Abstract
A comprehensive system of performance measurement for all UK central government departments was introduced in 1998. Each department now has ‘high level and focused commitments’ or Public Service Agreements (PSAs) with the Treasury plus detailed departmental targets (Service Delivery Agreements or SDAs). Each PSA includes statements of central government departmental aims and objectives, allocated resources, key performance targets and details of how departments propose to increase the productivity of their operations (see Cm 4181 1998).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barzelay, M. (1997), `Central audit institutions and performance auditing: a comparative analysis of organisational strategies in the OECD’ Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 10: 3, pp. 235–260
Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C. and Owen, D. (2002), `Struggling for supremacy: the case of UK public audit institutions’ Critical Perspectives on Accounting, forthcoming.
Bowerman, M. and Humphrey, C. (2001), `Should non-financial performance information be audited?–the case of public service agreements in UK government’, Australian Accounting Review, 11: 3, pp. 35–43.
Bowerman, M., Raby, H. and Humphrey C. (2000), In search of the audit society: some evidence from health care, police and schools“, The International Journal of Auditing, 4: 1, pp. 71–100.
Bowerman, M. (1996) `The rise and fall of value for money auditing’. In Lapsley, I. and Mitchell, F. (eds.) Accounting and Performance Measurement–Issues in the Private and Public Sectors, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 193–212
Bowerman, M. (1995), `Auditing performance indicators: the role of the Audit Commission in the Citizen’s Charter initiative’, Financial Accountability & Management, 11: 2, pp. 173–185.
Brown, R. E., Gallagher, T. P. and Williams, M. C. (1991) `Auditing performance in government’. hi Friedberg, A., Geist, B., Mizrahi, N. and Sharkansky, I. (eds.), State Audit and Accountability–A Book of Readings, Jerusalem: State of Israel, State Comptroller’s Office, pp. 185–195.
Cabinet Office (2001), Better Policy Delivery and Design: A Discussion Paper, http://www.cabinetofftce.gov.uk/innovation/whatsnew/betterpolicy.shtml
Cm 4181 (1998), Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, and Accountability. London: The Stationery Office.
Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987), Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London: Tavistock.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (2000) Reports on Agencies’ Fiscal Year 1999, Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plans. GAO/RCED-00–212R.
Gosling, P. (1998), `Waste not want not’, Accountancy Age, 26th February, pp. 22–24.
HM Treasury Select Committee (1999), Seventh Report: Public Service Agreements. HC 378, London: HM Treasury.
HM Treasury Select Committee (2001), Third Report: 2000 Spending Review. HC 73-I, London: HM Treasury.
HM Treasury (2002), Audit and Audit Commission in Central Government: The Government’s Response to Lord Sharman’s Report ‘Holding to Account’, Cm 5456, London: HM Treasury.
HM Treasury (2000a), 2000 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements. Cm 4808, London: The Stationery Office.
HM Treasury (2000b), 2000 Spending Review: Service Delivery Agreements: A Guide, Cm 4915, London: The Stationery Office.
HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office and Office for National Statistics (2001), Choosing the Right Fabric - A Framework For Performance Information.
Humphrey, C. (1997), `Auditing expectations’. In Sherer, M. and Turley, S. (eds.), Current Issues in Auditing, Third Edition, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 1–21.
Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R. W. (1993), `Accounting, accountability and the `new’ UK public sector’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 6: 3, pp. 7–29.
Leeuw, F. L. (1996), ‘Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement:
questions and answers’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9:2, pp. 92–102.
Meyer, W. and Gupta, V. (1994), `The performance paradox’, Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 16, pp. 309–369
Midwinter, A. (1994), `Developing performance indicators for local government: the Scottish experience’, Public Money and Management, 14: 2, pp. 37–43.
National Audit Office (2001), Measuring the Performance of Government Departments. HC 301 ( 200001 ), London: The Stationery Office.
Pallot, J. (1992), `Local authority reporting–major advances made’, Accountants’ Journal of the New Zealand Society of Accountants, August, pp. 46–49.
Pollitt, C., Gine, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H. and Waerness, M. (1999), Performance or Compliance?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Public Accounts Committee (2000), Ninth Report–Government Resources And Accounts Bill. HC 159 ( 1999–2000 ), London: The Stationery Office.
Sharman, Lord (2001), Holding To Account - The Review of Audit And Accountability For Central Government, London: The Stationery Office.
Sheffield, J. and Bowerman, M. (1999), `Best value–differences in its implementation in England and Scotland’, Public Policy and Administration, 14: 3, pp 67–89.
Smith, P. (1992), `Negative political feedback: an examination of the problem of modelling political responses in public sector effectiveness auditing’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5: 1, pp. 5–20.
Smith, P. (1988), ‘Assessing competition among local authorities in England and Wales’, Financial Accountability and Management, 4: 3, pp. 235–252.
Stewart, J. and Walsh, K., (1994), ‘Performance measurement: when performance can never be finally defined’, Public Money and Management, 14: 2, pp. 45–49.
Swedish Ministry of Finance - Budget department (1995), Annual Performance Accounting and Auditing in Sweden. Stockholm.
Talbot, C. (2000), `Performing `performance’- a comedy in five acts’, Public Money and Management, October - December, pp. 63–68.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bowerman, M., Humphrey, C. (2002). Limiting the Scope of Central Government Audit: A Constitutional Problem or a Sensible Solution?. In: Montesinos, V., Vela, J.M. (eds) Innovations in Governmental Accounting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5504-6_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5504-6_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5322-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5504-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive