2003
DOI: 10.1006/cpac.2001.0524
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Struggling for supremacy: the case of UK public audit institutions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
60
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The increase in audit institutions in Italy can be seen in what some scholars refer to as the political use of auditing by the central state. In particular Bowerman et al (2003) suggest a political use of audit regulation carried out by politicians to avoid oversight of their activities. Even more critical is Funnel's (2003) work claiming an ongoing battle between auditors and politicians with the latter using auditing to make questionable political decisions appear technically sound.…”
Section: Discussion Of Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increase in audit institutions in Italy can be seen in what some scholars refer to as the political use of auditing by the central state. In particular Bowerman et al (2003) suggest a political use of audit regulation carried out by politicians to avoid oversight of their activities. Even more critical is Funnel's (2003) work claiming an ongoing battle between auditors and politicians with the latter using auditing to make questionable political decisions appear technically sound.…”
Section: Discussion Of Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, any changes in the demand for public sector audits that shift the balance in the direction of financial auditing will be a significant disturbance to the system of professions. Funnell (1998 and 2003) and Bowerman et al (2003) suggest that such a shift is taking place because central government has a general preference for financial audits, which are less critical towards it than performance audits. Certainly, the Danish case may be interpreted as providing some evidence for this hypothesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such contracting out is the result of a liberal ideology of privatisation 1 and marketisation 2 that stresses the creation of market‐type mechanisms within the public sector (Pollitt and Summa, 1997). Other rationales for contracting out public sector audits are to improve audit quality by securing auditor independence and competence (Craswell, 1997; English, 2003; and Vakkuri et al, 2006), or possibly to get a type of audit which is less critical towards management's dispositions (Funnell, 1998; and Bowerman et al, 2003). Although NPM reforms have undoubtedly made public sector auditors more powerful, the same reforms have thus increased the competition between private and public sector auditing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly the case of "supreme audit institutions" (SAIs), the bodies that audit the accounts and expenditures of governments. These institutions are said to be "supreme" -like supreme courts -to underline their position as the highest authority in the audit of government accounts and the extent of their independence (Bowerman, Humphrey & Owen, 2003). Clarke suggests that SAIs have a form of "knowledge-based independence" where action involves the exercise of specialized knowledge disciplined by codes of conduct and where expertise is understood to be applied in a disinterested fashion (2005, p. 45).…”
Section: Bureaucratic Independence and Democratic Legitimacymentioning
confidence: 99%