The Current Practice of Performance-Based Budgeting in The Largest U.S. Cities: An Innovation Theory Perspective

References

• Ammons, D. (1995). Overcoming the inadequacies of performance measurement in local government: The case of libraries and leisure services. Public Administration Review, 5(1), 37–47. doi:10.2307/976826/
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, M. (2004). Authority, acceptance, ability and performance-based budgeting reforms. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 332–344. doi:10.1108/09513550410539811.
   Google Scholar
• Behren, G. V., & Korfonta, P. (2002). Budget processes in the states. Washington, DC: National Association of State Budget Officers. Available at https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Budget%20Processess/Budget%20Processes%20in%20the%20States,%202002.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brass, C. (2004). The Bush administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) [CRS Report RL32663]. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL32663.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Broom, C., & McGuire, L. A. (1995). Performance-based government models: Building a track record. Public Budgeting and Finance, 15(4), 3–17. doi:10.1111/1540-5850.01050.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdhary, H. (2006). Outcome budgeting: Moving beyond rhetoric? Economic and Political Weekly, 41(25), 2515–2518. doi:10.2307/4418368.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. doi:10.1177/00131640021970934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation. Organization Studies, 13(3), 375–402. doi:10.1177/017084069201300304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x.
   Web of Science ®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
• Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 313–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grifel, S. (1994). Organizational culture: Its importance in performance measurement. Public Management, 76(9), 19–20. Available at http://icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/7291
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G., & 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
• Hatry, H. (1999). Performance management: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A. T. K. (2011). PBB in American local governments: It’s more than a management tool. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 391–401. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02359.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson, P., & Osborne, D. (2004). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent crisis. New York, NY: Basic Books. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10464395
   Google Scholar
• Ingraham, P. (Ed.). (2007). In pursuit of performance: Management systems in state and local government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10256336
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, M. M., & Hackbart, M. M. (1999). Performance budgeting and performance funding in the states: A status assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance, 19(1), 68–88. doi:10.1046/j.0275-1100.1999.01157.x.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, M. M., & Hackbart, M. (2005). The goals and implementation success of state performance-based budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 17(4), 471.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P. G. (1997). Using performance measures for budgeting: A new beat, or is it the same old tune? New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(75), 45–61.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P. (2003). Linking performance and budgeting opportunities in the federal budgeting process. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/PerformanceandBudgeting.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P. (2011). The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance–informed budgeting? Public Administration Review, 71(3), 356–367. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02355.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, A., & Hildreth, W. B. (Eds.). (2002). Budget theory in the public sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10184101
   Google Scholar
• Kluvers, R. (2001). An analysis of introducing program budgeting in local government. Public Budgeting & Finance, 21(2), 29–45. doi:10.1111/0275-1100.00048.
   Google Scholar
• Kong, D. (2005). Performance-based budgeting: The U.S. experience. Public Organization Review, 5(2), 91–107. doi:10.1007/s11115-005-1782-6.
   Google Scholar
• Lee Jr., R.D., & Burns, R.C. (2000). Performance measurement in state budgeting: Advancement and backsliding from 1990 to 1995. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 38–54. doi:10.1111/0275-1100.00003.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. doi:10.2307/973677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, E. Y., Mohr, Z., & Ho, A. T. K. (2015). Taking stock: Assessing and improving performance budgeting theory and practice. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 426–458. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1006470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., & Willoughby, K. (2012). Performance budgeting in the states: An assessment. Business of Government Magazine, Fall/Winter, 71–75. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Viewpoints_Lu.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., & Arnett, S. (2009). Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 266–287. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576330206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., Willoughby, K. J., & Arnett, S. (2011). Performance budgeting in the American states: What’s law got to do with it? State and Local Government Review, 43(2), 79–94. doi:10.1177/0160323x11407523.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, T., & Day, S. (1996). Public sector performance measurement. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 404–419. doi:10.2307/41288141.
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G., Olsen, J. P., Christensen, S., & Cohen, M. D. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, L. L. (2002). Budgeting for outcomes. In A. Khan & B. Hildreth (Eds.), Budget theory in the public sector (pp. 246–260). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10184101
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J. (2006). On the road to improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 73–95. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576300104.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66–73. doi:10.2307/976891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2001). Budgeters’ views of state performance–budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 54–64. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2004). Staying the course: The use of performance measurement in state governments. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/StateGovernmentMeasurement.pdf
   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
• Mercer, J. (2003). Cascade performance budgeting: A guide to an effective system for integrating budget and performance information and for linking long-term goals to day-to-day activities. Strategisys. Available at http://strategisys.com/sites/default/files/library/cascade_pb.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mihm, C. (2011). Commentary on “The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance–informed budgeting?” Public Administration Review, 71(3), 368–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02356.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. (2005). Goal–based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203–216. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00445.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264034051-en.
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change-the case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public Money & Management, 12(3), 27–31. doi:10.1080/09540969209387719.
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past decade. Public Administration Review, 49(3), 240–248. doi:10.2307/977006.
   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. doi:10.2307/3110115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (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. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024260.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rivenbark, W. C., & Kelly, J. M. (2003). Management innovation in smaller municipal government. State & Local Government Review, 35(1), 196–205. doi:10.1177/0160323x0303500305.
   Google Scholar
• Rivenbark, W. C., & Kelly, J. M. (2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 35–46. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576300102.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rossello, W. C. (June/July, 1994). Ten steps to creating a performance-oriented culture in the public sector. Quality Cities, 41–43.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, I. (1990). Budget theory and budget practice: How good the fit? Public Administration Review, 50(2), 179–189. doi:10.2307/976865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sax, L., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in Web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409–432. doi:10.1023/A:1024232915870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schick, A. (1971). Budget innovation in the states. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E–mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513. doi:10.2307/1808698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J. F. (1999). The benefits and threats of PBB: An assessment of modern reform. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(3), 3–15. doi:10.1046/j.0275-1100.1999.01168.x.
   Google Scholar
• Streib, G. D., & Poister, T. H. (1999). Assessing the validity, legitimacy, and functionality of performance measurement systems in municipal governments. The American Review of Public Administration, 29(2), 107–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1r2gkx.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(3), 102–118. doi:10.1111/0275-1100.00022.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. (2002). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of U.S. local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 26–43. doi:10.2307/3381296.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., & Berman, E. (2001). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: Findings from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 403–428. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1961). Political implications of budgetary reform. Public Administration Review, 21(4), 183–190. doi:10.2307/973628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1978). A budget for all seasons? Why the traditional budget lasts. Public Administration Review, 38(6), 501–509. doi:10.2307/976027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K. (2011). Introduction to the symposium: PBB—Works like the BCs? Public Administration Review, 71(3), 352–355. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02354.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K. G., & Melkers, J. E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 85–120. doi:10.1111/0275-1100.00006.
   Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K. G., & Melkers, J. E. (2001). Assessing the impact of performance budgeting: A survey of American states. Government Finance Review, 17(2), 25–30. Available at https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-74830081/assessing-the-impact-of-performance-budgeting-a-survey
   Google Scholar
• Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar