This study views performance budgeting as a budget innovation, and examines how this innovation tool has been diffused across the largest cities in the State of Texas, emphasizing the scope and patterns of implementation of this innovation in the context of a state with comprehensive performance budgeting legislation. The study also reports the perceptions of city budgeters vis-à-vis the external and internal factors that may support the use of performance measures in budgeting at the local level, using survey data from a sample of Texas cities with population over 50,000. The results of the study reveal that although performance laws set up the general framework for performance budgeting, they do not seem to generate a uniform pattern of implementation. Cities in our sample are found at different stages of performance budgeting implementation, and have developed different patterns of budgetary practices.
AndrewsM. (2004). Authority, acceptance, ability and performance-based budgeting reforms. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 332–344.
2.
BehnR. (2000). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn't everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon?. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5–25.
3.
BehnR. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.
4.
BehrenG. V., & KorfontaP. (2002). Budget processes in the states. Washington, DC: National Association of State Budget Officers.
5.
BennisW., & NanusB. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking charge.New York: Harper & Row.
6.
BermanE., & WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in US counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420.
7.
BroomC., & McGuireL. (1995). Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record. Public Budgeting and Finance, 15(4), 3–17.
8.
BurnsJ. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
9.
ChowdharyH. (2006). Outcome budgeting: Moving beyond Rhetoric?Economic and Political Weekly, 41(25), 2515–2518.
10.
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.
11.
DiMaggioP., & PowellW. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
GómezJ. L., & WilloughbyK. (2008). Performance informed budgeting in U.S. state governments. Presupuesto y Gasto Público, 51, 287–303.
13.
GrifelStuart S.1994. Organizational culture: Its importance in performance measurement. Public Management, 76(9), 19–20.
14.
GrizzleG., & PettijohnC. (2002). Implementing Performance-Based Program Budgeting: A System-Dynamics Perspective. Public Administration Review62(1), 51–62.
15.
Hijal-MoghrabiI. (2017). The current practice of performance-based budgeting in U.S. largest cities: An innovation Theory perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(4), 652–675.
16.
Hijal-MoghrabiI. (2019). Why is it so hard to rationalize the budgetary process: A behavioral analysis of performance-based budgeting. Public Organization Review, 19 (3), 387–406.
17.
HoA. (2011). PBB in American local governments: It's more than a management tool. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 391–401.
18.
HoA. (2018). From performance budgeting to performance budget management: Theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 78(5), 748–758.
19.
HoA., & CoatesP. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial Iowa experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29–50.
20.
HoA., & NiA. (2015). Have cities shifted to outcome-oriented performance reporting?— A content analysis of city budgets. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2), 61–83.
21.
HutchinsonP., & OsborneD. (2004). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent crisis. New York: Basic Books.
22.
JordanM., & HackbartM. (1999). Performance budgeting and performance funding in the States: A status assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance, 19(1), 68–88.
23.
JordanM., & HackbartM. (2005). The goals and implementation success of state performance-based budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 17(4), 471.
24.
JoyceP. (2003). Linking performance and budgeting opportunities in the federal budgeting Process. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
25.
JoyceP. (2011). The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the Legacy of federal performance-informed budgeting?Public Administration Review, 71(3), 356–367.
26.
KatzD., & KahnR. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
27.
KhanA., & HildrethW. B. (2002). Budget theory in the public sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
28.
LeeR. D. (1997). A quarter century of state budgeting practices. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 133–140.
29.
LeeR., & BurnsR. (2000). Performance measurement in state budgeting: Advancement and backsliding from 1990 to 1995. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 38–54.
30.
LuY. (2007). Performance budgeting: The perspective of state agencies. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27 (4), 1–17.
31.
LuY. (2011). Individual engagement to collective participation: The dynamics of participation pattern in performance budgeting. Public Budgeting & Finance, 31(2), 79–98.
32.
LuY., WilloughbyK., & ArnettS. (2009). Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance and Management Review, 33(2), 266–87.
33.
LuE. Y., WilloughbyK., & ArnettS. (2011). Performance budgeting in the American States: What's law got to do with it?State and Local Government Review, 43(1), 79–94.
34.
LuE. Y., MohrZ., & HoA. (2015). Taking stock: Assessing and improving performance budgeting theory and practice. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 426–458.
35.
MartinL.L. (2002). Budgeting for outcomes. In Budget theory in the public sector, eds. KhanAman & HildrethBartley, 246–260. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
36.
MelkersJ. (2006). On the road to improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 73–95.
37.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66–73.
38.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (2004). Staying the course: The use of performance measurement in state government. Washington, D.C: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
39.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Revie, 65(2), 180–190.
40.
MihmC. (2011). Commentary on the Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance-informed budgeting?Public Administration Review, 71 (3), 368–369.
41.
MoynihanD. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203–216.
42.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries. Paris.
43.
PettigrewA., FerlieE., & McKeeL. (1992). Shaping strategic change-The case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public Money & Management, 12(3), 27–31.
44.
PoisterT. H., & McGowanR. P. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past decade. Public Administration Review, 49(3), 240–248.
45.
PoisterT. H., & StreibG. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335.
46.
PoisterT. H., & StreibG. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 45–56.
47.
RivenbarkW. C., & KellyJ. M. (2003). Management innovation in smaller municipal government. State & Local Government Review, 35(1), 196–205.
48.
RivenbarkW. C., & KellyJ. M. (2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 35–46.
49.
RosselloW.C. (1994). Ten steps to creating a performance-oriented culture in the public sector. Quality Cities (June/July), 41–43.
50.
RubinIrene. 1990. Budget theory and budget practice: How good the fit?Public Administration Review50, no. 2: 179–189.
51.
ScheinE. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
52.
SchickA. (2001). Getting performance measures to measure up. In Quicker, Better, Cheaper? Managing Performance in American Government, ed. ForsytheDall, 39–60. New York: SUNY Press.
53.
SmithJ. F. (1999). The benefits and threats of PBB: An assessment of modern reform. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(3), 3–15.
54.
SmithK., & GreenblattA. (2018). Governing state and localities, 6th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
55.
WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: a study of county governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(3), 102–118.
56.
WangX. (2002). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of US local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 26–43.
57.
WangX., & BermanE. (2001). Hypotheses about performance measurement in counties: Findings from a survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11 (3), 403–428.
58.
WildavskyA. (1961). Political implications of budgetary reform. Public Administration Review, 21(4), 183–190.
59.
WildavskyA. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little, Brown.
60.
WildavskyA. (1978). A budget for all seasons? Why the traditional budget lasts. Public Administration Review, 38(6), 501–509.
61.
WilloughbyK. (2011). Introduction to the symposium: PBB – Works like the BCs?Public Administration Review, 71(3), 352–355.
62.
WilloughbyK., & MelkersJ. (2001). Assessing the impact of performance budgeting: a survey of American states. Government Finance Review, 17(2), 25–30.
