Sarbanes‐Oxley and the Relentless Pursuit of Government Accountability

Michelle C. Pautz, C. Washington
{"title":"Sarbanes‐Oxley and the Relentless Pursuit of Government Accountability","authors":"Michelle C. Pautz, C. Washington","doi":"10.1177/0095399709339011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the corporate financial scandals of the late 1990s, Congress responded by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 to improve accountability of both the private sector and of government. Although discussions of accountability and Sarbanes‐Oxley are pertinent to both the public and private sectors, the authors focus on the attempts of the act to encourage government accountability through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In a broader context, the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley fits within public administration’s constant emphasis of reform—particularly those reforms under the rubric of New Public Management that are intended to promote accountability. The authors’ purpose in this article is twofold. First, public administration literature is largely silent on Sarbanes‐Oxley despite its implications for the field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarbanes‐Oxley illustrates the perils of modern government reform efforts. Using Koppell’s five conceptions of accountability, the authors demonstrate how Sarbanes‐Oxley, like many reforms before it, may actually hinder accountability despite its explicit promises to promote it.","PeriodicalId":153353,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Society","volume":"765 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709339011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

In the wake of the corporate financial scandals of the late 1990s, Congress responded by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 to improve accountability of both the private sector and of government. Although discussions of accountability and Sarbanes‐Oxley are pertinent to both the public and private sectors, the authors focus on the attempts of the act to encourage government accountability through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In a broader context, the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley fits within public administration’s constant emphasis of reform—particularly those reforms under the rubric of New Public Management that are intended to promote accountability. The authors’ purpose in this article is twofold. First, public administration literature is largely silent on Sarbanes‐Oxley despite its implications for the field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarbanes‐Oxley illustrates the perils of modern government reform efforts. Using Koppell’s five conceptions of accountability, the authors demonstrate how Sarbanes‐Oxley, like many reforms before it, may actually hinder accountability despite its explicit promises to promote it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
萨班斯-奥克斯利法案和对政府问责的不懈追求
在20世纪90年代末的企业财务丑闻之后,国会通过了2002年的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(Sarbanes - Oxley Act),以改善私营部门和政府的问责制。尽管对问责制和萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的讨论与公共部门和私营部门都相关,但作者将重点放在该法案通过创建上市公司会计监督委员会来鼓励政府问责制的尝试上。在更广泛的背景下,萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的通过符合公共行政不断强调的改革——特别是那些旨在促进问责制的新公共管理标题下的改革。作者写这篇文章的目的是双重的。首先,尽管萨班斯-奥克斯利法案对该领域的影响很大,但公共管理文献在很大程度上对其保持沉默。其次,也许更重要的是,萨班斯-奥克斯利法案说明了现代政府改革努力的危险。利用科佩尔的五种问责制概念,作者论证了萨班斯-奥克斯利法案,就像之前的许多改革一样,尽管明确承诺促进问责制,但实际上可能会阻碍问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Toward a Theoretical Framework for Ethical Decision Making of Street-Level Bureaucracy Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Tools Back to the Future A Very Tangled Web Cutting Edge or Reversion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1