Knowledge, Technology & Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 38–51 | Cite as

Harmonizing competing rationalities in evaluating governance

  • M. L. Bemelmans-Videc
  • H. J. M. Fenger
Articles

Abstract

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) investigate the regularity (conformity to legislation) and performance (economy, efficiency, and effectiveness) of central government policies and administration through the instrument of accountability. Both types of audit have their own research process and set of standards. This article deals with the question of whether this distinction inhibits a proper appraisal of policy and administration and investigates the possibilities for SAIs to attain more integrated assessment procedures. This question is of vital importance, not only to SAIs but to any controlling and inspecting body, whether political or administrative.

Keywords

Good Governance Financial Management Knowledge Integration Audit Standard Performance Audit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Algemene Rekenkamer (Court of Audit). (1994). Nota onderzoeksbeleid financieel beheer, (Memorandum on the Research Policy of Financial Management). Den Haag.Google Scholar
  2. Algemene Rekenkamer (1994a). Nota codificatie doelmatigheidsonderzoek Algemene Rekenkamer, (Memorandum on the Codification of Performance Audits). Den Haag.Google Scholar
  3. Algemene Rekenkamer (1995). Handleiding Rechtmatigheidsonderzoek, (Manual on Regularity Audits Research), Den Haag.Google Scholar
  4. Algemene Rekenkamer (1996). Nota codificatie rechtmatigheidsonderzoek Algemene Rekenkamer, (Memorandum on the Codification of Regularity Audits), Den Haag.Google Scholar
  5. Algemene Rekenkamer (1996a). Strategie-werkgroep Normen, methodieken en uitspraken, Normstelling; interne discussienota; (Strategy Workgroup on Standards, Methods and Judgements), Den Haag.Google Scholar
  6. Barzelay, M. (1996). Performance Auditing and the New Public Management; Changing Roles and Strategies of Central Audit Institutions. In Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government. (pp. 15–56). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  7. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. (1993). Bekwamen in besturen. Over disciplines en dilemma’s in de bestuurlijke oordeelsvorming, (Administrative Competence: On Discipline and Dilemmas in Administrative Judgement Formation). Nijmegen University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. (1994). De beleidsevaluatie bij centrale overheden: Ontwikkelingen in Europa, de Verenigde Staten en Canada (Policy Evaluation in Central Governments; Developments in Europe, the U.S.A. and Canada). Beleidswetenschap, 4, 327–348.Google Scholar
  9. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. (1998). De Algemene Rekenkamer: controlenormen en -stijlen in een veranderende bestuurlijke context, (The Court of Audit; Audit Standards and Styles in a Changing Administrative Context). In: N.J.H. Huls e.a. (eds.), Omgaan met de onderhandelende overheid; Rechtsstaat, onderhandelend bestuur en controle (pp. 89–117). Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Braam, A. van. (1998). Filosofie van de bestuurswetenschappen (Philosophy of Administrative Science), Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  11. Bressers, J.Th.A. (1984). De accountant op weg naar de beleidsevaluatie: el dorado of mijnenveld? (The Accountant on the Path to Policy Evaluation: El Dorado or Minefield?). In: De Accountant, 1, (5).Google Scholar
  12. Chelimsky, E. (1991). Comparing and Contrasting Auditing and Evaluation: Some Notes on their Relationship. In: Friedberg, A., e.a., (eds.), State Audit and Accountability. A Book of Readings, Jerusalem: State Audit Office.Google Scholar
  13. Chelimsky, E. and W.R. Shadish (eds.). (1997). Evaluation for the 21st Century; A Handbook. Thousands Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. European Communities Court of Auditors. (1998). Implementing Guidelines for the INTOSAI Auditing Standards, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  15. European Communities Court of Auditors (1998). Audit Manual. Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  16. Fenger, H.J.M. (1996). Naar een integrale controletheorie voor de Algemene Rekenkamer, (Toward an Integrated Audit Theory for the Court of Audit Office), doctoraalscriptie (Master’s Thesis), Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, F. (1982). Politics, Values and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology, Boulder, Col.: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Frey, B. and Serna, A. (1994). Eine politisch-ökonomische Betrachtung des Rechnungshofs (A Political and Economic Reflection on the Court of Audit). Finanzarchiv, Vol. 48, 244–270.Google Scholar
  19. General Accounting Office. (1994)/The Comptroller General of the United States. Government Auditing Standards; 1994 Revision, Washington DC: US-GAO.Google Scholar
  20. General Accounting Office, The Results Act: Assessment of the Government-wide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999, GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-159, Sept. 8, 1998. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  21. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans; GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228. Sept. 8, 1998. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, L.W. (1998). Disciplinary Breadth and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Production. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy. 1&2, 4–15.Google Scholar
  23. Harmon, M.M. (1995). Responsibility as Paradox; A Critique of Rational Discourse on Government. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Koningsveld, H. (1980). Het verschijnsel wetenschap. Een inleiding tot de wetenschapsfilosofie, (The Phenomenon of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science), Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  25. Leeuw, F.L. (1992). Performance Auditing and Policy Evaluation: Discussing Similarities and Dissimilarities, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 7 (1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  26. Leeuw, F.L. (1996). Performance Auditing, New Public Management and Performance Improvement: Questions and Answers. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leeuw, F.L. (1998). Doelmatigheidsonderzoek van de Rekenkamer als regelgeleide organisatiekunde met een rechtssociologisch tintje? (Performance Audit by the Court of Audit as rule-bound organization science with a judicial-sociological flavour?). Tijdchrift voor de sociaal-wetenschappelijke bestudering van het recht, (Magazine for the Social-Scientific Study of Law). 2, 35–69.Google Scholar
  28. National Audit Office. (1996). State Audit in the European Union, London: NAO.Google Scholar
  29. Pollitt, C. and H. Summa. (1997). Reflexive Watchdogs? How Supreme Audit Institutions account for themselves. Public Administration. 75 (3), 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Power, M. (1994). The Audit Explosion, London.Google Scholar
  31. Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rohr, J.A. (1989). Ethics for Bureaucrats; an Essay on Law and Values. New York: Marcel Decker.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenbloom, D.H. (1983). Public Administration Theory and the Separation of Powers. Public Administration Review, 3, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rutgers, M.R. (1993). Tussen fragmentatie en integratie. De bestuurskunde als kennisintegrerende wetenschap, (Between Fragmentation and Integration: Administrative Science as Knowledge Integrating Science). Delft: Eburon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Self, P. (1976). Administrative theories and politics; an enquiry into the structure and processes of modern government. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. Self, P. (1993). Government by the market? The politics of public choice. Basingstoke/London.Google Scholar
  37. Vries, G. de. (1985). De ontwikkeling van wetenschap. Een inleiding in de wetenschapsfilosofie, (The Evolution of Science: An Introduction to the Science of Philosophy). Goningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  38. Zandvoort, H. (1986). Milieukunde en interdisciplinariteit, (Environmental Science and Interdisciplinarity). Kennis en Methode, (Knowledge and Method), X, (3), 230–251.Google Scholar
  39. Zandvoort, H. (1989). De ontwikkeling van theorieën: onderzoeksprogramma’s, (The Evolution of Theories: Research Programs), In Korthals, M. (red.), Wetenschapsleer. Filosofisch en maatschappelijk perspectief op de natuur- en sociale wetenschappen, (The Study of Science: A Philosophical and Societal Perspective on the Natural and Social Sciences), Meppel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Bemelmans-Videc
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. J. M. Fenger
    • 3
  1. 1.the Catholic University of NijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.the Netherlands Court of AuditThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Administrative and Organizational Sciencesthe Catholic University of NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations