This study examines the content of performance budgeting legislation and its relationship to the quality of implemented performance budgeting systems. Recent research indicates that states with well-functioning performance budgeting systems are more likely to have enacted pertinent laws than states with weak or no performance budgeting system. The authors find that performance budgeting legislation containing detailed instructions on the development, reporting, and use of performance data contributes to stronger use of performance budgeting systems in state governments.
AndrewsMatthew. 2004. Authority, acceptance, ability and performance-based budgeting reforms. The International Journal of Public Sector Management17:332–44.
BehnRobert D.2002. The psychological barriers to performance management. Public Performance and Management Review26:5–25.
4.
BehnRobert D.2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review63:586–606.
5.
BerryF.WechslerB.1995. State agencies' experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review55:159–68.
6.
BourdeauxCarolyn. 2006. Do legislatures matter in budgetary reform?Public Budgeting and Finance26:120–42.
7.
BourdeauxCarolynChikotoGrace. 2008. Legislative influences on performance management reform. Public Administration Review68:253–65.
8.
BrudneyJeffreyBrendanBurkeChung-LaeChoDeilS. Wright. 2009. No “one best way” to manage change: Developing and describing distinct administrative reform dimensions across the fifty American states. Public Administration Quarterly33:197–232.
9.
ClarkPeter B.WilsonJames Q.1961. Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly6:129–66.
10.
CoeCharles K.BrunetJames R.2006. Organizational report cards: Significant impact or much ado about nothing?Public Administration Review66:90–100.
11.
CoggburnJerrell D.SchneiderSaundra K.2003. The quality of management and government performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review63:206–13.
12.
CoplinWilliam D.MergetAstrid E.BourdeauxCarolyn. 2002. The professional researcher as change agent in the government-performance movement. Public Administration Review62:699–711.
13.
CraineW. MarkO’RoarkJ. Brian. 2004. The impact of performance-based budgeting on state fiscal performance. Economics of Governance5:167–86.
14.
DibbleMark P.2006. Testing the statutory coherence hypothesis: The implementation of the Maritime Security Act of 1996. MA thesis, Naval Postgraduate School.
15.
EitelDean F.2003. Strategic planning in Illinois: A state at the crossroads. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior6:577–611.
16.
ForresterJohn P.AdamsGuy B.1997. Budgetary reform through organizational learning: Toward an organizational theory of budgeting. Administration and Society28:466–88.
GrizzleGloria A.2001. Performance measures for budget justifications: Developing a selection strategy. In Performance-based budgeting, eds. MillerGeraldHildrethW. BartleyRabinJack, 355–67. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19.
HarrisJudithMcKenzieKarenRentfroRandall. 2009. Building trust or mistrust: The search for performance reporting from a citizen’s perspective. The Journal of Government Financial Management58:40–6.
20.
HatryHarry P.1997. Where the rubber meets the road: Performance measurement for state and local public agencies. In Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs: New directions for evaluation, No. 75, ed. NewcomerK. E., 31–44. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
21.
HatryHarry P.2006. Performance measurement: Getting results. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
22.
HoAlfredCoatesPaul. 2002. Citizen participation: Legitimizing performance measurement as a decision tool. Government Finance Review18:8–10.
23.
JonesLarry R.McCafferyJerry L.1997. Implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Government Performance and Results Act in the federal government. Public Budgeting and Finance17:35–55.
KellyJanet M.RivenbarkWilliam C.2003. Performance budgeting for state and local government. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
26.
KnackStephen. 2002. Social capital and the quality of government: Evidence from the states. American Journal of Political Science46:772–85.
27.
LauthThomas P.1985. Performance evaluation in the Georgia budgetary process. Public Budgeting and Finance5:67–82.
28.
LinerBlaineHarryP. HatryElisaVinsonRyanAllenPatDusenburyScottBryantRonSnell. 2001. Making results-based state government work. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
29.
LuYi. 2007. Performance budgeting: The perspective of state agencies. Public Budgeting and Finance27:1–17.
30.
LuYi. 2008. Managing the design of performance measures: The role of agencies. Public Performance and Management Review32:3–20.
31.
LuYiWilloughbyKatherine G.ArnettSarah. 2009. Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance and Management Review33:266–87.
32.
MayPeter J.1993. Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12:634–63.
33.
MazmanianDaniel A.SabatierPaul A.1989. Implementation and public policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
MeierKenneth J.McFarlaneDeborah R.1996. Statutory coherence and policy implementation: The case of family planning. Journal of Public Policy15:281–98.
36.
MelkersJulia E.WilloughbyKatherine G.1998. The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review58:66–73.
MelkersJulia E.WilloughbyKatherine G.2005. Models of performance measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review65:180–90.
39.
MoynihanDonald P.2006. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review66:77–89.
40.
MoynihanDonald P.IngrahamPatricia W.2003. Look for the silver lining: When performance-based accountability systems work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13:469–90.
41.
RubinMarilyn MarksWilloughbyKatherine G.. 2009. Financial management grades for the states: A prospective use. Public Budgeting and Finance29:49–67.
42.
SangerMary Bryna. 2008. From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review68:S70–S85.
43.
SchickAllen. 2001. Getting performance measures to measure up. In Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American Government, ed. ForsytheDall E., 39–60. Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
44.
SchiffelLeeSmithKen. 2006. How does the media report on government performance?The Journal of Government Financial Management55:18–23.
45.
Van DoorenWouter. 2005. What makes organizations measure? Hypotheses on the causes and conditions for performance measurement. Financial Accountability and Management21:363–83.
46.
WangXiaohu. 2000. Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting and Finance20:102–18.
47.
YaisawarngSuthathipBurgessJames F.Jr.2006. Performance-based budgeting in the public sector: An illustration from the VA health care system. Health Economics15:295–310.
48.
YangKaifengHsiehJun Yi. 2007. Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review67:861–79.
49.
YangKaifengHolzerMarc. 2006. The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review66:114–26.
