Perception of Auditors and Auditee on Public Sector Performance Audits

Main Article Content

Widhi Setyo Pratama

Abstract

This study aims to discuss the perceptions of auditors and auditees on public sector performance audits. This study analyzes how social processes and interactions are both in the performance audit process. They are in case of changes in the auditor's role in the future, which have the potential to cause problems of independence. The other is that the benefits and impacts of performance audit results have not been felt significantly. By using a qualitative approach, this study analyzes how the perceptions and relations of the two actors in the performance audit. In-depth and structured interview techniques are used as data collection methods from participants from auditors and auditees. Auditee's response was also analyzed to determine the extent of their resistance to the actions of auditors and their perception of the benefits of performance audits. The results of the study show that performance audits have not given a significant impact on policy performance improvements. There are differences in perceptions about expectations for the role of the auditor and the provision of recommendations that are more solutive. A significant difference in perception is also shown in the auditor's understanding of the auditee's business processes. It is due to the issues in the auditor's qualifications and experience that are influenced by their educational background. Other findings are the potential disruption of auditor independence due to lack of operationalization of the concept of independence and the amount of pressure from the auditee.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
PRATAMA, Widhi Setyo. Perception of Auditors and Auditee on Public Sector Performance Audits. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 60-72, apr. 2019. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <https://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/121>. Date accessed: 20 apr. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v3i1.121.
Section
Articles

References

Alasuutari, P. (2010). The rise and relevance of qualitative research. International journal of social research methodology, 13(2), 139-155.

Cassel, C., & Symon. (1994). Qualitative methods in organizational research. California: Sage.

Davis, D. F. (1990). Do you want a performance audit or a program evaluation? Public Administration Review, 50(1), 35.

Gendron, Y., Cooper, D. J., & Townley, B. (2001). In the name of accountability-State auditing, independence and new public management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(3), 278-310.

Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 365-390.

Humphrey, C., Moizer, P., & Turley, S. (1993). The audit expectations gap in Britain: An empirical investigation. Accounting and Business Research, 23(sup1), 395-411.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2): Wiley New York.

Lapsley, I., & Pong, C. (2000). Modernization versus problematization: value-for-money audit in public services. European Accounting Review, 9(4), 541-567.

Leeuw, F. L. (1996). Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and answers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 92-102.

Lindeberg, T. (2007). The ambiguous identity of auditing. Financial Accountability & Management, 23(3), 337-350.

Morin, D. (2014). Auditors General's impact on administrations: a pan-Canadian study (2001-2011). Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(5), 395-426.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.

Parker, L. D. (1986). Value-for-money auditing: conceptual, development and operational issues. Australian Accounting Research Foundation.

Pollitt, C., & Summa, H. (1997). Reflexive watchdogs? How supreme audit institutions account for themselves. Public administration, 75(Summer), 313-336.

Power, M. (2000). The Audit Society-The Second Thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4, 111-119.

Raudla, R., Taro, K., Agu, C., & Douglas, J. W. (2016). The impact of performance audit on public sector organizations: The case of Estonia. Public Organization Review, 16(2), 217-233.

Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2015). Resistance to control—Norwegian ministries’ and agencies’ reactions to performance audit. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 17-32.

Sikka, P., & Willmott, H. (1995). The power of “independence”: defending and extending the jurisdiction of accounting in the United Kingdom. Accounting, organizations and society, 20(6), 547-581.

Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1994). Performance measurement: when performance can never be finally defined. Public Money & Management, 14(2), 45-49.

Vikkelsø, S. (2007). In between curing and counting: performative effects of experiments with healthcare information infrastructure. Financial Accountability & Management, 23(3), 269-288.