Transparency for Results: Testing a Model of Performance Management in Open Government Initiatives

References

• Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues. United Nations. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN020955.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Auger, D. A. (1999). Privatization, contracting, and the states: Lessons from state government experience. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(4), 435–454.
   Google Scholar
• Azerbaijan (2014). Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014-2015: Azerbaijan. Washington DC: The Open Government Partnership.
   Google Scholar
• Baehler, K. (2003). Evaluation and the policy cycle. Evaluating policy and practice: A New Zealand reader. Auckland, NZ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. doi:10.1111/puar.2003.63.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(4), 470–489.
   Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 587–602. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beisheim, M., Liese, A., Janetschek, H., & Sarre, J. (2014). Transnational partnerships: Conditions for successful service provision in areas of limited statehood. Governance, 27(4), 655–673. doi:10.1111/gove.2014.27.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, B., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London, UK: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (Eds.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi, C., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2012). A comparative analysis of performance management systems: The cases of Sicily and North Carolina. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 509–526. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576350307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, P. (2002). Freedom of information in the UK and Europe: Further progress? Government Information Quarterly, 19(1), 77–86. doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00097-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, P., & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 14–29. doi:10.1111/ajpa.2002.61.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolívar, M. P. R., & Galera, A. N. (2016). The effect of changes in public sector accounting policies on administrative reforms addressed to citizens. Administration & Society, 48(1), 31–72. doi:10.1177/0095399713498751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolívar, M. P. R., Pérez, M. D. C. C., & López-Hernández, A. M. (2013). Online budget transparency in OECD member countries and administrative culture. Administration & Society, 47(8), 943–982.
   Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58, 109–118. doi:10.2307/976358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, D. (2005). Electronic government and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 241–254. doi:10.1177/0020852305053883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charbonneau, E., & Bellavance, F. (2012). Blame avoidance in public reporting: Evidence from a provincially mandated municipal performance measurement regime. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 399–421. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576350301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529–557.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1994). A democratic dilemma: System effectiveness versus citizen participation. Political Science Quarterly, 109(1), 23–34. doi:10.2307/2151659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Fine Licht, J. (2014). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 361–371. doi:10.1111/puar.12194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denmark (2013). Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2012–2013 Denmark. Washington, DC: The Open Government Partnership.
   Google Scholar
• Ebbers, W. E., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2007). Resistance and support to electronic government, building a model of innovation. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 554–575. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2006.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelenbos, J., Klijn, E. H., & Steijn, B. (2011). Managers in governance networks: How to reach good outcomes? International Public Management Journal, 14(4), 420–444. doi:10.1080/10967494.2011.656055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172–185. doi:10.1002/pam.2013.32.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gormley, W. T., & Weimer, D. L. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50–73. doi:10.1177/0020852311429667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, e-government, and accountability: Some issues and considerations. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 562–584. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576360404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540–555. doi:10.1177/0894439314560847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., … Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83–97.
   Google Scholar
• Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 171–190. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725. doi:10.1111/puar.2002.62.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellberg, A. S., & Hedström, K. (2015). The story of the sixth myth of open data and open government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(1), 35–51. doi:10.1108/TG-04-2014-0013
   Google Scholar
• Holzer, M., & Halachmi, A. (1996). Measurement as a means of accountability. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(11–12), 1921–1943. doi:10.1080/01900699608525173
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320. doi:10.1177/0095399705276111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingraham, P. W., & Moynihan, D. P. (2001). Comparing management systems and capacity: The benefits of a criteria-based approach. Paper presented at the 5th Annual IRSPM Conference, April, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. doi:10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julnes, P. D. L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, C. S. (2014). Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 209–234.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchuk, R. S., & Schack, R. W. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the government performance and results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56(348–358). doi:10.2307/976376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landow, P., & Ebdon, C. (2012). Public-private partnerships, public authorities, and democratic governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(4), 727–752. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576350408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapuente, V., & Nistotskaya, M. (2009). To the short‐sighted victor belong the spoils: Politics and merit adoption in comparative perspective. Governance, 22(3), 431–458. doi:10.1111/gove.2009.22.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Boston, MA: O’Reilly Media.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lourenço, R. P., Piotrowski, S., & Ingrams, A. (2015). Public accountability ICT support: A detailed account of public accountability process and tasks. In Electronic Government. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. 105–117.
   Google Scholar
• Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598. doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J., & Winter, S. R. C. (2007). Collaborative service arrangements: Patterns, bases, and perceived consequences. Public Management Review, 9(4), 479–502. doi:10.1080/14719030701726473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269. doi:10.1177/0020852309104175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189–199. doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.934837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29. doi:10.1177/0020852311429533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montpetit, É. (2008). Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s biotechnology sector. Public Administration, 86(1), 259–277. doi:10.1111/padm.2008.86.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgeson, F. V., & Mithas, S. (2009). Does E‐government measure up to E‐Business? Comparing end user perceptions of US federal government and E‐business web sites. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 740–752. doi:10.1111/puar.2009.69.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2003). Look for the silver lining: When performance‐based accountability systems work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 469–490. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulgan, R. (2014). Making open government work. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Nyhan, R. C., & Martin, L. L. (1999). Comparative performance measurement: A primer on data envelopment analysis. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(3), 348–364.
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45–52. doi:10.2307/976691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591–606. doi:10.1111/puar.2004.64.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peled, A. (2011). When transparency and collaboration collide: The USA open data program. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2085–2094. doi:10.1002/asi.v62.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piotrowski, S., & Liao, Y. (2012). The usability of government information. In Schachter, H. L. (Ed.). The State of Citizen Participation in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306–323. doi:10.1177/0275074006296777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (1996). Antistatist reforms and new administrative directions: Public administration in the United Kingdom. Public Administration Review, 56, 81–87. doi:10.2307/3110058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A., & Romzek, B. S. (1996). Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The national rural development partnership. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(2), 59–81. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reenstra-Bryant, R. (2010). Evaluations of business improvement districts: Ensuring relevance for individual communities. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 509–523. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576330310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringquist, E. J. (1995). Political control and policy impact in EPA’s office of water quality. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 336–363. doi:10.2307/2111616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., del Carmen Caba Pérez, M., & López-Hernández, A. M. (2015). Online budget transparency in OECD member countries and administrative culture. Administration & Society, 47 (8), 943–982.
   Google Scholar
• Schillemans, T., Van Twist, M., & Vanhommerig, I. (2013). Innovations in accountability: Learning through interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated forms of accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 407–435. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576360302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholl, H. J., & Klischewski, R. (2007). E-government integration and interoperability: Framing the research agenda. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(8–9), 889–920. doi:10.1080/01900690701402668
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, J. T. (1991). Cooperative regulatory enforcement and the politics of administrative effectiveness. American Political Science Review, 85(01), 115–136. doi:10.2307/1962881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25–39.
   Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C., & Torfing, J. (2010). Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe. Regulation & Governance, 4(1), 71–91. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01072.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540. doi:10.1111/puar.2002.62.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 131–140. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weil, D., Fung, A., Graham, M., & Fagotto, E. (2006). The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 155–181.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J. S. (1999). Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(3), 288–307.
   Google Scholar
• Worthy, B. (2010). More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information Act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government. Governance, 23(4), 561–582. doi:10.1111/gove.2010.23.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, B. E. (2004). The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 59–78. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2009). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 413–436. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, H., & Robinson, D. (2012). The new ambiguity of “open government.”. UCLA Law Review Disclosure, 59, 178–208.
   Google Scholar
• Zia, A., & Koliba, C. (2011). Accountable climate governance: Dilemmas of performance management across complex governance networks. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(5), 479–497. doi:10.1080/13876988.2011.605939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17–29. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar