CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT: OPERATIONALIZING
DEMOCRACY THROUGH BETTER
ACCOUNTABILITY

ARIE HALACHMI
Sun Yat Sen University (China) and
Linz University Distinguished Fulbright Professor(2010-
2011)

MARC HLZER
Rutgers University - Newark

ABSTRACT

This article examines the concept of citizen participation in the

context of the new interface between the public and govemment as a result of
advancements in ICT and interactive e-govemment This interface has a direct
bearing on accountability and the govemance process. The paper makes
the case for greater involvement of citizens in designing the collection,
the analysis, the dissemination and in assuring the proper consumption
of performance measurement data. The paper concludes that in the 21"
Century the 196O's slogan "maximum feasible participation" can be a
way to enhance democracy through better accountability and trust in
govemment which can result from meaningful citizen participation.

Key words: citizen participation, performance measurement,

transparency, accountability, e-government

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to examine the concept

of citizen participation in the context of the interface between
the public and govemment, accountability and the govemance
process. We assert that greater involvement of citizens in
designing the collection, the analysis, the dissemination.
PAQ FALL 2010 379

and the proper consumption of performance measurement

data is a promising strategy for enhancing two important
aspects of govemance, namely accountability and
taxpayers' satisfaction. Genuine, as different from
symbolic, citizen participation, we avow, is a valuable tool
for increasing tmst in a govemment for two reasons. First,
it can provide govemment planners and program managers
a tme and accurate data about taxpayers' priorities and
preferences between highly desired but mutually exclusive
courses of action (Tompkins, Herian and Hoppe 2010).
Second, such involvement can provide program managers
with important feedback about ongoing operations while
boosting the credibility of govemment's reports about
various aspects of its operations. This assertion is
consistent with the recent proposal of Aghion, Algan,
Cahuc and Shleifer (2008) that unilateral govemment
regulation, to the extent that it constrains productivity, is
strongly and negatively correlated with the creation of
social capital. According to that proposal, "the correlation
works for a range of measures of social capital, from tmst
in others to tmst in corporations and political institutions,
as well as for a range of measures of regulation, from
product markets to labor markets to judicial procedures."
Citizen participation is seen in this paper as a
promising way of cultivating social capital, in the broad
sense, given the declining cost and new opportunities for
such involvement as a result of developments in
information technology in general and interactive forms of
e-govemment in particular. As noted by Kim and Kim
(2010: 87), "e-govemment can positively increase process-
based tmst by improving interactions with citizens and their
perceptions of responsiveness.
The paper starts by placing the need for citizen
participation in the current reality of growing demands for
accountability. As documented by several publications
(Whiteley and Sanders 2005; Global Fomm 1999) this
380 PAQ FALL 2010

reality is articulated through questions by taxpayers and the

media about govemment priorities and the procedures used
to attain its various objectives. The paper goes on to discuss
the functional aspects of citizen participation as a mean to
increase trust, transparency and the quality of data used to
make decisions about service levels, procedures and
priorities. The paper concludes that with citizen
participation it is possible not only to expand on the I960's
slogan "maximum feasible participation" for a more
democratic govemance process, but to affect govemment
productivity, citizens' satisfaction, transparency and trust in
govemment.

THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF ACCOUNTABILITY

AND CITIZENS' PARTICIPATION

The notion that citizen participation is an important

element of the democratic govemance process is not new.
A case for it was argued with the slogan from the I960's
Maximum Feasible Participation (Moynihan 1969; Rubin
1969). Yet, it should be noted that its wide use in America
during the I960's and 1970's was meant mainly to foster
true democracy. For all practical purposes, it was geared to
facilitate participation by the poor and minorities that have
been left out of the govemance process. To be sure, citizen
participation was not intended primarily for fostering
productivity, better govemment or accountability. The
academics writings on citizen participation during the
Johnson Administration (e.g.. Strange 1972) coincided with
the research interest about agenda setting (e.g., Bachrach
and Baratz 1962) and community power (e.g.. Hunter
1969). This "coincidence" supports our assertion that at
that time citizen participation was used more for
operationalizing the concept of greater democracy through
a more inclusive participation in the decision making
process than as a way of addressing issues of
PAQ FALL 2010 381

accountability, responsiveness, and public sector

productivity.
Productivity management in the public and private
sectors has evolved ft-om simple "common sense" in the
late nineteenth century to complex systems in the late
twentieth century. As observed by Hlzer and Halachmi
(1996), "today, to produce public services, the best
performing public organizations have developed multiple,
reinforcing capacities." High performing govemment
agencies, they assert, share some distinctive characteristics,
such as:
Integrating advanced management techniques;
Applying risk management and quality management
principles, while balancing, responsiveness to client
groups' expectations with economy and the reality
of dwindling resources;
Motivating employees, and emphasizing people and
participative leadership;
Adapting and exploiting the benefits of information and
communication (ICT) technologies ; and
Developing public-private partnerships (PPP).

Acquiring such capacities is necessary, but in the

public's eye they are not sufficient attributes of an
effective, efficient, and responsive govemment. The reason
is that as outsiders most citizens are not in a position to
ascertain on their own how well their govemment agencies
are performing. Thus, public bureaucracies are constantly
challenged to demonstrate excellence, continuing
improvements and, in particular, pmdent use of resources.
This challenge should be considered in the context of the
reality facing all govemment organizationsnamely, the
growing demands and costs of public services which are
exceeding the taxing capacity of most authorities. Subject
to increasing pressures to do more with dwindling
resources, elected officials and public managers must make
382 PAQ FALL 2010

a stronger case for every spending decision. As observed by

Al Gore (1999: 1)

"We are here at this extraordinary international

gathering, the very first of its kind, to talk about a
subject that lies at the very heart of economic
growth and productivity - and even basic political
legitimacy - for the 21st Century: reforming and
reinventing government so that it is smaller,
smarter, and more responsive to change in this
fast-changing Information Age...In the 70's and
8O's, we saw a growing international frustration
with rising tax rates and the fact that they were
paying not for better services, but for more
bureaucracy and inefficiency. The stagflation of
that time - with slower growth and high infiation
eating away at family incomes made rising tax
rates even more of a burden. "

A promising approach to assist them in addressing

the reality they are facing, as observed by Gore (1999),
involves the addition of two other sjnergistic, operational
characteristics, namely,
the proper use of performance measurement for
establishing and demonstrating accountability to
foster a more prudent use of resources and
more systematic opportunities for broad citizen
participation in the design and evaluation of public
programs to make government responsive to the
actual (vs. imagined) public's needs, priorities and
preferred modes of service delivery (Tomkins,
Herian and Hoppe 2010).

Abramson et al. (2006) note that the use of

performance measurements is one of the trends that are
transforming governments around the world. This assertion
PAQ FALL 2010 383

is shared by many writers. For example. Sole (2009: 3)

notes that "during the last two decades, public sector
performance has become a topic of great interest to
scholars and practitioners of public management around the
world..." In a related way, Randma-Liiv (2005:95) went on
to assert that "Since the early 1980s, the public sector
worldwide has been under constant pressure to improve its
performance in pursuit of more efficiency and
effectiveness, and to revive the shrinking tmst in public
institutions. Consequently, public service performance has
received more attention than ever from politicians, civil
servants, and citizens alike."
The emphasis on the use of measurement, that is,
performance indicators, was a key element in the efforts of
Margaret Thatcher to improve the productivity and
accountability of govemment agencies in the United
Kingdom. Similar initiatives, such as the American
Govemment Performance and Results Act of 1993
(Halachmi 2004), have been taken around the world and are
documented by a large number of publications and
conferences on the subject. As noted by Posner (2009), the
years since 1993 have been marked by initiatives to
integrate and link performance data with budget
presentations and decisions. Those have been emphasized
in the United States through two successive
Administrations, i.e., under Presidents Clinton (1992-2000)
and Bush (2001-2008). The Obama Administration has
reaffirmed the importance of these initiatives in its
management agenda. In response to both the Govemment
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), agencies have responded
by producing a supply of valuable performance
information, metrics, and plans. Posner (2009) goes on to
assert that "The challenge now involves stimulating the
demand for that information on the part of budget decision
makers in both the executive and the Congress." This
384 PAQ FALL 2010

assertion echoes the proposition offered earlier by AI Gore

(1999), namely:

If we want our government to be accountable for

every taxpayer's dime, then we need a workforce
that will be held accountable for real results. That
is why we want to submit to Congress new civil
service reform legislation....Of course, to truly
change our [administrative] culture - so that
people not only obey but comply - we must
combine this legislation with the right kind of
partnerships between labor and management
partnerships which recognize the interests of both
sides but unite both front-line workers and
managers in the common cause of improving
govemment performance.

Unfortunately, both the Gore and the Posner

assertions fall short of the mark as articulated by Clinton
and Gore(1992) when they asserted that "it is time to
change the way govemment operatesto shift from top
down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial govemment that
empowers citizens and communities to change the country
from the bottom up" (Clinton and Gore 1992). Citizens and
communities are the "consumers" of govemment services
and knowing about their preferences and expectations,
through citizen participation, may be a promising way to
gain that important input.
As has already been established by the literature on
Total Quality Management (TQM), a measure of quality,
and thus productivity, involves the meeting of "customer"
satisfaction and expectations (Swiss 1992; Rago 1994
Reevs and Bedna 1994; Fomell et al. 1996). By the same
token, research on "consumer orientation" indicates that
customer orientation is directly related to customers'
evaluations of employee service performance, physical
PAQ FALL 2010 385

goods, and services. Such an orientation was also alleged to

have indirect effects on organizational quality, customer
satisfaction, value attributions, and outcome behaviors
(Brady and Cronin, Jr. 2001). When it comes to
govemance, "customer orientation," or what some writers
(Torres 2003; Loffler 1999) able "citizens orientation," has
a direct bearing on such important issues like trust in
govemment (Bouckaert and van de Walle 2003) in turn,
influencing govemment performance. Thus, citizen
participation, as they and Loffler (1999) allege, has a lot to
do with trust and satisfaction with govemment services.
For various reasons, the public has a mistmst and
skepticism about govemment performance and its prudent
use of resources. As noted by Adsera, Boix and Payne
(2003), how well any govemment functions hinges on how
good citizens are at making their politicians accountable for
their actions. In other words, there is a growing expectation
among alert citizens for demonstrated accountability. The
self congratulatory reports of the past are not enough
anymore. This quest for accountability must be met, but it
is not without a cost. In other words there is an urgent need
to foster a relatively "inexpensive" or highly efficient
mechanisms to establish accountability without siphoning
too much resources from operations (Halachmi 2002).
More and altemative way to enhance citizen participation
in all phases and aspects of govemment operations may be
a promising strategy towards that end.
From a pragmatic point of view, citizen
participation may enhance public understanding of the
reasons for an agency's ability (or inability) to attain higher
levels of effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy or a more
prudent use of resources. Such improved understanding, in
tum, may generate some of the necessary conditions for
establishing govemment accountability, and thus tmst, in
the public's eye.
Yet, the prospect of such benefits form a broader
386 PAQ FALL 2010

participation of citizens is still lost on many bureaucrats. As

noted by Harter (1997), certain bureaucrats are
apprehensive about greater openness to public participation
because they fear commitment to ideas or decisions that
originated by non-expert citizens or other stakeholders.
Contrary to the expectations that highly trained and
experienced professionals would be more likely, than lesser
qualified ones, to have enough self confidence and be open
to suggestions, they seem to be less inclined to do so. This
pathology of advanced leaming masquerades as
"professionalism," which makes such bureaucrats
uncomfortable interacting in a meaningful way with
"outsiders." These lay people, some bureaucrats fear, may
contaminate the decision making process by introducing
something other than the considerations, models or
algorithms they have been trained to use. These misguided
professionals prefer their own professionalism and pedigree
training as the sole quality guide for making the correct
decisions in the public interest. The prospect that precisely
due to narrow and specialized training they may experience
a disconnect from reality is not something they can, or are
likely to, realize on their own. A systemic recognition of
such a pathology is a good reason why the polity should
insist on making citizen participation a common component
of public policy making. Advances in information and
communication technology (ICT), in general, and taking
full advantage of interactive e-govemment settings in
particular, make such involvement inexpensive, feasible,
convenient and convenient to all parties.

APPLYING MEASUREMENT TO PUBLIC SECTOR

PERFORMANCE

Independent scmtiny, such as the one that is created

when citizens are involved in the selection of performance
measurements, may elevate the level of any discussion
PAQ FALL 2010 387

about an agency's performance in two ways. The first way

is by eliminating concerns about the use of certain
performance measurement methodologies instead of other
possible measurements? Such concerns have to do with
accumulated mistrust and suspicion about possible
manipulation of the reporting process to assure a rosy
picture of an agency's performance. Citizen participation
that allows the public to ask questions and to select the
measurement methodology can elevate such concerns and
increase public confidence in the resulting report(s) on
performance. Second, knowing what are the public's
concerns and by having input from "customers" about
service expectations can help agencies design a better
collection of data. With better data about "important"
aspects of its performance and on actual rather than alleged
levels or quality of performance, program directors are
likely to be in a better position to fine tune operations.
Our premise is that in order to demonstrate prudent
use of resources, bureaucracies must satisfy two conditions:
first, they must establish trust, confidence and some
agreement with external stakeholders about what data is
needed for a dependable measurement of performance, how
such data is going to be analyzed and, what are the intended
uses of the compiled indicators; second, they must share
access to the data and the information that is derived from
it as inputs for decision making. Such data sharing
increases transparency and thus trust in the merit of
continued participation of outsiders in the planning and
review of government programs.
The importance of satisfying these two conditions
has been demonstrated many times, for example in
connection with efforts to introduce performance
measurement for assessing teachers or school effectiveness.
In January 2010, Tennessee legislators were called to a
special session to introduce a new system for evaluating the
performance of teachers and principals. Tennessee needed
388 PAQ FALL 2010

such a system in place in order to qualify for new federal

ftands, i.e., so that it could be held accountable by the
Federal Govemment. The proposed change was not
welcomed by the Tennessee Education Association (TEA),
among others, due to the lack of input from teachers and
principals in the development of the new scheme. To
reduce opposition and elevate the feasibility of the
proposed plan, the Govemor had to compromise the initial
design that was developed by "experts" at the state's
Department of Education, while the proposed legislation
was already being debated in the State's Assembly.
Accepting the proposals of the TEA (Tennessean
2010), the Govemor reduced the weight of students' grades
from fifty percent of the teacher evaluation, as proposed
initially, to thirty-five. Thus, at the end the teachers, as
stakeholders, have had a say about what measures are going
to be used to assess performance and how they are going to
be used. Also, the resulting bill require that independent
officers hear any cases brought against teachers who had
eamed job protections through the state's tenure laws; thus,
access to the data used by the state was assured. Inviting
and allowing citizen participation in the first place would
have saved the Govemor time and political capital. What
such participation would have brought to the table during
the design phase can be derived from the many comments
to a newspaper report (Tennessean 2010) about the
proposed new way of evaluating teachers and principals.
They included, on the one hand, support for the idea of
holding teachers accountable by using the grades on
achievement tests as indicators of teachers' performance.
On the other hand, some comments expressed different
points of view, such as the following:

As a teacher I would consider the possibility of

supporting this if and only if it included a
provision making the students accountable for
PAQ FALL 2010 389

their own test grades. Make the TCAP count

towards their final average or used as a
"Gateway" test determining if they get credit or
not. Until that is done, too many ofthe kids do not
care. I would also want funds for an independent
review of the test to see if they align with the
standards (and possibly a review ofthe standards
to see if they are specific enough for use. I know
they are in some subjects, but not all.)

Considering and balancing the two points of view

through proper use of citizen participation in the design of
the proposed evaluation scheme, it seems, could have
contributed in two ways. First, it would have allowed the
State to move on with the introduction of the new
evaluation scheme without alienating the "educators" as an
interest group. Second, it would have allowed members of
other civil society-based organizations to understand the
constraints under which the Tennessee Department of
Education was working and facilitated better tmst in it. By
the same token, such involvement and civic participation in
designing the evaluation would have signaled the TEA that
its opposition to any new measures to evaluate teachers'
performance might not get popular support. Consistent with
the proposal of Aghion, Algan, Cahuc and Shleifer (2008),
this could have simplified or facilitated the passing of the
proposed legislation about teachers' evaluations. It should
be noted here that the State of Tennessee was one of the
first two states to get Federal frinds due to the inclusion of
the unions and other citizens in the design ofthe proposed
program. This element of stakeholders' participation was
missing from the proposals of other states that applied for
the same resources. 5
The importance of access to information as the
second requirement for establishing accountability, as
pointed out earlier, has been addressed by several writers
390 PAQ FALL 2010

(e.g.. Carter and Blanger 2005, Jenkins and Goetz 1999;

Miller 1996) This topic is elaborated on in the article by
Greiling and Spraul (2010) in this symposium.
However, it should be noted that there is no one
clear and widely accepted definition, or umbrella notion, of
the ideas and perspectives associated with the term
accountability. Although we cannot elaborate further in this
paper about an encompassing definition of the concept of
accountability, a promising attempt to do so is offered by
Verhoest (2003). For the discussion that follows it is
important to note the difference between the concepts of:
'^accountability for," namely who (an individual or
an administrative unit) is responsible for carrying
out what tasks or attaining what results and in
what manner and
"accountability before," namely who can ask for
an account of what took (or did not take) place,
what was (or was not) achieved, or what went
wrong and why.

The bureaucratic reality is that these two distinct

meanings or aspects of accountability are fused together.
Thus, when it is not succinctly clear who is responsible,
e.g., by reference to job description or a unit's stated
objective(s), failures become orphans - the responsibility of
someone else. By the same token, there are many claims for
credit whenever there seems to be a success story. In a
related way, when it is not clear who can ask for a report
about performance in order to punish or to reward, the
same game might be played.
The reluctance to sanction or punish an individual
or a whole unit for a failure has to do with the simple
reality that such action is not without a cost. The mere
affiliation with a failure has a political (or a career) price,
let alone that such action muddies the relationships between
the two parties -the one giving the account and the one
PAQ FALL 2010 391

asking for it. For the very same reasons, there is a great
willingness to exaggerate achievements since highlighting
them enhances the image of both parties. To be sure, the
one giving the account is rewarded, at least in terms of
public image, while becoming beholden to the party that is
recognizing the achievement.
Citizen participation in the design and utilization of
performance measurement can facilitate a better
understanding of these two notions of accountability both
within and outside the bureaucracy. Inside the bureaucracy,
due to inquiries by the non-expert citizens about the
process, the position holders and the units that are involved
in carrying out each phase or part of a given program
represent who is responsible for what. Outside the
bureaucracy, citizen participation results in articulated
expectations for a performance report and prompt action to
correct, punish, or reward the responsible actors. As such,
citizen participation reduces the discretion of those who are
supposed to ask for an account, forcing them to do so even
when the expected news is not going to be good and
restraining them from exaggerating trivial gains.
Fuchs(1986), for example, suggested that public
accountability is the condition of being susceptible to, or
the act of giving, public accountthat is, accessible to, or
shared by, all members ofthe community.
It is easy to see why the only effective type of
accountability implies: first, regular, honest, and clear
sharing of performance-related data, and secondly, that
anyone involved in decision-makingabove or below, on
the inside or on the outside-should have an open door to
any relevant information. Allowing information to circulate
freely will help transparency while stimulating new
problem-solving energies and ideas. Such fact-based
examinations can:
Influence the choice of instmments or metrics for
measuring performance at various levels of
392 PAQ FALL 2010

government or at different kinds of agencies.

Moving away from a one size fits all perspective
may allow a more informed judgment of
performance over time for a given government
entity.
Link performance measurement to budgeting
decisions, which allows a break away from the
posture that the squeaky wheel gets the oil and
generates an impetus for change and innovation.
Enhance public trust in government by the use of a
two pronged approach: first, by displaying services
and their corresponding budget data more clearly by
taking advantage of graphics and information
technologies; second, by increasing both the quality
and the transparency of government operations, e.g.,
through a wider use of e-govemment.

These are all capacities which management now has

available. But public organizations are likely to be more
trusted, responsive and more productive if those capacities
are not only applied internally but if the public and its
representatives have real time access to performance data.
In other words, these advantages accrue if the use of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
increases transparency.
Enabling a more pointed and sophisticated external
scrutiny may allow for timelier outside intervention,
steering the course of a government operation in the
direction that would maximize benefits to agencies'
customers and taxpayers. Such interventions may allow the
operationalization of the two aspects of accountability
listed above, namely accountability before and
accountability for.
A timely access to performance data and greater
transparency facilitates the role of the media in reporting
and analyzing performance data for the benefit of all
PAQ FALL 2010 393

taxpayers. By the same token, this would allow elected

officials and a civil society-based organization to provide
public managers with the feedback they can use to fine-
tune their operations. Such fine tuning would transform the
notion of accountability fi-om a ritual that involves
accusatory finger pointing and reprimands into constmctive
efforts for meeting the polity's expectations i.e., for
improving govemance.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In an environment of tax revolts and fiscal crises,

govemment's "customers" are increasingly questioning the
efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Bemard
Rosen (1989) noted that "despite the number and
redundancy of accountability mechanisms, the belief is
prevalent among legislators, public administrators, and
scholars that govemment bureaucracies are not as effective
as they could be because of certain deficiencies in policies
and processes for holding them accountable." From the
discussion we offered here one should be able to see that
institutionalizing citizen participation riiay offer a way of
addressing some of these "deficiencies" or at least an
indication of the willingness to do so.
Citizen participation has come a long way since
Moynihan (1969) expressed concem about the absence of
the poor and minorities in the political process. Better
representation of all elements of society in the decision
making process was promoted as a way to attain a higher
level of democracy. But as pointed out here, participation
contributes to transparency, which is another important
attribute of democracy in general and accountability in
particular. Furthermore, citizen participation may facilitate
better efficiency, legitimacy, public cooperation and tmst.
Citizen participation, as stakeholders in any number of
capacities, can help program managers fine tune operations
394 PAQ FALL 2010

and develop better understandings of how their agencies

and programs are perceived from the outside. Such
improvements are likely to help them be more accountable,
namely meet public expectations about the use of
resources, quality levels of services and tme priorities. By
the same token, citizen participation in the design and
selection of performance measurement, collection, analysis
and use of data is likely to increase the relevance of
performance reports and their credibility in the public eye.
Last, but not least, citizen participation reduces de facto
monopolies of govemment officials and the media about
the "facts" that should be taken into consideration in public
debates about spending priorities, needs and govemment
performance. Opening and elevating the level of such
discussion, in tum, may also contribute to greater attention
to the needs of all segments of society, accountability and
tmst in govemment.
Some important questions to consider are: what are
the necessary conditions to foster genuine and broad-based
public participation? What needs to happen in order to
make sure that such "volunteers" can affect the decision
making process rather than add to the "production" of
public services another ritual that has mainly a symbolic
value? What sort of training or incentives should be used to
entice citizens to participate? How can interactive models
or formats of e-govemment be tapped to entice concemed
citizens to participate in ways convenient to them while
controlling any possible costs to the public and the
govemment? What should be done to change the attitudes
of some bureaucrats who consider public participation as an
unnecessary way of prolonging and complicating the
decision making process or even as a source of
"contamination" by outsiders or non professionals? We did
not address such issues here, but hopeftiUy this article
would lead to ftirther research for answering such
questions.
PAQ FALL 2010 395

REFERENCES
Aghion, P., Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., and Shleifer, A., (July 3,
2008). Regulation and Distrust
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/
files/NBER_Regulation%20and%20Distrust.pdf
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., (1962) Two faces of power.
The American Political Science Review The
American Political Science Review, 56(4) 947-952
Bouckaert, G. &Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing
measures of citizen tmst and user satisfaction as
indicators of 'good govemance': Difficulties in
linking tmst and satisfaction indicators.
International Review of Administrative Sciences,
69(3) 329-344.
Carter, L., Blanger, F., (2005) Information Systems
Journal. Volume 15(1), 5 - 25.
interscience.wiley.com
Carter, N., Klein, R. and Day, P. (1992/ How
Organizations Measure Success: The Use of
Performance Indicators in Govemment, Routledge,
London.
Clinton, B., and Gore, A., (1992). Putting People First.
New York: Times Books.
Dye, K.M., (December 1988). Well Performing
Organizations : Report of the Auditor General of
Canada, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, cat. no. FM.
Epstein, P.D. (1988). Using Performance Measurement in
Local Govemment: A Guide to Improving
Decisions, Performance, and Accountability,
National Civic League Press, New York
Exemplary State and Local Awards Program (EXSL):
National Center for Public Performance, School of
Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers
University-Newark. www.ncpp.us Accessed
Febmary22, 2010
396 PAQ FALL 2010

Fomell, C ; Johnson, M.D; Anderson, Eugene, W; Cha, J;

Bryant,... (Oct 1996 ).The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings
Journal of Marketing; 60(4); ABI/INFORM Global
pg. http://triton.nfli.uit.no/dok/fomell-1996.pdf
Fuchs, H.W. (1986). Audifing as a Political Instrument, in
McKinney, Jerome B. and Michael Johnston (eds.).
Fraud, Waste and Abuse in Government,
Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.
Global Fomm (1999). A Global Fomm on Fighting
Cormption: Safeguarding Integrity Among Justice
and Security Officials. Washington, D.C., February
24-26, 1999
https://bvc.cgu.gov.br/bitstream/123456789/1550/l/
global fomm report.pdf
Greiling., D. and SprauL, K. (2010). Accountability and the
Challenges of Information Disclosure. Public
Administration Quarterly (this issue of PAQ)
Halachmi, A. (2002). Performance measurement: a look
at some possible dysfunctions. Work Study 51(5)
230-239
Harter, P. J. (1997). Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of
Adolescents. Duke Law Journal, 46(6) 1389-1428.
Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time
Has Come, Governmental Accounting Standards
Board, Norwalk,CT.
Hatry, H.P. (1977). How Effective Are Your Community
Services? The Urban Institute, Washington DC.
Hlzer, M. and Halachmi, A. (1988). Public Sector
Productivity, Garland Press, New York.
Hlzer, M. and Halachmi, A. (1996). Measurement as a
Means of Accountability International Journal of
Public Administration, 19(11 & 12).
Hlzer, M. (ed.) (1998). Public Productivity Handbook,
Marcel Dekker, New York.
PAQ FALL 2010 397

Jenkins, R. and Goetz, M. A., (1999 ) . Accounts and

accountability: theoretical implications of the right-
to-information movement in India Third World
Quarterly, 20(3) 603- 622.
http://www.archonning.net/docs/pal218/JenkinsGoetz. Acco
untsAccount.pdf
Loffler, E. The Value of Public Management Evaluations
From An International Perspective: Best Practice
Cases Reconsidered.
www.inpuma.net/research/papers/siena/elke.doc.
Management Newsletter, (1992). Office of Operations, City of New
York.
Mayor's Management Report, (1992). Office of Operations,
City of New York.
Miller, E. S. (1996). Civilizing Cyberspace: Policy, Power,
and the Information Superhighway. Addison-
Wesley.
Miller, G.J. (1980). Efficiency as a competing principle in
public financial management. Public
Productivity and Management Review 13(4)
331-351.
Monthly Milestone Report, (1992). Office of Operations, City
of New Yoik,.
Moynihan, D.P. (1969) Maximum feasible
misunderstanding; Community action in the war
on poverty. N.Y., Free Press
Performance Measurement: A Guide for Local Elected
Officials, The Urban Institute, Washington DC.
Posner, L.P. (October 29, 2009). Performance budgeting:
Informing hard choices facing the nation hearing
before the Senate Budget Committee.
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/testimony/2009
/102909_Posner_Testimony.pdf
Public Productivity and Management Review, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco (quarterly).
398 PAQ FALL 2010

Rabin, J. (ed.). (1990). "Governmental Efficiency,"

symposium in Public Productivity and
Management Review 13(4) 331-396.
Rago, W. V., (Jan. - Feb., 1994). Adapting Total Quality
Management (TQM) to govemment: Another point
of view. Public Administration Review, Vol. 54(1)
61-64.
Reeves, A. C , and Bednar, A. D. (1994). Defining quality:
Altematives and implications. The Academy of
Management Review, 19(3), Special Issue: "Total
Quality", pp. 419-445 (article consists of 27 pages)
Published by: Academv of Management Stable
URL: http://virww.jstor.org/stable/258934
Remarks By Vice President Al Gore Opening Session Of
Intemational Rego Conference (Thursday, January
14, 1999).
hftp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/newsroom/intereg
o.html
Rosen, B. (1989). Holding Government Bureaucracies
Accountable (2nd edition), Praeger, New York.
Rubin, L. B. (1969) Maximum Feasible Participation: The
Origins, Implications, and Present Status, The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 385(1), 14-29.
Sole, F., (2009). A management model and factors driving
performance in public organizations. Measuring
Business Excellence, Q Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, ISSN 1368-3047. VOL. 13 NO. 4 pp. 3-11.
Strange, J. H. (1972) The Impact of Citizen Participation
on Public Administration. Public Administration
Review, Vol. 32, Special Issue: Citizens Action in
Model Cities and CAP Programs: Case Studies and
Evaluation, 457-470.
Swiss, E. J., (Jul. - Aug., 1992). Adapting Total Quality
Management (TQM) to Govemment. Public
Administration Review, 52(4) 356-362 .
PAQ FALL 2010 399

Tennessean (2010) Teachers and Govemor reach a deal

http://www.tennessean.com/comments/article/2010
0114/NEWS0201/1140333/TN-teachers-Bredesen-
reach-deal
Torres, L. (2003). Quality, satisfaction and tmst in
govemment Reassessing tmst in a reinvented
govemment SERVICE CHARTERS: RESHAPING
THE GOVERNMENT-CITIZENRELATIONSHIP.
THE CASE OF SPAIN* Conference of the
European Group of Public Administration (EGPA)
September 3-6, Lisbon, Portugal
Tompkins, A. Herian, M. and Hoppe R. (2010). Citizen
input for Performance Management and Strategic
Budgeting. Unpublished conference paper. Public
Performance Measurement and Reporting
Conference March 19, 2010
Copyright of Public Administration Quarterly is the property of Southern Public Administration Education
Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.