Bibliography for L34544, L34561 & L34678. Public management and governance BETA

1.

Ashworth, R., Ferlie, E., Hammerschmid, G., Moon, M.J., Reay, T.: Theorizing Contemporary Public Management: International and Comparative Perspectives. British Journal of Management. 24, S1–S17 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12035.

2.

Bevir, M., Rhodes, R.A.W.: Searching for civil society: changing patterns of governance in Britain. Public Administration. 81, 41–62 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00336.

3.

Bevir, M., Rhodes, R.A.W., Weller, P.: Traditions of governance: interpreting the changing role of the public sector. Public Administration. 81, 1–17 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00334.

4.

Brandsen, T., Kim, S.: Contextualizing the meaning of public management reforms: a comparison of the Netherlands and South Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 76, 367–386 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309365671.

5.

Chandler, J., Barry, J., Clark, H.: Stressing Academe: The Wear and Tear of the New Public Management. Human Relations. 55, 1051–1069 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055009019.

6.

Considine, M., Lewis, J.M.: Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review. 63, 131–140 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00274.

7.

Dunleavy, P.: New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 16, 467–494 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.

8.

Ferlie, E., Hartley, J., Martin, S.: Changing Public Service Organizations: Current Perspectives and Future Prospects. British Journal of Management. 14, S1–S14 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00389.x.

9.

Hajer, M.: Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences. 36, 175–195 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939.

10.

HOOD, C.: Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government after Two Decades. Governance. 20, 127–144 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00347.x.

11.

HOOD, C., DIXON, R.: A MODEL OF COST-CUTTING IN GOVERNMENT? THE GREAT MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION IN UK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RECONSIDERED. Public Administration. 91, 114–134 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02072.x.

12.

Hood, C.: The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 14, 267–282 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh019.

13.

Jones, B.D.: Bounded Rationality and Political Science: Lessons from Public Administration and Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 13, 395–412 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jpart/mug028.

14.

Kickert, W.J.M.: Beneath consensual corporatism: traditions of governance in the Netherlands. Public Administration. 81, 119–140 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00339.

15.

LE GRAND, J.: Knights, Knaves or Pawns? Human Behaviour and Social Policy. Journal of Social Policy. 26, 149–169 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279497004984.

16.

Lynn Jr., L.E.: The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For. Public Administration Review. 61, 144–160 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00016.

17.

Martin, S.: The Modernization of UK Local Government: Markets, Managers, Monitors and Mixed Fortunes. Public Management Review. 4, 291–307 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670210151595.

18.

Rhodes, R.A.W.: The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies. 44, 652–667 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.

19.

Rhodes, R.A.W.: Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies. 28, 1243–1264 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076586.

20.

Skelcher, C.: Changing images of the State: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and Administration. 15, 3–19 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670001500302.

21.

Stewart, J., Walsh, K.: Change in the management of public services. Public administration. 70, 499–518 (1992).

22.

Zafirovski, M.: Administration and Society: Beyond Public Choice? Public Administration. 79, 665–688 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00274.

23.

Bryson, J.M.: What to do when Stakeholders matter. Public Management Review. 6, 21–53 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722.

24.

Hajer, M., Versteeg, W.: performing governance through networks. European Political Science. 4, 340–347 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210034.

25.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J.: Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. 73, 821–830 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12136.

26.

Klijn, E.: designing and managing networks: possibilities and limitations for network management. European Political Science. 4, 328–339 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210035.

27.

KLIJN, E.-H., SKELCHER, C.: DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS: COMPATIBLE OR NOT? Public Administration. 85, 587–608 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x.

28.

Papadopoulos, Y.: taking stock of multi-level governance networks. European Political Science. 4, 316–327 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210032.

29.

Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., Smith, M.: The Public Governance of Collaborative Spaces: Discourse, Design and Democracy. Public Administration. 83, 573–596 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00463.x.

30.

Smith, M., Beazley, M.: Progressive Regimes, Partnerships and the Involvement of Local Communities: A Framework for Evaluation. Public Administration. 78, 855–878 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00234.

31.

Sørensen, E.: the democratic problems and potentials of network governance. European Political Science. 4, 348–357 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210033.

32.

Stoker, G.: Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? The American Review of Public Administration. 36, 41–57 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583.

33.

STOKER, G.: WAS LOCAL GOVERNANCE SUCH A GOOD IDEA? A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. Public Administration. 89, 15–31 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01900.x.

34.

Torfing, J.: symposium: governance networks. European Political Science. 4, 301–304 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210030.

35.

Torfing, J.: governance network theory: towards a second generation. European Political Science. 4, 305–315 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210031.

36.

WEST, K., DAVIS, P.: WHAT IS THE PUBLIC VALUE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION? TOWARDS A (NEW) PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO VALUES QUESTIONS IN PUBLIC ENDEAVOURS. Public Administration. 89, 226–241 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01847.x.

37.

Skelcher, C.: Changing images of the State: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public Policy and Administration. 15, 3–19 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670001500302.

38.

Adsera, A.: Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 19, 445–490 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewg017.

39.

Bawn, K., Rosenbluth, F.: Short versus Long Coalitions: Electoral Accountability and the Size of the Public Sector. American Journal of Political Science. 50, 251–265 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00182.x.

40.

Chapman, R., Lowndes, V.: Accountable, authorized or authentic? What do ‘faith representatives’ offer urban governance? Public Money & Management. 29, 371–378 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/09540960903378233.

41.

Christensen, M., Skærbæk, P.: Framing and overflowing of public sector accountability innovations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 20, 101–132 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710731227.

42.

Considine, M.: The End of the Line? Accountable Governance in the Age of Networks, Partnerships, and Joined-Up Services. Governance. 15, 21–40 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00178.

43.

Cunningham, G.M., Harris, J.E.: Toward a Theory of Performance Reporting to Achieve Public Sector Accountability: A Field Study. Public Budgeting <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Finance. 25, 15–42 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0275-1100.2005.00359.x.

44.

Dereli, C.: Smoke and mirrors and performance management. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 24, 42–56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551111099217.

45.

Flinders, M.: Daring to be a Daniel: The Pathology of Politicized Accountability in a Monitory Democracy. Administration & Society. 43, 595–619 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711403899.

46.

Glynn, J.J., Murphy, M.P.: Public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 9, 125–137 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513559610146492.

47.

Heinrich, C.J.: Outcomes-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness. Public Administration Review. 62, 712–725 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253.

48.

Monfardini, P.: Accountability in the new public sector: a comparative case study. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 23, 632–646 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011078897.

49.

Mulgan, R.: ‘Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept? Public Administration. 78, 555–573 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218.

50.

Papenfuss, U., Schaefer, C.: Improving public accountability by aligning reporting to organizational changes in public service provision - an empirical Internet study of all Austrian, German and Swiss towns and states from an agency-theory perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 76, 555–576 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852310372451.

51.

Ryan, C., Walsh, P.: Collaboration of public sector agencies: reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 17, 621–631 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410562284.

52.

Shaoul, J.: ‘Sharing’ political authority with finance capital: The case of Britain’s Public Private Partnerships. Policy and Society. 30, 209–220 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2011.07.005.

53.

Tetlock, P.E.: Vying for Rhetorical High Ground in Accountability Debates: It Is Easy to Look Down on Those Who Look Soft on. Administration & Society. 43, 693–703 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711426848.

54.

Willems, T., Van Dooren, W.: Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 77, 505–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311408648.

55.

Sørensen, E.: the democratic problems and potentials of network governance. European Political Science. 4, 348–357 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210033.

56.

Berg, A.M.: Transforming public services – transforming the public servant? International Journal of Public Sector Management. 19, 556–568 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610686627.

57.

BATTEN, E., CORREIA, L., HEDGES, H., KAVANAGH, L., PAGE, E.C., PAUL, G., PHUA, A., VIVYAN, N., WILSON, C.: EXPERTISE AND POLICY-MAKING: LEGAL PROFESSIONALS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Public Administration. 84, 771–781 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00611.x.

58.

Burgess, S.: The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and Evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 19, 285–300 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/19.2.285.

59.

Carboni, N.: Changing relationships between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary democracies: an empirical analysis of the Italian experience. International public management review. 11, 90–109 (2010).

60.

Farrell, C., Morris, J.: The `Neo-Bureaucratic’ State: Professionals, Managers and Professional Managers in Schools, General Practices and Social Work. Organization. 10, 129–156 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508403010001380.

61.

Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E.: Professionals: Back to the Future? Human Relations. 53, 713–739 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700535005.

62.

Greener, I.: Understanding NHS Reform: The Policy-Transfer, Social Learning, and Path-Dependency Perspectives. Governance. 15, 161–183 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00184.

63.

Horner, L., Lekhi, R., Blaug, R.: Deliberative democracy and the role of public managers, http://www.theworkfoundation.com/DownloadPublication/Report/107_107_Deliberative%20democracy%20and%20the%20role%20of%20public%20managers.pdf, (2006).

64.

HOWLETT, M., WELLSTEAD, A.M.: Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy Revisited: The Nature of Professional Policy Work in Contemporary Government. Politics & Policy. 39, 613–633 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00306.x.

65.

Kearney, Richard C.: Professionalism and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Conflict or Compatibility? Public Administration Review. 48, (1988).

66.

Kirkpatrick, I., Jespersen, P.K., Dent, M., Neogy, I.: Medicine and management in a comparative perspective: the case of Denmark and England. Sociology of Health & Illness. 31, 642–658 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01157.x.

67.

Parsons, W.: Modernising Policy-making for the Twenty First Century: The Professional Model. Public Policy and Administration. 16, 93–110 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670101600307.

68.

Pedersen, D., Hartley, J.: The changing context of public leadership and management. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 21, 327–339 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550810880214.

69.

Probst, H.B., Hussain, Z.B., Andersen, O.: Cancer patient pathways in Denmark as a joint effort between bureau... - PubMed - NCBI, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22136810, (2011).

70.

Sehested, K.: HOW NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORMS CHALLENGE THE ROLES OF PROFESSIONALS. International Journal of Public Administration. 25, 1513–1537 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120014259.

71.

Taylor, I., Kelly, J.: Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re‐visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 19, 629–642 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610704662.

72.

Tummers, L.: Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: a policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 77, 555–581 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311407364.

73.

Considine, M.: The End of the Line? Accountable Governance in the Age of Networks, Partnerships, and Joined-Up Services. Governance. 15, 21–40 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00178.

74.

Willems, T., Van Dooren, W.: Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 77, 505–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311408648.

75.

Alcock, P.: A strategic unity: defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary sector review. 1, 5–24 (2010).

76.

Bode, I.: Co-governance within networks and the non-profit – for-profit divide. Public Management Review. 8, 551–566 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022932.

77.

CUNNINGHAM, I.: A RACE TO THE BOTTOM? EXPLORING VARIATIONS IN EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS IN THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR. Public Administration. 86, 1033–1053 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00752.x.

78.

Davis Smith, J.: The inflatable log: volunteering, the state and democracy. Voluntary action. 3, 13–26 (2001).

79.

Harris, B.: Voluntary action and the state in historical perspective. Voluntary sector review. 1, 25–40 (2010).

80.

Harrow, J., Jung, T.: Philanthropy is Dead; Long Live Philanthropy? Public Management Review. 13, 1047–1056 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.619062.

81.

KELLY, J.: REFORMING PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE UK: BRINGING IN THE THIRD SECTOR. Public Administration. 85, 1003–1022 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00680.x.

82.

Lewis, J.: New Labour’s Approach to the Voluntary Sector: Independence and the Meaning of Partnership. Social Policy and Society. 4, 121–131 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474640400226X.

83.

LOWNDES, V., PRATCHETT, L., STOKER, G.: LOCAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT OF RULES-IN-USE. Public Administration. 84, 539–561 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00601.x.

84.

Lowndes, V., Sullivan, H.: Like a Horse and Carriage or a Fish on a Bicycle: How Well do Local Partnerships and Public Participation go Together? Local Government Studies. 30, 51–73 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393042000230920.

85.

Srinivas, N.: Against NGOs?: A Critical Perspective on Nongovernmental Action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38, 614–626 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009334308.

86.

Taylor, M.: Co-option or Empowerment?: The Changing Relationship between the State and the Voluntary and Community Sectors. Local Governance. 28, 1–11 (2002).

87.

Tiwana, M., Belay, N.: Civil society: the clampdown is real, http://www.civicus.org/view/media/CIVICUS_%20paper_%20global_%20trends_%20Civil%20Society_%20Space_%202009-201012[1].pdf, (2010).

88.

Aberbach, J.D., Christensen, T.: Citizens and Consumers. Public Management Review. 7, 225–246 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500091319.

89.

Arnstein, S.R.: A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35, 216–224 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

90.

Bang, H.P.: ‘Yes we can’: identity politics and project politics for a late-modern world. Urban research & practice. 2, 117–137 (2009).

91.

Bang, H.P., Sorensen, E.: The everyday maker: a new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 21, 324–341 (1999).

92.

Davies, J.S.: The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis. Public Administration. 80, 301–322 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00305.

93.

Davies, J.S.: The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion. Political Studies. 55, 779–800 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00677.x.

94.

Dwyer, P.: Making sense of social citizenship: some user views on welfare rights and responsibilities. Critical Social Policy. 22, 273–299 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183020220020601.

95.

Hastak, Manoj: The Role of Consumer Surveys in Public Policy Decision Making. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 20, (2001).

96.

Johnson, C., Osborne, S.P.: Local Strategic Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal, and the Limits to Co-governance. Public Money and Management. 23, 147–154 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00362.

97.

Nancarrow, C., Evans, M., Pallister, J.: Polls apart! Political, research and ethical lessons from UK pressure groups’ use of opinion polls. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 8, 181–193 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.211.

98.

Prabhakar, R.: Commercialisation or Citizenship? Politics. 24, 215–220 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2004.00222.x.

99.

Stolle, D., Hooghe, M.: Consumers as political participants? Shifts in political action repetoires in Western societies. In: Politics, products, and markets: exploring political consumerism past and present. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. (2003).

100.

Roberts, N.: Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. The American Review of Public Administration. 34, 315–353 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288.

101.

Davis Smith, J.: ‘The Inflatable Log’: volunteering, the state and democracy. (2001).

102.

Alford, J.: Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce?: Toward a Contingency Theory. Administration & Society. 34, 32–56 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702034001004.

103.

Arnstein, S.R.: A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35, 216–224 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

104.

Bovaird, T.: Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review. 67, 846–860 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.

105.

Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V.: Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public Management Review. 8, 493–501 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022874.

106.

Davies, J.S.: The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion. Political Studies. 55, 779–800 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00677.x.

107.

Johnson, C., Osborne, S.P.: Local Strategic Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal, and the Limits to Co-governance. Public Money and Management. 23, 147–154 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00362.

108.

Mitlin, D.: With and beyond the state -- co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization. 20, 339–360 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247808096117.

109.

Pestoff, V.: Citizens and co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review. 8, 503–519 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022882.

110.

Prentice, S.: Childcare, co-production and the third sector in Canada. Public Management Review. 8, 521–536 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022890.

111.

Johnson, C., Osborne, S.P.: Local Strategic Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal, and the Limits to Co-governance. Public Money and Management. 23, 147–154 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00362.

112.

Mitlin, D.: With and beyond the state -- co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization. 20, 339–360 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247808096117.

113.

Allen, Barbara Ann: BRIDGING THE DIVIDE - COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: ARE THERE LESSONS FOR HEALTH CARE COMMISSIONING IN ENGLAND? Journal of Public Procurement. 9, 79–108 (2009).

114.

Aritua, B., Smith, N.J., Bower, D.: What risks are common to or amplified in programmes: Evidence from UK public sector infrastructure schemes. International Journal of Project Management. 29, 303–312 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.04.004.

115.

Bartlett, W.: Quasi‐markets and contracts: A markets and hierarchies perspective on NHS reform. Public money & management. 11, 53–61 (1991).

116.

Baxter, K., Weiss, M., Le Grand, J.: The dynamics of commissioning across organisational and clinical boundaries. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 22, 111–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260810876295.

117.

Bovaird, T.: Public–Private Partnerships: from Contested Concepts to Prevalent Practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 70, 199–215 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852304044250.

118.

Bovaird, T.: Developing New Forms of Partnership With the ‘Market’ in the Procurement of Public Services. Public Administration. 84, 81–102 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2006.00494.x.

119.

Boyne, G.A.: Competitive Tendering In Local Government: A Review Of Theory And Evidence. Public Administration. 76, 695–712 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00132.

120.

Bradley, S., Taylor, J.: The Effect of the Quasi-market on the Efficiency-equity Trade-off in the Secondary School Sector. Bulletin of Economic Research. 54, 295–314 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8586.00154.

121.

Bradley, S., Taylor, J.: Diversity, Choice and the Quasi-market: An Empirical Analysis of Secondary Education Policy in England*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 72, 1–26 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00572.x.

122.

Chalkley, M.: Competition in NHS quasi-markets. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 12, 89–99 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/12.4.89.

123.

Dopson, S., Locock, L.: The Commissioning Process in the NHS: The theory and application. Public Management Review. 4, 209–229 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670210130552.

124.

Fischbacher, M., Beaumont, P.B.: PFI, Public—Private Partnerships and the Neglected Importance of Process: Stakeholders and the Employment Dimension. Public Money and Management. 23, 171–176 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00365.

125.

Gibbons, Stephen: CHOICE, COMPETITION, AND PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT. Journal of the European Economic Association. 6, (2008).

126.

Gray, K.E., Ghosh, D.: An empirical analysis of the purchaser‐provider relationship in the NHS internal market. Journal of Management in Medicine. 14, 57–68 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1108/02689230010340561.

127.

Ham, C.: World class commissioning: a health policy chimera? Journal of health services policy research. 13, 116–121 (2008).

128.

Hoxley, M.: Purchasing UK public sector property and construction professional services: competition v quality. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 7, 133–139 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00026-5.

129.

KNAPP, M., HARDY, B., FORDER, J.: Commissioning for Quality: Ten Years of Social Care Markets in England. Journal of Social Policy. 30, (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279401006225.

130.

Lunt, Neil: Economic discourse and the market: The case of community care. Public Administration. 74,.

131.

Matosevic, T., Knapp, M., Le Grand, J.: Motivation and Commissioning: Perceived and Expressed Motivations of Care Home Providers. Social Policy & Administration. 42, 228–247 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00594.x.

132.

Murray, J.G.: Towards a common understanding of the differences between purchasing, procurement and commissioning in the UK public sector. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 15, 198–202 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2009.03.003.

133.

Petsoulas, C., Allen, P., Hughes, D., Vincent-Jones, P., Roberts, J.: The use of standard contracts in the English National Health Service: A case study analysis. Social Science & Medicine. 73, 185–192 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.021.

134.

Wade, E.: Commissioning reform in the NHS: will he who pays the piper ever really call the tune? Clinical Medicine. 11, 35–39 (2011). https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.11-1-35.

135.

Williams, I., Bovaird, T., Brown, H., Allen, K., Dickinson, H., Kennedy, J., Glasby, J.: Designing whole-systems commissioning: Lessons from the English experience. Journal of care services management. 6, 83–92 (2012).

136.

Williams, I., Bovaird, T., Brown, H., Allen, K., Dickinson, H., Kennedy, J., Glasby, J.: Designing whole-systems commissioning: Lessons from the English experience. Journal of care services management. 6, 83–92 (2012).