Neat and tidy…and 100% correct: Assuring the quality of supreme audit institution performance audit 1 work

Quality Matters: Seeking Confidence in Evaluating, Auditing, and Performance Reporting

Volumn 11, Issue , 2018, Pages 173-196

  Lonsdale, Jeremy ^a   Mayne, John ^b  

^a National Audit Office   (United Kingdom)

^b Government of Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85084589756     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781351322447-9     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Algemene Rekenkamer. 1996. Performance Audit Manual (On the Algemene Rekenkamer’s website www.rekenkamer.nl).
2. Algemene Rekenkamer. 2000. Self-Evaluation Manual (On the Algemene Rekenkamer’s website www.rekenkamer.nl).
3. Barzelay, M. 1996. “VFM Auditing and the New Public Management: Changing Roles and Strategies of Central Audit Institutions.” Performance Audit and the Modernisation of Government, 15-56. Paris: OECD.
4. Barzelay, M. 1997. “Central Audit Institutions and Performance Auditing: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Strategies in the OECD.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 10 (3): 235-260.
5. Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., and Fenger, H.J.M. 1999. “Harmonizing Competing Rationalities in Evaluating Governance.” Knowledge, Technology and Policy 12 (2): 38-51.
6. Bowerman, M. 1994. “The NAO and the Audit Commission: Co-operation in Areas Where Their VFM Responsibilities Interface.” Financial Accountability and Management (February): 47-63.
7. Bowerman, M. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of VFM Auditing,” in Lapsley, I., and Mitchell, F. (eds.), Accounting and Performance Measurement: Issues in the Private and Public Sectors, 193-212. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
8. Defence Analysis. 2001. “Better than Expected? National Audit Office Defence Cooperation Report,” 4 (4).
9. Gunvaldsen, J., and Karlsen, R. 1999. “The Auditor as an Evaluator.” Evaluation 5 (4): 458-467.
10. Hansard Society. 2001. Challenge for Parliament. Making Government Accountable. London: Hansard Society.
11. Hodges, R. 1997. “Competition and Eficiency after Privatisation: The Role of the NAO.” Public Money and Management (January-March): 33-42.
12. Lonsdale, J. 2000. “Advancing beyond Regularity: Development in Value for Money Methods at the National Audit Office 1984-1999.” Ph.D. diss., Brunei University.
13. Lonsdale, J. 2001. “Auditing in a Changing World: Developments in the Work of the National Audit Office 1997-2001.” Paper presented to the seminar on Advances in the Public management of Information and Control: Auditing Evaluation and Inspection in the EU Member States and the European Union, Maastricht.
14. Morin D. 2001. “Influence of Value for Money Audit on Public Administrations: Looking beyond Appearances.” Financial Accountability and Management 17 (2): 99-117.
15. National Audit Office. 1997. Designing vfm Studies: A Guide. London: National Audit Office.
16. nd ed. London: National Audit Office.
17. Pavalko, R. 1988. Sociology of Occupations and Professions. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
18. Pollitt, C. 2000. “Performance Audit in Western Europe: Trends and Choices.” Paper supporting a presentation at the Government Accountability and the Role of the Auditor General Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, September.
19. Pollitt, C., Girre, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H., and Waemess, M. 1999. Performance or Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Roberts, S., and Pollitt, C. 1994. “Audit or Evaluation? A National Audit Office VFM Study.” Public Administration 12 (Winter): 527-549.
22. Schwartz, R. 1999. “Coping with the Effectiveness Dilemma: Strategies Adopted by State Auditors.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 65: 511-526.
23. Sharman, Lord. 2001. Holding to Account. London, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97D7F/38.pdf
24. Sutherland, S. 2001. “‘Biggest Scandal in Canadian History’: HRDC Audit Starts Probity War.” School of Policy Studies, Queens University; Working Paper 23. Kingston, Ontario.
25. Swedish National Audit Bureau. 1993. Performance Auditing at the Swedish National Audit Bureau. Stockholm: The Swedish National Audit Bureau.
26. Van der Meer, F-B. 1999. “Evaluation and the Social Construction of Impacts.” Evaluation 5 (4): 387-406.
27. Weiss, C. H. (ed.). 1992. Organizations for Policy Analysis: Helping Government Think. Newbury Park: Sage.