The Status of Performance Budgeting: Introduction

References

• Aristigueta, M.P. (1999). Managing for results in state government. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
   Google Scholar
• Broom, C.A., and McGuire, L.A. (1995). Performance-based government models: Building a track record. Public Budgeting and Finance, 51(4), 3-17.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, B. (2004, October). State-sponsored benchmarking: Ontario's experience with mandated local performance measurement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• DeLeon, P. (1988). Advice and consent: The development of the policy sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G.A. (1986). Does budget format really govern the actions of budgetmakers? Public Budgeting and Finance, 6(1), 60-70.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G.A., & Pettijohn, C.D. (2002). Implementing performance-based budgeting: A system-dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51-62.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. (1999) Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P.G. (1997). Using performance measurement for budgeting: A new beat or is it the same old tune? In K. Newcomer (Ed.), Using performance measures for public and nonprofit programs (pp. 45-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P.G. (2005). Linking performance and budgeting. In J. Kamensky & A. Morales (Eds.), Managing for results 2005. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Key, V.O., Jr. (1940). The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1137-1144.
   Google Scholar
• March, J.G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608.
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J. (1996). Implementing results-based management and performance-based budgeting: Lessons from the literature. Discussion paper no. 73. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, J. (2005). OMB's program assessment rating tool. Alexandria, VA. accessed December 20, 2005. www.john-mercer.com/omb_part.htm
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D.P. (2004, September). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Different approaches to understanding performance budgeting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). Governing for results. Publication no. CCNM/GF/GOV/PUBG(2002)3. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2001) Integrating financial and performance management. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(2), 7-37.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, I.S. (2005). The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending. 5th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swiss, J.E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2001). The president's management agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1961). Political implications of budget reform. Public Administration Review, 21(Autumn), 183-190.
   Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K.G., & Melkers, J.E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Confiicting views of success. Public Budgeting and Finance, 20(1), 85-120.
   Google Scholar