Imihigo: A hybrid model associating traditional and modern logics in public policy implementation in Rwanda

References

• Aucoin, P. 1995. The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective. Montreal, Quebec: IRPP/Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Chaffee, E.E. 1985. Three model of strategy. Academy of Management Review 10: 89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Chemouni, B. 2014. Explaining the design of the Rwandan decentralization: elite vulnerability and the territorial repartition of power. Journal of East African Studies 8: 246–262. doi: 10.1080/17531055.2014.891800
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T and P. Lægreid. 1999. New Public Management–design, Resistance, or Transformation? A Study of how Modern Reforms are received in a Civil Service system. Public Productivity and Management Review 23: 169–93. doi: 10.2307/3380777
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, R. 2000. From great expectations to hard times? Managing equal opportunities under new public management. Public Administration 78: 699–714. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00225
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. 1997. In at the deep and: conducting processual research on organization change. Scandinavian journal of management 13: 389–405. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00025-0
   Google Scholar
• Government Performance and Results Act. 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Johnsen, Å. 1999. Implementation mode and local government performance measurement: A Norwegian experience. Financial Accountability and Management 15: 41–66. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00073
   Google Scholar
• Johnsen, Å. 2004. The politics of performance measurement: What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public management? Paper presented in the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) Conference, 1–4 September, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
   Google Scholar
• Helden, G.J. and A. Johnsen. 2002. A comparative analysis of the development of performance– based management systems in Dutch and Norwegian local government. International Public Management Journal 5: 75–95.
   Google Scholar
• Hernes, T. 2005. Four ideal-type organizational responses to new public management reforms and some consequences. International Review of Administrative Sciences 71: 5–17. doi: 10.1177/0020852305051680
   Google Scholar
• Hjern, B. 1982. Implementation research the link gone missing. Journal of Public Policy 2: 301–308. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X00001975
   Google Scholar
• Hjern, B. and C. Hull. 1982. Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism. European Journal of Political Research 10: 105–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1982.tb00011.x
   Google Scholar
• Hjern, B. and D.O. Porter. 1981. Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organization Studies 2: 211–227. doi: 10.1177/017084068100200301
   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
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, M.A. 1976. Means/ends rationality. Ethics 87: 60–65. doi: 10.1086/292018
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn, S. and E. Tappin. 2003. Strategy in the public sector: Management in the Wilderness. Journal of Management Studies 40: 955–982. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00366
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L.E. 1998. The New Public Management: How to Transform a Theme into a Legacy. Public Administration Review 58 : 231–237. doi: 10.2307/976563
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L. 1999. The New Public Management. Government Finance Review 15: 15–18.
   Google Scholar
• Matland, R.E. 1995. Synthesizing the implementation literature: The Ambiguity–Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5: 145–74.
   Google Scholar
• Mazmanian, D.A. and P.A. Sabatier. 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
   Google Scholar
• Mazmanian, D.A. and P.A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. New York: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• McConnel, J. 2010. Institution (Un) building. Decentralizing governments and the Case of Rwanda. European University Institutive: Florence.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Local Government. 2010. Concept note on Imihigo. Kigali: Government Printer.
   Google Scholar
• Orton, J.D. 1997. From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13: 419–438. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00027-4
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, W. 2002. From muddling through to muddling up–evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British Government. Public Policy and Administration 17: 43–60. doi: 10.1177/095207670201700304
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, A.M. 1997. What is processual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13: 337–348. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00020-1
   Google Scholar
• Ropo, A., P. Erickson and J.G. Hunt. 1997. Reflection on conducting processual research on management and organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13: 331–333. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(97)88766-0
   Google Scholar
• Rwiyereka, K.A. 2014. Using Rwandan traditions to strengthen programme and policy implementation. Development in Practice 24: 686–692. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2014.936366
   Google Scholar
• Scher, D. 2010. The promise of Imihigo: Decentralized service delivery in Rwanda, 2006–2010. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Vigoda, E. 2000. Are You Being Served? The Responsiveness of Public Administration to Citizens’ Demands: An Empirical Examination in Israel. Public Administration 78: 65–91. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00198
   Google Scholar
• Vigoda, E. 2002. From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 62: 515–528. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00235
   Google Scholar
• Vigoda, E. and S. Meiri. 2008. New public management values and person-organization fit: a socio–psychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel. Public Administration 86: 111–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00703.x
   Google Scholar