Government Performance Measurement in USA
It’s not until 1990s, did Chinese public management scholars begin to focus Western government performance evaluation of the theoretical research and application. As we are late at the beginning of the government performance research, we can reflect on the assessment of the United States and other developed countries experiences, and learned a lot from it. In this way, we can make up a better Chinese characteristics foundation of government performance evaluation system.
The status of American Studies
Generally speaking, their study has the following features: (1) U.S. Government Performance Assessment System is a continuation of the West Basic characteristics of political science, maintaining the 1990s’ study characteristics. (2) U.S. Government Performance theory is becoming more and more close to the social development and political change. (3)U.S. government performance evaluation borrows multidisciplinary study theory, and interdisciplinary research methods affect each. What’s more, the theory of economics becomes the most important factor theory in the study of government performance studies. Also, private sector’s advanced management methods and technology are actively advocated in their research, which forms its distinctive research characteristics. (4) U.S. government performance evaluation study takes on a leading position in the world in this field. (5) American scholars regard the government performance evaluation as a systematic management process studies, they also think that the government performance management process is the core of the government management, and their studies the core of the specific issues and case studies, not pure theory research.
Scholar Brain Sorber describes the introduction of performance evaluation system efforts from a perspective of the central government. Nico Mol talks about through budgeting system involvement in the performance evaluation of the implementation issues in Defense systems. Arie Halachmi, by comparing the two different perspectives, finds some differences of the United States, what are the compare between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Starting from the connection of performance measurement and accountability, research the universality issue of government performance and the quality evaluation. Canahan and Holzer study the approaches of citizens participate in the U.S. government’s service evaluation. Bill Waugh explores the difficult problem to evaluate the proper emergency response, and research to define what capability is enough. What’s more, the emergency event evaluation refers to which factors in a function. Arie Halachmi and Geri explore some key problems in measure the government’s service quality. They point out that except the difficult in methods, including like SERVQUA (Parsuraman，1990) problem of usage of tools, there are still other problems, which involves different priorities and the existence of multiple interests sharers. Lynch and Armond try to link the implications of high-quality public services, which we except for, with a set of questions or concerns about the government Changes and the discussion of ethics at present. Finally through two important observations, Loffler attempts to provides insights on three process service quality evaluation. Aston Institute of Business and Public Total Services Research Center focus on the government performance evaluation; they also use “Best Value” as an Assessment Framework, use “Balanced Scorecard” to make conclusion on different interest sharers’ communication and cooperation. In government performance evaluation system’s empirical research, American scholars evaluate government performance mainly from five aspects: (1) By questionnaires and surveys, visits, etc., to assess receiving services "customers" expectations, then to establish the basic standards of service...
References: Theodore H. Poister and Gregory Streib, Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice, Public Administration Review , Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1999), pp. 325-335.
Carolyn J. HeinrichSource, Outcomes-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2002), pp. 712-725.
Richard P. Nathan ,"Complexifying" Performance Oversight in America 's Governments, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 207-215.
Drucker, Peter, 1954. 7be Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Ingraham, Patricia Wallace and David H. Rosenbloom, 1989. "The New Public Personnel and the New Public Service." Public Administration Review, vol. 49 (March/April), pp. 116-125.
Julia Melkers and Katherine Willoughby, The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50, Public Administration Review , Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1998), pp. 66-73.
Jerrell D. Coggburn and Saundra K. Schneider, The Quality of Management and Government Performance: An Empirical Analysis of the American State, Public Administration Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2003), pp. 206-213Published.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document