DOCSLIB.ORG

Literature on Performance Auditing and Supreme Audit Institution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Literature on Performance Auditing and Supreme Audit Institution Literature on performance auditing and Supreme Audit Institutions January 2016 A - D ................................................................................................................................. 2 E - H .................................................................................................................................. 8 I - L ................................................................................................................................. 14 M - O .............................................................................................................................. 19 P - R ................................................................................................................................ 23 S - U ................................................................................................................................ 27 V - Z ................................................................................................................................ 31 1 A - D 1. Adams, N. (1986), Efficiency auditing in the Australian National Audit Office, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 3, 189-199 2. Ahlbäck Ö. S., Bringselius, L. (2014), Professionalism and Organizational Performance in the Wake of New Managerialism, European Political Science Review (forthcoming) 3. Alon, G. (2007), State Audit and the Media as the Watchdogs of Democracy - A Comparative View, Iyunim - The Periodical of the Office of the State Comptroller and Ombudsman, Volume 61, 55-100 4. Alwardat, Yousef 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, 280p. 5. Arena, M., Jeppesen, K. (2010), The Jurisdiction of Internal Auditing and the Quest for Professionalization: The Danish Case, International Journal of Auditing, 14, 111–129 6. Arnaboldi, M.A., Lapsley, I. (2008), Making Management Auditable: The Implementation of Best Value in Local Government, Abacus, Vol. 44, Issue 1, 22–47 7. Arthur, A., Rydland, L.T., Amundsen, K. (2012), The User Perspective in Performance Auditing—A Case Study of Norway, American Journal of Evaluation, 33 - 44 8. Azuma, N. (2003), The Role of the Supreme Audit Institutions in NPM: International Trend, Government Auditing Review, Board of Audit of Japan, March 2003, 85-106 9. Azuma, N. (2004), Performance Measurement of Supreme Audit Institutions, Government Auditing Review, Board of Audit of Japan, March 2004, 65-94 10. Azuma, N. (2005), The Role of the Supreme Audit Institutions in New Public Management (NPM): the Trend of Continental Countries, Government Auditing Review, Board of Audit of Japan, March 2005, 69-84 11. Backhaus, J.G. (1994), The economic functions of supreme auditing institutions: Purpose of the conference, European Journal of Law and Economics, No 2, 81-84 12. Backhaus, J.G. (2007), Fiscal Sociology: Public Auditing, Peter Lang Publishing, 213 p. 13. Balls, H.R. (1978), The watchdog of Parliament: the centenary of the legislative audit, Canadian Public Administration, Volume 21, Issue 4, 584-617 14. Barrett, P. (2010), Performance auditing - what value, Public Money & Management, Vol. 30, Issue 5, 271 – 278 15. Barrett, P. (2011), Where You Sit Is What You See: The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing. Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions, Australian Accounting Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, 397–405 16. Barret, P. (2012), Performance auditing—addressing real or perceived expectation gaps in the public sector, Public Money & Management, March, 129-136 2 17. Bartel, R., Schneider, F. (1990), Efficiency and Effectiveness Control Based on Economic Analysis: The Example of the Austrian Court of Audit, 36 p. 18. Barton, A. (2008), New Labour’s Management, Audit and ‘What Works’ Approach to Controlling the ‘Untrustworthy’ Professions, Public Policy and Administration, 263–277 19. Barzelay, M. (1997), Central Audit Institutions and Performance Auditing: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Strategies in the OECD, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 10, No. 3, 235-260 20. Bawole, J.N., Ibrahim, M. (2015), Contesting Claims on Measuring Performance in the Public Sector Using Performance Audits: Evidence from the Literature, Public Organization Review, 15 p. 21. Beauchamp, C. (1990), National Audit Office: its role in privatization, Public Money & Management, Summer, 55-58 22. Beauregard, N. (2004), Le Vérificateur général du Québec et la vérification d'optimisation des ressources: évolution et perspectives, Canadian Public Administration, Issue 2, 207-224 23. Behn, R.D. (2001), Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C., 317 p. 24. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. (1998), De Algemene Rekenkamer: controlenormen en - stijlen in een veranderende bestuurlijke context, in Hertogh, M.L.M., Huls, N.J.H., Wilthagen, A.C.J.M., Omgaan met de onderhandelende overheid. Rechtstaat, onderhandelend bestuur en controle. Amsterdam University Press, 221 p., 89-117 25. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Fenger, H.J.M. (1999), Harmonizing Competing Rationalities in Evaluating Governance. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Vol. 12 Issue 2, 38-51 26. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. (2000), Over het beoordelen van “goed” bestuur. In: Nelissen, N., Goverde, H., Van Gestel, N., Bestuurlijk vermogen. Analyse en beoordeling van nieuwe vormen van besturen. Uitgeverij Coutinho, 452 p., 355-383 27. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L, de Vries, M. (2010), Ontwikkelingen in de evaluatie van overheidshandelen, in: Aardema, H., Derksen, W., Herweijer, M., de Jong, P. (red.), Meerwaarde van de bestuurskunde. Liber Amicorum voor prof. dr. Arno F.A. Korsten, Boom Lemma uitgevers, Den Haag, 301 p., 127-135 28. Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Lonsdale, J., Perrin, B. (2007), Making accountability work: dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, Transaction Publishers, U.S., New Jersey, 296 p. 29. Bergman, C. (2007), Newspaper Coverage of Issues Raised in Reports of the Israeli State Comptroller, Lyunim - The Periodical of the Office of the State Comptroller and Ombudsman, Volume 61, 101 - 129 30. Berry, F.S., Turcotte, J.W., Latham, S.C. (2002), Program Evaluation in State Legislatures: Professional Services Delivered in a Complex, Competitive Environment, New Directions for Evaluation, No. 95, Fall, 73-88 31. Bezruki, D., Mueller, J., McKim, K. (1999), Legislative Utilization of Evaluations, New Directions for Evaluation, No 81, Spring, 11-22 3 32. Blume, L., Voigt, S. (2007), Supreme Audit Institutions: Supremely Superfluous ? - A Cross Country Assessment, 25 p. 33. Blume, L., Voigt, S. (2011), Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country assessment, European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 215-229 34. Blume, L., Voigt, S. (2013), The Economic Effects of Constitutional Budget Institutions, European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 236-251 35. Bourn, J (2007). Public Sector Auditing: Is it Value for Money ? John Wiley & Sons, 426 p. 36. Bonollo, E. (2013), National Audit Courts in a Public Sector under Stress: From “Watchdog” to “Sheepdog” Function, Proceedings of 22nd International Business Research Conference, Madrid, Spain, 9 - 10 September 2013, 18 p. 37. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., ‘T Hart, P. (2008), Does public accountability work ? An assessment tool, Public Administration, Vol. 86, No. 1, 225-242 38. Bowerman, M. (1994), The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission: cooperation in areas where their VFM responsibilities interface, Financial Accountability and Management, 10 (1), 47-63 39. Bowerman, M. (1996), The rise and fall of value for money auditing, in: Lapsley, I., Mitchell, F. (eds.), Accounting and Performance Measurement – Issues in the Private and Public Sectors, Paul Chapman Publishing, London, 193-212 40. Bowerman, M., Helen, R, Humphrey, C. (2000), In Search of the Audit Society: Some Evidence from Health Care, Police and Schools, International Journal of Auditing, 4, 71-100 41. Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C. (2001), Should non-financial performance information be audited ? – the case of public service agreements in UK government, Australian Accounting Review, 11, 3, 35-43 42. Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C. (2002), Limiting the Scope of Central Government Audit: A Constitutional Problem or a Sensible Solution ? , in Montesinos, V., Vela, J.M. (eds.), Innovations in Governmental Accounting, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 331-341 43. Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C., Owen, D. (2003), Struggling for supremacy: the case of UK public audit institutions, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 Issue 1/2, 1-22 44. Bringselius, L. (2008), Personnel Resistance in Public Professional Service Mergers: the Merging of Two National Audit Organizations, Lund Studies in Economics and Management Lund: Lund Business Press, Ph D, 336 p. 45. Bringselius, L. (2011), Performance audit at the Swedish Supreme Audit Institution (SAI). The Lund Institute of Economic Research Report Series, no. 2011–01. Lund: Lund University, 23 p. 46. Bringselius, L. (2012), Efficiency, economy and effectiveness –but what about ethics? The portfolio of Supreme Audit Institutions. A paper presented at the EIASM conference in Milan 2012, 13 p. 47. Bringselius, L. (2014), The Dissemination of Results from Supreme Audit Institutions: Independent Partners with the Media?, Financial Accountability & Management, 30(1), 75-94 4 48. Bringselius, L. (2015), In the absence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption
    United Nations CAC/COSP/WG.4/2021/3 Conference of the States Parties Distr.: General 13 April 2021 to the United Nations Original: English Convention against Corruption Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Prevention of Corruption Vienna, 14–18 June 2021 Item 2 (a) of the provisional agenda* Implementation of relevant Conference resolutions: good practices and initiatives in the prevention of corruption The role of supreme audit institutions in the prevention of and fight against corruption Background paper prepared by the Secretariat I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 6/1, the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption requested the secretariat to structure the provisional agendas of the subsidiary bodies established by the Conference in such a way as to avoid the duplication of discussions, while respecting their mandates. 2. In its resolution 8/8, entitled “Follow-up to the Marrakech declaration on the prevention of corruption”, the Conference decided that the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Prevention of Corruption should continue its work to advise and assist the Conference in the implementation of its mandate on the prevention of corruption and should hold at least two meetings prior to the ninth session of the Conference. 3. In addition, in its resolution 8/13, entitled “Abu Dhabi declaration on enhancing collaboration between the supreme audit institutions and anti-corruption bodies to more effectively prevent and fight corruption”, the Conference requested the Working Group to include, as a topic for discussion at its future meetings, strengthening the role of supreme audit institutions in the prevention of and fight against corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Work of Supreme Audit Institutions in Various Countries
    Aspects of the Work of Supreme Audit Institutions in Various Countries Written By: Rony Blank and Gideon Zeira | Approved by: Shelly Levy, Team Leader Date: January 17th 2017 Overview Knesset Research and Information Center Editing: Knesset Minutes Staff www.knesset.gov.il/mmm 2 | Aspects of the Work of Supreme Audit Institutions in Various Countries Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 1. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) ..................................................... 6 2. Austrian Court of Audit (Rechnungshof) ..................................................... 10 3. Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) .......................................... 14 4. German Supreme Audit Institution (Bundesrechnungshof) .................... 16 5. Danish Supreme Audit Institution (Rigsrevisionen) .................................. 20 6. Court of Auditors of Portugal (Tribunal de Contas) .................................. 23 7. National Audit Office of Finland ................................................................... 24 8. Netherlands Court of Audit (Algemene Rekenkamer) .............................. 27 9. Ireland's Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General ......................... 30 10. New Zealand's Controller and Auditor-General ........................................ 33 11. Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) ........................................ 35 12. Swiss Federal Audit Office ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of Audit. Eight Remarkable Government Auditors on Stage
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Janssen, Roel Book — Published Version The Art of Audit. Eight remarkable government auditors on stage Provided in Cooperation with: Amsterdam University Press (AUP) Suggested Citation: Janssen, Roel (2015) : The Art of Audit. Eight remarkable government auditors on stage, ISBN 978-90-485-3082-3, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/9789462980914 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/181381 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten
    [Show full text]
  • ECA Journal "International Cooperation in Audit"
    Special theme for Europe and likewise for the ECA for andlikewise Europe for “ iskey cooperation International for Europe and likewise for the ECA for andlikewise Europe for “ iskey cooperation International JournalJournal NNo o11 11 | |NOV. NOV. DEC. DEC. 2018 2018 E B U E N E Y T & O W IN N O T R A E D K CO S R O U P N E IN A D R T A I I T O T I O N N A L NUMBER 11 Table of contents November/December 2018 10 15 INTERVIEW Mapping EU SAIs: the who, the what and Klaus-Heiner Lehne, ECA Member the how of international cooperation By Rosa Kotoaro, Private Office of Hannu Takkula, Cooperation works best if beneficial ECA Member, and Gaston Moonen, to both parties Directorate of the Presidency 04 EDITORIAL 32 The EU Contact Committee Working By Monika González-Koss, INTOSAI General 05 The networked Union: experienced Group on EU Structural Funds – a Secretariat, Austrian Court of Audit partners in cooperation group which really worked 49 Cooperating for results: developing By Christoph Klavehn, European Council on By Rolf-Dietrich Kammer, former Member of INTOSAI guidelines to audit disaster- Foreign Relations the Bundesrechnungshof (German Federal related aid Audit Office) 10 Cooperation works best if By Phyllis Anderson, U.S. Government beneficial to both parties 35 Task Force on European Banking Accountability Office Union of the EU Contact Committee: Interview with ECA President 52 How to audit preparedness for a need to close the audit gaps Klaus-Heiner Lehne natural disasters: an output of By Helmut Kern, Regulation of Markets and By
    [Show full text]
  • ECA Journal "Financing and Auditing of Parliament"
    Special theme Financing and auditing of parliament Journal No 06/07 | JUNE/JULY 2018 The relation between autonomy and “ independence, and accountability and transparency is a very important one and can easily be put out of balance. NUMBER 07/08 Table of contents June /July 2018 5 14 INTERVIEW Public funding of Parliaments in Europe: Danièle Lamarque financial autonomy under discussion Accountability By Michel Lascombe, Professor at Sciences Po Lille, of parliaments and Aurélien Baudu, Lecturer at the University of Lille contributing to the balance of powers 04 EDITORIAL 05 Accountability of parliaments 17 Transparency helps to maintain 35 Budgeting and auditing of financial contributing to the balance of powers citizen’s trust in the parliamentary statements in the Austrian Interview with Danièle Lamarque system Parliament By Gaston Moonen, Directorate of the Interview with Pietro Russo By Helmut Berger, Head of the Parliamentary Presidency By Derek Meijers, Directorate of the Presidency Budget Office of the Austrian Parliament 09 ECA symposium on public funding 21 An external look at the EP through 39 Relations of SAIs with their of parliaments in Europe: main issues ECA audits parliaments: mapping similarities discussed By Bertrand Albugues and Audrey Beurotte, and differences By Loris Corzillius and Stéphanie Girard, Private Directorate Financing and administering the By Barbara Ojeda Corominas and Philipp Dette, Office of Danièle Lamarque, ECA Member Union Directorate of the Presidency 11 Parliaments and SAIs: who is working 24 The
    [Show full text]
  • State Audit in the European Union Contents
    State Audit in the European Union Contents Introduction Acknowledgements 1 Summary 3 Rechnungshof 35 Austria Court of Audit 51 Belgium Rigsrevisionen 61 Denmark State Audit Office 73 Finland Cour des Comptes 93 France Bundesrechnungshof 109 Germany Hellenic Court of Audit 125 Greece Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General 141 Ireland Corte dei Conti 157 Italy Cour des Comptes 171 Luxembourg Algemene Rekenkame 179 Netherlands Tribunal de Contas 193 Portugal Tribunal de Cuentas 205 Spain Riksrevisionsverket 217 Sweden National Audit Office 231 United Kingdom European Court of Auditors 251 Introduction ccountability for the use of public funds is a cornerstone of democratic Agovernment. At a national level this usually involves the executive government accounting for its stewardship of taxpayers' money to the elected representatives in Parliament. The state audit office makes an important contribution to this process by providing independent information, assurance and advice to Parliament about the accounts presented by the Executive. All state audit offices have essentially the same basic purpose - described by one writer as 'making public accountability a reality' - but the way that each fulfils this purpose is influenced by its historical background and its place in the constitutional and governmental structure. In 1996 the United Kingdom National Audit Office published a book which examined the role of each state audit office - often referred to as a Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) - in the European Union and the European Court of Auditors. The book examined the accountability relationships that then existed between the parliament, government and a variety of public sector bodies in each country, the way that state audit offices had responded to changes in the machinery of government, and the reasons for other developments in their roles.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving High Quality in the Work of Supreme Audit Institutions
    SIGMA Papers No. 34 Achieving High Quality in the Work of Supreme OECD Audit Institutions https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kml60v9gsd6-en Unclassified GOV/SIGMA(2004)1 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 14-Jun-2005 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English PUBLIC GOVERNANCE AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE Unclassified GOV/SIGMA(2004)1 SIGMA - A JOINT INITIATIVE OF THE OECD AND THE EUROPEAN UNION, PRINCIPALLY FINANCED BY THE EU ACHIEVING HIGH QUALITY IN THE WORK OF SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS SIGMA PAPER No. 34, 2004 For further information, please contact Nicolas John Treen, Senior Adviser of the Financial Control Management Programme in SIGMA. Tel: +33 (0)1 45 24 83 56 - Fax: +33 (0)1 45 24 13 00. English - Or. English Email: [email protected] JT00186347 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format GOV/SIGMA(2004)1 2 GOV/SIGMA(2004)1 FOREWORD This paper, focusing on the issue of how to achieve high quality in the audit process, is an outgrowth of a report on audit quality control and a subsequent set of guidelines for audit quality, both of which were prepared at the direction of the Presidents of the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of the Central and Eastern European Countries, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey and of the European Court of Auditors. In view of the importance of the subject, SIGMA has prepared this paper for distribution to a wider audience. SIGMA is publishing this paper in the belief that the information it contains should be of broad interest, both to those involved in government auditing and to those who use the audit reports and other products developed by SAIs.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Audits Focused on the Principle of Effectiveness: an Overview of Public Audit Agencies
    Applied Finance and Accounting Vol. 4, No. 2, August 2018 ISSN 2374-2410 E-ISSN 2374-2429 Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://afa.redfame.com Performance Audits Focused on the Principle of Effectiveness: An Overview of Public Audit Agencies Luiz G M Mury Correspondence: Luiz G M Mury, Post-doctorate in Economics at Federal University of RS, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Public auditor at RS State Court of Accounts, Brazil. Received: July 1, 2018 Accepted: July 24, 2018 Available online: July 27, 2018 doi:10.11114/afa.v4i2.3488 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/afa.v4i2.3488 Abstract According to international standards, performance audit is an independent and objective process for reviewing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of a government‟s program, organization, and/or activity in order to evaluate public management‟s performance. The relevance of the matter prompted the present study, which aims to inquire if, when conducting performance audits, Supreme Audit Institutions analyze a procedure‟s effectiveness, that is to say, the impact that determined government spending had on the program‟s target population. In order to do so, a questionnaire was applied to auditors of Public Audit Institutions from several countries. As a preliminary result, our research concluded that the majority of auditors conduct economy, efficiency and efficacy analyses, but rarely assess the effectiveness of government spending. Keywords: performance audit, court of auditors, effectiveness 1. Introduction Until early 1970‟s, the majority of Supreme Audit Institutions [SAI] had as their primary goal a formal nature of control focused on the validation of evenness of government spending execution, the legal compliance of administrative acts, and the consistency of financial demonstratives.
    [Show full text]
  • Literatuur Over Performance Audit
    Literature on performance auditing and Supreme Audit Institutions January 2020 A - D ................................................................................................................................. 2 E - H ................................................................................................................................ 12 I - L ................................................................................................................................. 20 M - O .............................................................................................................................. 28 P - R ................................................................................................................................ 34 S - U ................................................................................................................................ 40 V - Z ................................................................................................................................ 47 Dr. Vital Put Councillor Belgian Court of Audit 1 A - D 1. Adams, N. (1986), Efficiency auditing in the Australian National Audit Office, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 3, 189-199 2. Adi, S., Dutil, P. (2018), Searching for strategy: Value for Money (VFM) audit choice in the new public management era, Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 61, no. 1, 91–108 3. Aerts, E. (1996), Geschiedenis en archief van de Rekenkamers : overzicht van de archieven en verzamelingen van het Algemeen rijksarchief. Algemeen
    [Show full text]
  • External Auditing It Is Subject Only to the Law
    The Bundesrechnungshof www.bundesrechnungshof.de Information at a glance The Bundesrechnungshof examines federal financial management. Audit missions cover annual federal revenues and expenditures amounting to more than €600 billion. It also reviews social security institutions and the management of government shareholdings in private-sector companies. The Bundesrechnungshof informs the two Houses of Parliament and the Federal Government about its key findings in its annual report. We report on our audit findings by means of observations in management letters that are addressed to the audited bodies. In addition to auditing, providing advice to government bodies – especially the lower House of Parliament – is a major function of the Bundesrechnungshof. As an independent body of external auditing it is subject only to the law. No other government institution may instruct it to perform an audit. On the other hand, the Bundesrechnungshof does not evaluate policy decisions made in compliance with applicable legislation. The Bundesrechnungshof is a supreme federal authority. In the Federal Government structure, the German SAI ranks equal with the Office of the Federal President, the Federal Chancellery and the federal ministries. The Bundesrechnungshof has some 1,250 staff. The SAI’s headquarters are located in Bonn. 1 www.bundesrechnungshof.de Address: Bundesrechnungshof Adenauerallee 81 53113 Bonn Telephone: +49 228 307-0 Facsimile: +49 228 307-2990 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.bundesrechnungshof.de 2 www.bundesrechnungshof.de
    [Show full text]
  • Program Evaluation for Sais a Primer
    I N T O S A I Program Evaluation for SAIs A Primer Juillet 2010 International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions Working Group on Program Evaluation Chair Mr. Didier Migaud Premier Président de la Cour des Comptes Président du Groupe de travail pour l'évaluation de programmes Cour des Comptes 13 Rue Cambon F 75100 Paris tel: ++33 (1) 42 98 95 74 fax: ++33 (1) 42 98 96 02 [email protected] Members Austria • Belgium • Chile • Costa Rica • El Salvador • Finland • Gabon • Georgia • Germany • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya • Lithuania • Mexico • Morocco • Pakistan • Papua New Guinea • Poland • Republic of Korea • Switzerland • United States of America Netherlands and Sweden, though not belonging to the group any longer, participated actively to its work in the past years. ii Program Evaluation for SAI’s - A Primer Foreword Foreword by Didier Migaud, First President of the French Cour des Comptes, President of the INTOSAI Working Group on Program Evaluation In 1992, the 14th INTOSAI Congress held in Washington, D.C. established the Working Group on Program Evaluation and entrusted its presidency to the French Cour des Comptes. Evaluation seemed to be a still new but promising initiative which could enhance the audit practices used by the supreme audit institutions. With the active participation of its 20 members and through the contribution of all the SAIs who responded to the questionnaires, our Working Group was able to gain a more in-depth knowledge of evaluation: How to define and position it with respect to performance audits, what are the principal stages and the terms of its implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2004 October 2004 Vol
    October 2004 October 2004 Vol. 31, No. 4 Board of Editors Josef Moser, President, Court of Audit, Austria Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, Canada ©2004 International Journal of Government Auditing, Inc. Faiza Kefi, Premier Président, Cour des Comptes, Tunisia David M. Walker, Comptroller General, The International Journal of Government United States Auditing is published quarterly (January, contents Clodosbaldo Russian Uzcategui, Comptroller General, Venezuela April, July, October) in Arabic, English, French, Editorial 1 President German, and Spanish on behalf of INTOSAI News in Brief 4 Helen H. Hsing (U.S.A.) (International Organization of Supreme Au- Who Audits the Auditor? 10 Editor dit Institutions). The Journal, which is the Donald R. Drach (U.S.A.) Looking to the Future: E-learning official organ of INTOSAI, is dedicated to the and SAIs 16 Assistant Editors advancement of government auditing pro- Linda J. Sellevaag (U.S.A.) Developing International Auditing Alberta E. Ellison (U.S.A.) cedures and techniques. Opinions and be- Standards 20 Associate Editors liefs expressed are those of editors or indi- Office of the Auditor General (Canada) VIII ARABOSAI General Assembly 25 Khalid Bin Jamal (ASOSAI-India) vidual contributors and do not necessarily Luseane Sikalu (SPASAI-Tonga) Audit Profile: Botswana 30 Michael C.G. Paynter (CAROSAI-Trinidad reflect the views or policies of the and Tobago) organization. Reports in Print 35 EUROSAI General Secretariat (Spain) Khemais Hosni (Tunisia) Inside INTOSAI 36 Yadira Espinoza Moreno (Venezuela) INTOSAI General Secretariat (Austria) The editors invite submissions of articles, IDI Update 39 U.S. Government Accountability Office special reports, and news items, which (U.S.A.) should be sent to the editorial offices at U.S.
    [Show full text]