The Great Recession resulted in fiscal crises for governments across the Western world. Our article explores whether, as a result of the crisis, the relevance of performance information in organizational decision-making increased. Furthermore, we examine how centralizing shifts in governmental decision-making processes influenced the shifts in the relevance of performance information for public sector organizations. Using a survey of senior government officials in 19 European countries, we find that, in line with the predictions of rationalistic decision-making and principal–agent models, the increase in the relevance of performance information in organizational decision-making was positively associated with our measures of greater centralization.
AmmonsD. N.SmithK. W.StenbergC. W. (2012). The future of local government: Will current stresses bring major, permanent changes?State and Local Government Review, 44(1 Suppl.), 64S-75S.
2.
AskimJ.JohnsenA.ChristophersenK.-A. (2008). Factors behind organizational learning from benchmarking: Experiences from Norwegian municipal benchmarking networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 297-320.
3.
BakerG. P. (1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 598-614.
4.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
5.
BehnR. D. (1980). Leadership for cutback management: The use of corporate strategy. Public Administration Review, 40, 613-620.
6.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
7.
BotnerS. B. (1985). The use of budgeting/management tools by state governments. Public Administration Review, 45, 616-620.
8.
BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. London, England: Routledge.
9.
BoyneG. (2001). Planning, performance and public services. Public Administration, 79, 73-88.
10.
BrumbyJ. (1999). Budgeting reforms in OECD member countries. In Schiavo-CampoS.TommasiD. (eds). Managing Government Expenditure (pp. 349-62). Manila, Phil: Asian Development Bank.
11.
CaidenN. (1998). Public service professionalism for performance measurement and evaluation. Public Budgeting & Finance, 18(2), 35-52.
12.
CharbonneauE.BellavanceF. (2012). Blame avoidance in public reporting: Evidence from a provincially mandated municipal performance measurement regime. Public Performance & Management Review, 35, 399-421.
13.
ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325-334.
14.
CothranD. A. (1993). Entrepreneurial Budgeting: An Emerging Reform?Public Administration Review, 53(4), 445-454.
15.
CunninghamG. M.HarrisJ. E. (2005). Toward a theory of performance reporting to achieve public sector accountability: A field study. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2), 15-42.
16.
CurristineT.FlynnS. (2013). In search of results: Strengthening public sector performance. In CangianoM. M.CurristineM. T. R.LazareM. M. (Eds.), Public financial management and its emerging architecture (pp. 225-258). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
17.
de Lancer JulnesP.HolzerM. (2001). Promoting utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.
18.
DeanJ.SharfmanM. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 368-396.
19.
Di MascioF.NataliniA.StolfiF. (2013). The Ghost of Crises Past: Analyzing Reform Sequences to Understand Italy’s Response to the Global Crisis. Public Administration, 91(1): 17-31.
20.
DrorY. (1973). Public policy making re-examined. Bedfordshire, UK: Leonard Hill.
21.
EggertssonT. (1990). Economic behavior and institutions: Principles of Neoinstitutional Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GlassbergA. (1978). Organizational responses to municipal budget decreases. Public Administration Review, 38, 325-332.
23.
GoñiE. Z. (2012). Evaluation for public expenditure management: International experiences in some OECD countries. Presupuesto y Gasto Público, 68, 53-80.
HoA. T. K. (2011). PBB in American local governments: It’s more than a management tool. Public Administration Review, 71, 391-401.
26.
HoodC. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93-109.
27.
HoodC. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 37, 15-37.
28.
HoodC. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance. Public Management Review, 9, 191-210.
29.
HoodC. (2010). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
HoodC. (2012). Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug. Public Administration Review, 72, 85-92.
31.
HouY.LunsfordR. S.SidesK. C.JonesK. A. (2011). State performance-based budgeting in boom and bust years: An analytical framework and survey of the states. Public Administration Review, 71, 370-388.
32.
JakobsenM.JensenR. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18, 3-30.
33.
JenningsE. T.HaistM. P. (2006). Putting performance measurement in context. In IngrahamP. W.LynnL. E. (Eds.), The art of governance (pp. 173-194).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34.
JimenezB. S. (2013). Strategic planning and the fiscal performance of city governments during the Great Recession. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 581-601.
35.
JimenezB. S. (2014). Smart cuts? Strategic planning, performance management and budget cutting in US cities during the Great Recession. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 26, 494-526.
36.
JohanssonT.SiverboS. (2009). Explaining the utilization of relative performance evaluation in local government: A multi-theoretical study using data from Sweden. Financial Accountability & Management, 25, 197-224.
37.
JoyceP. G. (1996). Appraising budget appraisal: Can you take politics out of budgeting?Public Budgeting & Finance, 16(4), 21-25.
38.
JoyceP. G. (1997). “Using performance measures for budgeting: A new beat, or is it the same old tune?”New Directions for Evaluation, 75, 45-61.
39.
JoyceP. G. (2008). Does more (or even better) information lead to better budgeting? A new perspective. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 945-960.
40.
KrollA. (2014). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 459-486.
41.
LaegreidP.RonessP. G.RubecksenK. (2008). Performance information and performance steering: Integrated system or loose coupling? In Van DoorenW.Van de WalleS. (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 42-57). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
LauR. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119-138.
43.
LevineC. H. (1985). Police management in the 1980s: From decrementalism to strategic thinking. Public Administration Review, 39, 691-700.
44.
LevineC. H. (1978). Organizational decline and cutback management. Public Administration Review, 38(4), 316-325.
45.
LevineC. H.RubinI. S.WolohojianG. (1981). The politics of retrenchment: How local governments manage fiscal stress. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
46.
LewisC. W.LogalboA. T. (1980). Cutback principles and practices: A checklist for managers. Public Administration Review, 40, 184-188.
47.
LindblomC. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-526.
48.
MarcelM. (2013). “Budgeting for fiscal space and government performance beyond the great recession.” Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of OECD parliamentary budget officials and independent fiscal institutions in Ottawa.
49.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
50.
MartinL. L.LeveyR.CawleyJ. (2012). The “new normal” for local government. State and Local Government Review, 44(1 Suppl.), 17S-28S.
51.
MasseyJ.StraussmanJ. D. (1981). Budget Control Is Alive and Well: Case Study of County Government. Public Budgeting & Finance, 1(4), 3-11.
52.
MayneJ. (2007). Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management. Evaluation, 13, 87-109.
53.
McTigheJ. J. (1979). Management strategies to deal with shrinking resources. Public Administration Review, 39, 86-90.
54.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 429-456.
55.
MelkersJ.WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65, 180-190.
56.
MoeT. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739-777.
57.
MoynihanD. P. (2005a). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65, 203-216.
58.
MoynihanD. P. (2005b). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 151-168.
59.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
60.
MoynihanD. P.LanduytN. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging structural and cultural divides. Public Administration Review, 69, 1097-1105.
61.
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, 849-866.
62.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2012). Prosocial values and performance management theory: Linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance, 25, 463-483.
63.
NelsonA. A.BaluR. (2014). Local government responses to fiscal stress: Evidence from the public education sector. Public Administration Review, 74, 601-614.
64.
NielsenP. A.BaekgaardM. (2015). Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 545-569.
65.
PetersB. G. (2011). Governance responses to the fiscal crisis. Comparative perspectives. Public Money & Management, 31, 75-80.
66.
PetersB. G.PierreJ.Randma-LiivT. (2011). Economic crisis, public administration and governance: Do new problems require new solutions?Public Organization Review, 11, 13-28.
67.
PlantJ. F.WhiteL. G. (1982). The politics of cutback budgeting: An alliance building perspective. Public Budgeting & Finance, 2(1), 65-71.
68.
PollittC. (2001). Integrating financial management and performance management. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(2), 7-37.
69.
PollittC. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link?Evaluation, 12, 38-55.
70.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
71.
RaudlaR.DouglasJ. W.SaviR.Randma-LiivT. (2015). The impact of fiscal crisis on decision-making processes in European governments: Dynamics of centralization cascade. Public Administration Review, 75, 842-852.
72.
RaudlaR.SaviR. (2015). The use of performance information in cutback budgeting. Public Money & Management, 35, 409-416.
73.
ReckJ. L. (2001). The usefulness of financial and nonfinancial performance information in resource allocation decisions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 20, 45-71.
74.
RhodesM. L.BiondiL.GomesR.MeloA. I.OhemengF.Perez-LopezG.. . . SutiyonoW. (2012). Current state of public sector performance management in seven selected countries. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61, 235-271.
75.
RichR. F.OhC. H. (2000). Rationality and use of information in policy decisions: A search for alternatives. Science Communication, 22, 173-211.
76.
RobinsonM. (2013). Performance budgeting. In AllenR.HemmingR.PotterB. (Eds.), The international handbook of public financial management (pp. 237—258) Palgrave Macmillan.
77.
SchickA. (1983). Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age. Policy Sciences, 16(1): 1-25.
78.
SchickA. (1986). Macro-Budgetary Adaptations to Fiscal Stress in Industrialized Democracies. Public Administration Review, 46(2): 124-134.
79.
SchickA. (1988). Micro-budgetary adaptations to fiscal stress in industrialized democracies. Public Administration Review, 48, 523-533.
80.
SchickA. (1990). Budgeting for results: Recent developments in five industrialized countries. Public Administration Review, 50, 26-34.
81.
SchickA. (2009). Budgeting for fiscal space. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 9(2), 7-18.
82.
SchickA. (2013). Reflections on two decades of public financial management. In CangianoM. M.CurristineM. T. R.LazareM. M. (Eds.), Public financial management and its emerging architecture (pp. 21-77). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
83.
SchickA. (2014). The metamorphoses of performance budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 13(2), 1-31.
84.
ScorsoneE. A.PlerhoplesC. (2010). Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments: What have we learned and what remains to be learned?State and Local Government Review, 42, 176-187.
85.
SorokaS. N. (2006). Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. Journal of Politics, 68, 372-385.
86.
StiefelL.RubensteinR.SchwartzA. E. (1999). Using adjusted performance measures for evaluating resource use. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(3), 67-87.
87.
StraussmanJ. D. (1979). A typology of budgetary environments: Notes on the prospects for reform. Administration & Society, 11, 216-226.
88.
SwainJ. W.HartleyC. J.Jr. (2001). “Incrementalism: Old but good?” In BartleJ. R. (Ed.), Evolving theories of public budgeting (pp. 11-27). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI Press.
89.
TarschysD. (1985). Curbing public expenditure: Current trends. Journal of Public Policy, 5(1), 23-67.
90.
TaylorJ. (2009). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision making. Public Administration, 87, 853-871.
91.
Van DoorenW. (2005). What makes organizations measure: Hypotheses on the causes and consequences for performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 21, 363-383.
92.
Van DoorenW. (2011). Better performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 34, 420-433.
93.
WatermanR. W.MeierK. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 173-202.
94.
WeaverR. K. (1986). The Politics of Blame Avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 371-398.
95.
WildavskyA. B. (1978). A budget for all seasons? Why the traditional budget lasts. Public Administration Review, 38, 501-509.
96.
WildavskyA. B.CaidenN. (1988). The new politics of the budgetary process. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
97.
WilloughbyK. G. (2004). Performance measurement and budget balancing: State government perspective. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(2), 21-39.
98.
WilloughbyK. G.MelkersJ. E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 85-120.
