No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
INTRODUCTION The recent discussion about public highlights issue of how to bring citizenry closer to public administrators (Blair 2000; Frankish, Kwan et al. 2002; 2002; Haque and Mudacumura 2007; Liddle 2007; Eckardt 2008; Khan and Chowdhury 2008; Sarker and Hassan Among others, one stream of research is particularly interested in how to engage citizens in performance measurement systems (Ho and Coates 2002; Rowe and Shepherd 2002; Holzer and Yang 2004; Heikkila and Isett 2007; Halachmi and Holzer 2010; Hildebrand and McDavid 2011). The basic tenets of public apparently support that engaging citizens is beneficial, as it facilitates expressing public needs and concerns (Vries 2007), promoting public trust (Fard and Rostamy 2007), reinforcing institutional learning, enhancing integrity of public employees, and increasing bureaucratic responsiveness (Haque and Mudacumura 2007). Although engaging citizens in performance measurement sounds promising, realization of public however, depends on many factors. On side of citizens, holding governments accountable not only needs citizens to consume time in practices, but also rests on citizens' capacity to demand answers from agents about their proposed or past behavior, to discern that behavior, and to impose sanctions upon agents (Eckardt 2008). It is also important for citizens, who occasionally represent their individual interests as service users, to exert democratic on behalf of whole society (Aucoin and Heintzman 2000; Haque and Mudacumura 2007; Liddle 2007; Heikkila and Isett 2007). But literature shows that when citizens are engaged, their commentary can be highly framed to represent their immediate interests, rather than interests of public(Jewell and Bero 2006). On side of governments, they have to ensure that general public as external stakeholders participates in beyond evaluating outcomes, but in setting goals and informing policy making and implementation (Moynihan and Ingraham 2003). In particular, citizens are anticipated to counter manipulative behaviors by bureaucrats in performance measurement, such as exaggerating achievements, building image, and covering up failures (Haque 2007; Halachmi and Holzer Moreover, governments face challenge that involvement of citizens in performance measurement causes tension between upward and downward accountability (Haque and Mudacumura 2007), especially when interpretations of administrative are contradictory with public accountability, thus pulling public servants in different directions (Poulsen 2009). Overcoming these difficulties entails states develop capacity at skills, knowledge, and collaboration layers, and to demonstrate improved capacity so that citizens are willing to participate (Bovens, Schillemans et al. 2008). For developing countries, integrating citizen engagement and performance measurement is a more daunting task. In these countries, undesirable public is intertwined with power abuse, ineffective corruption control, and lack of transparency (Sarker and Hassan It is found that local level is constrained by continuing control and power exercised by state and ruling party, and dominance of local bureaucracy over local institutions (Haque 2008). As Head (2011) notes, too tight control from reformist policy entrepreneurs on reform agenda renders civic engagement on major issues symbolic rather than substantial. Citizens might be involved in performance measurement by governments, but the fact that tools can be available does not necessarily imply that these tools are used in actual relation between government and associated entity (Kruijf 2010). China, largest developing country, has reaped great success in economic development over past twenty years. …
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.