1、4960 汉字， 2730 单词， 15650 英文字符 出处： Source： Age Johnsen， Pentti Meklin， Lasse Oulasvirta， Jarmo Vakkuri. Performance auditing in local government： an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing in Finland and NorwayJ.The European Accounting Review， 2001， 10(3)： 583-5
2、99. 外文文献翻译 原文： Performance auditing in local government: an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing in Finland and Norway Performance auditing, or value for money (VFM) auditing, has been a long-standing component of accountability in public administration. Du
3、ring the 1980s and 1990s performance auditing has allegedly been increasingly adopted in the new public management. While there has been much research on public management and performance auditing in central government, local government has been relatively neglected in the literature. Municipalities
4、 and counties in local government have an important role in public sector service production in most European countries, and especially in the Nordic countries. It is therefore surprising that performance auditing in this context has received so little scholarly attention. This study is aimed at fil
5、ling some of this gap. The purpose of this comparative study is, therefore, to explore how performance auditing practices, including performance measurement, are used to assess and verify value for money in local government and to enhance the accountability of municipalities and counties. This study
6、 analyses how informants from both auditors and auditees in Finland and Norway perceived the efficiency of conducting performance audits in local government. Despite some problems related to the quality of the performance audit reports, the informants perceived performance audit to function as a use
7、ful, rational public management tool. The emphasis in this study is, first of all, on highlighting characteristics of performance auditing systems in practice. In what respects are auditing systems similar in different countries? How do they differ? Second, the study examines perceived efficiency in
8、 conducting performance audits. For example: What are the roles and functions of performance auditing in local government? Who are the users of performance audit products? Does performance audit information contribute to performance improvements in local government? Audit of the performance of insti
9、tutions operates under, relatively, much uncertainty and ambiguity. Therefore, in order to illuminate these broad research questions, we have chosen to study three propositions from sociological, new institutional theory specifically. Proposition 1. The auditees in the municipalities do not use perf
10、ormance audit reports. Proposition 2. Performance audit reports are published but they are not used in the administrative or political processes in the municipalities. Proposition 3. When used, performance audit reports are used in performance measurement and evaluation of the auditee compared to ot
11、her departments, services or municipalities. This study is explorative and comparative. The focus of the analysis is on performance auditing systems and practices, including performance measurement, that are used to assess and verify value for money in local government and to enhance the accountabil
12、ity of municipalities and counties. The study examines the efficiency of performance auditing by asking nine informants (experts) how they used performance audit reports and how they perceived the efficiency of conducting performance audits. Admittedly, in the questions which the research assistants
13、 posed to the informants, we did not define usage. The informants were chosen as a convenient sample of professionals from both auditors and auditees who were central and experienced with different kinds of usage of performance audits. We have also profited from more informal discussions with severa
14、l of the informants, in addition to the interviews. This was the explorative aspect. In addition, we describe the nature of performance auditing systems in two countries: Finland and Norway. This is the comparative aspect. With this research design we wanted to capture the main conceptual richness (
15、Eisenhardt, 1989) in perceptions of municipal performance audits. We do not claim that our data are representative for either Finland or Norway. However, our project has been to explore central and important dimensions in how performance audits are used in practice in a political context. These issu
16、es could be also valid outside our two countries of study. In Finland, performance auditing is carried out by managers, internal auditors and by higher political bodies (municipal boards and the auditing committees) contracting auditing from private audit firms. In the Finnish case special attention
17、 must be devoted to the role of auditing committees in performance auditing. Therefore, the system of municipal auditing is briefly elaborated in the following. From the beginning of 1997 the municipal auditing system was divided into two elements: a professional external auditing element and a poli
18、tical auditing element； in practice a political body conducting performance auditing. All the external auditors who evaluate municipal financial statements and annual reports must be professionally certified public sector auditors. However, based on the legislation, the monopoly of local government
19、associations to supply the professional auditors was abolished. In the contemporary system all certified auditing companies and auditors can compete over the contracts of local government external auditing. The second element consists of the auditing committee and its performance auditing. The audit
20、ing committee is obligatory in every local municipality (both in municipalities and in joint authorities). It has three main tasks: First, the committee organizes the external auditing function of the local government. It organizes and plans its own work and prepares the selection process of the cer
21、tified external auditors. Second, the committee prepares all the auditing matters (including the report of the external auditors) for council decision-making. Third, the committee writes a special evaluation report regarding the achievement of the goals and objectives set by the council in the munic
22、ipal budget. By its characteristics this auditing is more performance-related auditing than financial statement auditing. In Norway both financial and performance auditing are mandatory by the municipal act, but only municipal auditors are allowed to produce municipal auditing. In 2000 there were ab
23、out 1,000 persons employed in 100 municipal audit entities. All these audit entities were members in the Norwegian Municipal Audit Association. Only nine municipal auditors audited one municipality. Of the remaining auditors 73 were joint co-operations (district auditors) employed and financed by the
