Reforming government public accountability: the case of Thailand

Abstract

Purpose Public accountability was formally imposed on the Thai Government in 1997 when the World Bank compelled public sector reforms as a condition for bailing the country from bankruptcy. Despite regulating to promote public accountability for 20 years, the public accountability of Thai Government is still criticized as poor. However, the specific areas of public accountability needing improvement have not been clearly identified in Thailand. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the Thai Government discharges its public accountability. Design/methodology/approach Prior literature supported annual reports as essential means by which public sector entities discharge their public accountability, and addressed the desirable aspects of reporting which permit the public’s monitoring of their government’s performance. That is: the account must be publicly accessible, timely, reliable and adequate. This paper evaluates the 2016 annual reports of the Thai Central Government departments against these aspects in tandem with the reporting regulations. Findings The results show that reliability and timeliness of annual report disclosures are the most problematic, followed by accessibility and adequacy. It was also found that the existing regulations provide only mild sanctions on government officers for their non-compliance. Further, statistical evidence suggests that larger departments report better on voluntary items than departments with smaller revenue. Originality/value These weaknesses of the reporting and regulations provide immediate suggestions for public policy regulators as to how to improve the Thai Government’s public accountability. These results are also expected to be useful to international lending institutions to be aware of particular issues when considering their foreign aid programs. Theoretically, the paper supports the necessity of public accountability mechanisms, in particular public sanctions, which need to be strong enough to motivate governments’ public accountability. It also highlights that public accountability aspects can be useful to measure or evaluating public sector reporting in emerging countries such as Thailand.

Fraud Prevention in the Perspective of Probity Audit (The Case Study of University X)

“…Probity audits in university x can prevent fraud in the procurement of goods and services through the auditee selection process which has been prioritized from the beginning with a high risk. This is in line with the results of research conducted by Capalbo & Palumbo (2012), Doig (2014), Keerasuntonpong, Manowan, & Shutibhinyo (2019), Silva (2016), and Westhausen (2017) conclude that the probability audit is effective in terms of preventing and detecting fraud because it is carried out in real-time when the process of procuring goods and services is carried out. This is an effort so that the procurement process can run according to the contract and does not cause potential findings or fraud.…”

Pengaruh Ketepatan Anggaran, Sistem Pengendalian Manajerial Sektor Publik, dan Sistem Pelaporan Terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja

“…Akuntabilitas merujuk pada standar atas kinerja seseorang yang didasarkan atas harapan masyarakat dan bisa digunakan untuk menilai hal penting seperti kinerja, derajat responsivitasnya, serta moralitas dari petugas yang melayani kepentingan publik (Mahsun, 2012). Akuntabilitas berfokus pada penilaian perilaku agen publik sesuai dengan serangkaian standar (Keerasuntonpong, Manowan, & Shutibhinyo, 2019). Akuntabilitas menjadi lebih penting, karena pemerintah perlu memberi tahu masyarakat tentang penggunaan dan pengelolaan sumber daya publik (Brusca & Montesinos, 2016).…”

The impact of the performance measurement system on the organizational performance of the public sector in a transition economy: Is public accountability a missing link?

“…Accordingly, an important premise is that better organizational performance will come from effective public accountability (Christensen & Laegreid, 2014). Moreover, under institutional pressure, the pressure on public sector managers to implement good public accountability is increased, driving the organizations to achieve higher results (Keerasuntonpong et al, 2019). In other words, public accountability is a means to control public organizations' behaviors, ensuring they operate according to functions and have enhanced results, providing benefits for citizens and other stakeholders.…”