The legacy of federal management change part repeats familiar problems

Performance Management and Budgeting: How Governments Can Learn from Experience

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 114-132

  Radin, Beryl A ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85076159175     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315701806-13     Document Type: Chapter

References (24)

1. Committee Report, House of Representatives Committee Report, H RPT 109–153, June 24, 2005.
2. Congressional Record. January 4, 2005 (Extensions). “The Introduction of the Program Assessment and Results Act.” Page E15 from the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access, wais.access.gpo.gov (DOCID:cr04ja05–55).
3. de Bruijn Hans. 2003. Managing Performance in the Public Sector. New York: Routledge.
4. Dror, Yehezkel. 1971. Ventures in Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
5. Foreman, Christopher H Jr. 1995. “Reinventing Politics? The NPR Meets Congress.” In Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising Governmental Reform, eds. Donald F. Kettl and John J. DiIulio, Jr., 152–68. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 1997. Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation. Washington, DC: GAO, AIMD 97–46, March.
7. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2004. Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. Washington, DC: GAO, GAO- 04–174.
8. Heclo, Hugh. 1972. “Modes and Moods of Policy Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 2(1) (January): 131.
9. Hughes, Adam. 2006. Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch, “Testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security,” June 13.
10. Mandel, Jenny. 2006. “OMB Program Assessments Viewed as Flawed Budget Tool.” Gov-Exec.com, April 4.
11. Matonoski, Genevieve. 2004. EPA Science Advisory Board, testimony at Hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards of the House Committee on Science, 108th Congress (2004) WL 506081 (FDCH).
12. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2002. “OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), Research and Development Programs,” Draft, FY 2002 Spring Review.
13. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2004. PART Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/2004_faq.html, accessed September 24, 2007, Question 27.
14. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2004 “Performance and Management Assessments.” Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004.
15. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. New York: Plume.
16. Radin, Beryl A. 1997. “Balancing Policy and Administrative Change.” In The White House and the Blue House, eds. Yong Hyo Cho and H. George Frederickson, 15–25. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
17. Radin, Beryl A.. 2000a. Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
18. Radin, Beryl A.. 2000b. “The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes?” J-PART 10(1):111–35.
19. Radin, Beryl A.. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
20. Snow, C.P. 1963. The Two Cultures and a Second Look. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21. Stone, Deborah. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton.
22. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1969. “Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS.” Public Administration Review 29: 189–202.
23. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1974. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. New York: Little, Brown.
24. Williams, Walter. 1998. Honest Numbers and Democracy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.