Performance management and political accountability: how local governments respond to performance feedback

References

• Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N., & Roenigk, D. J. (2015). Benchmarking and interorganizational learning in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bågenholm, A. (2013). Throwing the rascals out? The electoral effects of corruption allegations and corruption scandals in Europe 1981–2011. Crime, Law and Social Change, 60(5), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9482-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battaglio, R. P., Jr., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2014). The PerformanceStat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bellé, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2018). Prospect theory goes public: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, C. R., & Howell, W. G. (2007). Accountability and local elections: Rethinking retrospective voting. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 844–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00579.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertelli, A. M., & John, P. (2010). Government checking government: How performance measures expand distributive politics. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160999082X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdeaux, C., & Chikoto, G. (2008). Legislative influences on performance management reform. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00860.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2009). Democracy and government performance: Holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattaneo, M. D., Jansson, M., & Ma, X. (2018). Manipulation testing based on density discontinuity. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 234–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cifuentes-Faura, J., Benito, B., Guillamón, M. D., & Faura-Martínez, Ú. (2022). Relationship between transparency and efficiency in municipal governments: Several nonparametric approaches. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2123007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, C. A. (2022). Encouraging bureaucrats to report corruption: Human resource management and whistleblowing. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 44(2), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2021.1894955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrijevska‐Markoski, T., & French, P. E. (2019). Determinants of public administrators’ use of performance information: Evidence from local governments in Florida. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/209141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greve, H. R. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Han, Y., & Hong, S. (2019). The impact of accountability on organizational performance in the US federal government: The moderating role of autonomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(1), 3–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, J. M. (2018). Successful problem solvers? Managerial performance information use to improve low organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S. (2019). A behavioral model of public organizations: Bounded rationality, performance feedback, and negativity bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S. (2020). Performance management meets red tape: Bounded rationality, negativity bias, and resource dependence. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S., & Kim, T. K. (2017). Regulatory capture in agency performance evaluation: Industry expertise versus revolving-door lobbying. Public Choice, 171, 167–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S., & Kim, Y. (2019). Loyalty or competence: Political use of performance information and negativity bias. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S., Kim, S. H., & Son, J. (2020). Bounded rationality, blame avoidance, and political accountability: How performance information influences management quality. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1240–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1630138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance‐enhancing drug: Two hypotheses. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S85–S92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02634.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob, R., Zhu, P., Somers, M., & Bloom, H. (2012). A practical guide to regression discontinuity. New York, NY: MDRC.
   Google Scholar
• James, O. (2011). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, O., & John, P. (2006). 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), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, J. (2022). Power-sharing in governments, clarity of responsibility, and the control of corruption. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 44(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2021.1963996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji, S. (2022). Role of managerial and political accountability in improving performance of local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(3), 499–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2062608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen, M., Kim, T., & Zhu, L. (2018). Managing for results differently: Examining managers’ purposeful performance information use in public, nonprofit, and private organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016676574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julnes, P. D. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khanal, S. (2022). Open or shut case? Exploring the role of openness in public sector innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 46(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2116585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klašnja, M. (2016). Increasing rents and incumbency disadvantage. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28(2), 225–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629815586873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knox, C., & Janenova, S. (2023). Does bureaucratic performance vary across authoritarian regimes? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2026794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2016a). Do school report cards produce accountability through the ballot box? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(3), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2016b). Performance federalism and local democracy: Theory and evidence from school tax referenda. American Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krammer, S. M. (2019). Greasing the wheels of change: Bribery, institutions, and new product introductions in emerging markets. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1889–1926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317736588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, S., & Méndez, F. (2009). Corruption and elections: An empirical study for a cross‐section of countries. Economics & Politics, 21(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2008.00341.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll, A. (2015). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: A planned-behavior approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013486180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2), 281–355. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.48.2.281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. (2015). The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society, 34(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003600
   Google Scholar
• Min, B. H., & Oh, Y. (2020). How do performance gaps affect improvement in organizational performance? Exploring the mediating roles of proactive activities. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 766–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1713826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min, B. H., Oh, Y., & Brower, R. S. (2021). The effects of diverse feedback dynamics on performance improvement: A typology of performance feedback signals. Administration & Society, 53(1), 123–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720933822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, P. A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2011). Does performance measurement actually improve accountability? In M. Dubnick & H. Frederickson (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. 98–110). M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Rockoff, J., & Turner, L. J. (2010). Short-run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(4), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.2.4.119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, G., & Hong, S. W. (2020). The mediating effect of trust in supervisors in the relationship between constructive performance feedback and perceived fairness of performance appraisal. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1676274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salge, T. O. (2011). A behavioral model of innovative search: Evidence from public hospital services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1040–1057. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.18.5.1040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. Free Press of Glencoe.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. (2014). Organizational culture and the paradox of performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576380101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winters, M. S., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians? Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041513X13815259182857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagrapan, J., & Spáč, P. (2022). Factors of proactive disclosure of information at the local level. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(6), 1346–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2101494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar