Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contesting Claims on Measuring Performance in the Public Sector Using Performance Audits: Evidence from the Literature

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on desk study, this article adduces theoretical and empirical evidence to analyze the claims of advocates and critics of performance audit (PA). The paper establishes that the application of PA in some developed countries has led to improvement in aspects of public sector performance albeit sometimes short of the often highlighted effects of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The article further provides evidence to support the claim that despite its touted contribution to performance, PA could rather lead to anti-innovation, nit-picking, expectations gap, lapdog, headline hunting, unnecessary systems and hollow ritual. The paper questions the quality of reported PA systems in the literature and advocates a PA regime that strikes a delicate balance between compliance and performance.

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

  • Adcroft, A., & Willis, R. (2005). The (un) intended outcome of public sector performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(5), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adeyemi, S. B., & Uadiale, O. M. (2011). An empirical investigation of the audit expectation gap in Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management, 5(19), 7964–7971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2013). How performance measurement systems support managerial actions in networks: evidence from an Italian case study. Public Organization Review. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0264-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrini, N. J. (2014). Local government performance measurement: developing indicators based on IWA 4: 2009. Public Organization Review. doi:10.1007/s11115-014-0276-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., & Peters, G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: the Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), 359–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., & Collier, R. B. (1991). Shaping the political arena. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daujotaite, D. & Macerinskiene, I. (2008). Development of performance audit in public sector. Paper presented at the 5th International Scientific conference of Business and Management, Vilnius, Lithuania 16–17, May, 2008.

  • de Bruijn, H. (2002). Public measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: in search of the mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J. (2003). The politics of comprehensive auditing in fields of high outcome and cause uncertainty. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1), 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funkhouser, M. (2011). Accountability, performance and performance auditing: Reconciling the views of scholars and authors. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 209–230). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, J. J. (1996). Performance auditing and performance improvement in government: public sector management reform, changing accountabilities and the role of performance audit. Performance Auditing and the Modernisation of Government 125–136.

  • Hall, A. P., & Taylor, C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatherly, D. J., & Parker, L. D. (1988). Performance audit outcomes: a comparative study. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INTOSAI (2004). Audits of international institutions: guidelines for supreme audit institutions.

  • Jacobs, K. (1998). Value-for-money auditing in New Zealand: competing for control in the public sector. British Accounting Review, 30(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 583–599.

  • Kells, S. (2011). The seven deadly sins of performance auditing: implications for monitoring public audit institutions. Australian Accounting, 21(4), 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L. (1996). Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and answers. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), 92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L., & Van Thiel, S. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, F. L.,(2011). On the effects, lack of effects and perverse effects of performance audit. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 231–247). New Jersey: Transaction publishers, Piscataway.

  • Manaf, A.N. (2010). The impact of performance audit: the New Zealand experience. Unpublished thesis.

  • 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 

  • Noordhoek, P., & Saner, R. (2005). Beyond new public management: answering the claims of both politics and society. Public Organization Review, 5, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilcher, R. (2011). Implementing IFRS in local government: institutional isomorphism as NPM goes mad? Local Government Studies, 37(4), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2003). Performance audit in Western Europe: trends and choices. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2011). The influence of performance audits on civil servants—what contributes to improvement and accountability in the audited entities? Bucharest: Paper Presented at the Conference of the European Group for Public Administration (EGPA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2013). Political accountability and performance audit: the case of the auditor general in Norway. Public Administration, 91, 680–695.

  • Scott, R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shand, D. & Anand, P. (1996). Performance auditing in the public sector: approaches and issues in OECD member countries: In Performance Auditing and Modernization of Government. 57–79.

  • Shepsle, A. K. (2006). Rational choice institutionalism. The Oxford handbook of political science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2), 277–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, S. (2008). What is Historical Institutionalism? In D. D. Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: University Press.

  • Stipak, B., & O’Toole, D. E. (1990). Performance auditing in local government: current use and future prospects. State and Local Government Review, 22(2), 51–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, D. M. Y., & Kwok, S.-M. (2011). Challenges of appraising intangible outcomes with unclear objectives: performance management issues in local government in Ontario. Public Organization Review, 11(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. G. (2006). Performance, reporting, obstacles, and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. Australia: ANU E-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Locke, 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. 248–267). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walshe, K. (2001). Don’t try this at home: Health policy lessons for the NHS from the United States. UK: Institute of Economic Affairs, Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waring, C., & Morgan, S. (2007). Performance accountability and combating corruption (p. 448). Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weets, K. (2008). How effective are performance audits? A multiple case study within the local audit office in Rotterdam. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing and Management in Public Sector Reforms, EIASM, Amsterdam, 3–5 September.

  • 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). Massachusetts: Edward Edgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration and Health Services Management, University of Ghana Business School, Legon, Accra, Ghana

    Justice Nyigmah Bawole & Mohammed Ibrahim

Authors
  1. Justice Nyigmah Bawole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justice Nyigmah Bawole.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bawole, J.N., Ibrahim, M. Contesting Claims on Measuring Performance in the Public Sector Using Performance Audits: Evidence from the Literature. Public Organiz Rev 16, 285–299 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0312-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0312-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation