Performance audit and the importance of the public debate

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of performance audit on public policy. The article investigates performance audit reports and the debates they initiate in the public realm.The case of Norway is analysed using mixed methods including a questionnaire, mapping and categorizing of reports, document studies and interviews. The results show that the Norwegian Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) is primarily preoccupied with managerial issues.It is nevertheless open to interpretation whether the preoccupation with managerial issues primarily implies an efficiency and effectiveness focus or an assessment of compliance to managerial standards. Most reports get moderate attention in the media and in the parliamentary control committee. Therefore the direct dialogue with the ministries becomes important for the performance audits' influence. In the public debate the SAI, the ministries and the members of parliament base their argumentation in different institutional logics. These logics can lead to different interpretations of the control system, laws and regulations and hamper the State Audit Institution's influence.

Supreme audit institutions in a high‐impact context: A comparative analysis of performance audit in four Nordic countries

“…For example, Reichborn‐Kjennerud () found that media attention on the reports was related to holding ministers to account in Norway (her hypothesis 9). However, survey data and a case study showed that most of the reports received moderate attention from the media and the parliamentary control committee in the public debate (Reichborn‐Kjennerud, ), possibly indicating that only some topics are politically salient. Raudla et al.…”

The impact of supreme audit institutions and ombudsmen in Belgium and The Netherlands

“…If done in cooperation, the outcomes will follow from open communication, negotiation, and consultation between the forum and actor (Gill, ; Hertogh, ; Morin, ; Van Loocke & Put, ). In that case, the possibility for implementation of the results is much higher than in the case where the recommendations are drawn up unilaterally by the forum (Reichborn‐Kjennerud, ).…”

“…As words on paper always fall short in explaining things, such a meeting might help increase the impact of the audit or investigation and the recommendations. The literature surrounding discursive institutionalism has shown how change might be explained through deliberation and argumentation (Mansbridge et al., ; Reichborn‐Kjennerud, ; Schmidt, ). This further emphasizes the importance of studying communication in the audit and ombudsman investigation process.…”

Highlighting the wider relevance of science centre evaluations: a reflection on the evaluation of a physics engagement programme

“…At the same time, evaluations have become a core part of standard professional practice in ISE institutions [Hein, 1994;Sanchez-Mora, 2014] and are now largely embedded in the ISE sector [Lloyd et al, 2012;Phipps, 2010]. Evaluation practice in both physics education programmes and ISE may also have been influenced by the growing areas of work in programme evaluation, stakeholder evaluation and community participation evaluation which are on-going in fields as diverse as health care, community literacy and public policy, [Bledsoe and Graham, 2005;Brandon and Fukunaga, 2014;Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2014].…”