Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access originally published online on November 30, 2005
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2006 16(2):169-186; doi:10.1093/jopart/muj002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/2/169    most recent
muj002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gilmour, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Part Symposium

Assessing Performance Budgeting at OMB: The Influence of Politics, Performance, and Program Size

John B. Gilmour

College of William and Mary

David E. Lewis

Princeton University

Address correspondence to John B. Gilmour at jbgilm{at}wm.edu.

This article investigates the impact of performance, as measured by the OMB performance budgeting initiative called Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), on recommendations in the President's budget. In a multivariate analysis using data from the FY 2005 budget, with appropriate controls for the political content of programs, we find that the PART scores have a statistically significant impact on budget decisions within OMB. We find that PART scores have a larger impact on small and medium sized programs than on large programs. We also find that the "results" component of PART scores has a smaller impact on budget decisions than the "program purpose" component, a finding which tends to contradict the goal of performance budgeting to redirect resources to programs that produce results. The relative unimportance of the "results" component may be due to the lack of good outcome measures for most programs in PART.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
O. J. Stalebrink
National Performance Mandates and Intergovernmental Collaboration: An Examination of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
The American Review of Public Administration, December 1, 2009; 39(6): 619 - 639.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 POLIT ANALHome page
J. D. Clinton and D. E. Lewis
Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences
Political Analysis, January 1, 2008; 16(1): 3 - 20.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.