WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ON PERCEIVED ACCOUNTABILITY EFFECTIVENESS IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS?

被引:30
作者
Amirkhanyan, Anna A. [1 ]
机构
[1] American Univ, Sch Publ Affairs, Washington, DC 20016 USA
关键词
accountability; collaboration; contracting; performance measurement; privatization; SOCIAL-SERVICES; MANAGEMENT CAPACITY; MUNICIPAL SERVICES; PUBLIC-SECTOR; NONPROFIT; MODEL; IMPLEMENTATION; COLLABORATION; PRIVATIZATION; DETERMINANTS;
D O I
10.2753/PMR1530-9576350204
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
Designing and implementing performance measurement systems in public contracts is not easy. Little evidence is available on what measures work better in producing managerial benefits. This study evaluates the effect of different performance measurement practices on accountability effectiveness in government contracts. The findings suggest that performance measurement has a positive impact on government's ability to effectively manage contracts. More specifically, measuring costs, client impact, service timeliness, and disruptions, as well as specifying detailed processes for service delivery, are associated with higher perceived accountability effectiveness. At the same time, evaluating quality and client satisfaction, and using informal monitoring techniques have a negative impact on accountability effectiveness. The results of this study provide motivation for contract managers to optimize performance monitoring and reduce transaction costs by relying on measures that are more likely to improve contract implementation.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 339
页数:37
相关论文
共 76 条
[61]   State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability [J].
Romzek, BS ;
Johnston, JM .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2005, 65 (04) :436-449
[62]   Effective contract implementation and management: A preliminary model [J].
Romzek, BS ;
Johnston, JM .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND THEORY, 2002, 12 (03) :423-453
[63]  
Rose-Ackerman S., 1986, EC NONPROFIT I STUDI
[64]  
Rubin E, 2006, CAMB STUD LAW SOC, P52
[65]  
Savas E.S., 2000, PRIVATIZATION PUBLIC
[66]   Competition and choice in New York City social services [J].
Savas, ES .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2002, 62 (01) :82-91
[67]  
Sclar ElliottD., 2000, You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization
[68]   A mixed relationship: Bureaucracy and school performance [J].
Smith, KB ;
Larimer, CW .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2004, 64 (06) :728-736
[69]  
Smith S.R., 2005, The Oxford handbook of public management, P591
[70]   COST SAVINGS FROM PERFORMANCE-BASED MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING [J].
Straub, Ad .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 2009, 13 (03) :205-217