Political Accountability and Performance Audit: The Case of the Auditor General In norway

Abstract

Performance audit is widely used in public administration, but, at present, little empirical evidence exists on its usefulness and contribution to accountability. Based on survey data from 353 civil servants in Norway, this article analyzes the auditees' perceptions of the audit. Performance audit was seen as useful by a majority of the auditees. If auditees agreed to audit criteria and assessments, were allowed to influence the process, had favourable opinions of the reports, and believed that the State Audit Institution contributed to accountability and improvement, then they regarded it as useful. Reports used for accountability purposes were not perceived as less useful. The auditees' administrative level, the use of the report to further interests, and attention from politicians, the media, and the Parliament impacted on the accountability dimension. These results indicate that performance audit can influence civil servants, but the influence is contingent on how the audited civil servants perceive the performance audit.

Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit

“…Its mandate, in performance audit, is to establish whether public policies, programmes, projects or organisations have operated with due regard to economy, efficiency, effectiveness and good management practice (Donaldson and Lipsey, 2006;Johnsen et al, 2001;Lonsdale, 2000;Pollitt et al, 1999;Power, 1997). Consequently it now deals with politically relevant matters and does not limit itself to checking state accounts.…”

“…Recent studies suggest that the auditees perceived utility of the performance audit depends on their perception of the quality of the report and of the SAI as an institution, as well as on their experiences in the process and the degree to which their comments were taken into account (Alwardat 2010;Reichborn-Kjennerud 2013). Several authors also problematized the independent role of auditors as being an obstacle to impact because stakeholder involvement is associated with greater utilization (Vanlandingham 2011; (2000) and Lonsdale (1999) based the assessment of impact on the opinion of the auditors themselves.…”

“…Some claim that the control is just a ritual of verification with the aim of assurance, but without real effect (Power 1997). Others on the contrary claim that control can enhance trust and performance (Möllering 2006;Furubo 2011).…”

“…This NPM 'regime' has led to increased delegation which in turn has resulted in more use of audit and control mechanisms. Audits and evaluations have become important tools in providing information about how public money is spent (Power 1997;Pollitt et al 1999;Hood et al 1999). …”

The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Administrations in Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Study

“…She argues that cooperation between the auditors and auditees can enhance understanding of the issues involved, increase the perceptions of the usefulness of audit, and accordingly, increase the implementation of recommendations (Van Loocke & Put, 2011;Van Der Meer, 1999). In the same vein, (Alwardat et al, 2015;Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2013) examine auditees' perceptions of performance audits and suggest that the auditees perceptions of the usefulness of performance audit depends on their expectations and perception of the quality of auditors' reports, the relevance of their recommendations and of the SAI as an institution, as well as on their experiences in the process and the degree to which their recommendations have been implemented. This is supported by a study conducted by Reichborn-Kjennerud (2014), which analyses the auditees' perceptions of performance audit.…”