Since the 1980s, nearly every state government has implemented some form of performance management. This article turns to the context of public higher education where the use of performance management has been popular but highly controversial and unstable. Using the Cox conditional gap time model for repeating events and state-level panel data, this article investigates the factors associated with the adoption and readoption of performance-based funding policies for public higher education. Results indicate that state higher education governing structures, increases in public tuition, and educational attainment are important predictors of whether a state adopts performance-based funding.
AlexanderF. King. 2000. The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education71:411.
2.
AndersenSimon C.JakobsenMads L.. 2018. Political pressure, conformity pressure, and performance information as drivers of public sector innovation adoption. International Public Management Journal21:213–42.
3.
BerryFrances Stokes. 1994. Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal22:442–56.
4.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review84:395–415.
5.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 2018. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the policy process, ed. SabatierPaul A.WeibleChristopher M., 263–308. New York: Routledge.
6.
BirdsallChris. 2018. Performance management in public higher education: Unintended consequences and the implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance & Management Review41:669–95.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.JonesBradford S.. 2004. Event history modeling. A guide for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.ZornChristopher. 2002. Duration models for repeated events. Journal of Politics64:1069–94.
9.
BurkeJoseph C.2002. Funding public colleges and universities for performance popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute.
10.
BurkeJoseph C.MinassiansHenrik P.. 2003. Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or accountability “lite”: Seventh Annual Survey 2003. New York City: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
11.
BurkeJoseph C.ModarresiShahpar. 2000. To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education71:432.
12.
BurkeJoseph C.ModarresiShahpar. 2001. Performance funding programs: Assessing their stability. Research in Higher Education42:51–70.
13.
De VriesHannaTummersLarsBekkersVictor. 2018. The diffusion and adoption of public sector innovations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance1:159–76.
14.
DoughertyKevin J.NatowRebecca S.BorkRachel HareJonesSosanya M.VegaBlanca E.. 2013. Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record115:1–50.
15.
DoughertyKevin J.NatowRebecca S.VegaBlanca E.. 2012. Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record114:1–42.
16.
EisenhardtKathleen M.1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review14:57.
17.
FryarAlisa Hicklin. 2011. The disparate impacts of accountability searching for causal mechanisms. Paper Present at the Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse, NY.
18.
GrayVirginia. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review67:1174–85.
19.
HeinrichCarolyn J.MarschkeGerald. 2010. Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29:183–208.
20.
HicklinAlisaMeierKevin J.. 2008. Race, structure, and state governments: The politics of higher education diversity. Journal of Politics70:851–60.
21.
HillmanNicholas W.FryarAlisa HicklinCrespín-TrujilloValerie. 2018. Evaluating the impact of performance funding in Ohio and Tennessee. American Educational Research Journal55:144–70.
22.
JensenMichael C.MecklingWilliam H.. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics3:305–60.
23.
JonesBradford S.BrantonRegina P.. 2005. Beyond logit and probit: Cox duration models of single, repeating, and competing events for state policy adoption. State Politics & Policy Quarterly5:420–43.
24.
JonesSosanya M.HanaLahrPheattLaraReddyVikash. 2015. Origins of the second wave of performance funding adoptions. In The politics of performance funding for higher education, ed. DoughertyKevin J.NatowRebecca S., 142–72. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
JonesStan. 2015. The game changers: Strategies to boost college completion and close attainment gaps. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning47:24–29.
26.
KnottJack H.PayneA. Abigail. 2004. The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23:13–30.
27.
LiAmy Y.2017. Covet thy neighbor or “reverse policy diffusion”? State adoption of performance funding 2.0. Research in Higher Education58:746–71.
28.
LowryRobert C.2001. Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science45:845–61.
29.
LowryRobert C.2007. The political economy of public universities in the United States: A review essay. State Politics & Policy Quarterly7:303–24.
McLendonMichael Kevin. 2003. The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy17:165–91.
32.
McLendonMichael KevinHearnJames C.DeatonRuss. 2006. Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis28:1–24.
33.
McLendonMichael KevinHellerDonald E.YoungSteven P.. 2005. State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The Journal of Higher Education76:363–400.
34.
MooneyChristopher Z.2001. Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly54:103–24.
35.
MoynihanDonald P.2004. Why and how do state governments adopt and implement “managing for results” reforms?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15:219–43.
36.
MoynihanDonald P.2008. The dynamics of performance management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
37.
MoynihanDonald P.FernandezSergioKimSoonheeLeRouxKelly M.PiotrowskiSuzanne J.WrightBradley E.YangKaifeng. 2010. Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21:i141–55.
Nicholson-CrottyJillMeierKenneth J.. 2003. Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy17:80–97.
40.
PernaLaura W.FinneyJoni E.. 2014. The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
41.
RabovskyThomas M.2012. Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets and institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22:675–700.
42.
RabovskyThomas M.2014. Support for performance-based funding: The role of political ideology, performance, and dysfunctional information environments. Public Administration Review74:761–74.
43.
RutherfordAmandaRabovskyThomas M.. 2014. Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science655:185–208.
44.
SquirePeverill. 2007. Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly7:211–27.
45.
TandbergDavid A.2010. Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education51:416–50.
46.
TandbergDavid A.2013. The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. The Journal of Higher Education84:506–43.
47.
TandbergDavid A.HillmanNicholas W.. 2014. State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance39:222–43.
48.
WalkerJack L.1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review63:880–99.
49.
ZumetaWilliam. 2001. Public policy and accountability in higher education. In The states and public higher education, ed. HellerDonald E., 155–97. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
