AdamsGordon. (1981). The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting, Council on Economic Priorities, New York: St. Martin's Press.
2.
AlstonL. J. (1996). Empirical Work in Institutional Economics. In AlstonL. J.EggertssonT. & NorthD. C. (eds.), Empirical Studies in Institutional Change (pp. 25–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AristiguetaMaria Pilar. (1997). Managing for Results in the States.Doctoral dissertation, Department of Public Administration, University of Southern California, California.
4.
BackoffRobertBartonWechsler and CrewR.E.J.. (1993). The Challenge of Strategic Management in Local Government.Public Administration Quarterly, 17(2), 127–145.
5.
BehnRobert D. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63 (5), 586–606.
6.
BermanEvan (1997). Dealing with Cynical Citizens.Public Administration Review, 57(2), 105–112.
7.
BermanEvan and WangXiaohu. (2000). Hypotheses about Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 403–428.
8.
BokDerek. (1997). Measuring the Performance of Government. In JosephS. NyeJr.ZelikowPhilip D. and KingDavid C. (eds.), Why People Don't Trust Government (pp. 55–75). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
BroadnaxW. D. and ConwayK. J.. (2000). The Social Security Administration and Performance Management. In ForsytheD. W. (ed.), Quicker, Better, Cheaper: Managing Performance in American Government (pp. 143–176). Albany: Rockefeller Institute Press.
11.
BroomCheryleMarilynJackson and HarrisJody,. (1998). Performance Measurement: Concepts and Techniques (3rd Ed.). Washington, DC:Center for Accountability and Performance, the American Society for Public Administration.
12.
BrysonJohn M. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organization:A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement (Rev. Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ChatterjeeSamprit and HadiAli. (2006). Regression Analysis by Example. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
15.
ConlanT. (1998). From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16.
CopeGlen H. (1997). “Bureaucratic Reform and Issues of Political Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 461–471.
17.
CoutryP. and MarschkeG.. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of Gaming Responses to Performance Incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23–56.
18.
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.
19.
DullMatthew. (2006). Why PART? The Institutional Politics of Presidential Budget Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 187–215.
20.
FernandezSergio and RaineyHal G.. (2006). Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector.Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.
21.
FountainJamesWilsonCampbellTerryPattonPaulEpstein and CohnMandi. (2003). Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication. Norwalk, CT: Government Accounting Standards Board.
22.
GarganJohn J. (1989). Strategic Management in City Government: Continuing the Interplay of Rationality and Politics. In RabinJackMillerGerald J. and HildrethW. Bartley (eds.), Handbook of Strategic Management (pp. 493–523). New York: Marcel Dekker.
23.
GelmanAndrew and PardoeIain. (2007). Average Predictive Comparisons for Models with Nonlinearity, Interactions, and Variance Components. Sociological Methodology, 37(1), 23–51.
24.
GlaserMark and DenhardtRobert. (2000). Local Government Performance through the Eyes of Citizens. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12(1), 49–73.
25.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). (1994). Concepts Statement No.2 on Concepts Related to Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Norwalk, CT.: GASB.
26.
GiddensA. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
GujaratiDamodar. (1992). Essentials of Econometrics. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill, Inc.
28.
HanmerMichael J. and KalkanKerem Ozan. (2013). Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 263–277.
29.
HatryHarry. (1980). Performance Measurement Principles and Techniques—An Overview for Local Government. Public Productivity Review, 4(2), 312–339.
30.
HatryHarry. (2000). Performance Measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC:The Urban Institute.
31.
HaydenF. Gregory. (2002). Policymaking Network of the Iron-Triangle Subgovernment for Licensing Hazardous Waste Facilities. Journal of Economic Issues, 36 (2), 477–484.
32.
HeinrichCarolyn J. (1999). Do Government Bureaucrats Make Effective Use of Performance Management Information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363–393.
33.
HoAlfred. (2003). Perceptions of Performance Measurement and the Practice of Performance Reporting by Small Cities.State and Local Government Review, 35(2), 161–173.
34.
HoAlfred T. (2006). Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–238.
35.
HoAlfred T. and CoatesPaul. (2004). Citizen-initiated Performance Assessment: The Initial Iowa Experience.Public Performance and Management Review, 27 (3), 29–50.
36.
HolzerMarc & CallahanKathy. (1998). Government at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37.
International City Management Association (ICMA). (1979). Using Productivity Measurement: A Manager's Guide to More Effective Services. Washington, DC:International City Management Association.
38.
IngrahamPatrcia W. (1998). Transforming Management, Managing Transformation. In IngrahamPatricia WThompsonJames R. and SandersRonald P. (eds.), Transforming Government, Lessons from the Reinvention Laboratories (pp. 241–256). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
JenningsE. and HaistM. P.. (2004). Putting Performance Measurement in Context. In IngrahamP. W. and LynnL. E.Jr. (eds.), The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration (pp. 152–194). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40.
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(2), 197–224.
41.
KellyJanet M. and SwindellDavid. (2002). A Multiple-indicator Approach to Municipal Service Evaluation: Correlating Performance Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction across Jurisdictions.Public Administration Review, 62(5), 610–621.
42.
KettlDonald. (1994). Reinventing Government? Appraising the National Performance Review. Washington, DC:Brookings.
43.
KnightJ. (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
KoteenJack (1989). Strategic Management in Public and Nonprofit Organizations:Thinking and Acting Strategically on Public Concerns. New York: Praeger.
45.
KrollAlexander. (2015). Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 459–486.
46.
KutnerMichael H.NachtsheimChristopher L.NeterJohn and LiWilliam. (2005). Applied Linear Statistical Models. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill, Inc.
47.
LibecapGary (1989). Contracting for Property Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48.
MechlingJerry and FletcherThomas M.. (1996). Information Technology and Government: The Need for New Leadership. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
49.
MoynihanDonald P. (2005). Goal-based Learning and the Future of Performance Management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203–216.
50.
MoynihanDonald P. (2006). Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review. 66(1), 78–90.
51.
MoynihanDonald P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance management. Washington DC.: Georgetown University Press.
52.
MoynihanD. & HawesD.. (2012). Responsiveness to Reform Values: The Influence of the Environment on Performance Information Use. Public Administration Review, 72(sl), 95–105.
53.
MoynihanD. & IngrahamP.. (2004). Integrative Leadership in the Public Sector: A Model of Performance-information Use.Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453.
54.
MoynihanD. & LavertuS.. (2012). Does Involvement in Performance Management Routine Encourage Performance Information Use?Evaluating GFRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602.
55.
MoynihanD. & PandeyS.. (2010). The Big Question for Performance Management: Why do Managers Use Performance Information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
56.
NorthDouglass C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57.
NuttPaul C. and BackoffRobert W.. (1992). Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations: A Handbook for Leaders.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58.
OsborneDavid and TedGaebler. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
59.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
PoisterTheodore H. and StreibGregory. (1999). Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335.
61.
PoisterTheodore H. and StreibGregory. (2005). Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 45–56.
62.
RaineyHal G. (2003). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
RogersEverett M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
64.
RyzinGregg G. Van. (2005). Testing the Expectancy Disconfirmation Model of Citizen Satisfaction with Local Government.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 599–611.
65.
SabatierPaul A. and WeibleChristopher M.. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In SabatierPaul A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 189–222). Colorado, Boulder: Westview Press.
66.
ShawGreg and ReinhartStephanie. (2001). The Polls-trends: Devolution and Confidence in Government. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3), 367–388.
67.
StreibGregory. (1992). Applying Strategic Decision Making in Local Government. Public Productivity and Management Review, 15(3), 341–355.
68.
SwanstromTodd (1987). The Limits of Strategic Planning for Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 9(2), 139–157.
69.
TaylorJ. (2011). Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Information for Decision Making in Australian State Agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316–1334.
70.
TiguePatricia. (1994). Use of Performance Measures by GFOA Members. Government Finance Review, (December), 42–44.
71.
Van de WalleS. & BovairdT.. (2007). Making Better Use of Information to Drive Improvement in Local Public Services: A Report for the Audit Commission.Project Report. INLOGOV. February 19, 2009. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/SSRN-id1347349.pdf
72.
Van DoorenW.BouckaertG. & HalliganJ.. (2010). Performance Management in the Public Sector. London:Routledge.
73.
Van DoorenW. & Van de WalleS. (Eds.). (2008). Performance Information in the Public Sector. How It is Used. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
74.
Van ThielS. and LeeuwF. L.. (2002). The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector.” Public Productivity and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
75.
WeilFrederick. (1989). The Sources and Structure of Legitimation in Western Democracies.American Sociological Review, 54(5), 682–706.
76.
WholeyJoseph S. (1999). Performance-based Management: Responding to the Challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(3), 288–307.
77.
WholeyJoseph S. and HatryHarry P.. (1992). The Case for Performance Monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 604–610.
78.
WholeyJoseph S. and NewcomerKathryn E.. (1997). Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results. In NewcomerKathryn E (ed.), Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs (pp. 9198). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
79.
WilliamsonOlivier. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
80.
YangKaifeng. (2007). Making Performance Measurement Relevant. In de Lancer JulnesPatriaBerryFranAristiguetaMaria and YangKaifeng (eds.), International Handbook of Practice-Based Performance Management (pp. 173–188). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
81.
YangKaifeng and HolzerMarc. (2006). The Performance-Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
82.
YangKaifeng and HsiehJun Yi. (2007). Managerial Effectiveness of Government Performance Measurement: Testing a Middle-Range Model. Public Administration Review, (September/October), 861–879.