Legislating Results

References

• Andrews, M. (2004). Authority, acceptance, ability and performance-based budgeting reforms. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 332-344.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdeaux, C. (2008). Integrating performance information into legislative budget processes. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 547-569.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, K.S. (2008). Four strategies to transform state governance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• deLancer 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.
   Google Scholar
• deLancer Julnes, P., & Mixcóatl, G. (2006). Governors as agents of change. A comparative study of performance measurement initiatives in Utah and Campeche. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(4), 405-432.
   Google Scholar
• Dibble, M.P. (2006). Testing the statutory coherence hypothesis: The implementation of the Maritime Security Act of 1996. Master's thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Government Finance Officers Association. (2007). Recommended practice: Performance management. Using performance measurement for decision making. Chicago. www.gfoa.org/downloads/budgetperfmanagement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A., & Coates, P. (2002). Citizen participation: Legitimizing performance measurement as a decision tool. Government Finance Review, 18(2), 8-10.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A., & Coates, P. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial Iowa experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29-50.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, P.G. (2003). Linking performance and budgeting: Opportunities in the federal budget process. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Lauth, T.P. (1978). Zero-base budgeting in Georgia state government: Myth and reality. Public Administration Review, 38(5), 420-430.
   Google Scholar
• Liner, B., Hatry, H.P., Vinson, E., Allen, R., Dusenbury, P., Bryant, S., et al. (2001). Making results-based state government work. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y. (2007). Performance budgeting: The perspective of state agencies. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27(4), 1-17.
   Google Scholar
• Mazmanian, D.A., & Sabatier, P.A. (1989). Implementation and public policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• McFarlane, D.R. (1989). Testing the statutory coherence hypothesis: The implementation of federal family planning policy in the states. Administration & Society, 20(4), 395-422.
   Google Scholar
• McNab, R.M., & Melese, F. (2003). Implementing the GPRA: Examining the prospects for performance budgeting in the federal government. Public Budgeting & Finance, 23(2), 73-95.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J.E., & Willoughby, K.G. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-73.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J.E., & Willoughby, K.G. (2001). Budgeters' views of state performance budgeting systems. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 54-64.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J.E., & Willoughby, K.G. (2004). Staying the course: The use of performance measurement in state governments. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J.E., & Willoughby, K.G. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D.P., & Ingraham, P.W. (2003). Look for the silver lining: When performance-based accountability systems work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 469-490.
   Google Scholar
• Oregon Progress Board. (2009). About Us. Salem. www.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/about_us.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Center on the States. (2009). Grading criteria. Washington, DC. www.pewcenteronthestates.org/template_page.aspx?id=35360
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, M., & Brumby, J. (2005). Does performance budgeting work? An analytical review of the empirical literature. No. WP/05/210. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of reform. Public Administration Review, 26(4), 243-258.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, A. (1990). Budgeting for results: Recent developments in five industrialized countries. Public Administration Review, 50(1), 26-34.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K., & Cheng, R. (2006). Assessing reforms of government accounting and budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 14-34.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(3), 102-118.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. (2002). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of U.S. local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 26-43.
   Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K.G., & Melkers, J.E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 105-120.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Hsieh, J.Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.
   Google Scholar