Advertisement

Limiting the Scope of Central Government Audit: A Constitutional Problem or a Sensible Solution?

  • Mary Bowerman
  • Christopher Humphrey
Chapter

Abstract

A comprehensive system of performance measurement for all UK central government departments was introduced in 1998. Each department now has ‘high level and focused commitments’ or Public Service Agreements (PSAs) with the Treasury plus detailed departmental targets (Service Delivery Agreements or SDAs). Each PSA includes statements of central government departmental aims and objectives, allocated resources, key performance targets and details of how departments propose to increase the productivity of their operations (see Cm 4181 1998).

Keywords

Performance Information Performance Measurement System National Audit Performance Audit Audit Activity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barzelay, M. (1997), `Central audit institutions and performance auditing: a comparative analysis of organisational strategies in the OECD’ Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 10: 3, pp. 235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C. and Owen, D. (2002), `Struggling for supremacy: the case of UK public audit institutions’ Critical Perspectives on Accounting, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  3. Bowerman, M. and Humphrey, C. (2001), `Should non-financial performance information be audited?–the case of public service agreements in UK government’, Australian Accounting Review, 11: 3, pp. 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowerman, M., Raby, H. and Humphrey C. (2000), In search of the audit society: some evidence from health care, police and schools“, The International Journal of Auditing, 4: 1, pp. 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowerman, M. (1996) `The rise and fall of value for money auditing’. In Lapsley, I. and Mitchell, F. (eds.) Accounting and Performance Measurement–Issues in the Private and Public Sectors, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 193–212Google Scholar
  6. Bowerman, M. (1995), `Auditing performance indicators: the role of the Audit Commission in the Citizen’s Charter initiative’, Financial Accountability & Management, 11: 2, pp. 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. E., Gallagher, T. P. and Williams, M. C. (1991) `Auditing performance in government’. hi Friedberg, A., Geist, B., Mizrahi, N. and Sharkansky, I. (eds.), State Audit and Accountability–A Book of Readings, Jerusalem: State of Israel, State Comptroller’s Office, pp. 185–195.Google Scholar
  8. Cabinet Office (2001), Better Policy Delivery and Design: A Discussion Paper, http://www.cabinetofftce.gov.uk/innovation/whatsnew/betterpolicy.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  9. Cm 4181 (1998), Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, and Accountability. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  10. Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987), Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  11. General Accounting Office (GAO) (2000) Reports on Agencies’ Fiscal Year 1999, Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plans. GAO/RCED-00–212R.Google Scholar
  12. Gosling, P. (1998), `Waste not want not’, Accountancy Age, 26th February, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
  13. HM Treasury Select Committee (1999), Seventh Report: Public Service Agreements. HC 378, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  14. HM Treasury Select Committee (2001), Third Report: 2000 Spending Review. HC 73-I, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  15. HM Treasury (2002), Audit and Audit Commission in Central Government: The Government’s Response to Lord Sharman’s Report ‘Holding to Account’, Cm 5456, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  16. HM Treasury (2000a), 2000 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements. Cm 4808, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  17. HM Treasury (2000b), 2000 Spending Review: Service Delivery Agreements: A Guide, Cm 4915, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  18. HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office and Office for National Statistics (2001), Choosing the Right Fabric - A Framework For Performance Information.Google Scholar
  19. Humphrey, C. (1997), `Auditing expectations’. In Sherer, M. and Turley, S. (eds.), Current Issues in Auditing, Third Edition, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  20. Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R. W. (1993), `Accounting, accountability and the `new’ UK public sector’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 6: 3, pp. 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leeuw, F. L. (1996), ‘Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement:Google Scholar
  22. questions and answers’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9:2, pp. 92–102.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, W. and Gupta, V. (1994), `The performance paradox’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 309–369Google Scholar
  24. Midwinter, A. (1994), `Developing performance indicators for local government: the Scottish experience’, Public Money and Management, 14: 2, pp. 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Audit Office (2001), Measuring the Performance of Government Departments. HC 301 ( 200001 ), London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  26. Pallot, J. (1992), `Local authority reporting–major advances made’, Accountants’ Journal of the New Zealand Society of Accountants, August, pp. 46–49.Google Scholar
  27. Pollitt, C., Gine, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H. and Waerness, M. (1999), Performance or Compliance?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Public Accounts Committee (2000), Ninth Report–Government Resources And Accounts Bill. HC 159 ( 1999–2000 ), London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  30. Sharman, Lord (2001), Holding To Account - The Review of Audit And Accountability For Central Government, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  31. Sheffield, J. and Bowerman, M. (1999), `Best value–differences in its implementation in England and Scotland’, Public Policy and Administration, 14: 3, pp 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, P. (1992), `Negative political feedback: an examination of the problem of modelling political responses in public sector effectiveness auditing’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5: 1, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, P. (1988), ‘Assessing competition among local authorities in England and Wales’, Financial Accountability and Management, 4: 3, pp. 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stewart, J. and Walsh, K., (1994), ‘Performance measurement: when performance can never be finally defined’, Public Money and Management, 14: 2, pp. 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swedish Ministry of Finance - Budget department (1995), Annual Performance Accounting and Auditing in Sweden. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  36. Talbot, C. (2000), `Performing `performance’- a comedy in five acts’, Public Money and Management, October - December, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Bowerman
  • Christopher Humphrey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations