On the legitimacy and apoliticality of public sector performance audit: exploratory evidence from Canada and Denmark

PurposeThe increasing uptake of performance auditing (PA), which entails both the facilitation and the control of government policies, has seriously challenged state auditors' claims that they are apolitical. This article aims to understand how supreme audit institutions (SAIs) operate to maintain and nurture the political neutrality and legitimacy of their PA.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on Suchman's typology on legitimacy (1995) to analyze the PA reports of two countries with a long history of both performance auditing and accusations of political interference, namely Canada and Denmark. Documentary analysis and interview methods are employed.FindingsThis study shows how the two SAIs have been pursuing pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy through the professionalization and standardization of both the form and the content of their PA reports. Engaging and maintaining the dialogue with the audited administration, triangulating recognized social science methods, and emphasizing the “public interest” basis of PA reflect some of the tools adopted to navigate the “grey zone” between objective, relevant and politically sensitive audits.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper's explorative approach limits the possibility for robust testing of the causal forces impinging on SAIs' choices of legitimation strategies. Nevertheless, variations between the Canadian and Danish SAIs in the strategic use of some legitimacy tools such as the media suggest a difference in the role of Public Accounts Committee in the two countries that can be investigated in future research.Originality/valueMuch research exists questioning the political neutrality of PA, yet there has not been much discussion on how SAIs have been able to develop and preserve the prevalent legitimacy of their PA amid the criticism. More specifically, our research reveals the tendency of both the Canadian and Danish SAIs to strategically underline the “public interest” dimension of their performance audits in an attempt to increase both their legitimacy and political neutrality.