@ARTICLE{26543117_64368158_2012, 
	author = {Alexander Kalgin}, 
	keywords = {, control, public regulation, performance management, performance indicatorsinteragency coordination},
	title = {Performance management at the regional level: control and efficiency},
	journal = {Public Administration Issues},
	year = {2012},
	number = {3},
	pages = {35-60},
	url = {https://vgmu.hse.ru/en/2012--3/64368158.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {Globally performance management in the public sector appears to have gone out of fashion. Major performance management initiatives, introduced with fanfare, have come under fierce criticism. At the same time, the Russian government comes up enthusiastic with performance measures and indicators. New initiatives appear on a regular basis. What drives this enthusiasm?Performance management may be used as a means of achieving 2 different ends: enhanced accountability and increased productivity (effectiveness). Benefits of performance management reforms may be of two different kinds: managerial or political. Which purpose dominates in the Russian practice? Which type of benefits is behind the federal urge to develop performance management initiatives?The article explores these questions using qualitative data from interviews with civil servants of a regional government. The results show that performance indicators have been predominantly used as tools of bureaucratic control with little managerial value. Perceived managerial benefits are marginal if any. The following themes are explored: reliability of performance data, inability of public bodies to influence their indicators, lack of interagency cooperation.},
	annote = {Globally performance management in the public sector appears to have gone out of fashion. Major performance management initiatives, introduced with fanfare, have come under fierce criticism. At the same time, the Russian government comes up enthusiastic with performance measures and indicators. New initiatives appear on a regular basis. What drives this enthusiasm?Performance management may be used as a means of achieving 2 different ends: enhanced accountability and increased productivity (effectiveness). Benefits of performance management reforms may be of two different kinds: managerial or political. Which purpose dominates in the Russian practice? Which type of benefits is behind the federal urge to develop performance management initiatives?The article explores these questions using qualitative data from interviews with civil servants of a regional government. The results show that performance indicators have been predominantly used as tools of bureaucratic control with little managerial value. Perceived managerial benefits are marginal if any. The following themes are explored: reliability of performance data, inability of public bodies to influence their indicators, lack of interagency cooperation.}
}