The Effect of Performance Information on Actual Budgeting Allocation: The Role of Policy Type

References

• Anderson, B. (2008, June). Performance budgeting: A users’ guide [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the International Conference on. Performance Budgeting, Mexico City.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørnholt, B., Baekgaard, M., & Houlberg, K. (2016). Does fiscal austerity affect political decision-makers’ use and perception of performance information? Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 560–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchard, L. A. (2008). PART and performance budgeting effectiveness. In F. S. Redburn, R. J. Shea, & T. F. Buss (Eds.), Performance management and budgeting: How governments can learn from experience (pp. 67–91). M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdeaux, C. (2008). Integrating performance information into legislative budget processes. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576310403
   Google Scholar
• Champney, l. (1988). Public goods and policy types. Public Administration Review, 48(6), 988–994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, I. (2010). The impact of Korean performance budgeting on budgetary programs. The University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Curristine, T. (2003). Performance information in the budget process. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 87–131. https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-v5-art13-en
   Google Scholar
• Frisco, V., & Stalebrink, O. J. (2008). Congressional use of the program assessment rating tool. Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2008.00902.x
   Google Scholar
• Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2005). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the office of management and budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00639.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, B., & Sanders, E. (1990). Theodore J. Lowi and juridical democracy. PS: Political Science & Politics, 23(4), 563–566.
   Google Scholar
• Greitens, T. J., & Joaquin, M. E. (2010). Policy typology and performance measurement: Results from the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Public Performance & Management Review, 33(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576330402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, G.D., Miller, J.A., Mohr, l.B., & Vladeck, B.C. (1977). Developing public policy theory: Perspectives from empirical research. American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1532–1543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossi, G., Reichard, C., & Ruggiero, P. (2016). Appropriateness and use of performance information in the budgeting process: Some experiences from German and Italian municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, A. (2003a, June 13). OMB ratings have little impact on Hill budget decisions. GovExec.com. www.govexec.com/management/2003/06/omb-ratingshave-little-impact-on-hill-budget-decisions/14324/.
   Google Scholar
• Gruber, A. (2003b, July 2). OMB to brief appropriators about federal program ratings. GovExec.com. www.govexec.com/management/2003/07/omb-tobriefappropriators-about-federal-program-ratings/14461/.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2012). How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02490.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hijal-Moghrabi, I. (2017). The current practice of performance-based budgeting in the largest US cities: An innovation theory perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(4), 652–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1313168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, K.Q., & Plumlee, J.P. (1984). Policy arenas and budgetary politics. Western Political Quarterly, 37(1), 84–99.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P. G. (1999). Performance-based budgeting. In Roy Meyers (Ed.), Handbook of government budgeting. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. M., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2014). Sustainable performance budgeting. In Performance budgeting for state and local government (pp. 210–228). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit?. Abacus, 45(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2009.00275.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/974990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2015). Uncovering the circumstances of performance information use findings from an experiment. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1071160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M.A. (1994). Gender and lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54(3), 277–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcross, E., & Adamson, J. (2008). An analysis of the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for fiscal year 2008. Working paper. Government Accountability Project, George Mason University.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2003). Public sector modernization: Governing for performance. GOV/PUMA. (2003) 20.
   Google Scholar
• Pandey, S. K. (2015). Performance information use: Making progress but a long way to go. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, M. J., & Choi, S. R. (2010). Analysis of the impact of the program assessment rating tool on program budget reduction. International Review of Public Administration, 14(3), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2010.10805159
   Google Scholar
• Park, N., & Jang, J. J. (2015). Performance budgeting in Korea: Overview and assessment. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 14(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-14-5jrtl4wnm1r5
   Google Scholar
• Park, N., & Weon, J. (2012). An analysis of government programs’ performance and its policy implications. Korea Institute of Public Finance, Research Paper 12–03.
   Google Scholar
• Rhee, D. Y. (2014). The impact of performance information on congressional appropriations. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576380105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, M., & Brumby, J. (2005). Does performance budgeting work? An analytical review of the empirical literature (No. 5-210). International Monetary Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom, D. H. (2007). Reinventing administrative prescriptions: The case for democratic-constitutional impact statements and scorecards. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00694.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salisbury, R., & Heinz, J. (1970). A theory of policy analysis and some preliminary applications. In I. Sharkansky (Ed.), Policy analysis in political science (pp. 39–60). Chicago: Markham.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, A. (2001). Budgeting for results: Recent developments in five industrialized countries. In G. Miller, W. Hildreth, & J. Rabin (Eds.), Performance-based budgeting (pp. 129–146). West View Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sohn, H., & Bae, K. (2018). Do public employees “Game” performance budgeting systems? Evidence from the program assessment rating tool in Korea. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(5), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016689322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterck, M. (2007). The impact of performance budgeting on the role of the legislature: A four-country study. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307077960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (1999). Performance budgeting: Initial experiences under the results act in linking plans with budgets. GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004a). Performance budgeting: Observations on the use of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the fiscal year 2004 budget. GAO-04-174.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004b). Performance budgeting: OMB’s Performance Rating Tool presents opportunities and challenges for evaluating program performance. GAO-04-550T.
   Google Scholar
• Vogler, D.J. (1980). The politics of Congress, 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar