Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T04:53:25.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Public management and government performance: An international review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Melissa Forbes
Affiliation:
Joint doctoral student in public policy and sociology Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Carolyn J. Hill
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Public Policy Georgetown University in Washington, DC
Laurence E. Lynn Jr.
Affiliation:
George H. W. Bush Chair and Professor of Public Affairs Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University
George A. Boyne
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Kenneth J. Meier
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr.
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Richard M. Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Performance is seemingly an obsession with governments around the world. As Frederickson and Smith (2003: 208) point out, ‘[a]ccountability for conducting the public's business is increasingly about performance rather than discharging a specific policy goal within the confines of the law.’

Evidence for ‘this general advocacy of a performance orientation’ (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004: 126) is found, for example, in the European Commission's commitment to ‘more efficient, performance-orientated working methods’ (EC 2000: 8), in the British government's widespread use of performance targets (James 2001) and in US President George W. Bush's ‘management agenda’ in particular, in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), instituted in 2002. This tool represents the most recent effort by the US federal government to increase the emphasis on performance in government programmes and agencies, although the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act remains in effect. It was implemented by the Bush Administration as an explicit accountability strategy:

The PART was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. The PART therefore looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design; performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning; program management; and program results. Because the PART includes a consistent series of analytical questions, it allows programs to show improvements over time, and allows comparisons between similar programs.

(US OMB, 2005)
Type
Chapter
Information
Public Service Performance
Perspectives on Measurement and Management
, pp. 254 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bache, I. (2001) ‘Different seeds in the same plot? Competing models of capitalism and the incomplete contracts of partnership design’, Public Administration, 79: 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, P. and Newberry, S. (2002) ‘Reshaping community mental health services in a restructured state: New Zealand 1984–97’, Public Management Review, 4: 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, F. W., Dluhy, M. J. and Topinka, J. P. (2001) ‘Choosing the rowers: Are private managers of public housing more successful than public managers?’, American Review of Public Administration, 31: 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boex, J. (2003) ‘The incidence of local government allocations in Tanzania’, Public Administration and Development, 23: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, G. A. (2003) ‘Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13: 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, G. A., Farrell, C., Law, J., Powell, M. and Walker, R. M. (2003) Evaluating public management reforms: principles and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. (1988) ‘Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews’, Knowledge in Society, 1: 104–126.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. and Hedges, L. V. (1994) ‘Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise’, in Cooper, H. and Hedges, L. V. (eds.) The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Commission on the European Communities (EC) (2000) Reforming the Commission. EU: Brussels.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Ehrenberg, R., Rees, D. L. and Ehrenberg, E. L. (1991) ‘School district leave policies, teacher absenteeism, and student achievement,’ Journal of Human Resources, 26: 72–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederickson, H. G. and Smith, K. B. (2003) The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, M. and Lynn, L. E. Jr. (2005) ‘How does public management affect government performance? Findings from international research’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 559–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, G. V. (1976) ‘Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis’, Educational Researcher 5: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K. J., Taylor, L. L. and Weber, W. L. (2001) ‘On the determinants of school district efficiency: Competition and monitoring’, Journal of Urban Economics, 49: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grusky, O. and Adams, R. (1994) ‘Organizational conflict and mental health service system effectiveness’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 22: 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. E. and Toole, L. J. Jr. (2000) ‘Structures for policy implementation: An analysis of national legislation, 1965–66 and 1993–1994’, Administration & Society, 31: 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. E. and Toole, L. J. Jr. (2004) ‘Shaping formal networks through the regulatory process’, Administration & Society, 36: 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. J. and Lynn, L. E. Jr. (2005) ‘Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hird, J. A. (1990) ‘Superfund expenditures and cleanup priorities: Distributive politics or the public interest?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9: 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
James, O. (2001) ‘Business models and the transfer of businesslike central government agencies’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 14: 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, L. L. and Ostrom, E. (1982) ‘The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches’ in Ostrom, E. (eds.) Strategies of political inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 179–222.Google Scholar
Kitchener, M. and Gask, L. (2003) ‘NPM merger mania: lessons from an early case’, Public Management Review, 5: 20–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, P- L. and Shiu, A. (2001) ‘A data envelopment analysis of the efficiency of China's thermal power generation’, Utilities Policy, 10: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M. (2000) ‘Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed’, European Journal of Political Research, 37: 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2003) Public management, in Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (eds.), Handbook of public administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 14–24.Google Scholar
Lynn, L. E. Jr., Heinrich, C. J. and Hill, C. J. (2000a) ‘Studying governance and public management: Why? How?’ in Heinrich, C. and Lynn, L. (eds.) Governance and performance: New perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Lynn, L. E. Jr., Heinrich, C. J. and Hill, C. J. (2000b) ‘Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10: 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, L. E. Jr., Heinrich, C. J. and Hill, C. J. (2001) Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Nunn, S. (1996) ‘Urban infrastructure policies and capital spending in city manager and strong mayor cities’, American Review of Public Administration, 26: 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Management and Budget. (2005) Program assessment rating tool (PART). www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/. (Accessed 25 March 2005.)
Peters, B. G. and Savoie, D. J. (eds.) (1998) Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Pina, V. and Torres, L. (2001) ‘Analysis of the efficiency of local government services delivery: An application to urban public transport’, Transportation Research Part A, 35: 929–944.Google Scholar
Poister, T. H. and Henry, G. T. (1994) ‘Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: A comparative perspective’, Public Administration Review, 54: 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2000) ‘Is the emperor in his underwear: An analysis of the impacts of public management reform’, Public Management Review, 2: 181–200.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C . and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenheck, R., Frisman, L. and Kasprow, W. (1999) ‘Improving access to disability benefits among homeless persons with mental illness: An agency-specific approach to services integration’, American Journal of Public Health, 89: 524–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, F. and Hardman, F. (2000) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of the national literacy strategy: Identifying indicators of success’, Educational Studies 26: 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Str⊘m, K. (2000) ‘Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 37: 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toonen, T. A. J. (1998) ‘Networks, management, and institutions: Public administration as “normal science”, Public Administration, 76: 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdivia, M. (2002) ‘Public health infrastructure and equity in the utilization of outpatient health care services in Peru’, Health Policy and Planning, 17: 12–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varatharajan, D., Thankappan, R. and Jayapalan, S. (2004) ‘Assessing the performance of primary health centers under decentralized government in Kerala, India’, Health Policy and Planning 19: 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, G. (1983) The art of judgment: A study of policy making. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Vuorenkoski, L., Toiviainen, H. and Hemminki, E. (2003) ‘Drug reimbursement in Finland – a case of explicit prioritizing in special categories’, Health Policy 66: 169–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wamsley, G. L. (1990) ‘Introduction’ in Wamsley, G. L. and Wolf, J. F. (eds.) Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×