The performance paradigm of today, which is commonly referred to as performance management, includes the two distinct stages of developing performance measures and actually using them for service improvement. The good news is that the literature contains evidence that performance management does exist to some extent among local governments in the United States and in other countries; however, this same literature focuses primarily on larger local governments. We respond by presenting a comparative case study analysis between two municipalities from the United States and one municipality from Italy within the population range of 1,000 to 4,999. The findings of our research suggest that performance management can be found in smaller local governments when the necessary leadership and the higher-order measures of efficiency and effectiveness are in place. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for smaller local governments and by presenting possibilities for next steps regarding future performance management research.
AdamoS., GiaccariF., & FasielloR. (2014). The cooperative as a form of ever-evolving enterprise. Two cases of community-based cooperative in Puglia. Paper presented at the Euromed Academy of Business Conference, Kristiansand, Norway.
2.
AmmonsD. N. (2012). Municipal benchmarks, 3rd edition. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
3.
AmmonsD. N. (1999). A proper mentality for benchmarking. Public Administration Review, 59(2), 105–109.
4.
AmmonsD. N. & RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review, 68(2): 304–318.
5.
AnselmiL., DonatoF., MarinòL., PavanA., & Zuccardi MerliM. (2013). Il decline del Sistema dei controlli manageriali nelle pubbliche amministrazioni. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
6.
BasleM. (2003). Les pratiques evaluatives des villes de plus de 50.000 habitants. Pouvoirs Locaux, 57(2), 42–44.
7.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586–606.
8.
BorgonoviE. (2007). Analisi della produttività del Sistema delle amministrazioni pubbliche, Azienda Pubblica, 20(3): 373–380.
9.
BrownR. E. & PyersJ. P. (1998). Putting teeth into the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Public Administration Review, 48(3), 735–742.
10.
CaperchioneE. & MussariR. (2000). Comparative issues in local government accounting. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
11.
CaperchioneE. (2006). The new public management: A perspective for finance practitioners. Brussels, Belgium: Federation of European Accountants.
12.
CarterN. (1991). Learning to measure performance: The use of indicators in organizations. Public Administration, 69(1), 85–101.
13.
CopeG. H. (1987). Local government budgeting and productivity: Friends or foes. Public Productivity Review, 10(3), 45–57.
14.
CuccinielloM. & NasiG. (2014). Transparency for trust in government: how effective is formal transparency? Forthcoming in the International Journal of Public Administration.
15.
de Lancer JulnesP. & HolzerM. (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.
16.
FrankH. A. & D'SouzaJ. (2004). Twelve years into the performance measurement revolution: Where we need to go in implementation research. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(8–9), 701–718.
17.
FryerK., AntonyJ. & OgdenS. (2009). Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6): 478–498.
18.
GrizzleG. A. (1987). Linking performance to funding decisions: What is the budgeter's role?Public Productivity Review, 10(3): 33–44.
19.
HatryH. P. (1980). Performance principles and techniques: An overview for local government. Public Productivity Review, 4(4): 312–339.
20.
HatryH. P. (1999). Performance Measurement. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
21.
HolzerM. & KlobyK. (2005). Public performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 54(7): 517–532.
22.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
23.
ImT. & LeeS. J. (2012). Does Management performance impact citizen satisfaction?American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 419–436.
24.
JansenE. P. (2008). New public management: Perspectives on performance and the use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(2): 169–191.
25.
JarrarY. & SchiumaG. (2007). Measuring performance in the public sector: Challenges and trends. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(4): 4–8.
26.
KellyJ. M. & RivenbarkW. C. (2011). Performance budgeting in state and local government, 2nd edition. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
27.
KuhlmannS. (2010). New public management for the classical continental European administration: Modernization at the local level in Germany, France, and Italy. Public Administration, 88 (4): 1116–1130.
28.
MagnierA. (2003). Subsidiarity: Fall or premise of local government reforms. The Italian case, in KerstingN. & VetterA. (eds.), Reforming Local Government in Europe. Opladen, Germany: Springer.
29.
MelkersJ. & WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2): 180–190.
30.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
31.
MoynihanD. P. & PandeyS. 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.
32.
MoynihanD. P. (2013). Advancing the empirical study of performance management: What we learned from the program assessment rating tool. American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 499–517.
33.
NisioA., De CarolisR. & LosurdoS. (2013). L'introduzione del performance measurement, management, and improvement: L'esperienza di alcune amministrazioni locali italiane. Azienda Pubblica, 26(2): 221–246.
34.
OngaroE. & ValottiG. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: Explaining the implementation gap. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 174–204.
35.
OsborneD. & GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
36.
PoisterT. H. & McGowanR. P. (1984). The use of management tools in municipal government: A national survey. Public Administration Review, 44(3): 215–223.
37.
PoisterT. H. & StreibG. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4): 325–335.
38.
PoisterT. H. & StreibG. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 45–56.
39.
PollanenR. M. (2005). Performance measurement in municipalities. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 18(1): 4–24.
40.
RidleyC. E. & SimonH. A. (1937). Development of Measurement Standards. Public Management, 19(3): 84–88.
41.
RivenbarkW. C. & KellyJ. M. (2003). Management innovation in smaller municipal government. State and Local Government Review, 35(3): 196–205.
42.
SangerM. B. (2008). From Measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68: S70–S85.
43.
SunR. & Van RyzinG. G. (2014). Are performance management practices associated with better outcomes? Empirical evidence from New York public schools. American Review of Public Administration, 44(3): 324–338.
44.
WalkerR. M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2): 311–335.
45.
WholeyJ. S. & HatryH. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52(6): 604–610.
46.
WilliamsD. W. (2003). Measuring government in the early twentieth century. Public Administration Review, 63(6): 643–659.
47.
WilliamsD. W. (2004). Evolution of performance measurement until 1930. Administration & Society, 36(2): 131–165.
48.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
