References
- Argyris, C. 1990. “The Dilemma of Implementing Controls: The Case of Managerial Accounting.” Accounting Organizations and Society 15(6), 503 - 511.
- Arthur, J. B. 1994. “Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 3(3), 670 - 687. Baker, G. 2002. “Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts.” The Journal of Human Resources 37(4), 728 - 751.
- Behn, R. D. 2003. “Why Measure Performance ? Diff erent Purposes Require Diff erent Measures.” Public Administration Review 63(5), 586 - 606.
- Berliner, J. S. 1956. “A Problem in Soviet Business Administration.” Administrative Science Quarterly 1(1), 86 - 101.
- Bevan, G. and C. Hood. 2006. “What’s Measured is what Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health System.” Public Administration 84(3), 517 - 538.
- Bouckaert, G. and J. Halligan. 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203935958
- Caroll, J. S. et al. 2006. “Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizational Learning in Nuclear Power Plants: Negotiating Meaning between Managers and Problem Investigation Teams.” Organisation Studies 27, 1037 - 1057.10.1177/0170840606065709
- Chan, H. S. and J. Gao. 2009. “Putting the Cart before the Horse: Accountability or Performance.” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 68(S1), S51-S61.
- Chan, H. S. and J. Gao. 2008. “Performance Measurement in Chinese Local Government.” Chinese Law and Government 41(2 - 3), 4 - 9.
- de Bruijn, H. 2002. “Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: Strategies to Cope with the Risk of Performance Measurement.” The International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(7), 578 - 594.
- Dur, R. and R. Zoutenbier. 2014. “Working for a Good Cause.” Public Administration Review 74(2), 144 - 155.
- Evans, T. and J. Harris. 2004. “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion.” British Journal of Social Work 34, 871 - 895.
- Evetts, J. 2009. “New Professionalism and New Public Management: Changes, Continuities and Consequences.” Comparative Sociology 8, 247 - 266.
- Frey, B. S. et al. 2013. “Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Sector.” Organizational Studies 34(7), 949 - 972.
- Fryer, B. S. et al. 2009. “Performance Management in the Public Sector.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 22(6), 478 - 498.
- Gao, J. 2010. “Hitting the Target but Missing the Point: The Rise of Non-missioned- Based Targets in Performance Measurement of Chinese Local Governments.” Administration & Society, 42(IS), 565 - 765.
- Gao, J. 2009. “Governing by Goals and Numbers: A Case Study in the Use of Performance Measurement to Build State Capacity in China.” Public Administration and Development 29, 21 - 31.
- Gravelle, H. et al. 2010. “Doctor Behavior under Pay for Performance Contract: Treating, Cheating and Case Finding ?” The Economic Journal 120 (February), F129-F136.
- Hamilton, L. et al. 2013. “Improving Accountability through Expanded Measures of Performance.” Journal of Educational Administration 51(4), 453 - 475.
- Johansson, V. 2015. “Policy Networks: A Th reat to Procedural and Expert-Based Decision Making and the Quality of Public Risk Decisions ?” International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 9, 3 - 12.
- Johansson, V. 2012. “Negotiating Bureaucrats.” Public Administration 90(4), 1032 - 1046.
- Johansson, V. and L. Lindgren (eds). 2013. Uppdrag off entlig granskning [Mission public scrutiny]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
- Johansson, V. and S. Montin. 2014. “What if Performance Accountability Engenders Distrust ?” Urban Research & Practice 7(2), 213 - 227.
- Jones, B. D. 2003. “Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4), 395 - 412.
- Kallio, K.-M. and T. J. Kallio. 2014. “Management-by-Results and Performance Measurement in Universities: Implications for Work Motivation.” Studies in Higher Education 39(4), 574 - 589.
- Klein, G. 2008. “Naturalistic Decision Making.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(3), 456 - 460.
- Lapsley, I. 2008. “The NPM Agenda: Back to the Future.” Finical Accountability & Management 24(1), 77 - 96.
- Lewis, M. J. and P. Triantafi llou. 2012. “From Performance Measurement to Learning: A New Source of Governmental Overload ?” International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(4), 597 - 614.
- Lingard, B. and S. Sellar. 2013. “‘Catalyst Data’: Perverse Systemic Eff ects of Audit and Accountability in Australian Schooling.” Journal of Education Policy 28(5), 634 - 656.
- Lipshitz, R. et al. 2001. “Focus Article: Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 14, 331 - 352.
- Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.10.2307/1288305
- Mannion, R. and J. Braithwaite. 2012. “Unintended Consequences of Performance in Health Care: 20 Salutary Lessons from the English National Healthcare.” Internal Medicine Journal 42:5, 569 - 574.
- March, J. and J. P. Olsen. 2004. “The Logic of Appropriateness.” Working Paper 04 / 08. Oslo: Center for European studies, University of Oslo.
- May, P. J. and S. Winter. 2007. “Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Infl uence on Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19, 453 - 476.
- Maynard, A. 2012. “The Power and Pitfalls of Payment for Performance.” Health Economics 21, 3 - 12.
- Merchant, K. A. 1990. “The Effects of Financial Controls on Data Manipulation and Management Myopia.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 14(4), 297 - 313.
- Meyers, M. and S. Vorsanger. 2007. “Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy.” In G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds). The Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage, 153 - 165.
- Moynihan, D. P. et al. 2011. “Performance Regimes Amidst Governance Complexity.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21, i141-i155.
- Noordegraaf, M. 2007. “From ‘Pure’ to ‘Hybrid’ Professionalism: Present-Day Professionalism in Ambiguous Public Domains.” Administration & Society 39(6), 761 - 785.
- Noordegraaf, M. and W. Schinkel. 2011. “Professional Capital Contested: A Bourdieusian Analysis of Confl icts between Professionals and Managers.” Comparative Sociology 10, 97 - 125.
- Nutley, S. et al. 2012. “Scrutinizing Performance: How Assessors Reach Judgments about Public Services.” Public Administration 12(90), 869 - 885.
- Ordóñez, L. D. et al. 2009. “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting.” Academy of Management Perception 23(1), 6 - 16.
- Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.
- Otley, D. 1999. “Performance Measurement: A Framework for Management Control System Research.” Management Accounting Research 10, 363 - 382.
- Perrin, B. 1998. “Eff ective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement.” American Journal of Evaluation 19(3), 367 - 379.
- Phelps, R. P. 2011. “Teach to the Test ? Most of the Problems with Testing have one Surprising Source: Cheating by School Administrators and Teachers.” Wilson Quarterly 35(4), 38 - 42.
- Pidd, M. 2005. “Perversity in Public Service Performance Measurement.” International Journal of Productivity 54(5 / 6), 482 - 493.
- Pierre, J. and G. Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. London: MacMillan Press. Pollitt, C. 2013. “The Logics of Performance Management.” Evaluation 19(4), 346 - 363.
- Pollitt, C. et al. 2010. “Performance Regimes in Health Care: Institutions, Critical Junctures and the Logic of Escalation in England and the Netherlands.” Evaluation 16(1), 13 - 29.10.1177/1356389009350026
- Poulsen, B. 2009. “Competing Traditions of Governance and Dilemmas of Administrative Accountability: The Case of Denmark.” Public Administration 87(1), 117 - 131.
- Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verifi cation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Power, M. 2003. “Evaluating the Audit Explosion.” Law and Policy, 25(3), 185 - 202.
- Radin, B. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
- Ridgway, V. F. 1956. “Dysfunctional Consequences of Performance Measurements.” Administrative Science Quarterly 1(2), 240 - 247.
- Salomon, L. (ed.). 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Schneider, A. and H. Ingram. 1990. “Behavior Assumptions of Policy Tools.” The Journal of Politics 52(2), 520 - 529.
- Simon, H. 2000. “Bounded Rationality in Social Sciences: Today and Tomorrow.” Mind and Society 1, 25 - 39.
- Simon, H. 1993. “Decision Making: Rational, Nonrational, and Irrational.” Educational Administration Quarterly 29(3), 392 - 411.
- Smith, P. 1995. “On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data.” Public Sector 18(2), 277 - 310.
- Van Dooren, W. et al. 2010. Performance Management in the Public Sector. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203030806
- Van Thiel, S. and F. L. Leeuw. 2002. “The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector.” Public Performance and Management Review 25(3), 267 - 281.
- Wilson, D. et al. 2006. “‘What Gets Measured Gets Done’: Head Teachers’ Responses to the English Secondary School Performance Management.” Policy Studies 27(2), 153 - 171.
- Zsambok, C. and G. Klein. 1997. Naturalistic Decision Making. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.