This study examines an implementation model of performance-based management (PBM). It argues that technical competencies and stakeholder involvement are necessary for a successful PBM implementation. Using the case of PBM reforms in China Post, it finds that technical competencies are being developed in the reforms. It also finds that, although the channels of stakeholder participation exist, stakeholders may not be involved in making critical decisions in Chinese reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BermanEvan and WangXiaoHu (2000). “Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform”. Public Administration Review, 60(5):409–420.
2.
LamJermain (2003). “Enhancing Productivity Program in Hong Kong: A Critical Appraisal.” Public Performance & Management Review, 27(1):53–70.
3.
LanZhiyong (2003). “Disciplinary Rationale and Public Administration Field Development.” Chinese Public Administration Review, 2 (1&2): 1–11.
4.
MascarenhasR. C. (1996). “Searching for Efficiency in the Public Sector: Interim Evaluation of Performance Budgeting in New Zealand.” Public Budgeting & Finance, 16 (3):13–26.
5.
PoisterTheodore and StreibGregory (1999). “Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of Practice”. Public Administration Review, 59 (4): 325–335.
6.
WangXiaoHu (2001). “Hypotheses about Performance Measurement in Counties: Finding from a Survey.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 11(3): 403–427.
7.
WangXiaoHu (2000). “Performance Measurement in Budgeting: A Study of County Government”. Public Budgeting & Finance20(3): 102–118.
8.
ZhouZhi-Ren and others (2003). “A Study on Performance Standards in Governments — A report from the Chinese Public Administration Society Study Group, Chinese Public Administration (in Chinese), 213: 8–16.
