Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 816 Download : 1026

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to explore public financial management (PFM) through performance evaluation and cost systems, seeking to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of managing public funds. The study highlights the importance of integrating performance evaluation and cost systems to achieve optimal resource allocation and transparency in attaining societal objectives.


Research Design and Methodology: This research employs a qualitative approach through a literature review. The research process involves systematic searches of relevant literature, thematic analysis, and synthesis of findings from various studies. The focus is on the design, implementation, and impact of performance evaluation and cost systems in PFM and the challenges and opportunities encountered in their application.


Findings and Discussion: The findings indicate that integrating performance evaluation and cost systems can improve public financial management by providing more comprehensive information for decision-making. This integration enables governments to allocate resources more efficiently, identify areas for improvement, and enhance transparency and accountability in managing public funds. However, the study also identifies challenges related to data availability, organizational complexity, and cultural resistance to change.


Implications: This study has a practical impact on governments and policymakers in optimizing public financial management. Investment in data infrastructure, capacity-building, and change management strategies is necessary to overcome challenges in implementing integrated performance evaluation and cost systems. Furthermore, the study encourages further research to explore these integrated systems' long-term impact and sustainability in different contexts.

Keywords

Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Evaluation Cost Systems Resource Allocation Accountability Transparency

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Nurfadila, N. (2024). Enhancing Public Financial Management through Performance Evaluation and Cost Systems. Advances in Management & Financial Reporting, 2(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.60079/amfr.v2i1.264
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Allen, R., & Hemming, R. (2019). Fiscal risks: Sources, disclosure, and management. International Monetary Fund.
  2. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building capability by delivering results: The test and learn approach. Oxford University Press.
  3. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Zeitlin, A. (2013). Developing capability through learning networks. Oxford University Press.
  4. Askim, J., Kristoffersen, S., & Magnussen, J. (2020). Cost efficiency in Norwegian hospitals: A panel data analysis of the efficiency frontier. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1–12.
  5. Barzilai-Nahon, K., Makhortykh, M., & Barzilai, G. (2019). Bridging the divide in the digital age: An examination of ICT use patterns in seven world regions. The Information Society, 35(3), 168–185.
  6. Barzilai-Nahon, K., Nagar, R., & Mozes, M. (2019). Public administration and big data: A research agenda. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 841–852.
  7. Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2021). Performance budgeting: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 42–56.
  8. Bjarnason, S., & Mascia, D. (2019). The relationship between performance-based budgeting and government performance: The roles of vertical and horizontal alignment. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 649–661.
  9. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
  10. Boyne, G., Law, J., & Walker, R. (2002). The impact of performance information on the performance of public organizations: A research note. Public Administration, 80(2), 345–361.
  11. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.
  12. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the 'new public sector'. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.
  13. Bruijn, H. (2006). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 292–306.
  14. Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2021). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
  15. Cavill, S., Laycock, G., & Cutler, T. (2018). Outcome budgeting in practice: The experience of three Australian states. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 687–702.
  16. Dawes, S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2020). E-government and public sector modernization: Comparative perspectives. Springer.
  17. Evans, W. (1995). Performance measurement and public sector organizations: Current perspectives and future prospects. Financial Accountability & Management, 11(3), 207–228.
  18. Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. (2020). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press.
  19. Fischer, M., Kammerhofer, A., Richter, S., & Röglinger, M. (2020). Barriers to digital transformation: Toward a context-sensitive digital maturity framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 292–312.
  20. Giacomini, D., Guerrazzi, M., & Porcelli, F. (2020). Performance-based budgeting: The state of the art. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(3), 315–338.
  21. Guerreiro, M., Rodrigues, L., & Craig, R. (2019). Exploring lean management in the public sector: Empirical evidence from Portuguese local governments. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(5–6), 643–656.
  22. Gui-Diby, S. L. (2021). Public financial management and fiscal performance in Sub-Saharan Africa: An empirical analysis. Financial Accountability & Management, 37(1), 95–115.
  23. Guthrie, J., & English, L. (1999). Performance information and programme evaluation in the Australian public sector. Evaluation, 5(4), 415–441.
  24. Hansen, S. C., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2019). The role of interorganizational relationships in public sector performance measurement. Management Accounting Research, 42, 100395.
  25. Heinrich, C., Lynn, L., & Hill, C. (2019). Studying complex public management problems: A research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 167–183.
  26. Jacobs, K., & Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2009). Institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation systems in developing countries: A perspective on the state of the art. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(4), 225–263.
  27. Johnsen, Å. B., Monkerud, L. C., & Rønning, R. (2021). Public procurement, corruption, and rent-seeking: How close are the links? Public Administration, 99(1), 118–133.
  28. Lapsley, I. (2019). Accounting and the digital economy: The impact of cloud computing. Routledge.
  29. Marotta, S., Rocca, M., & Leoni, G. (2021). From narrative to numerical: Visual analytics in government open data. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102285.
  30. McKinney, J. B. (1986). Performance measurement: A tool for management control. National Productivity Review, 5(1), 65–78.
  31. Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105.
  32. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis - new public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.