Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:21:58.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Thinking Allowed

Reforming Indicator-Based Accountability to Enhance Innovation

from Part III - Transforming Governance to Enhance Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

By
Wouter Van Dooren  and
Tom Willems
Edited by
Jacob Torfing  and
Peter Triantafillou
Jacob Torfing
Affiliation:
Roskilde Universitet, Denmark
Peter Triantafillou
Affiliation:
Roskilde Universitet, Denmark
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance , pp. 273 - 289
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albury, D. 2005. ‘Fostering innovation in public services’, Public Money & Management 25(1): 51–6. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9302.2005.00450.x.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. and Kagan, R. A. 1982. Going by the Book the Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Blomqvist, P. 2004. ‘The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s’, Social Policy & Administration 38(2): 139–55. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9515.2004.00382.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. 2013. ‘Who’s afraid of peer review?’ Science 342(6154): 60–5. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouckaert, G. and Peters, B. G. 2002. ‘Performance measurement and management: The Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization’, Public Performance & Management Review 25(4): 359–62.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. 1998. The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. 2011. ‘Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(S2): i253–77. http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, N., Klein, R. and Day, P. 1992. How Organizations Measure Success. The Use of Performance Indicators in Government. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1972. ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1):1–25. http://doi.org/10.2307/2392088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. H. 1965. ‘The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers’, Journal of Peace Research 2 (1):64–90. http://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, J. 2005. ‘Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present’, Public Money and Management 25(1): 27–34. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9302.2005.00447.x.Google Scholar
Hill, M. and Hupe, P. 2002. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hood, C. 2006. ‘Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services’, Public Administration Review 66(4): 515–21.Google Scholar
Hood, C. 2010. The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. and John, P. 2007. ‘Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 567–80.Google Scholar
Jilke, S. and Van de Walle, S. 2012. ‘Two track public services? Citizens’ voice behaviour towards liberalized services in the EU15’, Public Management Review 15(4): 465–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.664015.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. and Talbot, C. 2008. ‘UK parliamentary scrutiny of public services agreements: A challenge too far?’, in Van de Walle, S. and Van Dooren, W. (eds.), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, pp. 140–57.Google Scholar
Jos, P. H. and Tompkins, M. E. 2004. ‘The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problem of preserving character and judgment’, Administration & Society 36(3): 255–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. 1984. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Kroll, A. 2013. ‘The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use’, Public Administration Review 73(2): 265–76. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–6210.2012.02648.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laegreid, P. and Verhoest, K. 2010. ‘Reforming public sector organizations’, in Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J.M. and Triantafillou, P. 2014. ‘From performance measurement to learning: a new source of government overload?’ International Review of Administrative Sciences 78 (4): 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzucato, M. 2013. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. New York: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, H.-D., and Benavot, A. 2013. PISA, Power, and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance. Oxford: Symposium Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. 2013. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Executive Summary. The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. 2014. ‘The problem at the VA: “Performance perversity” ’, Los Angeles Times (June 1). www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-moynihan-va-scandal-performance-perversity-20140602-story.html.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, M. 2008. ‘Meanings of measurement’, Public Management Review 10(2): 221–39. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719030801928672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noordegraaf, M. and Abma, T. 2003. ‘Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity’, Public Administration 81(4): 853–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. and Brown, K. 2013. Handbook of Innovation in Public Services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. L., Engbers, T. A. and Jun, S. Y. 2009. ‘Back to the future? performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence’, Public Administration Review 69(1): 39–51. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–6210.2008.01939_2.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. 2013. ‘The logics of performance management’, Evaluation 19(4): 346–63. http://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013505040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, B. 2009. ‘Competing traditions of governance and dilemmas of administrative accountability: The case of Denmark’, Public Administration 87(1): 117–31. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9299.2008.00727.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, B. A. 2000. ‘The government performance and results act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(1): 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, B. A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rixen, T. 2013. ‘Why reregulation after the crisis is feeble: Shadow banking, offshore financial centers, and jurisdictional competition’, Regulation & Governance 7(4): 435–59. http://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. 2011. The Logic of Discipline: Global Capitalism and the Architecture of Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schick, A. 2003. ‘The performing state: Reflection on an idea whose time has come but whose implementation has not’, OECD Journal on Budgeting 3(2): 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillemans, T. and Bovens, M. 2011. ‘The challenge of multiple accountability: Does redundancy lead to overload?’, in Dubnick, M. and Frederickson, G. (eds.), Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises. New York: ME Sharpe, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. K. 2005. ‘Administrative breakdowns in the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina’, Public Administration Review 65(5): 515–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. and Schram, S. F. 2011. ‘The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(s2): i203–32. http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Van Dooren, W. 2006. Performance Measurement in the Flemish Public Sector: A Supply and Demand Approach. Thesis, faculty of social sciences. Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Van Dooren, W. 2008. ‘Nothing new under the sun? change and continuity in the twentieth century performance movement’, in Van de Walle, S. and Van Dooren, W. (eds.), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How It Is Used. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, pp. 15–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. 2015. Performance Management in the Public Sector, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dooren, W., Voets, J. and Winters, S. 2015. ‘Autonomy and reregulation: Explaining dynamics in the Flemish social housing sector’, Public Administration.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Thiel, S. and Leeuw, F. L. 2002. ‘The performance paradox in the public sector’, Public Performance & Management Review 25(3): 267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, A. and Tymms, P. 2002. ‘Dysfunctional effects of league tables: A comparison between English and Scottish primary schools’, Public Money and Management 22(1): 43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, T. and Van Dooren, W. 2011. ‘Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(3):505–30. http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311408648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, T. and Van Dooren, W. (2012): ‘Coming to terms with accountability’, Public Management Review 14(7): 1011–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, T. and Van Dooren, W. 2016. ‘(De)Politicization dynamics in public–private partnerships (PPPs): Lessons from a comparison between UK and Flemish PPP policy’, Public Management Review 18(2): 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.969759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×