Performance Auditing in the Public Sector: Reconceptualising the Task

Performance auditing (PA) is a prominent feature of public administration in many countries and is, today, often characterised through words such as efficiency, effectiveness and economy. The PA literature, however, considers a far wider variety of characteristics to be relevant and, therefore, a broader definition to be appropriate. This paper reviews the history of definitions of PA and concludes that it has thus far been defined in ways that lack clarity and leave definitional difficulties unresolved. The paper adopts a heuristic approach in examining elements making up past PA definitions and concludes that it is time to reconceptualise PA. Hence a new definitional framework for PA is proposed which rejects the so-called three Es construct and instead offers the five elements of independence, authorisation, discovery, synthesis and publication. This framework, it is argued, is stronger than any previous definitions, relevant to both the public and private sectors and also helpful in interpreting the place of many alternatives to PA such as investigative journalism, open book policies, whistleblower legislation and Gateway Reviews.

[1]  M. Barzelay.  Central Audit Institutions and Performance Auditing: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Strategies in the OECD , 1997 .

[2]  Peter Skærbæk,et al.  PERFORMANCE AUDITING AND THE MODERNISATION OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR , 2007 .

[3]  Mark Toma.  Will bounty-hunting revenue agents increase enforcement? , 1989 .

[4]  B. Frey.  Supreme auditing institutions: A politico-economic analysis , 1994 .

[5]  Lois Quam,et al.  The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification , 1998 .

[6]  I. Lapsley,et al.  Modernization versus problematization: value-for-money audit in public services , 2000 .

[7]  L. English.  Performance Audit of Australian Public Private Partnerships: Legitimising Government Policies or Providing Independent Oversight? , 2007 .

[8]  L. Parker,et al.  The Australian public sector in the 1990s: New accountability regimes in motion , 1993 .

[9]  J. Keen.  On The Nature Of Audit Judgements: The Case Of Value For Money Studies , 1999 .

[10]  G. Previts,et al.  The origins of value‐for‐money auditing: the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad: 1827‐1830 , 2003 .

[11]  S. Sutherland.  “Biggest Scandal in Canadian History": HRDC Audit Starts Probity War , 2003 .

[12]  Dale L. Flesher,et al.  The roots of operational (value-for-money) auditing in English-speaking nations , 2002 .

[13]  Michael Barzelay,et al.  Performance auditing and the new public management: changing roles and strategies of central audit institutions , 1996 .

[14]  C. Hood,et al.  The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox? , 2004 .

[15]  Frans L. Leeuw,et al.  Auditing and evaluation: Bridging a gap, worlds to meet? , 1996 .

[16]  L. Parker,et al.  PERFORMANCE AUDITING: THE JURISDICTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN AUDITOR GENERAL — DE JURE OR DE FACTO? , 1991 .

[17]  Carlos Alberto Sampaio de Freitas,et al.  Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries , 2001 .

[18]  Irvine Lapsley,et al.  The NPM Agenda: Back to the Future , 2008 .

[19]  L. Parker,et al.  A Quarter of a Century of Performance Auditing in the Australian Federal Public Sector: A Malleable Masque , 1999 .

[20]  José Jurado-Sánchez.  Mechanisms for controlling expenditure in the Spanish Royal Household, c.1561-c.18081 , 2002 .

[21]  Michael Chatfield.  A history of accounting thought , 1977 .

[22]  N. Adams.  EFFICIENCY AUDITING IN THE AUSTRALIAN AUDIT OFFICE , 1986 .

[23]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Performance audit and evaluation: Similar tools, different relationships? , 1996 .

[24]  W. Funnell.  Executive coercion and state audit: A processual analysis of the responses of the Australian audit office to the dilemmas of efficiency auditing1978‐84 , 1998 .

[25]  Ashley Burrowes,et al.  The Swedish management audit: a precedent for performance and value for money audits , 2000 .

[26]  Tobias Høygaard Lindeberg,et al.  The Ambiguous Identity of Auditing , 2007 .

[27]  Mark Bovens,et al.  Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability. A Conceptual Framework. , 2006 .

[28]  C. Hood.  A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .

[29]  J. Lonsdale.  Developments in Value-For-Money Audit Methods: Impacts and Implications , 2000 .

[30]  A. Goetz,et al.  Hybrid Forms Of Accountability: Citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India , 2001 .

[31]  D J Hunter,et al.  The audit society. , 1997, Journal of management in medicine.

[32]  M. Power.  The Audit Society — Second Thoughts , 2000 .

[33]  K. Jacobs.  VALUE FOR MONEY AUDITING IN NEW ZEALAND: COMPETING FOR CONTROL IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR , 1998 .

[34]  D. McGee.  The overseers : public accounts committees and public spending , 2002 .

[35]  M. Power.  The Audit Explosion , 1994 .

[36]  Michael Power,et al.  Evaluating the Audit Explosion , 2003 .

[37]  A. C. Littleton,et al.  An introduction to corporate accounting standards , 1940 .

[38]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Reflexive Watchdogs? How Supreme Audit Institutions Account for Themselves , 1997 .

[39]  M. Gomes.  Performance Audit Argument: a Public Management Policy Analysis about Supreme Audit Institutions Role 1 , 2001 .

[40]  The Institutions and Economic Development in the OECD , 2007 .

[41]  Kiyoshi Yamamoto,et al.  PERFORMANCE AUDITING IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN , 1989 .

[42]  A. Peacock,et al.  The Accountability And Audit Of Governments , 1966 .

[43]  Jeff Everett,et al.  THE POLITICS OF COMPREHENSIVE AUDITING IN FIELDS OF HIGH OUTCOME AND CAUSE UNCERTAINTY , 2003 .

[44]  William R. Shadish,et al.  Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook. , 1997 .

[45]  Dwight F. Davis.  Do You Want a Performance Audit or a Program Evaluation , 1990 .