Improving Local Government Performance: One Step Forward not Two Steps Back

References

• 2001. Changing Gear—Best Value Annual Statement 2001. London. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., Martin, S., and Sanderson, I., 2001. The Feasibility of Evaluating the Impact of the Local Government Modernization Agenda. Cardiff University/DTLR; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., 1997. Comparing the performance of local authorities: An evaluation of the Audit Commission indicators, Local Government Studies 23 (4) (1997), pp. 17–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., 2001. Planning, performance and public services, Public Administration 79 (2001), p. 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., 2002. Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: An evaluation of the statutory frameworks in England and Wales, Public Money & Management 22 (2) (2002), p. 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G., Kirkpatrick, I., and Kirchener, M., 2001. New Labour and the modernization of public management, Public Administration 17 1 (2001), pp. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• 1999. The EFQM Excellence Model. London. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A., 1989. Research Methods and Organizational Studies. London: Routledge; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Caines, E., 1999. Developing a 21st century public sector, Public Management and Policy Association Review (1999).
   Google Scholar
• 1998. Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People. London: The Stationery Office; 1998, Cm 4041.
   Google Scholar
• 1999. The Beacon Council Scheme: Prospectus. London: DETR; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• 2001. Local Public Service Agreements. London: DTLR; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• 2001. Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. London: The Stationery Office; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hakes, C., 1999. The Public Service Excellence Handbook. Bristol Quality Centre; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, J., Rashman, I., Downe, J., and Storbeck, J., 2001. "Monitoring and Evaluation of the Beacon Council Scheme". In: Report of the Process Outcomes Evaluation. London: IDeA; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hussey, J., and Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research—A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Hyndman, N. S., and Anderson, R., 1998. Performance information, accountability and executive agencies, Public Money & Management 18 (1998), p. 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyndman, N. S., and Eden, R., 2001. Rational management, performance management and executive agencies: Views from chief executives in Northern Ireland, Public Administration 79 (2001), p. 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 1999. Improving from Within—Local Government Improvement Project Final Report and Recommendations. London. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• 1999. Local Government Improvement Programme Prospectus. London. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• 2000. The Local Government Improvement Programme—A Year in Focus 1999-2000. London. 2000.
   Google Scholar
• 2001. The Local Government Improvement Programme: Guidance for Local Authorities. London. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• 1995. Renewing Democracy. London: Rebuilding Communities; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G., and Stewart, J., 2002. Fundamentally flawed. Local Government Chronicle; 2002. p. 18.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G., and Stewart, J., 2002. "Drowning not waving". In: Local Government Chronicle. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, M., Martin, S., Sanderson, I., Bovaird, T., Geddes, M., and Hartley, J., 1999. Warwick University Best Value Studies. University of Warwick/DETR; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S., Davis, H., Bovaird, T., Downe, J., Geddes, M., Hartley, J., Lewis, M., Sanderson, I., and Saporell, P., 2001. Improving Local Public Services: Final Evaluation of the Best Value Pilot Programme. London: DETR/HMSO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, A., 1996. Shaping Organizational Cultures in Local Government. London: Pitman; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J., 2001. What counts is what works? Constructing evaluations of market mechanisms, Public Administration 79 (2001), p. 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 2002. Tackling Poor Performance in Local Government. Consultation Paper. London. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Rashid, N., 1999. Managing Performance in Local Government. London: Kogan Page; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D., 2002. "Fury at audit arrogance". In: Local Government Chronicle. 2002. p. 21.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, P., 2002. "What is the point?". In: Local Government Chronicle. 2002. p. 21.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, S., 1999. Performance Management in Local Government. London: Pitman; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, J., 1997. Management in the Public Sector—Challenge and Change. London: Thomson; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, I., Bovaird, T., Davis, P., Martin, S., Foreman, A., and Storey, M., 1998. Made to Measure: Evaluation in Practice in Local Government. London: LGMB; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• 1996. Measuring Outcomes in the Public Sector. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J., 1995. Understanding the Management of Local Government. London: Pitman; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J., 1995. Managing Public Services: Dealing with Dogma. London: Tudor; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J., and Doig, A., 2000. Local government management: A model for the future?, Public Management 2 (2000), p. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
   Google Scholar