Abstract
AbstractPerformance management and risk management in the public sector have undergone significant improvements; however, few empirical studies have conceptualised the integration of performance management and risk management. This study aimed to understand why it fails in practice and turns into disintegration. To do this, we analyse the role of different actors involved in the integration between performance management and risk management. We have conducted our analysis at the organisational level in a regional context, adopting two different research methods, documentary analysis and collections of interviews. This paper contributes to the theoretical debate with interesting new insights about organisational practices in the public sector. In this research, we adopted the disintegration framework, broadly used as a research methodology in the ontological and social paradigm as reported (Täubig in Totale Institution Asyl, Juventa Verlag, Munich, 2009) for analysing the integration and disintegration between performance management and risk management. This approach presumes the collective engagement of researchers and practitioners, which can help bring to the surface the knowledge embedded in practice and transform it into actionable knowledge to produce practice changes. This study contributes to the public accounting literature by providing empirical evidence about organisational practices in the public sector. It offers a practical and general understanding of performance management and risk management practices functioning in public government. It shows the fundamental role played by key actors when performance management and risk management practices are implemented. This empirical research also has practical implications, creating the basis for the implementation of an integrated system of performance management and risk management in regional governments.
Funder
Università Parthenope di Napoli within the CRUI-CARE Agreement
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference66 articles.
1. Alkaraan, F. (2018). Public financial management reform: An ongoing journey towards good governance. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 16(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-08-2017-0075
2. Andersen, S. C. (2008). The impact of public management reforms on student performance in Danish schools. Public Administration, 86(2), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00717.x
3. Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Palermo, T. (2017). The dynamics of (dis)integrated risk management: A comparative field study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 62(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.08.006
4. Autorità nazionale antocorruzione. (2019). Piano Nazionale Anticorruzione, Delibera n. 1064 del 13 novembre 2019 (https://www.anticorruzione.it/documents/91439/4c582909-32e4-2112-8c98-046a72082d4a)
5. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献