<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Hammerschmid, G.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/28288/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Internal and external use of performance information in public organisations: Results from an international executive survey (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/38541/</link>
      <pubDate>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Abstract. This paper analyses determinants of public managers´ internal and external use of
performance information. Using a sample of over 3100 top public sector executives in six
European countries, we find evidence for significant country variations, with a more limited
use of performance information in France and Germany. It was also found that the use of
performance information is mainly determined by organizational factors rather than
managers’ individual socio-demographic characteristics. The analysis also found considerable differences in patterns of use between policy fields and a lower use of performance indicators in central government ministries. Finally, the implementation of performance management instruments in an organization has an overall strong effect on the actual use of performance information.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future: COCOPS Project Background Paper (Research Paper)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/23009/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-03-25T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>This first COCOPS Working Paper outlines the background to the COCOPS project. It introduces the concept of New Public Management (NPM) both as a set of managerial innovations in the public sector and as a set of new ideas about the role of government. The Paper presents an overview of the state of the art of evaluating the impact of NPM and we argue that there are a number of major gaps in current studies on the impact of NPM reforms. These include limited coverage of European countries and an overall lack of cross-national research, a limited empirical base in many assessments of NPM, and a tendency to focus on specific elements of NPM-style reforms or specific policy sectors rather than on public sector reforms in general. Furthermore, we identify two unintended effects of NPM-style reforms that severely impact the public sector of the future’s ability to build and sustain social cohesion. One is the fragmentation of the public sector; the other consists of effects of the reforms on equity. Innovative practices have to provide an answer to these two challenges. We end this working paper by collating the first tentative empirical evidence of emerging models for the governance of public services beyond NPM, including outcome-based approaches and whole-of-government models, and reflect on the implications of the financial crisis for these developments.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The impact of the new public management: Challenges for coordination and cohesion in European public sectors (review essay) (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/39021/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>New Public Management has been around for a quarter of a century in European public sectors, yet
despite the movement’s emphasis on indicators and evidence, there have been surprisingly few
encompassing evaluations. In this paper, we provide an overview of academic evaluation and impact
studies of entire NPM-style reform programmes. We distinguish between two sets of NPM-style
changes and reforms. One is that of specific managerial innovations within public organisations. The
other consists of changes to the role of government and citizens as a result of NPM ideas. We
conclude that a majority of academic research has focused on the first set of changes, while
approaches to the second set has been mainly of a critical nature with relatively limited attention for
empirical studies.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>