A comparative approach to performance management: Contrasting the experience of australia, new zealand, and the united states

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1355-1376

  Radin, Beryl A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE   (United States)

Author keywords

Australia; Comparative administration; New zealand; Performance managment; United states

Indexed keywords

EID: 85048901247     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120024401     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Report to Congressional Subcommittees: “Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for US Agencies from Other Countries' Performance Management Intitatives”, GAO-02-862. US General Accounting Office. August 2002
2. Gormley, W. T., Jr. and Weimer, D. L., 1999. “ Organizational Report Cards ”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. 2002. Public broadcasting system. Frontline, April 4 Interview: Paul Volker
4. Gardner, H., 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences New York: Basic Books.
5. Edelman, M., 1971. Politics as Symbolic Action Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
6. Dorner, D., 1996. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
7. Romzek, B. S., and Dubnick, M. J., 1987. Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Admin. Rev., 47 (May–June): 227–238.
8. 1976. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Royal Commision on Australian Government Administration. Report, (known as the Coombs Report)
9. 1992. Vol. 17, Australia: Public Management Profiles. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
10. 1993. “ Performance Information and the Management Cycle ”. Canberra: AGPS. Management Advisory Board Australia
11. April 26 2000. April 26, Australian Department of Finance. Speech by Stephen Bartos
12. 1992. Vol. 215, New Zealand: Public Management Profiles. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
13. Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation." GAO/AIMD-97-46. pp. 7. General Accounting Office. March 1997
14. Committee on Governmental Affairs US Senate. Report to Provide for the Establishment, Testing, and Evaluation of Strategies Planning and Performance measurement in the Federal Government, and for other Purposes http://server.conginst/results/gprapt.html
15. Ingram, H., 1997. Policy implementation through bargaining: the case of Federal grants-in-aid. Public Policy, 25: 499–526.