Promising Performance: The Overestimation and Underestimation of Performance Targets

References

• Abramson, A. (2013). The weatherization assistance program under the 2009 recovery act: The challenge of assuring high-quality performance. Retrieved January 2014 from, http://s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/11207/original/Weatherization_Abramson.pdf?1363626599
   Google Scholar
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. (2010). State energy efficiency resource standards. Washington, D.C: ACEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z., & Majmundar, M. (2010). Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 827–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carley, S., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Fisher, E. (2015). Capacity, Guidance. Implementation, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Public Administration Review 75 (1), 113–125.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E. (1985). The Political Economy of Federalism. The American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994–1015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council, I. C. (2015). International energy conservation code. Washington, D.C: International Code Council.
   Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to explicit performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2007). Making government accountable: Lessons from a federal job training program. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 904–916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Energy. (2009). Energy efficiency and conservation block grant program competitive grants: Webinar for applicants. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Eaton, E. M. (2009). Getting Behind the Grain: The Politics of Producer Opposition to GM Wheat on the Canadian Prairies ( Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).
   Google Scholar
• Foreman, C. (2011). Intergovernmental barriers and the development of state performance management systems: Results from the federal National Outcome Measures project. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Government Performance Management and Leadership, October 1-2 in Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, H. G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gramlich, E. (1977). The effects of federal grants on state-local expenditures: A review of the empirical evidence. In W. E. Oates (ed), The political economy of fiscal federalism. Lexington, KY: Heath-Lexingon.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L., & Handley, D. M. (2011). City adoption of federal performance measurement requirements: Perspectives from community development block grant program administrators. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 443–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L., & Jennings, E. T. (2011). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) a critical examination of accountability and transparency in the Obama administration. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(1), 202–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines, J. R., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: The flypaper effect. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 217–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, A. T. (2007). Exploring the roles of citizens in performance measurement. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1157–1177.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, M. J. (1995). The political economy of public administration: Institutional choice in the public sector. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesh, P. (2009). Rate impacts and key design elements of gas and electric: Utility decoupling: A comprehensive review. The Electricity Journal, 22(8), 65–71.
   Google Scholar
• Maloy, K. A. (1998). A description and assessment of state approaches to diversion programs and activities under welfare reform. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Center for Health Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J., Workman, S., & Jones, B. D. (2008). Organizing attention: Responses of the bureaucracy to agenda disruption. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 517–541.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J. (2014). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30, 277–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. M. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3(02), 215–233.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2004). Goal conflict and fund diversion in federal grants to the states. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 110–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2012). Leaving money on the table: Learning from recent refusals of federal grants in the American States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 42(3), 449–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 111–135.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the Performance Movement. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2008). Performance management and intergovernmental relations. Intergovernmental Management for the 21st Century, 244–251.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2011). Federalist no. 71: can the federal government be held accountable for performance? Public Administration Review, 71(s1), s128–s134.
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rigby, E., & Haselswerdt, J. (2013). Hybrid federalism, partisan politics, and early implementation of state health insurance exchanges. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(3), 368–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutherford, A., & Meier, K. J. (2015). Managerial goals in a performance-driven system: Theory and empirical tests in higher education. Public Administration, 93(1), 17–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, T. (1967). Storm over the States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Sheely, A. (2013). Second‐order devolution and administrative exclusion in the temporaryassistance for needy families program. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 54–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sosin, M. R. (2012). Decentralization, devolution, financial shortfalls, and state priorities in service programs in the early 2000s. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 701–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, D., Wang, D., & Bennet, D. (2011). Essential to energy efficiency, but easy to explain: Frequently asked questions about decoupling. The Electricity Journal, 24(8), 56–70.
   Google Scholar
• Terman, J., and Yang, K. 2010. Contracting and the performance assessment tool: Politicization or sound Management. Public Administration Quarterly, 3A(3), í-A33.
   Google Scholar
• Terman, J. N. (2015). Performance goal achievement in fiscal federalism: The influence of state partisan environments and regulatory regimes. Policy Studies Journal, 43(3), 333–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terman, J. N., & Yang, K. (2016). Reconsidering Gaming in an Accountability Relationship: The Case of Minority Purchasing in Florida. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(2), 281–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K. (2012). Further Understanding Accountability in Public Organizations: Actionable Knowledge and the Structure–Agency Duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar