7. Conclusion
Postal oversight ensures the efficiency and integrity of postal programs, which may be accomplished with complementary postal watchdogs; however, it is best to avoid redundancies in oversight functions unless there is a compelling reason. Intended redundancies in oversight roles allow for checks and balances in the process. In countries with few oversight organizations, it is important to assure that there is adequate coverage of oversight functions. When designing comprehensive oversight programs, governments would want as many strengths contained in the oversight process as possible, exploiting the positive and mitigating the possible negative aspects of oversight. To be effective at facilitating continuous improvement via oversight, postal watchdogs need to be mindful of their role in the oversight process, demonstrate their value to the postal operator, and have mechanisms in place to improve the quality of their own programs.
Traditional oversight of government-owned postal monopolies is valuable. Anticipating competition in postal markets, governments may have prematurely moved toward a private sector model. We recommend that postal organizations reconsider and adopt some of the traditional best practices of postal watchdogs. In this way, governments can improve the affordability and quality of postal services, a goal everyone, especially economists, can embrace.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bryson, John M. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, Robert M. 2002. The Politics of Postal Transformation: Modernizing Postal Systems in the Electronic and Global World. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Cohen, Robert et al. Postal Regulation and Worksharing in the US. Washington, DC: n.p., 2004.
European Commission Directives on Community postal services.
General Accounting Office. 2002. Inspectors General: Office Consolidation and Related Issues U.S. GAO-02-575. Washington, DC: August.
General Accounting Office. 2003. Government Accounting Standards. Revised. GAO-03-673G. Washington, DC: June.
General Accounting Office. 2004. Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, DC: March 10.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. January 5, 1993.
Gruber, Amelia. 2004. “Daily Briefing Lawmakers call for five-year program reviews.” GovExec.com. February 24.
House Committee on Government Reform, To Modernize the Postal Laws of the United States: Hearings on H. R. 22, 106th Cong., 1st session, February 11 and March 4, 1999. The Postal Modernization Act of 1999.
House Committee on Government Reform, 25th Anniversary of the Inspector General Act of 1978: Where Do We Go From Here?: Hearings on P.L. 95-452, 108th Cong., October 8, 2003.
Inspector General Act of 1978. 5 USCA Appx § 1 (2001). § 1 Government Operations and Employees.
Johnson, Charles W. 2003. Parliamentarian, How Our Laws Are Made, U.S. House of Representatives, H. Doc. 108–93, p. 19.
Journal of Public Inquiry: A publication of the Inspectors General of the United States. Washington, DC.
Postal Service Office of Inspector General. 2002. Audit of the Postal Service’s Transformation Plan, OE-MA-03-001. Arlington, VA: October 29.
Postal Service Office of Inspector General. 2002. Audit of the Transformation Plan. Letter to the Governors, Arlington, VA: April 30.
Postal Service Office of Inspector General. 2002. Five-Year Strategic Plan: FY 2004–2008, Arlington, VA: September 30.
Postal Service Office of Inspector General. 2004. Summary of the Commission’s Recommendations, February 13.
Postal Service Transformation Plan. 2002. Washington, DC: April.
Postal Service Transformation Plan. 2003. Progress Report, Washington, DC: November.
Postal Services Commission-Postcomm / Consumer Council for Postal Services — Postwatch: Memorandum of Understanding. April 30, 2002.
President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service. Embracing the Future, Making the Tough Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service. Washington, DC: July 31, 2003.
Public Law 95-452, § 1, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1101, as amended. Inspector General Act of 1978.
Public Law 91-375, 39 U.S.C., The Postal Reorganization Act, August 12, 1970.
Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General: President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency/Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Washington, DC: October 2003.
Study of the Impact of Certain Aspects of the Application of the Directive 97/67/EC on the Postal Service.
UK Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 relating to Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) the statutory audit authority.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Kluwer, Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Williams, D.C., Sharkey, T.M. (2005). United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. In: Crew, M.A., Kleindorfer, P.R. (eds) Regulatory and Economic Challenges in the Postal and Delivery Sector. Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy, vol 48. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23637-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23637-6_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-7972-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-23637-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)