An empirical study on the performance of Supreme Audit Institutions in European Union privatizations

European Accounting Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 777-795

  Torres, L ^a   Pina, V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845780625     PISSN: 09638180     EISSN: 14684497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/096381899335808     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Australian National Audit Office. 1993. The sale of Aussat and best practice for the sale of Commonwealth assets The Auditor-General, Audit report no. 33 (1992–93)
2. Becker, G. S., 1983. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371–400.
3. Becker, G. S., 1985. Public policies, pressure groups and dead weight costs. Journal of Public Economics, 28: 329–347.
4. Bogdanor, V., 1994. Local Government and the Constitution, Kensington Town Hall: Solace.
5. Bundesrechnungshof. The audit of the implementation of obligations assumed in the course of privatisation, based on German experience. EUROSAI Seminar on the Audit of Privatisation Warsaw. May.
6. Court des Comptes de la Republique Française. The audit of corporatisation of state-owned enterprises. Seminar on the Audit of Privatisations. May, Warsaw.
7. European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI). 1995. The audit of privatisation Warsaw Seminar
8. European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (EUROSAI). The audit of privatisation. III EUROSAI Congress. Prague.
9. Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., and Pettigrew, A., 1996. The New Public Management in Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Gonzalo, J. A., Pina, V., and Torres, L., The valuation of companies in privatization processes. IV IFSAM World Congress. July13–16, Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
11. Heald, D., and Geaughan, N., 1997. Accounting for the private finance initiative. Public Money & Management, July–September
12. Hood, C., 1991. A public management for all seasons?. Public Administration, 69 Spring: 3–19.
13. Hood, C., 1995. Emerging issues in public administration. Public Administration, 73 Spring: 165–183.
14. International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). 1995. Report on privatisation audit survey, London: Working Group on the Audit of Privatisation.
15. International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). 1997. Guidelines on best practice for the audit of privatisations, London: Working Group on the Audit of Privatisation. draft
16. Kaltenbach, E., 1995. Audit of the regulatory action, Frankfurt: INTOSAI Working Group on the Audit of Privatisations.
17. Naschold, F., 1996. New Frontiers in Public Sector Management, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
18. National Audit Office. 1998. State audit in the European Union
19. Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T., 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: De Plume, Penguin Books.
20. Peltzman, S., 1976. Towards a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19: 211–240.
21. Posner, R., 1974. Theories of economic regulation. BeIl Journal of Economics and Management Science, 5: 335–358.
22. Posner, R., 1975. The social cost of monopoly and regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83: 807–827.
23. Stigler, G. S., 1971. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2: 1–21.
24. Stigler, G. S., ed. 1988. Chicago Studies in Political Economy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Swedish National Audit Office. 1994. The audit of bodies regulating privatised/ corporatised public utilities Stockholm
26. Torres, L., and Pina, V., 1997. The function of the Supreme and Regional Audit Institutions in the privatisation process of the European Union. Special reference to local public utilities in Spain, Milan: 6th Congress of Comparative International Governmental Accounting Research (CIGAR).