Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Benchmarking the financial performance of local councils in Ireland Cover

Benchmarking the financial performance of local councils in Ireland

Administration
Volume 64 (2016): Issue 1 (May 2016)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Apr 2016
References

References

  1. Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience.(3), 453–72.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.(5), 586–606.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Boedker, C., & Chua, W. F. (2013). Accounting as an affective technology: A study of circulation, agency and entrancement.(4), 245–67.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Bowerman, M., Francis, G., Ball, A., & Fry, J. (2002). The evolution of benchmarking in UK local authorities.(5), 429–49.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, R. (2000).[CPMR discussion paper 15]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, R. (2014).[State of the Public Service Series, research paper no. 13]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Brown, K. W. (1993). The 10-point test of financial condition: Towards an easy-to-use assessment tool for smaller cities.(6), 21–6.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Brown, K. W. (1996). Trends in key ratios using the GFOA financial indicators database 1989–1993.(6), 30–4.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Brusca, I., & Montesinos, V. (2006). Are citizens significant users of government financial information?(4), 205–9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Cabaleiro, R., Buch, E., & Vaamonde, A. (2013). Developing a method to assessing the municipal financial health.(6), 729–51.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Carmeli, A. (2002). A conceptual and practical framework of measuring performance of local authorities in financial terms: Analysing the case of Israel.(1), 21–36.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, C. (1997). Reflection on a contingent view of accounting.(2), 189–205.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. County and City Managers’ Association. (2013).Retrieved from[2 March 2016].
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Department of Finance. (2010).. Retrieved from[1 July 2015].
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2011).Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. (2015).Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. (2012).. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (1996).–. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (2008).. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Espeland, W. N. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds.(1), 1–40.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol.(2), 171–86.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Francis, G., & Holloway, J. (2007). What have we learned? Themes from the literature on best-practice benchmarking.(3), 171–89.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Game, C. (2006). Comprehensive performance assessment in English local government.(6), 466–79.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. García-Sánchez, I. M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Frías-Aceituno, J. V., & Mordan, N. (2012). A new predictor of local financial distress.(11), 739–48.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Health Information and Quality Authority. (2013).Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Hendrick, R. (2004). Assessing and measuring the fiscal heath of local governments.(1), 78–114.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Hong, P., Hong, S. W., Roh, J. J., & Park, K. (2012). Evolving benchmarking practices: A review for research perspectives.(4), 444–62.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Hood, C. (2007). Public service management by numbers: Why does it vary? Where has it come from? What are the gaps and the puzzles?(2), 95–102.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Humphreys, P. (2002).[CPMR discussion paper 23]. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Hyndman N., & McGeough, F. (2008). NPM and performance measurement: A comparative study of the public sectors in Ireland and the UK.(2), 29–57.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Järvinen, J. (2009). Shifting NPM agendas and management accountants’ occupational identities.(8), 1,187–210.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, S., & Messner, M. (2012). Enabling control and the problem of incomplete performance indicators.(7), 544–64.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Julnes, P. D. L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation.(6), 693–708.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Kleine, R., Kloha, P., & Weissert, C. S. (2003). Monitoring local government fiscal health: Michagan’s new 10-point scale of fiscal distress.(3), 18–23.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Kloha, P., Weissert, C. S., & Kleine, R. (2005a). Developing and testing a composite model to predict local fiscal distress.(3), 313–23.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. Kloha, P., Weissert, C. S., & Kleine, R. (2005b). Someone to watch over me: State monitoring of local fiscal conditions.(3), 236–55.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. Knox, C. (2012). The reform of public administration in Northern Ireland: A squandered opportunity?(1), 117–38.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Kuhlmann, S., & Jäkel, T. (2013). Competing, collaborating or controlling? Comparing benchmarking in European local government.(4), 269–76.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Local Government Audit Service. (2014).. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Local Government Efficiency Review Implementation Group. (2013).Dublin: The Stationery Office.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Magd, H., & Curry, A. (2003). Benchmarking: Achieving best value in public-sector organisations.(3), 261–86.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting.,(5), 870–99.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. Martin, S., Downe, J., Grace, C., & Nutley, S. (2013). New development: All change? Performance assessment regimes in UK local government.(4), 277–80.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. McAteer, M., & Stephens, A. (2013). New development: The role of benchmarking in supporting improvement in local government – Scottish and Welsh practitioners’ perspectives.(4), 281–4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Mercer, T., & Gilbert, M. (1996). A financial condition index for Nova Scotia municipalities.(5), 36–8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Modell, S. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note.(1), 39–57.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?(4), 849–66.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Northcott, D., & Llewellyn, S. (2005). Benchmarking in UK health: A gap between policy and practice?(5), 419–35.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  49. Nutley, S., Downe, J., Martin, S., & Grace, C. (2012). Policy transfer and convergence within the UK: The case of local government performance improvement regimes.(2), 193–209.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Pidd, M. (2012).. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies.(1), 25–44.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004).. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Putting People First – a summary. (2012, Autumn/Winter).(3 & 4), 1–7.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Robbins, G., & Lapsley, I. (2005). NPM and the Irish public sector – From reluctant reformer to statutory codification. In J. Guthrie, C. Humphrey, O. Olson & L. Jones (Eds),Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Robbins, G., & Lapsley, I. (2014). The success story of the Eurozone crisis? Ireland’s austerity measures.(2), 91–8.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  56. Robbins, G., Turley, G., & McNena, S. (2014). From boom to bust? The financial performance of city and county councils.(1), 119–51.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H. A. (1937). Comparative statistics and the measurement of efficiency., 524–7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  58. Trosa, S., & Williams, S. (1996).. Paris: OECD.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Turley, G., & Flannery, D. (2013). The impact of the economic boom and bust on local government budgets in Ireland.(2), 33–56.
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Turley, G., Robbins, G., & McNena, S. (2015). A framework to measure the financial performance of local governments.(3), 401–20.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  61. Wynn-Williams, K. L. H. (2005). Performance assessment and benchmarking in the public sector: An example from New Zealand.(5), 482–92.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  62. Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: Then and now.(3), 217–43.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  63. Yetano, A. (2013). What drives the institutionalization of performance measurement and management in local government.(1), 59–86.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  64. Zafra-Gómez, J. L., López-Hernández, A. M., & Hernández-Bastida, A. (2009a). Developing an alert system for local governments in financial crisis.(3), 175–81.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  65. Zafra-Gómez, J. L., López-Hernández, A. M., & Hernández-Bastida, A. (2009b). Evaluating financial performance in local government: Maximizing the benchmarking value.(1), 151–67.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/admin-2016-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2449-9471 (formerly 0001-8325) | Journal ISSN: 0001-8325
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 27
Published on: Apr 30, 2016
Published by: The Institute of Public Administration of Ireland
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Performance measurement,
financial indicators,
benchmarking,
local councils
Related subjects:
Business and economics,
Political economics,
Political economics, other,
Business management,
Human resources, labor practice, job and career,
Industries,
Public sector, public private partnerships, public administration,
Social sciences,
Political science,
Local government and administration

© 2016 Geraldine Robbins, Gerard Turley, Stephen McNena, published by The Institute of Public Administration of Ireland
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 64 (2016): Issue 1 (May 2016)
Next article