The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving public management
Abstract
Preface Thatcherism and Raynerism Management and Efficiency in Government Management Information and the Minister as Manager Centralize In Order To Decentralize Spend to Save Statisticians as Professionals in Government The Efficiency of the Efficiency Strategy Market Approaches to Public Management The Financial Management Initiative The Politics of Efficiency and Management of Change
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums
AUCOIN, P. (1990) · Governance · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1990.tb00111.x · Cited by 933
Public Management: Old and New
Lynn, Jr. (2006) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203964774 · Cited by 362
Revenue authorities: are they the right vehicle for improved tax administration?
Devas, N., Delay, S., & Hubbard, M. (2001) · Public Administration and Development · doi:10.1002/pad.174 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1988-09-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 26-0530-26-0530
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1529179612
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving public management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.26-0530
- The paper
- Improving public management. (1988). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.26-0530
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
