Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ministries are increasingly subject to control, primarily by State Audit Institutions’. This control is assumed to contribute to improvement. Based on survey data from 353 civil servants in Norway this article analyses the ministries’ and agencies’ responses to the SAIs control. The analysis shows that civil servants in the ministries tend to be less positive to performance audit than civil servants in the agencies. Top executives, irrespective of administrative level, were more negative than middle managers and other public employees. In addition civil servants more exposed to performance audit were, in general, more negative towards it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alwardat, Y. A. (2010). External auditors and clients: An investigation of perceptions of value for money (VfM) audit practices in the UK public sector. PhD thesis, University of Westminster, Harrow Business School.

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Lonsdale, J., & Perrin, B. (2007). Making accountability work: Dilemmas for evaluation and for audit. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32(1987), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public administration (pp. 422–445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2007). New forms of accountability and EU-governance. Comparative European Politics, 5(1), 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (1993). The reforming organization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). Profesjonsmangfold, statsmodeller og beslutningsadferd. In B. S. Tranøy & Ø. Østerud (Eds.), Den fragmenterte staten. Reformer makt og styring. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: the relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006a). Agencification and regulatory reforms. In Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 8–49). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006b). Reformer og lederskap: Omstilling i den utøvende makt. Universitetsforlaget.

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: the Norwegian case. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Roness, P. G. (2002). Increasing parliamentary control of the executive? New instruments and emerging effects. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 8(1), 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Stigen, I. M. (2006). Performance management and public sector reform: the Norwegian hospital reform. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Egeberg, M., Larsen, H. O., Lægreid, P., & Roness, P. G. (2010). Forvaltning og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, J., Van der Meer, F. B., & Vissers, G. (2000). Evaluation and organizational learning in government: The impact of institutions. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1579592. Accessed 13.04.2012.

  • Eckhoff, T. E., & Jacobsen, K. D. (1960). Rationality and responsibility in administrative and judicial decision-making. København: Munksgaard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (p. 157). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Saetren, H. (1999). Identities in complex organizations: A study of ministerial bureaucrats. In M. Egeberg, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Organizing political institutions. Essays for Johan P. Olsen (pp. 93–108). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: effects of agencification. Governance, 22(4), 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, H., & Gray, I. (1988). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furubo, J. E. (2011). Performance auditing: Audit or misnomer? In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 22–50). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, A., Svärdsten, F., & Öhman, P. (2011). Value for money and the rule of law: the (new) performance audit in Sweden. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(2), 107–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2011). The blame game. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., James, O., Scott, C., Jones, G. W., & Travers, T. (1999). Regulation inside government: Waste watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford University Press.

  • Johnsen, Å., Meklin, P., Oulasvirta, L., & Vakkuri, J. (2001). Performance auditing in local government: an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing in Finland and Norway. The European Accounting Review, 10(3), 583–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justesen, L., & Skærbek, P. (2010). Performance auditing and the narrating of a new auditee identity. Financial Accountability and Management, 3(26), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty: an institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P. (2013). Accountability and new public management In Handbook of accountability. Oxford University Press.

  • Lægreid, P., & Olsen, J. P. (1978). Byråkrati og beslutninger: En studie av norske departement. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance management in practice—the Norwegian way. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2011). In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapsley, I., & Pong, C. K. M. (2000). Modernization versus problematization: value-for-money audit in public services. European Accounting Review, 9(4), 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, J. (1999). Impacts. In C. Pollitt, X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa, & M. Waerness (Eds.), Performance or compliance?: Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 171–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, J., & Bechberger, E. (2011). Learning in an accountability setting. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 268–288). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., & Pollitt, C. (1999). The auditor’s craft. In C. Pollitt, X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa, & M. Waerness (Eds.), Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 105–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, D. (2001). Influence of value for money audit on public administrations: looking beyond appearances. Financial Accountability and Management, 17(2), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, D. (2004). Measuring the impact of value-for-money audits: a model for surveying audited managers. Canadian Public Administration, 47(2), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, D. (2008). Auditors general’s universe revisited. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(7), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordby, T. (2004). I politikkens sentrum. Variasjoner i Stortingets makt 1814–2004. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2010). Bureaucracy and democracy. Public Organization Review, 1–14.

  • Pollitt, C. (2003). Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation (vol. 1). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., Girre, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H., & Waerness, M. (1999). Performance or compliance?: Performance audit and public management in five countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2013). Political accountability and performance audit: the case of the auditor general in Norway. Public Administration. doi:10.1111/padm.12025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., & Johnsen, Å. (2011). Auditors’ understanding of evidence: a performance audit of an urban development programme. Evaluation, 17(3), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roness, P. G., Verhoest, K., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2008). Autonomy and regulation of state agencies: reinforcement, indifference or compensation? Public Organization Review, 8(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1987). Ministers and ministries: A functional analysis. Clarendon Press Oxford.

  • Sejersted, F. (2002). Kontroll og Konstitusjon. Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. University of California Press.

  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillema, S., & Ter Bogt, H. J. (2010). Performance auditing: improving the quality of political and democratic processes? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(8), 754–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meer, F. B. (1999). Evaluation and the social construction of impacts. Evaluation, 5(4), 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Loocke, E., & Put, V. (2011). The impact of performance audits: A review of the existing evidence. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 175–208). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanlandingham, G. R. (2011). Escaping the dusty shelf: legislative evaluation offices’ efforts to promote utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

  • Waldo, D. (2006). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. Transaction Publishers.

  • Weets, K. (2011). Impact at local government level: A multiple case study. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 248–267). Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K., & Van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Bergen, Postboks 7800, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud

Authors
  1. Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit. Public Organiz Rev 15, 17–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0247-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0247-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation