| 000 | 01698nam a22001457a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 999 |
_c524350 _d524350 |
||
| 008 | 231110b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 |
_aHood, Christopher and Piotrowska, Barbara Maria _945942 |
||
| 245 | _aWho loves input controls: What happened to “outputs not inputs” in UK public financial management, and why? | ||
| 260 | _aPublic Administration: An International Quarterly | ||
| 300 | _a10(1), Mar, 2023: p.303-317 | ||
| 520 | _aWhy do frequently criticized input controls survive in the management of public spending while apparently more enlightened output/outcome controls come and go? The question matters, because output/outcome controls are often assumed in public financial management and related literature to lead to superior policy performance as compared with input-focused approaches. We tackle the question by applying qualitative push–pull analysis to compare one key type of input controls (administration cost [AC] controls) with one much-discussed form of output/outcome controls (performance targets linked to spending allocations) in one major country case, the United Kingdom, over two decades. Drawing on documents and in-depth interviews with 120 key political and bureaucratic players, we conclude that bureaucratic inertia at most only partially explains the survival of input AC controls in this case. The push/pull factors associated with the politics of blame and credit made the political players fair-weather output controllers but all-weather input controllers. – Reproduced https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12741 | ||
| 773 | _aPublic Administration: An International Quarterly | ||
| 906 | _aPUBLIC FINANCE | ||
| 942 | _cAR | ||