Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:46:09.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management Accountability: The Signals sent by Auditing and Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ray C. Rist
Ray C. Rist
Affiliation:
United States General Accounting Office
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Auditing and Evaluation are two strategies which governments may use to ascertain if existing policies and programs are being administered as they ought. They provide critical information by which to determine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government action and are the basis for holding accountable those responsible for the government policies and programs. The analysis compares the strengths and weaknesses of auditing and evaluation as means of monitoring accountability. Three types of accountability are discussed. Auditing makes its strongest contributing to managerial accountability through a focus on fiscal or regulatory issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 355 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

REFERENCES

American Accounting Association, Studies in Accounting Research, No. 6: A Statement of Basic Auditing Concepts. Sarasota, Florida (1973: 8).Google Scholar
Art, R., ‘Congress and the Defense Budget: Enhancing Policy Oversight’, Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 100, no. 2. (1985: 227–248).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelimsky, E., ‘Comparing and Contrasting Auditing and Evaluation: Some Notes on Their Relationship’, paper presented to the Evaluation Research Society, San Francisco, CA (1984).Google Scholar
Chelimsky, E. ‘Old Patterns and New Direction in Program Evaluation’, in Chelimsky, E., (ed.) Program Evaluation: Patterns and Directions. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, (1985).Google Scholar
Comptroller General of the United States, Government Auditing Standards. Washigton, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office. (1988).Google Scholar
Day, P. and Klein, R., Accountabilities: Five Public Services. London: Tavistock Publications. (1987).Google Scholar
Dekker, P. J. and Leeuw, F. L., ‘Program Evaluation and Effectiveness Auditing: Definitions Models and Practice’, in Becker, H. A. and van Kreveld, D. A., (eds.) Program Evaluation. Utrecht, Netherlands: van Arkel Publishing Co. (1989).Google Scholar
Derlien, H., ‘Genesis and Structure of Evaluation Efforts in Comparative Perspective,’ in Rist, R., (ed.) Program Evaluation and the Management of Government. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Books, (1989) forthcoming.Google Scholar
Havens, H. S., ‘The Congress and Evaluation’, in Gilbert, R. (ed.) Making and Managing Policy. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc: (1984).Google Scholar
Mosher, F. C., A Tale of Two Agencies: A Comparative Analysis of the GAO and the OMB. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, (1984).Google Scholar
Rist, R. C., ‘Social Science Analysis and Congressional Uses: The Case of the United States General Accounting Office’, in Bulmer, M. (ed.), Social Science Research and Government. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, (1987).Google Scholar
Rist, R. C., ‘The Organization and Function of Evaluation in the United States: A Federal Overview’, in Rist, R. C., (ed.) Program Evaluation and the Management of Government. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, (1989) forthcoming.Google Scholar
Weiss, C., ‘Evaluation for Decisions: Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care'? Plenary Presentation, American Evaluation Association Meeting, Boston, MA (1987).Google Scholar
Wollman, H., Development and Present State of Public Policy Research: Country Studies in Comparative Perspective. Berlin, West Germany: Wissenchaftszentrum, (1984).Google Scholar