4 CSR PSAs
5.2 DCLG
1 CSR2007 DCLG DSO
DCLG
CSR2007 DCLG DSO 5-4 6
2 DSO
a DSO1
2009 123 2007 CSR DSO
DSO
DSO1 5-5
DSO1 6
DSO1
1 2
3 3
122 40
123 Department of Communities and Local Government, Annual Report 2009, 2009a.
2008.2009
DSO PSAs
4
5 6 D
7 VFM
5-4 DCLG CSR2007 DSO
HM Treasury(2007), op.cit. pp.217-218
1 CSR
2009 7 2008
DSO1 7
1
2009 12 Autumn Performance Report 2009
2008
2009 4 6 2008
DSO1
DSO2
DSO3
DSO4
DSO5 −
DSO6
124
2010 7 2009 4 12
CSR 2011 DSO PSAs
5-5 DCLG DSO1
DSO 1
1.1
SSI 1.2
SSD 1.3 3
÷
1.4
1.5
4 1 3
4
1.6 D
5
124 Department of Communities and Local Government, Autumn Performance Report 2009, 2009b, p.8.
1.7 VFM
3 VFM
2008.09 100
6 3
DSO1.1
SSI 2008.09
2009 7 2008 4 12 81
2008.09 2009 7
÷
DCLG(2009a), op.cit., p.49
b DSO2
DSO2
DSO1
DSO2 PSA20 −
5-6
DSO PSAs
PSAs
5-6 CSR2007 DCLG DSO PSA20
PSA20 DSO
1 2.1
2 2.2 ÷
÷
3 2.3
4 2.4
5 2.5
6 PPS3 5.2
DCLG(2009a), op.cit., pp.75-78
c DSO3
DSO3
9 7
1 3.1 PSA22
125
1 3.3
15 2009 1 2005
1 0.74 0.76 ÷ 2007 2
126
2009 2
125 Ibid, pp.100-101.
126 Ibid, p.102.
127
d DSO4
DSO4 PSA21
5-7
128
5-7 PSA21 DSO4
PSA21 DSO4
1 4.1
2 4.2
3 4.3
4
5 6
4.4
4.5
DCLG(2009a), op.cit., pp.118-120
DSO 4.1 4.2 4,3 4.5 2009 4-6
127 Department of Communities and Local Government, Autumn Performance Report 2009, 2009b, p.24.
128 DCLG(2009a), op.cit., pp.118-120.
4.4
129
e DSO5
DSO5 −
6 DSO
130
8 3 5.4
5.5
5.6 CSR
131
f DSO6
DSO6
4 3 6.1 6.2 6.3
2007-08 6.4
132
6.1 6.3 6.4
133
129 DCLG(2009b), op.cit., p.30.
130 DCLG(2009a), op.cit., pp.129-132.
131 DCLG(2009b), op.cit., pp.35-36.
132 DCLG(2009a), op.cit., pp.144-147.
133 DCLG(2009b), op.cit., pp.41-43.
DCLG
6
6−1
134
revenue budget capital budget
135
5-8
134 ÷
Jones, R., Pendlebury,M., PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING 5th edition, 2000, p.76.
135 Line-item budgeting
1
5-8
3 31
Jones, R., Pendlebury,M.(2000) p.61
÷ 5-9
5-9
Jones, R., Pendlebury,M.(2000) p.62
− Capital Programme
−
3 1
2 3
5-10
6
2 3
5-10
6
7 1
7 5
9 1
9 1
9 24
10 8
10 15 29
11 12
11 17
12 17
1
1 5
1 7 − −
1 10 21
1 24 26
1 31
1 31
2 21
2 25
3 3
3 6
Jones, R., Pendlebury,M.(2000) p.68
6−2
1
DCLG 2010.2011
5-11
5-11
28 3 2 20 13 16 11 8
Department of Communities and Local Government, Local Government Financial Statistics England, No22, 2012, p33
27
2
2010.11
136 5-12
5-12
100 £ 65,534 80,330 145,864
44.9 55.1 100.0
DCLG(2012) p.28
136 24 964,186
230,176 23.9
700,160 32.9
24 2013
6−3
1 Watford Borough Council
Watford Borough Council − 137 8
2012 11
138
÷
÷ — Corporate Plan
2012/13
÷ 6 139
1 2 3
4 −
5 6 7
Watford Borough Council
137 −
138 Partnerships and Performance Section
Head 1
139 Watford Borough Council, Corporate Plan 2012-2016 INVESTING IN OUR TOWN, 2012, p.13.
2 Mole Valley District Council
Mole Valley District Council Watford
Borough Council 140
Mole Valley District Council Audit
Commission CPA CAA141
7
1
140 1
141 CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment
2002
CAA 2009 Comprehensive
Area Assessment 2011
2011 97.100
2012 10 29
MoleValley District Council
1
2012 11
2
Watford Borough
Council
Partnerships and Performance Section Head
1
1
5 8
2
142
2014
142
2
143
1 2
2
3
3−1
Performance Indicator 2014
144
3−2
Ammons
Ammons ÷ 9 145
Valid
Reliable
143 16
2014 141
144 180
145 Ammons, D.N., “Performance Measurement in Local Government” Ammons, D.N., ed, Accountability for Performance Measurement and Monitoring in Local Government, 1995, pp.21-22.
Understandable
Timely
Resistant to perverse behavior
beat the system Q
Comprehensive
Nonredundant
Sensitive to data collection cost
Focused on controllable facets of performance
Hatry
Hatry ÷ 146147
Relevance
Importance
146 Hatry, H.P., PERFROMANCE MEASURMENT Getting Results, THE UEBAN INSTITUTE PRESS, 1999, p58.
÷
2004
147
Understandability
Program influence or control over the outcome
Feasibility Cost of collecting the indicator data
Uniqueness
Manipulability
Comprehensiveness
2014 Ammons Hatry
148
6-1
148 200
6-1
200
3 6-2
149 3
150
149
150
6-2
Ammons Hatry
Ammons, op cit., Hatry, op cit.,
3−3
2
3 3
3 3
― 3
―
1
1
3 Basis of Accounting
151 3
6-3 4
151
6-3
3
3
3
3
3
7 2005 19 8
6-3
― ― ―
152
―
152 Jones, R., Pendlebury, M., PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING Sixth Edition, 2010, p.27.
1991
1998 1999 2005 E
―
2
―
153
6-4
―
― 154
153 ABC ABM 1998
36 37
154
6-4
7 8
155
155 1999 46 47
A
a
B
b
5
156 157
2009
3 158
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
159 ―
―
―
―
3 3
156 3
157 3
2000 5
158 3 2009
2 39
159
3
Activity Based Costing: ABC
3 38 2008
39 55
―
3−4
―
― 160 ―
―
4
3
161
― — ―
4−1
ICMA International City/County Management Association
Comparative Performance
160 2009 72 73
161 236
Measurement Program 1994 162 Ammons
163
CPR
6
1989 D C
4.8 D C 10
6-5 6
3 5
Ammons
164
6-5
0.80 4.00 4.80
1.00 5.00 6.00
162 2003
3 ― 2005
163 Ammons, D.N., MUNICIPAL BENCHMARKS SECOND EDITION, 2001, pp.100-108.
164 Ibid., p.101.
1.00 5.00 6.00
1.00 5.00 6.00
1.50 4.70 6.20
1.14 5.26 6.40
1.00 5.50 6.50
0.50 6.00 6.50
0.60 6.00 6.60
1.00 6.00 7.00
1.00 6.00 7.00
1.00 6.00 7.00
1.00 6.30 7.30
1.00 6.50 7.50
1.00 6.70 7.70
1.00 7.00 8.00
0.70 7.18 8.04
1.30 7.00 8.30
1.50 7.00 8.50
D C 3.10 6.90 10.00
7 Ammons, D.N.(2001) p.102 8
4−2
—
5 ―
― 2
―
― — ―
― 2
― 6-6
― 2
6-6
7 8
1
―
4−1
4-1
―
―
2
― 166
3 2
165 2013 ―
― ―
2013 19
166 2012 3
3 20 2 2012
143
(2007) Ⅰ (Presentational) Ⅰ
(Performance-informed budgeting) Ⅰ (Direct/formula performance budgeting) 3
167 2007
E
4 —
―
3
3
―
―
―
167 OECD, op.cit., pp.20-22. 22-25
―
― Ⅰ
4 —
— ―
4−1 ― —
―
― Ⅰ Ⅰ
―
― 7-1
7-1 Ⅰ Ⅰ ―
168 5
3
7-1
7 8
7 ― 3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
3 8
― ― 7-2
3 ―
7-2
7 8
7 3 3 7-1 3 3
3 3 3 3
8
― ―
― ―
58 % 4 2 1 7 4 4 2 1 7 4
0. 3 0. 3
%
0. 0.
% %
3 % 3
%
% %
6 9 6 9
7-3
7-3
7 8
4−2
―
― ―
― —
―
―
169
―
3 3
―
― 3 ―
3
3 3 3
―
3 3
―
3 ―
3
― 3
― 3
3
―
― 3
170
―
―
―
― ―
3 ―
5
―
—
—
3 3E 3
2 7-4
2012 3
159 )
7-4
7 8
7-4
―
6
6−1 5
―
―
―
2 7-5
7-5
7 8
6−2
145 113 78
―
99 68
73 73.7
25 25.3 1
7-6
7-6
25 0 73 1
25.3 0 73.7 1.0
7 8
―
81
16 7-7
7-7 171
0 17 17
4 81 85
4 98 102
7 8
7-7 7-8
171 7-7
3 7-6
7-8 172
0 6 6
0 20 20
0 26 26
0 11 11
4 60 64
4 71 75
7 8
6−3
173
6 3 1
―
―
―
―
172 7-8 3 1 7-7
173 2013 5 7 1
1 1
6 3 2
― ―
6 3 3
3
― ― 3
1
7
—
7 8
7 8
7 8
7 8
― ― ― ―
― ―
―
― ―
―
― ―
―
7 8
―
1
―
―
2014 12
8-1 1
2 3 4
―
5 6 7
8-1
7 8
1−1 1
1−2
2 3 3
2
3―
1−3 ―
3 4 ―
―
― ―
3 ―
3―
―
2
1−4 5
1−5
6 ―
― ― ―
―
7
―
― ―
2 3
1−6
― 5
8-2 3 5
1 2
1 2 1
1 2
3 7
8-2
7 8
1 3 3
2 3
3
3 3
3
4 3
3
5 3
3
2 —
1
1980
2
3 ―
4 ― ―
42
5
2 ―
6 7
99
8-3
8-3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
― ―
―
7 8
7 8
3 13
3
2
1
3 5
4 23
3
1 2
1
5 33
3
2 ―
5
―
E
3 ―
―
6 43
3
7
― ― 4
― ―
―
―
7 53
3
6 ― ―
―
1 3
19
26 4
―
8
5 5
―
7
―
E
1
Ammons, D.N., MUNICIPAL BENCHMARKS Assesing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards, Sage Publications Inc., 2001.
Ammons, D.N., “Performance Measurement in Local Government”, Ammons, D.N., ed, Accountability for Performance Measurement and Monitoring in Local Government, ICMA, 1995.
Bouckaert, G., Dooren,W.V., “Performance measurement and management in public sector organizations”, Bovaird, T., Loffler, E., PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE Second edition, Routledge, 2009.
CIPFA, GUIDE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FULLY REVISED SECOND EDITION, 2006.
Department of Communities and Local Government, Local Government Financial Statistics England, 2012.
Department of Communities and Local Government, Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11, 2011.
Department of Communities and Local Government, Core Financial and Performance Tables 2009-2010, 2010.
Department of Communities and Local Government, Annual Report 2009, 2009.
Department of Communities and Local Government, Autumn Performance Report 2009, 2009.
General Accounting Office. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION Definition and Relationships. GAO, 1998.
Goetz, B.E., Management Planning Control, Managerial Approch to Industrial Accounting, BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS PUBLICATIONS, 1949
Hatry, H.P., PERFROMANCE MEASURMENT Getting Results, THE UEBAN
INSTITUTE PRESS, 1999. ―
, 2004
HM Treasury, Budget 2008 Stability and opportunity: Building a strong, sustainable future, 2008.
HM Treasury, Meeting the aspirations of the British people 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review, 2007.
HM Treasury, Managing Resources Full Implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, 2001.
HM Treasury. Public Services for the Future:Modernisation,Reform,Accountability Comprehensive Spending Review:Public Service Agreements 1999-2002. HM Treasury, 1998.
HM Treasury, Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform Comprehensive Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 1999-2002 , 1998.
http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/csr/4011.htm 2012 9 21
HM Treasury, Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability Comprehensive Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 1999 2000, 1998.
HM Treasury. Public Services for the Future:Modernisation,Reform,Accountability Comprehensive Spending Review:Public Service Agreements 1999-2002. HM Treasury, 1998.
Jones, R., Pendlebury, M.,PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING Sixth Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Pearson Education, 2010.
Kelly, Janet M, and William C Rivenbark. Performance Budgeting for State and Local Government 2nd edition. M.E.Sharpe, 2011.
National Audit Office, SURVEY REPORT PSA Targets: Performance Information, 2006.
OECD, Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries, OECDpublishing, 2007.
Schick, Allen. “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform.” Edited by Blackwell Publishing. Public Administration Review Vol.26, No.4, 1966, pp.243-258.
Smith, P., Performance Budgeting in England: Public Service Agreements , Performance Budgeting Linking Funding and Results, edited by RobinsonMarc, International Monetary Fund, 2007.
Watford Borough Council, Corporate Plan 2012-2016 INVESTING IN OUR TOWN,
2012.
2
3 No.46 2012
151 165
3 Ⅰ RMAF
UFJ Institute Report Vol.8 No.2 2003 76-92
― 1999
3 2009 2
2009 33 45
― 2008
2006
2005
3 ― CSR
PSAs No.93 2001 30 34
― NTT 1998
―
1999
2000
3 2004 2004
1982 1982
3 2004 2004
3 ― 40
2004
3 ―
2009
2005
3PDCA
http://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/soumu/09200464.html 2014 11 24
3 ―
http://www.city.kyoto.jp/soumu/gyokaku/hyouka/index.html (2012 8 3 3
http://www.pref.gunma.jp/07/a0700026.html 2014 11 24 1984
1972 1999
2 1997
1997
3 434
2013 445 473
2011 2011
3
2001
3 25 ―
http://www.city.sagamihara.kanagawa.jp/seido/gyoseihyouka/028405.html 2014 11 24
3
15 2 2014 15
27
3
Comprehensive Spending Review: CSR (Public Service Agreements: PSAs)
12 2013 77 96
3 ―
6 2012 73 90
1998
3 ―
http://www.city.sapporo.jp/somu/hyoka/ 2014 2 12
3 ―
http://www.pref.shizuoka.jp/soumu/so-030a/2-1.html 2014 11 24
― 1999
2007
3 2014
3 24 2013
3 ― 22 10 1 2011
7 1 2003
―
2011
3 No110 2005 25-55
3 No.111 2005
20-50
3 No.112 2005
43-62 3
8 NTT 2003
― 16 2014
3 ―
http://www.city.chiba.jp/sogoseisaku/sogoseisaku/gyosei/jimuhyouka_title.html
2012 7 4 )
3
http://www.pref.tottori.lg.jp/147412.htm 2014 11 24
3 ―
http://www.pref.nagasaki.jp/sehyo/h25/what/what.html 2014 11 24
3 26
https://www.pref.nagano.lg.jp/gyokaku/kensei/soshiki/jigyokaizen/h25hyoka/jigyot enken.html 2014 7 10
3 ― PSA
― ―
2009 55 73 3 ―
http://www.city.niigata.jp/info/gyokei/hyoka/gyoseihyoka/index.htm (2012 6 4 )
3 JICPA 1
1998
3 21 3
2014
2011
3 ―
http://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/kikaku/gyouseihyouka/gyouseihyouka/top.htm (2012 1 21 )
3 1
UFJ Institute Report Vol.9 No.2 2004 65-79
3 ―
http://www.city.fukuoka.lg.jp/shisei/jigyou-torikumi/gyouseihyouka/index.html 2014 11 24
3 20
2 2012 141-162
3 38 2008
39 55
3 19 1999 49 60
2009