Internal Performance-Based Steering in Public Sector Organizations: Examining the Effect of Organizational Autonomy and External Result Control

References

• 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, 304–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, R., Boyne, G., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57–80. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum039
   Web of Science ®Google 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. doi:10.1080/10967490802649395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Askim, J., Johnson, J., & Christophersen, K. A. (2008). Factors behind organizational learning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 297–320. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3, 115–137. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1990.tb00111.x
   Google Scholar
• Bach, T., & Jann, W. (2010). Animals in the administrative zoo: Organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3), 443–468. doi:10.1177/0020852310372448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2004). Targets, inspections and transparency. British Medical Journal, 328(7440), 598–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogumil, J., & Ebinger, F. (2008). Verwaltungspolitik in den Bundesländern: Vom Stiefkind zum Darling der Politik [Administration policy in the German Länder, from step child to darling of politics]. In A. Hildebrandt & F. Wolf (Eds.), Die Politik der Bundesländer. Staatstätigkeit im Vergleich [Politics of German Länder. Government activity in comparison] (pp. 257–288). Wiesbaden, Germany: Report for Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G. (1998). Public sector performance measurement in a principal agent context. In A. Halachmi & P. Boorsma (Eds.), Inter and intra government arrangements for productivity: An agency approach (pp. 137–145). Boston, MA. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Van Dooren, W. (2003). Performance measurement and management in public sector organizations. In T. Bovaird & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (pp. 127–136). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Verhoest, K. (1999). A comparative perspective on decentralisation as a context for contracting in the public sector: Practice and theory. In Yvonne Fortin (Ed.), La contractualisation dans le secteur public des pays industrialisés depuis 1980 (pp. 199–240). Paris: L’Harmattan.
   Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Introducing the “determinants of performance in public organizations” symposium. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 483–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2002). New public management. Puzzles of democracy and the influence of citizens. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(3), 267–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L., Ambron, S., Dornbusch, S., Hess, R., Hornik, R., Phillips, D. …, & Weiner, S. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P., & 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
• Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. L. (2000). An examination of bureaucratic reactions to institutional controls. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(1), 8–21. doi:10.2307/3381073
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G. A., & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). Implementing performance-based program budgeting: A system–dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51–62. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363–394. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024415
   Google Scholar
• Hoggett, P. (1996). New modes of control in the public service. Public Administration, 74(1), 9–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00855.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingraham, P. W., Joyce, P. G., & Donahue, A. K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. doi:10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, M. (1989). Quo vadis? Challenges of public administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 48, 123–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.1989.tb02206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kickert, W. J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Governance of autonomised agencies. Alphen: Samsom. (In Dutch).
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance management in practice—The Norwegian way. Financial Accountability and Management, 22(3), 251–270. doi:10.1111/j.0267-4424.2006.00402.x
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P., & Verhoest, K. (2010). Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy, and performance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2005). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (2nd ed).
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00443.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2005). What do we talk about when we talk about performance: Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 151–168. doi:10.1093/jopart/muj003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance information use. Administration & Society, 36, 427–453. doi:10.1177/0095399704266748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69, 1097–1105. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421–439. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, R. (2001). Letting and making managers manage. The effect of control systems of management action in New Zealand’s Central government. International Public Management Journal, 4, 65–89. doi:10.1016/s1096-7494(01)00043-5
   Google Scholar
• Norman, R. (2003). Obedient servants? Management freedoms and accountabilities in the New Zealand public sector. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Pandey, S. K., Coursey, D. H., & Moynihan, D. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance and Management Review, 30, 398–425. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576300305
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Municipal management tools from 1976 to 1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity & Management Review, 18(2), 115–125. doi:10.2307/3380641
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2004). Theoretical overview. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled government (pp. 319–343). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis: NPM, governance and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies:How government do things with semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1991). Principals and agents. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance measurement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, A. (1996). The spirit of reform: Managing the New Zealand state sector in a time of change. Report prepared for the State Services Commission, Wellington, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661–681. doi:10.2307/3069409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smullen, A., van Thiel, S., & Pollitt, C. (2001). Agentschappen en de verzelfstandigingsparadox [Agencies and the paradox of agencification]. Beleid en Maatschappij, 4, 190–201. http://repub.eur.nl/pub/849
   Google Scholar
• Stehr, N. (1992). Practical knowledge: Applying the social sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Valkama, P., Bailey, S. J., & Anttiroika, A. (Eds.). (2013). Organizational innovation in public services. Forms and governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W. (2005). What makes organizations measure? Hypotheses on the causes and conditions for performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(3), 363–383. doi:10.1111/j.0267-4424.2005.00225.x
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2008). Performance Information in the public sector: How it is used. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K. (2002). Resultaatgericht verzelfstandigen. Een analyse vanuit verruimd principaal agent perspectief [Result-driven agencification. An extended Principal-Agent Perspective analysis]. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Diss. Doc, 352 p. (In Dutch).
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K. (2005a). Effects of autonomy, performance contracting, and competition on the performance of a public agency: A case study. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 235–58. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00104.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K. (2005b). The impact of contractualisation on control and accountability in government agency relations: The case of Flanders (Belgium). In G. Drewry, C. Greve, & T. Tanquerel (Eds.), Contracts, performance and accountability (pp. 135–157). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118. doi:10.1002/pad.316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaig, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Yesilkagit, A. K. (2004). Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture, and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society, 36, 528–552.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, R. M., Boyne, G. A., & Brewer, G. A. (2010). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman, R., & Meier, K. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 173–202.
   Google Scholar