Advertisement

Synthesis and Conclusions

  • Stephen Jones
Chapter
  • 560 Downloads

Abstract

Examinations and evaluations of reform must be theory driven if they are to produce useful results for researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners. This book has established and applied a new analytical framework of performance management to examine city governments developing and implementing climate policies. The application of the framework to the case studies of Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Tokyo city governments has provided findings that allow meaningful interpretations of actions, predictions of their consequences, and guidance for future reform. The conclusions presented here are based on a combination of these findings, previous research on climate policy, and the literature on performance management in the public sector.

References

  1. Ammons, D. (2015, December). Getting Real About Performance Management: Using Performance Information to Improve Services Is Key. Public Management. ICMA Publications, PM Magazine. http://icma.org/en/Article/106489/Getting_Real_About_Performance_Management
  2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reis, 77/78, 345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aylett, A. (2015). Relational Agency and the Local Governance of Climate Change: International Trends and an American Exemplar. In C. Johnson, N. Toly, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), The Urban Climate Challenge: Rethinking the Role of Cities in the Global Climate Regime. Cities and Global Governance (pp. 156–177). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Behn, R. D. (2008). PerformanceStat as a Leadership Strategy: It Don’t Mean a Thing if it Ain’t Got that Follow-Up. Twelfth Annual Conference of The International Research Society for Public Management, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Book, K., Eskilsson, L., & Khan, J. (2010). Governing the Balance Between Sustainability and Competitiveness in Urban Planning: The Case of the Orestad Model. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(6), 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koehler, D. A. (2007). The Effectiveness of Voluntary Environmental Programs—A Policy at a Crossroads? Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 689–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koglin, T. (2015). Organisation Does Matter—Planning for Cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy, 39, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., & Hawkins, C. V. (2014). The Administrative Organization of Sustainability Within Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 113–127.Google Scholar
  9. Loerakker, J. (2013). Story Behind Failure: Copenhagen’s Business District Orestad, Failed Architecture. https://www.failedarchitecture.com/the-story-behind-the-failure-copenhagens-business-district-orestad/
  10. Majoor, S. (2014). Ørestad: Copenhagen’s Radical New Town Project in Transition. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3), 432–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marr, B. (2009). Strategic Performance Management in Government and Public Sector Organizations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
  12. McCann, E. (2013). Policy Boosterism, Policy Mobilities, and the Extrospective City. Urban Geography, 34(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ockwell, D. G., Haum, R., Mallett, A., & Watson, J. (2010). Intellectual Property Rights and Low Carbon Technology Transfer: Conflicting Discourses of Diffusion and Development. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oullier, O. (2013). Behavioural Insights Are Vital to Policy-Making. Nature, 501(7468), 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational Culture in the Public Sector: Evidence from Six Organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Sanger, M. B. (2008). From Measurement to Management: Breaking Through the Barriers to State and Local Performance. Public Administration Review, 68(s1), 570–585.Google Scholar
  19. Sterck, M., & Scheers, B. (2006). Trends in Performance Budgeting in Seven OECD Countries. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trencher, G., Broto, V. C., Takagi, T., Sprigings, Z., Nishida, Y., & Yarime, M. (2016). Innovative Policy Practices to Advance Building Energy Efficiency and Retrofitting: Approaches, Impacts and Challenges in ten C40 Cities. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance Management in the Public Sector. Hoboken: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.University of QueenslandCoorparooAustralia

Personalised recommendations