Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:12:20.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconciling Audit and Evaluation?

The Shift to Performance and Effectiveness at the European Court of Auditors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Paul Stephenson
Paul Stephenson*
Affiliation:
Centre d'études Européennes – SciencesPo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last twenty years, the European Court of Auditors has placed increasing importance on the production of “special reports” examining the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of EU spending (the three “E”s). This institutional focus on performance audit, alongside traditional financial and compliance audit, has occurred at a time when the European Union is increasingly evaluating its own policies and programmes, under political pressure to demonstrate their added value. With performance audit, the EU's external auditors make value judgements on what was achieved through the EU budget, arguably bringing a greater political dimension to the Court as it works to deliver conclusions and recommendations meant to assist the legislature (European Parliament) in carrying out its scrutiny role and the executive (European Commission) in shaping better future policy. This raises questions about how financial accountability is interpreted, and whether it depends on the quality of audit reports or on the forums to which they are delivered, and subsequently, how they act upon them. This article analyses the factors that explain the increased use of special reports by the Court, questioning if they resemble evaluation studies. It examines their focus and impact, as well as the institutional challenges implicit in performance audit.

Type
Symposium on Policy Evaluation in the EU
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 79 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 European Court of Auditors, Strategy 2013-17 (2013), Luxembourg.

2 Laffan, Brigid, “Becoming a ‘Living Institution’: The Evolution of the European Court of Auditors” 37(2) Journal of Common Market Studies (1999), pp. 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Paul Stephenson, “60 Years of Auditing Europe: a Historical Institutionalist Analysis”, conference paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA), May 2013, Baltimore.

4 Kok, Chris, “The Court of Auditors of the European Communities: “The other European Court in Luxembourg”’, 26(3) Common Market Law Review (1989), pp. 345–367.Google Scholar

5 Levy, Roger, “Managing value for money audit in the European Union: the challenge of diversity” 43(4) Journal of Common Market Studies (1996), pp. 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Laffan, Brigid, “Auditing and accountability in the European Union”, 10(5) Journal of European Public Policy (2003), pp. 762–777, here p. 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 O’Keeffe, David, “The Court of Auditors”, in D. Curtin/D. Heukels (eds.) Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry. G. Schermers Vol. II (Dordrehct: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), pp. 177–194.Google Scholar

8 Laffan, “Auditing and accountability in the European Union”, supra note 6, at p. 772.

9 White, Fidelma and Hollingsworth, Kathryn, Audit, Accountability and Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), p. 169.Google Scholar

10 van der Knaap, Peter, “Responsive Evaluation and Performance Management: Overcoming the Downsides of Policy Objectives and Performance Indicators”, 12(3) Evaluation (2006), pp. 278–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Mendez, Carlos and Bachtler, John, “Administrative Reform and unintended consequences: an assessment of the EU cohesion policy ‘audit explosion’”, 18(5) Journal of European Public Policy (2011), pp. 746–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Barzelay, Michael, “Central audit institutions and performance auditing: a comparative analysis of organizational strategies in the OECD”, 10(3) Governance (1997), pp. 235–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Strathern, Marilyn (ed.), Audit Cultures – Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (London: Routledge, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid., at p. 2.

15 Van der Meer, Frans–Bauke and Edelenbos, Jurian, “Evaluation in multi–actor policy process: Accountability, learning and cooperation” 12(2) Evaluation (2006), pp. 201–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 European Court of Auditors, Performance Audit Manual (2010), Luxembourg. Retrieved at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/PERF_AUDIT_MANUAL/PERF_AUDIT_MANUAL_GA.PDF

17 European Commission, Strengthening the foundations of Smart Regulation – improving evaluation, COM(2013) 686 final.

18 Gustavsson, Sverker, Karlsson, Christer and Persson, Thomas, The Illusion of Accountability in the EU (London: Routledge, 2009), at p. 171.Google Scholar

19 White and Hollingsworth, Audit, Accountability and Government, supra note 9, at p. 167.

20 See multiple authors in the 2010 special issue of West European Politics 33(5).

21 Bauer, Michael, “The EU ‘Partnership Principle’: Still a Sustainable Governance Device Across Multiple Administrative Arenas?”, 80(4) Public Administration (2002), pp. 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Cipriani, Gabriele, The EU Budget – Responsibility without accountability? (Brussels: The Centre for European Policy Studies, 2010).Google Scholar

23 Bovens, Mark, “Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism”, 33(5) West European Politics (2010), pp. 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Bovens, Mark, “Analysing and assessing public accountability. A conceptual framework”, 13(4) European Law Journal (2007), pp. 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Jeremy Lonsdale and Marie–Louise Bemelmans–Videc, “Chapter 1” in Marie–Louise Bemelmans–Videc, Jeremy Lonsdale and Burt Perrin (eds.), Making Accountability Work – Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, Comparative Policy Evaluation, Vol. 14 (New Brunswick: Transaction, 20007), at p. 3.

26 Ibid., at p. 4.

27 Behn, Robert, Rethinking Democratic Accountability (Washington, Brookings, 2001).Google Scholar

28 Lonsdale and Bemelmans–Videc, Making Accountability Work, supra note 25, at p. 5.

29 Mulgan, Richard, Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies (Basingstoke, Palgrave 2003), p. 966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Curtin, Deirdre, Mair, Peter and Papadopoulos, Yannis, ‘Positioning Accountability in European Governance: An Introduction’, 33(5) West European Politics (2010), pp. 929–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Papadopoulos, Yannis, ‘Accountability and Multi–level Governance: More Accountability, Less Democracy?’, 33(5) West European Politics (2010), p. 1040.Google Scholar

32 Caiden, Naomi, “Budgetary processes”, in Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Government and Politics (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 805–820.Google Scholar

33 European Court of Auditors, Landscape Review (2014, Luxembourg).

34 Bovens, Mark, Curtin, Deirdre and Hart, Paul 't, The Real World of EU Accountability? What Deficit? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 41.Google Scholar

35 about the achievement of policy objectives (financial and performance reporting Press, 2010), p. 41.ions of necessary” those eleEuropean Court of Auditors, Landscape Review, supra note 33, at p. 6.

36 ISSAI 12: The value and benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions – making a difference to the lives of citizens, preamble, paragraph 1, adopted 2013, in European Court of Auditors, Landscape Review 2014, p. 15.

37 European Court of Auditors, Landscape Review, supra note 33, at pp. 7-8.

38 Ibid., at p. 14.

39 Karakatsanis, George and Laffan, Brigid, “Financial Control: the Court of Auditors and OLAF”, chapter 11 in Peterson, John and Shackleton, Michael, The Institutions of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 242–261.Google Scholar

40 European Court of Auditors, Landscape Review, supra note 33, at p. 7.

41 Karakatsanis and Laffan, “Financial Control: the Court of Auditors and OLAF”, supra note 39, at p. 249.

42 Laffan, “Auditing and accountability in the European Union”, supra note 6, at p. 772.

43 O’Keeffe, “The Court of Auditors”, supra note 7, at p. 183.

44 European Court of Auditors, Peer Review (2008, Luxembourg), at p. 4.

45 Ibid., at p. 20.

46 European Court of Auditors, Peer Review (2014, Luxembourg), at p. 17.

47 Ibid., at pp. 13 and 17.

48 European Court of Auditors, Work Programme (2014, Luxembourg).

49 Ibid., at pp. 4-12.

50 European Court of Auditors, Performance Audit Manual (2010, Luxembourg).

51 European Court of Auditors, “EU climate finance in the context of external aid”, Special Report 17/2013, Luxembourg. Retrieved at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_17/SR13_17_EN.pdf

52 European Court of Auditors, “Are the school milk and school fruit schemes effective?”, Special Report 10/2011, Luxembourg. Retrieved at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR11_10/SR11_10_EN.PDF

53 European Court of Auditors, “Taking stock of ‘single audit’ and the Commission's reliance on the work of national audit authorities in Cohesion”, Special Report 16/2013, Luxembourg. Retrieved at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr13_16/sr13_16_en.pdf

54 European Court of Auditors, “2012 report on the follow-up of the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports”, Special Report 19/2013, Luxembourg. Retrieved at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_19/QJAB14019ENC.pdf

55 Ibid., at pp. 6, 10 and 14.

56 European Parliament, Committee on Budgetary Control, “Future Role of the European Court of Auditors: Challenges Ahead and Possible Reform”, Rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender. Public Hearing 30 May 2012, Brussels.

57 Lonsdale, Jeremy and Bechberger, Elena, “Chapter 13”, in Jeremy Lonsdale, Peter Wilkins and Tom Ling (eds.), Performance Auditing Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011), pp. 268–288.Google Scholar

58 Anthony De Bondt, “Performance Audit by the European Court of Auditors: Time for a Rebalancing?”, Master Thesis, University of Luxembourg (2014). Retrievable at: http://www.academia.edu/7350617/Performance_audits_by_the_European_Court_of_Auditors_Time_for_a_rebalancing

59 Van der Meer, Frans–Bauke and Edelenbos, Jurian, “Evaluation in multi–actor policy process: Accountability, learning and cooperation” 12(2) Evaluation (2006), pp. 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 European Court of Auditors, Peer Review 2008, supra note 44, at pp. 12 and 24.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 European Court of Auditors 2014. Internal working document, unpublished.

64 Interview with German Member, Klaus–Heiner Lehne, former MEP in the Committee on Legal Affairs, in the European Court of Auditors monthly journal, May 2014. Issues retrievable at: http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/Journal.aspx

65 Hoerner, Julian and Paul Stephenson, P., “Theoretical Perspectives on Approaches to Policy Evaluation in the EU: the Case of Cohesion Policy” 90(3) Public Administration (2012), pp. 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar