Moynihan, Donald P. (2006):
Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform.
Public Administration Review 66(1): 78-90.
Please note: This page may contain data in Norwegian that is not translated to English.
Type of publication:
Tidsskriftsartikkel
Link to publication:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00557.x
Link to review:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00557.x
Number of pages:
13
Language of publication:
Engelsk
Country of publication:
USA
NSD-reference:
2284
This page was last updated:
19/9 2007
Publikasjonens datagrunnlag:
- Primærdata
- Kvantitativ
- Kvalitativ
- Spørreskjema
- Intervju
- Dokumentstudie
Land som er gjenstand for studien:
- USA
Verkemiddel i den konstituerande styringa:
- 1.4 Finansiering
- 1.7 Personaladministrative/demografiske verkemiddel
Verkemiddel i den operative styringa av ststlege verksemder:
- 2.1 Formell styringsdialog
- 2.3 Styringssystemer og -verktøy
Studieoppdrag:
- Forskning
Studietype:
- Iverksetting/implementeringsstudie
- Effektstudie/implikasjoner/resultater
Type effekt:
- Kostnadseffektivitet
- Strukturelle og styringsmessige effektar
- Effekter i arbeidslivet
Sektor (cofog):
- Staten generelt
Summary:
State governments in the United States have enthusiastically embraced the idea of managing for results. This appears to represent a victory for New Public Management policy ideas transferred from New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The managing for results doctrine that emerged from these countries called for an increased focus on results but also increased managerial authority to achieve results. In return, it was claimed, governments would enjoy dramatic performance improvement and results-based accountability. This article assesses the implementation of public management reform in the United States and argues that the managing for results doctrine has been only partially adopted. State governments selected some of the New Public Management ideas but largely ignored others. In short, state governments emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement but were less successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic that promised high performance improvements.
Note:
State governance i USA