 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.