公私伙伴关系的国家审计:对透明度的影响、审计师的角色以及对被审计单位反应的影响

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI:10.1111/faam.12342
Luis Cracel Viana, José António Moreira, Paulo Alves
{"title":"公私伙伴关系的国家审计:对透明度的影响、审计师的角色以及对被审计单位反应的影响","authors":"Luis Cracel Viana,&nbsp;José António Moreira,&nbsp;Paulo Alves","doi":"10.1111/faam.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) play an active role in the government's accountability to the parliament. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are a different route used to deliver infrastructure-based public services by private sector entities compared to traditional public procurement. Due to their nature, PPPs raise specific issues related to transparency for public accountability and SAIs, through the independent and competent audit they provide, may enhance the information content of the accountability relationship between the government and the parliament. We conducted a documentary analysis of 16 PPP audit reports issued by the Portuguese Court of Auditors (CoA) to analyze the audit process and outputs. Overall, our evidence suggests that the CoA, through the audit reports, reduced the information asymmetry by disclosing relevant information for more comprehensive public scrutiny and political accountability of PPPs and made several recommendations towards better PPP governance and management. Furthermore, our findings corroborate the two functions of SAIs, which can both be found in the same audit report: the watchdog function (magistrate and public accountant roles), drawing attention to failures at different stages of the PPP cycle, and the shepherding function (management accountant role), providing advice to the Government towards best practices on PPP governance and management. Considering the Government's reactions to the audit reports and the information available about CoA's recommendations implementation, there are doubts about the desired audit impact on the auditee's change of PPPs governance and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State audit of public–private partnerships: Effects on transparency, auditor's roles, and impact on auditee's reactions\",\"authors\":\"Luis Cracel Viana,&nbsp;José António Moreira,&nbsp;Paulo Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faam.12342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) play an active role in the government's accountability to the parliament. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are a different route used to deliver infrastructure-based public services by private sector entities compared to traditional public procurement. Due to their nature, PPPs raise specific issues related to transparency for public accountability and SAIs, through the independent and competent audit they provide, may enhance the information content of the accountability relationship between the government and the parliament. We conducted a documentary analysis of 16 PPP audit reports issued by the Portuguese Court of Auditors (CoA) to analyze the audit process and outputs. Overall, our evidence suggests that the CoA, through the audit reports, reduced the information asymmetry by disclosing relevant information for more comprehensive public scrutiny and political accountability of PPPs and made several recommendations towards better PPP governance and management. Furthermore, our findings corroborate the two functions of SAIs, which can both be found in the same audit report: the watchdog function (magistrate and public accountant roles), drawing attention to failures at different stages of the PPP cycle, and the shepherding function (management accountant role), providing advice to the Government towards best practices on PPP governance and management. Considering the Government's reactions to the audit reports and the information available about CoA's recommendations implementation, there are doubts about the desired audit impact on the auditee's change of PPPs governance and management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最高审计机关在政府对议会的问责中发挥着积极的作用。与传统的公共采购相比,公私伙伴关系(ppp)是私营部门实体提供基于基础设施的公共服务的一种不同途径。由于ppp的性质,ppp提出了与公共问责透明度相关的具体问题,而SAIs通过其提供的独立和称职的审计,可以提高政府与议会之间问责关系的信息内容。我们对葡萄牙审计法院(CoA)发布的16份PPP审计报告进行了文献分析,以分析审计过程和结果。总体而言,我们的证据表明,审计委员会通过审计报告,通过披露相关信息,对公私合作进行更全面的公众监督和政治问责,减少了信息不对称,并就改善公私合作治理和管理提出了若干建议。此外,我们的研究结果证实了SAIs的两种功能,这两种功能都可以在同一份审计报告中找到:监督功能(治安官和公共会计师角色),引起人们对PPP周期不同阶段失败的关注,以及引导功能(管理会计师角色),向政府提供关于PPP治理和管理最佳实践的建议。考虑到政府对审计报告的反应以及CoA建议实施情况的现有信息,对审计对被审计单位ppp治理和管理变革的预期影响存在疑问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
State audit of public–private partnerships: Effects on transparency, auditor's roles, and impact on auditee's reactions

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) play an active role in the government's accountability to the parliament. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are a different route used to deliver infrastructure-based public services by private sector entities compared to traditional public procurement. Due to their nature, PPPs raise specific issues related to transparency for public accountability and SAIs, through the independent and competent audit they provide, may enhance the information content of the accountability relationship between the government and the parliament. We conducted a documentary analysis of 16 PPP audit reports issued by the Portuguese Court of Auditors (CoA) to analyze the audit process and outputs. Overall, our evidence suggests that the CoA, through the audit reports, reduced the information asymmetry by disclosing relevant information for more comprehensive public scrutiny and political accountability of PPPs and made several recommendations towards better PPP governance and management. Furthermore, our findings corroborate the two functions of SAIs, which can both be found in the same audit report: the watchdog function (magistrate and public accountant roles), drawing attention to failures at different stages of the PPP cycle, and the shepherding function (management accountant role), providing advice to the Government towards best practices on PPP governance and management. Considering the Government's reactions to the audit reports and the information available about CoA's recommendations implementation, there are doubts about the desired audit impact on the auditee's change of PPPs governance and management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
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