Click here to download

Performance Audit in the Public Sector. What is the contribution to the Performance Management?
Author/s: Luciano Marchi, Manuela Bertei 
Year:  2016 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  15 Pg. 49-63 FullText PDF:  500 KB
DOI:  10.3280/MACO2016-003004
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

This paper examines possible future improvements of performance audit/performance management relationship in the public sector. Performance measurement, management and audit are strictly linked and influence each other. Scientific literature highlighted the coexistence of two contrasting sides. On one hand the positive side regards, for example, accountability and performance improving. On the other hand, a wrong use of performance audit process might lead to several problems such as: unintended consequences, performance paradox etc. Based on these premises, the research investigates on whether the performance audit really makes the difference, that is, how much performance audit contributes to performance management. This paper does not give an answer to this question but rather highlights the drawbacks and weak points as they come out from the analysis of various studies.
Keywords: Performance Audit, Performance Management, Public Sector, Performance Paradox

  1. Allegrini M., D’Onza G. (2011), Corporate governance, risk management e responsabilità sociale fra presente e futuro dell’attività di internal auditing, Management Control, 1, pp. 151-178., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2011-001007
  2. Azzali S., Mazza T. (2011), La valutazione degli Information Technology Controls nell’ambito di sistemi di controllo interno: i risultati di una ricerca empirica, Management Control, 3, pp. 91-118., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2011-003005
  3. Barzelay M. (1996), Performance auditing and the New Public Management: changing roles and strategies of central audit institutions in Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government, Paris, OECD.
  4. Barzalay M. (1997), Central Audit Institutions and performance audit: a comparative analysis of organizational strategies in the OECD. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Governance, 10, 3, pp. 235-260.
  5. Bevan G., Hood C. (2005), What is measured and what matters: target and gaming in the English public health care system, The Public Service Programmes Discussion paper series, no 0501, December 2005, Economic and Social research Council.
  6. Bisogno M., Manes Rossi F., Tartaglia Polcini P. (2014), La qualità della revisione negli enti locali italiani, Azienda Pubblica, n. 3.
  7. Bouckaert G., Ormond D., Peters B.G. (2000), A potential governance agenda for Finland (Research Agenda No 8) Helsinky, Finland, Ministry of Finance.
  8. Bouckaert G., Peters B.G. (2002), Performance measurement and management. The Achilles’Heel, Administrative Modernization. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 4, pp. 359-362., DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2002.11643672
  9. Chambers Andrew D., Odar Marjan, A new vision for internal audit, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp.34-55., DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-1073
  10. Daujotaite D., Macerinskiene I. (2008), Development of performance audit in public sector, 5 International Scientific Conference Business and management, 16-17 may 2008, Vilnus, Lituania.
  11. De Bruijn H. (2002), Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risk of performance measurement, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15, 6, pp. 576-594., DOI: 10.1108/09513550210448607
  12. Dixit A. (2002), Incentives and organizations in public sector: an interpretative review, Journal of Human resources, 37, 4, pp 696-727., DOI: 10.2307/3069614
  13. Furubu J.E. (2011), Performance auditing: audit or misnomer? in Performance Audit Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  14. Gajda-Lupke O. (2009), Performance measurement methods in the public sector, Poznan University of Economics Review, 9, 1, pp. 67- 88.
  15. Glynn J., Gray A., Jenkins B. (1992), Auditing the Three Es: the challenge of effectiveness, Public Policy and Administration, 7, pp. 56-69., DOI: 10.1177/095207679200700305
  16. Hood C., Peters G. (2004), The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox?, Journal of Public sector Management, 18, 4, pp.367-382.
  17. , DOI: 10.4135/9781473915619
  18. INCONSAI (1986), General Statement of Supreme Audit of Public Enterprises and Audit Quality, Sydney, 7-16 April, 1986, AGPS, Camberra.
  19. Kells S., Hodge G. (2009), Performance auditing in the public sector: reconceptualising the task, Journal or Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 15, 2, pp. 33-60.
  20. Kells S. (2011), The seven deadly sins of performance auditing: implications for monitoring public audit institution, Australian Accounting Review, 59, 21, pp. 383-396.
  21. Kelman S. (2006), Improving service delivery performance in the United Kingdom: organization theory perspective on central investigation strategies, Journal of Comparative policy Analysis, 8, 4, pp. 393-419.
  22. Lamboglia R., D’Onza G. (2013), Un modello di gestione del rischio reputazionale. Dall’identificazione al fronteggiamento, Management Control, 3, pp. 7-34.
  23. , DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-003002
  24. Leeuw F.L. (1996a), Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and answers, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9, 2, pp. 92-102., DOI: 10.1108/09513579610116385
  25. Leeuw F.L. (1996b), Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and challenges in Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government, Paris, OECD.
  26. Miraglia R.A. (2012), Editoriale. Nuove tendenze nei sistemi di controllo e di misurazione delle performance, Management Control, 2, pp. 5-14.
  27. , DOI: 10.3280/MACO2012-002001
  28. Meyer M.W., Gupta V. (1994), The performance Paradox, Research in Organizational behavior, 16, pp. 309-369.
  29. Mussari R. (1997), La revisione gestionale negli enti locali, La revisione delle aziende pubbliche, Rimini, Maggioli.
  30. Mihaiu D.M., Opreana A., Cristescu M.P. (2010), Efficiency, effectiveness and performance of the public sector, Romanian Journal Of Economic Forecasting, n.4, pp. 132-147.
  31. OECD (2000) Government of the future. Paris.
  32. Osbourne D., Gaebler T. (1992), Reinventing Government, Lexington, MA, Addison-Wesley.
  33. Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research, Management accounting research, 10(4), pp. 363-382.
  34. Pollit C.H., Summa H. (1997), Performance audit and public management reform, University of Vermont, p. 206.
  35. Pollit C.H., Bouckaert G. (2004), Public management reform. A comparative analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  36. Propper C. (2003), The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector, Oxford review of economic policy, 19, 2, pp.250-267.
  37. Raudla, R., Taro, K., Agu, C. et al. (2016), Public Organization Review, 16: 217.
  38. Santini F. (2013), Strategic Management Accounting and financial performance in the small and medium sized Italian manufacturing enterprises, Management Control, 1, pp. 77-107., DOI: 10.3280/MACO2013-001005
  39. Smith P. (1995), On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector, International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 2, pp. 277-310.
  40. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015), Performance management in the public sector, Routledge
  41. Van Thiel S., Leeuw F.L. (2002), The performance paradox in public sector, Public Performance and Management Review, 25, 3, pp.267-281.
  42. , DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2002.11643661

Luciano Marchi, Manuela Bertei, in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 3/2016, pp. 49-63, DOI:10.3280/MACO2016-003004


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content