This study reviews the development of performance measurement in the United States and China, and compares the differences in related legislation between the two countries. U.S. performance measurement legislation is more sophisticated and advanced than that in China. China's economic development has contributed to the lag in performance measurement legislation and philosophy. It is meaningful for China to learn from the U.S. experience to improve its performance measurement. This study proposes some suggestions to improve Chinese performance measurement legislation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmonsD. N. (1995). Overcoming the inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services.Public Administration Review55(1)37–47.
2.
Anonymous. (1994). FederalAgencies Don't Comply with CFO Act.Journal of Accountancy178(2)11–12.
BeachboardJ. (1999). Assessing the Consequences of Federal Information Technology Management Policies on Federal Agency Practice.Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies.
5.
BreulJ. D. (2007). GPRA — A Foundation for Performance Budgeting.Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3)312–331.
6.
BroomC. (1995). Performance-based Government Models: Building a Track Record.Public Budgeting and Finance, 15(4) 3–17.
7.
CallahanK. & KlobyK. (2009). Moving Towards Outcome-Oriented Performance Measurement Systems.Managing for Performance and Results Series. IBM Center for The Business of Government.
8.
CarlsonJ; KelleyA.S. & SmithK. (2010). Government Performance Reforms and Nonprofit Human Services: 20 Years in Oregon.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 630–652.
Chinese Society of Public Administration. (2003). A Research Report on the Standard of Efficiency of Government Organs.Chinese Public Administration (Chinese), 3, 12.
11.
CollinsT. (2004). UK Can Learn From US Accountability Law and Improve Public Sector IT Delivery.Computer Weekly, February 24, 2004.
12.
CraymerD. (1994). “Texas Tomorrow: Strategic Planning and Performance Budgeting” (conference proceedings from the conference on “Managing for Result: Performance Measures in Government, Austin, Texas, October 1994).
13.
Executive Office of the President. (2008), Circular No. A-11: Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports.
14.
GottliebD. (1996). Fed procurement advances form test bed to practice.Purchasing Buylines, 7, 20–21.
15.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board. (1994). Concepts Statement No. 2 on Concepts Related to Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Hartford, CT: GASB.
16.
HoA. & NiA. (2005). Have Cities Shifted to Outcome-Oriented Performance Reporting?—A Content Analysis of City Budgets.Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2)61–83.
17.
HuJ. (2007). “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive for New Victories in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in all Respects: Report to the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China”. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/language_tips/2007-10/31/content_6218870_2.htm.
18.
JonesL.R. & McCafferyJ. L. (1992). Federal Financial Management Reform and the Chief Financial Officers Act.Public Budgeting and Finance, 12(4)75–86.
19.
JonesL. R. (1993). Counterpoint Essay: Nine Reasons Why the CFO Act May Not Achieve its Objectives.Public Budgeting & Finance, 13(1)87–94.
20.
KettlD. (2000). The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.
21.
LaurentA. (2000). “The Results Act is dead.” Government Executive, 32(5)78.
22.
LuY; WilloughbyK. & ArnettS. (2009). Legislating Results: Examine the Legal Foundations of PBB System in the States.Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2)266–287.
23.
McClureD. L. (1997). Improving Federal Performance in the Information Ear: The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996.Government Information Quarterly, 14(3)225–239.
24.
MelkersJ. & WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects.Public Administration Review, 65(2)180–190.
National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting. (1998). Recommended Budget Practices. A Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting. Chicago: National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting.
27.
National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). (2008). Budget Processes in the State. Retrieved on October 23, 2010 from http://www.nasbo.org.
28.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCOSL). (2008). Legislative Performance Budgeting. Retrieved on October 23, 2010 from http://www.ncsl.org.
29.
NiX. (2008). Reflections on Contemporary Performance Measurement Practices in Chinese Government.Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University (Social Science Edition). 3, 134–208.
30.
Office of Management and Budget. (2001). The President's Management Agenda.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
Office of Management and Budget. (2002). Budget of the United States government: FY 2003.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
32.
Oregon Progress Board. (1994). Oregon Benchmarks, Setting Measurable Standards for Progress Report to the 1995 Legislature, Salem, OR.
33.
PoisterT. & StreibG. (1999). Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice.Public Administration Review, 59(4)325–335.
34.
SteinhoffJ.C. & SkellyJ. C. (1992). “The Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990: Challenges and opportunities.” Armed Forces Comptroller, 37(3)34–37.
35.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Performance budgeting: Past initiatives offer insights for GPRA implementation (GAO/AIMD-97–46). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
