Are Changes Effective in Performance Management? An Analysis of Japanese Agencies

REFERENCES

• Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & van Lent, L. (2010). Leadership and control system design. Management Accounting Research, 21(1), 2–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Administrative Management Bureau. (2007). Research on the agency system in foreign countries. Retrieved from http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000078223.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arellano-Gault, D. (2012). The evaluation of performance in the Mexican federal government: A study of the monitoring agencies’ modernization process. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 135–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asako, K., Ito, T., & Sakamoto, K. (1991). The rise and fall of deficit in Japan, 1965–1990. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 5(4), 451–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barman, E. A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80(4), 1191–1222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: The Achilles’ Heel in administrative modernization. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 359–362.
   Google Scholar
• Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3–4), 243–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooney, K. (2007). Fields, organizations, and agency: Toward a multilevel theory of institutionalization in action. Administration Society, 39(6), 687–718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited—Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamholtz, E. G. (1983). Accounting, budgeting and control systems in their organizational context: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society,8(2–3), 153–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamholtz, E. G., Das, T. K., & Tsui, A. S. (1985). Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 35–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G. A. (2002). Performance measurement and dysfunction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 363–369.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 352–358.
   Google Scholar
• James, O., Moseley, A., Petrovsky, N., & Boyne, G. (2012). United Kingdom. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thield, G. Bouckaert, & P. Laegreid (Eds.), Government agencies. Practices and lesson from 30 countries. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. M. (2002). Why we should take performance measurement on faith (facts being hard to come by and not terribly important). Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 375–380.
   Google Scholar
• Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland & R. Hirschiem (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227–251). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1979). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2012). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives (3rd ed.). London, UK: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J., & Scott, R. (1992). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. Meyer & R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. W., & Brown, M. C. (1977). The process of bureaucratization. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 364–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC). (1999). Act 103 on General Rules for incorporated agencies. Japan: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2013, January 26). The outline of incorporated administrative agency. Japan: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2009). Through a glass, darkly: Understanding the effects of performance regimes. Public Performance and Management Review, 32(4), 592–603.
   Google Scholar
• Muramatsu, M., & Krauss, E. S. (1996). Japan: The paradox of success. In J. P. Olsen & G. Peters (Eds.), Lessons from experience. Experiental learning in administrative reforms in eight democracies. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: An application to competing predictions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 543–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osumi, S. (1999). Nyu Pabulic Manejiment [New public management]. Tokio, Japan: Nihon-Hyoron-sha Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Pina, V., Torres, L., & Yetano, A. (2009). Accrual accounting in EU local governments: One method, several approaches. European Accounting Review, 18(4), 765–807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(3), 308–325.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, W. (1988). Institutional effects on organizational structure and performance. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, J. A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Institutional theories in management accounting change: Contributions, issues and paths for development. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 3(2), 94–111.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelin, M. (2008). Operation of management control practices as a package—A case study on control system variety in a growth firm context. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 324–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanger, M. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68, 70–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schedler, K. (2003). Local and regional public management reforms in Switzerland. Public Administration, 81(2), 325–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schein, E. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Shiba, K., Kato, Y. Y., & Okano, H. (1998). A runner a lap behind in the race for public sector financial management reform: The Japanese case. In O. Olson, J. Guthrie, & C. Humphrey (Eds.), Global warning! Debating international developments in new public financial management (pp. 130–155). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk.
   Google Scholar
• Shields, M. D. (1995). An empirical analysis of firms’ implementation experiences with activity-based costing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Shields, M. D., & Young, S. M. (1989). A behavioral model for implementing cost management systems. Journal of Cost Management (Winter), 17–27.
   Google Scholar
• Sillince, J. A. A., Harindranath, G., & Harvey, C. E. (2001). Getting acceptance that radically new working practices are required: Institutionalization of arguments about change within a healthcare organization. Human Relations, 54(11), 1421–1454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, R. (2005). Levers of organization design—How managers use accouuntability systems for greater performance and commitment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Streib, G. D., & Poister, T. H. (1999). Assessing the validity, legitimacy and functionality of performance measurement systems in municipal governments. American Review of Public Administration, 29(2), 107–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vakkuri, J. (2010). Struggling with ambiguity: Public managers as users of NPM-oriented management instruments. Public Administration, 88(4), 999–1024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Thield, S. (2012). Comparing agencies across countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thield, G. Bouckaert, & P. Laegreid (Eds.), Government agencies. Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Thield, S., Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Laegreid, P. (2012). Lesson and recommendations for the practice of agencification. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thield, G. Bouckaert, & P. Laegreid (Eds.), Government agencies. Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Van Thield, S., Bouckaert, G., & Laegreid, P. (2012). Government agencies. Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 757–788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto, K. (2001). Seihukaikei no Kaikaku [Reforming public sector accounting]. Tokio, Japan: Chuokeizai-Sha Inc.
   Google Scholar