Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
11 - Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
from Part III - Substantive Contributions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2017
Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiments in Public Management ResearchChallenges and Contributions, pp. 244 - 269Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Andersen, S. and Moynihan, D. 2016a. ‘How leaders respond to diversity: the moderating role of organizational culture on performance information use’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(3): 448–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. and Moynihan, D. 2016b. ‘Bureaucratic investments in expertise: evidence from a randomized controlled field trial’, Journal of Politics 78(4): 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askim, J. 2007. ‘How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3): 453–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askim, J. 2009. ‘The demand side of performance measurement: explaining councillors’ utilization of performance information in policymaking’, International Public Management Journal 12(1): 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdeaux, C. 2008. ‘Integrating performance information into legislative budget processes’, Public Performance and Management Review 31(4): 547–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdeaux, C. and Chikoto, G. 2008. ‘Legislative influences on performance management reform’, Public Administration Review 68(2): 253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, G., James, O., John, P., and Petrovsky, N. 2009. ‘Democracy and government performance: holding incumbents accountable in English local governments’, Journal of Politics 71(4): 1273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Y. and Rainey, H. 2005. ‘Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(4): 529–57.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. and March, J. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Hoboken, NJ: Willey-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. 2012. Learning while Governing: Information, Accountability, and Executive Branch Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
George, B., Deschmidt, S., Nielsen, P., and Bækgaard, M. 2016. ‘Rational planning and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: replication and extension of a survey experiment’, forthcoming in Public Management Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, J. and Lewis, D. 2006. ‘Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: the influence of politics, performance, and program size’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(2): 169–86.Google Scholar
Greve, H. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, C. 2012. ‘How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the program assessment rating tool’, Public Administration Review 72(1): 123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2009. ‘Evaluating the expectations, disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with public services’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 107–23.Google Scholar
James, O. 2011. ‘Performance measures and democracy: information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. and Moseley, A. 2014. ‘Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information’, Public Administration 92(2): 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. and Talbot, C. 2007. ‘The UK Parliament and performance: challenging or challenged?’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1): 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, C. 2012. ‘Developing and validating new concepts and measures of program goal ambiguity in the U.S. federal government’, Administration and Society 44: 675–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, V, Laverty, S. and Peskowitz, Z. 2015. ‘Performance federalism and local democracy: theory and evidence from school tax referenda’, American Journal of Political Science 60(2): 418–35.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. 2013. ‘The other type of performance information: nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use’, Public Administration Review 73(2): 265–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A. 2014. ‘Why performance information use varies among public managers: testing manager-related explanations’, International Public Management Journal 17(2): 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A. 2015a. ‘Drivers of performance information use: systematic literature review and directions for future research’, Public Performance and Management Review 38(3): 459–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A. 2015b. ‘Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: a planned-behavior approach’, American Review of Public Administration 45(2): 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavertu, S., Lewis, D., and Moynihan, D. 2013. ‘Administrative reform, ideology, and bureaucratic effort: performance management in the Bush era’, Public Administration Review 73(6): 845–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, K. and O’Toole, L. 2013. ‘Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: common source bias and spurious relationships’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(2): 429–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. 2013. ‘Advancing the empirical study of performance management: what we learned from the program assessment rating tool’, American Review of Public Administration 43(5): 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. 2015. ‘Uncovering the circumstances of performance information use’, Public Performance and Management Review 39(1): 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D., Fernandez, S., Kim, S., LeRoux, K., Piotrowski, S., Wright, B. and Yang, K. 2011. ‘Performance regimes amidst governance complexity’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 1): i141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. and Kroll, A. 2015. ‘Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act’, Public Administration Review 76(2): 314–23.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. and Pandey, S. 2010. ‘The big question for performance management: why do managers use performance information?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(4): 849–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. and Soss, J. 2014. ‘Policy feedback and the politics of administration’, Public Administration Review 74(3): 320–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, P. 2014. ‘Learning from performance feedback: performance information, aspiration levels, and managerial priorities’, Public Administration 92(1): 142–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, P. and Bækgaard, M. 2015. ‘Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: evidence from an experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(2): 545–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, P. and Moynihan, D. 2015. ‘How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy.’ Forthcoming in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, B. 2012. Federal Management Reforms in a World of Contradictions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, A. and Meier, K. 2015. ‘Managerial goals in a performance-driven system: theory and empirical tests in higher education’, Public Administration 93(1): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salge, T. 2011. ‘A behavioral model of innovative search: evidence from public hospital services’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(1): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Bogt, H. 2004. ‘Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch aldermen’s use of performance information’, Financial Accountability and Management 20(3): 221–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, M. and Lodge, C. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. and Hobolt, S. 2011. ‘Is government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility’, The Journal of Politics 73(2): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dooren, W. 2004. ‘Supply and demand of policy indicators: a cross-sectoral comparison’, Public Management Review 6(4): 511–30.Google Scholar
Van Dooren, W. 2008. ‘Nothing new under the sun? Change and continuity in the twentieth-century performance movements’, in Van Dooren, W. and Van de Walle, S. (eds.), Performance Information in the Public Sector – How is it used?, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Van Ryzin, G. 2006. ‘Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen satisfaction with local government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(4): 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Jackson: Basic Books Classics.Google Scholar
Yang, K. and Hsieh, J. Y. 2007. ‘Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle-range model’, Public Administration Review 67(5): 861–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12
- Cited by