Abstract. This paper examines the role of the deputy minister in public decision‐making. It notes the theoretical distinction between policy‐making, on the one hand, and policy‐execution or administration on the other, with the qualification that in practice the two are inevitably intermingled. It advances the view that changes in policy should be based on experience, in which the external impressions of politicians are complemented by the sense of continuity and inside knowledge of officials. The analysis by the Fulton Commission on the Civil Service of the United Kingdom of the fourfold functions of the permanent secretary as (1) the minister's most immediate policy adviser; (2) the managing director of the day‐to‐day operations of the department; (3) the possessor of ultimate responsibility for questions of staff and organization; and (4) accounting officer with ultimate responsibility for all departmental expenditures is compared with the duties and responsibilities of the deputy minister in Canada.The contribution to public policy‐making by the recent developments in rationalizing the cabinet committee system and in arranging, inter alia, for the attendance of senior advisers at committee meetings, is noted and the influence of economists and other outside professional advisers is considered. Finally, the question as to who in government makes decisions is answered by the conclusion that in government decisions are made by ministers, or by officials in the name and on the responsibility of ministers at many levels of the administrative machine.Sommaire. L'auteur de cette communication examine le rôle du sous‐ministre dans le prise de décision publique. Il prend note de la distinction théorique entre d'une part la prise de décision et d'autre part, l'exécution des politiques ou leur administration, tout en faisant remarquer que dans la pratique ces deux functions se fusionnent inévitablement. Il prétend que les changements de politique devraient se faire sur la base de l'expérience, les impressions extemes des ministres étant complétées par le sens de la continuité et les connaissances internes des fonctionnaires. Il compare les devoirs et responsabilités des sousministres au Canada à l'analyse qu'a faite la Commission Fulton sur la function publique du Royaume‐Uni et plus précisément sur le quadruple rôle du secretaire permanent en tant que (1) » conseiller le plus proche du ministre «, (2) directeur des opérations quotidiennes du ministère, (3) détenteur de la responsabilité en dernier ressort des questions de personnel et d'organisation et (4), dans le domaine financier, responsable en dernier ressort de toutes les dépenses du ministère.Il souligne les apports à la prise de décision publique des derniers développements visant à rationnaliser le système des comités du cabinet et à assurer, entre autres, l'assistance des conseillers aux réunions des comités et évalue également l'influence des économistes et des autres conseillers professionnels de rextérieur. Finalement il répond à la question de savoir qui prend les decisions au sein du gouvernement en concluant que les décisions sont prises par les ministres ou par les fonctionnaires au nom de ceux‐ci et sous leur responsabilité, à différents niveaux du mécanisme administratif.
Abstract. August 1, 1978, marks the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the office of the Auditor General of Canada. This article traces the development of the concept of the legislative audit from the time of its first application in Canada to the present day. The first legislation, modelled on the United Kingdom Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866 and virtually unchanged in substance from 1878 to 1931, vested in the Auditor General the dual functions of comptroller of issue and auditor of the public accounts, with the emphasis on legality and conformity with appropriation requirements. In 1931 responsibility for issue control was removed from the Audit Office and transferred to a newly created executive officer, the Comptroller of the Treasury, who assumed responsibility for a pre‐audit of expenditures, leaving the Auditor General his post‐audit functions. The article describes the transfer in 1969 of responsibility for pre‐audit from the Comptroller of the Treasury to departments in response to the recommendations of the Glassco Royal Commission on Government Organization; the development of the ‘value for money’ concept by the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada; and the embodiment in legislation in the 1975 Auditor General Act of the ‘value for money’ concept in which the audit emphasis is primarily on economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Abstract. The provision of supporting services to a number of departments and agencies by one or more common service departments is the application in government administration of the economic principle of the specialization or division of labour. Common service agencies are used widely in the Government of Canada, in provincial and municipal governments, and indeed within most large organizations both in the public and private sectors of the economy. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of common service agencies and considers some of the principles which can contribute to their success. The paper then focuses on four major issues which face both users and suppliers of common services. These are (a) whether the use of common services should be optional or mandatory; (b) whether or not the users of common services should pay for the services they receive; (c) under what circumstances common service agencies should buy their services from the private sector and under what circumstances they should staff to provide those services themselves; and (d) whether common service agency efficiency and effectiveness should be subordinated to other policy objectives. The paper concludes that the use of common services in government has produced many of the advantages inherent in the specialization or division of labour as well as some attendant disadvantages. Whether common services will succeed or fail depends in no small part on what might be called the level of civilization of the organization in which they operate. Sommaire. La prostration de services de soutien à plusieurs ministères et organismes par un on certains ministères désignés est une illustration de l'application clans l'administration publique du principe économique de la spécialisation ou de la division du travail. Les organismes de services communs sont très répandus à tous les paliers de gouvernement et du reste, on les retrouve dans la plupart des grandes entreprises publiques et privées. L'auteur de l'article fait le bilan des avantages et des inconvénients des organismes de services comniuns et examine certains des principes qui pourraient contribuer à leur succès. Il s'attache ensuite à quatre questions importantes que se posent tant la clientèle que les fournisseurs des services communs, à savoir: (a) si le recours aux services communs doit être facultatif ou obligatoire; (b) si les utilisateurs des services communs doivent payer ou non les services; (c) quelles sont les circonstances qui peuvent amener les organismes de services communs à acheter leurs services du secteur privé et celles où ils doivent s'attacher le personnel leur permettant de fournir eux‐mêmes ces services; et (d) si le fonctionnement et l'efficacité. des organismes de services communs doivent être subordonnés à d'autres objectifs prioritaires. L'auteur conclut que l'utilisation des services communs au sein du gouvernement comporte un grand nombre des avantages inhérents à la spécialisation ou à la division du travail en même temps que certains inconvénients inévi...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.