政府绩效审计评价标准研究
|
摘要
政府部门绩效审计指标是政府部门绩效内涵的反映,是具体的、可计量的经济效益,是经济效益的“指示器”。政府绩效审计标准是构成审计行为的基本要素之一,它是审计人员据以衡量经济活动的准绳,也是接受审计的客体在经济活动中应该遵循的规则。随着纳税人对政府公共部门使用公共资金及其效果的日益关注,世界各国均不同程度地对这一资金使用的社会性和经济性实施了审计监督。然而各国确立的指标、标准不一,政府绩效审计涉及的涵义、范围及方法也各不相同。政府绩效审计的实施必须借助于指标的计量和评价才能进行。对审计人员而言,缺乏必要的绩效指标和评价标准,就不能深入了解政府部门的经济效益,实施绩效审计就有困难。因此,开展政府绩效审计迫切需要开发和创建有效的具体绩效审计指标和评价标准。本文试图参考国外的一些做法,结合中国对政府部门财政财务收支审计已有的基础,对中国政府部门绩效审计指标的建立及评价标准设置进行探讨,以期对拓宽政府部门绩效审计工作创新的领域有所裨益。
第一部分:政府绩效审计基本理论。首先,着重介绍政府部门绩效审计的含义,政府绩效审计虽然己经在许多国家得到广泛开展,但由于各国的政治经济状况及政府绩效审计的发展过程不同,对绩效审计的称谓及其含义的理解也不一样。纷繁复杂的称谓虽然能够比较恰当地反映出各国在绩效审计方式方法以及所涵盖内容方面存在的细微差异,但过多的称谓容易导致理解上的混乱,特别是在政府绩效审计刚刚起步的中国,称谓上的不统一会阻碍绩效审计理论研究的深入和实际工作的开展。因此,有必要对绩效审计的称谓和含义进行探讨和界定。其次,介绍了政府绩效审计的含义和职责范围,并且比较了政府绩效审计与传统财务审计的区别,包括审计对象、审计目标、审计理念、以及审计标准的不同。最后,介绍了政府部门绩效审计与公共管理特别是新公共管理运动有着密切的联系以及西方主要国家的政府部门绩效审计评价指标的建立。
第二部分:中国政府部门绩效审计评价指标的现状及问题。改革开放以来,中国经济出现了前所未有的高速增长,政府的公共开支规模随之不断扩大。而且随着计划经济向市场经济转变,政府逐渐从直接的控制或参与市场的经济行为中脱离出来,转而强调实施宏观调控。这样,中国财政收入的支出方向应在弥补市场失效的同时保证市场有效部分的顺利运行。然而,中国财政并不是真正意义的公共财政,还大量并存着以赢利为目的的国有资产财政。这种状况,更加大了中国政府绩效审计的任务,既要审查国有资产财政部分的经济效益,又要审查公共财政部分的经济性、效率性和效果性。
中国目前开展政府绩效审计最直接的难题来自于评价指标和评价标准缺失,国内缺乏一系列对政府绩效的衡量评价标准,而对于政府耗用资金的社会效益也很难量化评价,这就给中国政府绩效审计工作的开展带来了一定困难。由于政府具有垄断性、目标多元性和目标弹性,这决定了政府绩效衡量的困难性。绩效评价指标无法确定,审计机关就失去绩效评价依据,政府绩效审计就无法进行。
因此,应结合中国现阶段的审计工作水平,参考国外的政府绩效审计标准,尽快科学、恰当地建立一套完整的、可操作性的政府绩效审计评价指标和评价标准。
第三部分:西方国家政府绩效的衡量标准分析。着重介绍了英国、美国、澳大利亚及瑞典的政府绩效审计评价标准。总结了上述国家政府绩效审计标准对中国的启示:(1)借鉴被审计对象自身的效益评价标准,在政府绩效审计过程中,审计人员通常要与被审计单位进行讨论与沟通,被审计单位衡量或评价自身工作成果的效益标准是政府绩效审计评价标准的主要来源;(2)注重标准的灵活性,各国都注重评价标准与审计目标和审计环境的适应性,避免生搬硬套;(3)评价重心由被审计对象的工作程序转向工作结果,对结果的关注使得政府绩效审计中更加重视审查被审计单位或项目是否达到预期目标;(4)在政府绩效审计评价中对相关法律、政策的重视。从国外的经验中可以看出,评价政府机构绩效的第一标准是政策目标。任何一个政府部门都有其特定的职能和目标,政府部门的活动达到了既定目标,就可以认为取得了相应的绩效。立法机关制定的法律和政策决定了政府机构的职能和目标。
第四部分:政府绩效审计评价标准的设计。受托责任的核心是绩效评价,受托方所承担的责任可依据法规、合约和惯例等加以规范,这就需要衡量受托责任完成情况的标准。绩效标准是政府审计师评价受托责任履行状况时使用的规范、准绳、应有的期望、最佳实务和标杆,它代表的是委托方对受托方之理想行为所持的期望,反映的是社会的客观需要。本章由三部分组成,第一部分讨论现行绩效标准存在的局限性,指出绩效标准的发展是受托责任的进一步拓展的客观需要。第二部分针对理论界对3E标准的批评,借鉴平衡计分卡的原理,提出一个政府绩效审计平衡计分卡的基本框架。第三部分把平衡计分卡和政府绩效审计相结合,从使命、顾客、内部流程、学习和成长四个维度对绩效标准加以拓展,并探讨经济性、效率性、效果性、安全性、质量性、环保性和公平性等具体标准在政府绩效审计中的应用。
本章最后结合了青藏铁路的具体案例分别从经济性、社会效果、环保标准等具体标准来说明政府绩效审计评价标准的实际应用。
最后,建立政府绩效审计评价标准是开展政府绩效审计的基础,这是由评价标准的性质所决定的,某种程度上将会是制约中国政府部门绩效审计发展的因素之一。当前时期,在总结中国绩效审计的实践经验基础上,同时借鉴国外的做法,建立一套符合国情的政府部门绩效审计评价标准,并逐步进行完善,是与中国公共管理现状和政治体制改革进程相契合的,也是符合政府绩效审计发展规律的。
目前政府绩效审计在中国只是在某些国家审计机关进行试点,可收集的案例有限,对绩效审计标准的分析主要是根据其审计结论进行的推测。
政府机构的绩效是一个非常复杂的问题,因其目标的多重性、模糊性而使其绩效难以量化评估,这是政府绩效审计面临的最大难题。较为详细的评价指标应在今后的政府绩效审计研究和实践中,在逐渐积累经验的基础上逐步开发。
目前对政府绩效审计的研究中,应增加对公平性的评价。但公平性、民主性都与政策有关,当前的审计主要从经济角度评价被审计单位的工作,对政治、政策性问题不发表意见,政府绩效审计如何适当评价公平性方面的问题,同时不涉嫌干涉被审计单位管理部门的职权,未来的研究可以往这个方向努力。
Performance audit of government departments is the government sector performance indicators reflect connotation, is concrete and measurable economic benefits, is cost-effective "indicator." The performance audit of the audit standards is a one of the basic elements, it is auditors According to the yardstick for measuring economic activity is audited object in economic activities should follow the rules. With the taxpayers of the government's public sector use of public funds and the effect of growing concern, countries around the world to varying degrees on the use of funds social and economic implementation of the audit and supervision. Due to the established targets, different standards, and performance audits involving the government of the meaning, scope and methods are different. However the implementation of government performance audit must be measured through the use of indicators and evaluation can be conducted. The audit staff, a lack of the necessary performance indicators and evaluation criteria, it is not in-depth understanding of the economic benefits of the government sectors, there are difficulties in the implementation of performance audits. Therefore, the start of government performance audit and the urgent need to develop an effective system of indicators of performance audit and evaluation criteria. This paper tries to make reference to some of the things abroad, the government in light of China's financial sector and financial balance has been the basis of the audit, the audit of public sector performance indicators and the establishment of a system of evaluation criteria set up to explore, with a view to expand the performance audit work for a new field the benefit.
Part I: The basic theory of performance audit. First, the government sector highlighted the meaning of performance audit, performance audit Although in many countries has been widely carried out, but due to differences in their political and economic status and performance audit of the development process different from the description of the performance audit and not understanding the meaning of the same. Although the complicated title more appropriate to reflect the performance audit States in the ways and means and the contents covered by the slight differences exist, but the description easily lead to excessive understanding of the chaos, in particular in the performance audit has just started in China, the title unification will not impede performance audit in-depth theoretical study and practical work. Therefore, the need for performance audit and meaning of the title to explore and define. Secondly, the government introduced a performance audit of meaning and responsibilities of the government and compared the performance audit and the distinction between traditional financial audit, including audit targets, audit objectives, the audit concept, as well as auditing standards different. Finally, introduced a performance audit of government departments and public administration, especially the new public management movement, as well as maintain close ties with the major countries of Western public sector performance audits Construction Index System.
Part II: performance audits of government departments and the status of the issue. Since reform and opening up, China's economy has undergone an unprecedented high-speed growth, the government's public expenditure scale followed constantly expanding. Moreover, with a planned economy to market economy changes gradually from direct government control or participate in the economic activities in the market from out instead stressed that the implementation of macro-control. In this way, China's financial revenue in the direction of the expenditure to compensate for market failure of the market at the same time guarantee the smooth operation of an effective part. However, China is not the true meaning of the public finances, also coexist with a large number of profitable state-owned assets for the purpose of the Financial. This situation, the Chinese government has more big performance audit mandate, it is necessary to review some of the state-owned assets of the economic results of the review of public finances but also part of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of.
China's current government performance audit in the most direct challenge comes from the evaluation indicators and evaluation criteria deficiencies, lack of a series of domestic government indicators to measure the performance of the system, while government consumption funds for the social benefits are difficult to quantify evaluation, which gives my government performance audit work to a certain extent, the development of difficulties. Because the government has monopoly, goals and objectives of diversity flexibility, and this determines that the performance measurement of the difficulties. Unable to determine indicators of performance evaluation, auditing organs will lose performance evaluation based on performance audits on the impossible.
Therefore, we should combine our audit work at this stage, with reference to foreign performance audit standards, as soon as possible science, the proper establishment of a complete, workable government performance audit evaluation indicators and evaluation criteria.
Part III: Western Governments performance metrics analysis. Highlights of Britain, the United States, Australia and Sweden's government performance audit evaluation criteria. Summing up the above-mentioned state government performance audit standards Enlightenment to China: 1, from the auditees own benefit evaluation standards in the performance audit process, auditors usually with audited units discussion and communication, measured by the audit or evaluation unit their work is the outcome of the performance audit efficiency standards the main source of the evaluation criteria. 2, the focus on standards of flexibility, all countries are on the evaluation criteria and audit objectives and auditing environmental adaptability, avoid mechanically copying; 3, Evaluation of gravity from the audited object to the working procedures of the results, make the results of the performance audit of concern pay more attention to the review of the audited units or whether the project to achieve the desired objectives; 4, in the evaluation of performance audit of the relevant laws, policies attention. The experience from abroad can be seen, the performance evaluation of the first public bodies is standard policy objectives. As some respondents mentioned that any public body has its specific functions and objectives, the activities of public institutions to achieve the established goal, it made it that the corresponding performance. The legislature has enacted laws and policy decisions of the government agencies function and objectives.
Part IV: Evaluation of the performance audit standard design. The core is entrusted with the responsibility of performance evaluation, entrusted with the responsibility to be borne by the basis for laws and regulations, contracts and practices and so on to regulate, which requires completion of measuring entrusted with the responsibility of the standards. Performance standards is the government entrusted with the responsibility of auditors to evaluate the status of the use of standardized criteria, there should be expectations, best practices and benchmarking, it is representative of the commission entrusted with the side of the expectations held by the ideal behavior, reflects the community the objective needs. This chapter consists of three parts, the first part of the current discussion of the limitations of existing performance standards, pointing out that the development of performance standards is the fiduciary duties of the objective needs further expansion. For the second part of the theoretical circle on the three E standards criticism, learn from the principles of the Balanced Scorecard, a government performance audit by the basic framework of the Balanced Scorecard. The third part of the Balanced Scorecard and the integration of government performance audit from the mission, customers, internal processes, learning and growth of four dimensions to expand the performance standards, and explore the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, security, , quality, environmental protection and fairness of specific criteria, such as government performance audit in the application.
The chapter concludes with the Qinghai-Tibet Railway from the specific cases of economic, social effects, environmental standards and other specific criteria to illustrate the performance audit the practical application of evaluation criteria.
Finally, the establishment of standards and indicators to the government performance audit is the basis for this indicator system is determined by the nature, will to some extent has restricted the development of performance audit of government departments one of the factors. The current period, the performance audit concluded China on the basis of practical experience, and drawing foreign practices and the establishment of a government department to national conditions and indicators of performance audit standard system, and gradually improved, with the status quo of China's public management and reform of the political system in line process, and it is consistent with the development of the performance audit.
Performance audits in China at present only in some countries auditing organs conducting the trial, the case could collect limited performance audit standards for the analysis of the main conclusions of the audit was conducted in accordance with their speculation.
The performance of government institutions is a very complicated issue, because of the multiplicity of objectives, ambiguous and difficult to quantify their performance assessment, this is the greatest performance audit problems. A more detailed assessment of the indicators should be performance audits in the future research and practice, in the gradual accumulation of experience on the basis of gradual development.
The current performance audit of the study, should increase the fairness of the evaluation. However, fairness, democracy and all of the relevant policy, the current audit mainly from the economic point of evaluation audited units work on the political, policy issues do not express their views, performance audits on how to properly evaluate the fairness of the issue, while not suspected interfere in the management of departments being audited the terms of reference, future research can strive toward this direction.
第一部分:政府绩效审计基本理论。首先,着重介绍政府部门绩效审计的含义,政府绩效审计虽然己经在许多国家得到广泛开展,但由于各国的政治经济状况及政府绩效审计的发展过程不同,对绩效审计的称谓及其含义的理解也不一样。纷繁复杂的称谓虽然能够比较恰当地反映出各国在绩效审计方式方法以及所涵盖内容方面存在的细微差异,但过多的称谓容易导致理解上的混乱,特别是在政府绩效审计刚刚起步的中国,称谓上的不统一会阻碍绩效审计理论研究的深入和实际工作的开展。因此,有必要对绩效审计的称谓和含义进行探讨和界定。其次,介绍了政府绩效审计的含义和职责范围,并且比较了政府绩效审计与传统财务审计的区别,包括审计对象、审计目标、审计理念、以及审计标准的不同。最后,介绍了政府部门绩效审计与公共管理特别是新公共管理运动有着密切的联系以及西方主要国家的政府部门绩效审计评价指标的建立。
第二部分:中国政府部门绩效审计评价指标的现状及问题。改革开放以来,中国经济出现了前所未有的高速增长,政府的公共开支规模随之不断扩大。而且随着计划经济向市场经济转变,政府逐渐从直接的控制或参与市场的经济行为中脱离出来,转而强调实施宏观调控。这样,中国财政收入的支出方向应在弥补市场失效的同时保证市场有效部分的顺利运行。然而,中国财政并不是真正意义的公共财政,还大量并存着以赢利为目的的国有资产财政。这种状况,更加大了中国政府绩效审计的任务,既要审查国有资产财政部分的经济效益,又要审查公共财政部分的经济性、效率性和效果性。
中国目前开展政府绩效审计最直接的难题来自于评价指标和评价标准缺失,国内缺乏一系列对政府绩效的衡量评价标准,而对于政府耗用资金的社会效益也很难量化评价,这就给中国政府绩效审计工作的开展带来了一定困难。由于政府具有垄断性、目标多元性和目标弹性,这决定了政府绩效衡量的困难性。绩效评价指标无法确定,审计机关就失去绩效评价依据,政府绩效审计就无法进行。
因此,应结合中国现阶段的审计工作水平,参考国外的政府绩效审计标准,尽快科学、恰当地建立一套完整的、可操作性的政府绩效审计评价指标和评价标准。
第三部分:西方国家政府绩效的衡量标准分析。着重介绍了英国、美国、澳大利亚及瑞典的政府绩效审计评价标准。总结了上述国家政府绩效审计标准对中国的启示:(1)借鉴被审计对象自身的效益评价标准,在政府绩效审计过程中,审计人员通常要与被审计单位进行讨论与沟通,被审计单位衡量或评价自身工作成果的效益标准是政府绩效审计评价标准的主要来源;(2)注重标准的灵活性,各国都注重评价标准与审计目标和审计环境的适应性,避免生搬硬套;(3)评价重心由被审计对象的工作程序转向工作结果,对结果的关注使得政府绩效审计中更加重视审查被审计单位或项目是否达到预期目标;(4)在政府绩效审计评价中对相关法律、政策的重视。从国外的经验中可以看出,评价政府机构绩效的第一标准是政策目标。任何一个政府部门都有其特定的职能和目标,政府部门的活动达到了既定目标,就可以认为取得了相应的绩效。立法机关制定的法律和政策决定了政府机构的职能和目标。
第四部分:政府绩效审计评价标准的设计。受托责任的核心是绩效评价,受托方所承担的责任可依据法规、合约和惯例等加以规范,这就需要衡量受托责任完成情况的标准。绩效标准是政府审计师评价受托责任履行状况时使用的规范、准绳、应有的期望、最佳实务和标杆,它代表的是委托方对受托方之理想行为所持的期望,反映的是社会的客观需要。本章由三部分组成,第一部分讨论现行绩效标准存在的局限性,指出绩效标准的发展是受托责任的进一步拓展的客观需要。第二部分针对理论界对3E标准的批评,借鉴平衡计分卡的原理,提出一个政府绩效审计平衡计分卡的基本框架。第三部分把平衡计分卡和政府绩效审计相结合,从使命、顾客、内部流程、学习和成长四个维度对绩效标准加以拓展,并探讨经济性、效率性、效果性、安全性、质量性、环保性和公平性等具体标准在政府绩效审计中的应用。
本章最后结合了青藏铁路的具体案例分别从经济性、社会效果、环保标准等具体标准来说明政府绩效审计评价标准的实际应用。
最后,建立政府绩效审计评价标准是开展政府绩效审计的基础,这是由评价标准的性质所决定的,某种程度上将会是制约中国政府部门绩效审计发展的因素之一。当前时期,在总结中国绩效审计的实践经验基础上,同时借鉴国外的做法,建立一套符合国情的政府部门绩效审计评价标准,并逐步进行完善,是与中国公共管理现状和政治体制改革进程相契合的,也是符合政府绩效审计发展规律的。
目前政府绩效审计在中国只是在某些国家审计机关进行试点,可收集的案例有限,对绩效审计标准的分析主要是根据其审计结论进行的推测。
政府机构的绩效是一个非常复杂的问题,因其目标的多重性、模糊性而使其绩效难以量化评估,这是政府绩效审计面临的最大难题。较为详细的评价指标应在今后的政府绩效审计研究和实践中,在逐渐积累经验的基础上逐步开发。
目前对政府绩效审计的研究中,应增加对公平性的评价。但公平性、民主性都与政策有关,当前的审计主要从经济角度评价被审计单位的工作,对政治、政策性问题不发表意见,政府绩效审计如何适当评价公平性方面的问题,同时不涉嫌干涉被审计单位管理部门的职权,未来的研究可以往这个方向努力。
Performance audit of government departments is the government sector performance indicators reflect connotation, is concrete and measurable economic benefits, is cost-effective "indicator." The performance audit of the audit standards is a one of the basic elements, it is auditors According to the yardstick for measuring economic activity is audited object in economic activities should follow the rules. With the taxpayers of the government's public sector use of public funds and the effect of growing concern, countries around the world to varying degrees on the use of funds social and economic implementation of the audit and supervision. Due to the established targets, different standards, and performance audits involving the government of the meaning, scope and methods are different. However the implementation of government performance audit must be measured through the use of indicators and evaluation can be conducted. The audit staff, a lack of the necessary performance indicators and evaluation criteria, it is not in-depth understanding of the economic benefits of the government sectors, there are difficulties in the implementation of performance audits. Therefore, the start of government performance audit and the urgent need to develop an effective system of indicators of performance audit and evaluation criteria. This paper tries to make reference to some of the things abroad, the government in light of China's financial sector and financial balance has been the basis of the audit, the audit of public sector performance indicators and the establishment of a system of evaluation criteria set up to explore, with a view to expand the performance audit work for a new field the benefit.
Part I: The basic theory of performance audit. First, the government sector highlighted the meaning of performance audit, performance audit Although in many countries has been widely carried out, but due to differences in their political and economic status and performance audit of the development process different from the description of the performance audit and not understanding the meaning of the same. Although the complicated title more appropriate to reflect the performance audit States in the ways and means and the contents covered by the slight differences exist, but the description easily lead to excessive understanding of the chaos, in particular in the performance audit has just started in China, the title unification will not impede performance audit in-depth theoretical study and practical work. Therefore, the need for performance audit and meaning of the title to explore and define. Secondly, the government introduced a performance audit of meaning and responsibilities of the government and compared the performance audit and the distinction between traditional financial audit, including audit targets, audit objectives, the audit concept, as well as auditing standards different. Finally, introduced a performance audit of government departments and public administration, especially the new public management movement, as well as maintain close ties with the major countries of Western public sector performance audits Construction Index System.
Part II: performance audits of government departments and the status of the issue. Since reform and opening up, China's economy has undergone an unprecedented high-speed growth, the government's public expenditure scale followed constantly expanding. Moreover, with a planned economy to market economy changes gradually from direct government control or participate in the economic activities in the market from out instead stressed that the implementation of macro-control. In this way, China's financial revenue in the direction of the expenditure to compensate for market failure of the market at the same time guarantee the smooth operation of an effective part. However, China is not the true meaning of the public finances, also coexist with a large number of profitable state-owned assets for the purpose of the Financial. This situation, the Chinese government has more big performance audit mandate, it is necessary to review some of the state-owned assets of the economic results of the review of public finances but also part of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of.
China's current government performance audit in the most direct challenge comes from the evaluation indicators and evaluation criteria deficiencies, lack of a series of domestic government indicators to measure the performance of the system, while government consumption funds for the social benefits are difficult to quantify evaluation, which gives my government performance audit work to a certain extent, the development of difficulties. Because the government has monopoly, goals and objectives of diversity flexibility, and this determines that the performance measurement of the difficulties. Unable to determine indicators of performance evaluation, auditing organs will lose performance evaluation based on performance audits on the impossible.
Therefore, we should combine our audit work at this stage, with reference to foreign performance audit standards, as soon as possible science, the proper establishment of a complete, workable government performance audit evaluation indicators and evaluation criteria.
Part III: Western Governments performance metrics analysis. Highlights of Britain, the United States, Australia and Sweden's government performance audit evaluation criteria. Summing up the above-mentioned state government performance audit standards Enlightenment to China: 1, from the auditees own benefit evaluation standards in the performance audit process, auditors usually with audited units discussion and communication, measured by the audit or evaluation unit their work is the outcome of the performance audit efficiency standards the main source of the evaluation criteria. 2, the focus on standards of flexibility, all countries are on the evaluation criteria and audit objectives and auditing environmental adaptability, avoid mechanically copying; 3, Evaluation of gravity from the audited object to the working procedures of the results, make the results of the performance audit of concern pay more attention to the review of the audited units or whether the project to achieve the desired objectives; 4, in the evaluation of performance audit of the relevant laws, policies attention. The experience from abroad can be seen, the performance evaluation of the first public bodies is standard policy objectives. As some respondents mentioned that any public body has its specific functions and objectives, the activities of public institutions to achieve the established goal, it made it that the corresponding performance. The legislature has enacted laws and policy decisions of the government agencies function and objectives.
Part IV: Evaluation of the performance audit standard design. The core is entrusted with the responsibility of performance evaluation, entrusted with the responsibility to be borne by the basis for laws and regulations, contracts and practices and so on to regulate, which requires completion of measuring entrusted with the responsibility of the standards. Performance standards is the government entrusted with the responsibility of auditors to evaluate the status of the use of standardized criteria, there should be expectations, best practices and benchmarking, it is representative of the commission entrusted with the side of the expectations held by the ideal behavior, reflects the community the objective needs. This chapter consists of three parts, the first part of the current discussion of the limitations of existing performance standards, pointing out that the development of performance standards is the fiduciary duties of the objective needs further expansion. For the second part of the theoretical circle on the three E standards criticism, learn from the principles of the Balanced Scorecard, a government performance audit by the basic framework of the Balanced Scorecard. The third part of the Balanced Scorecard and the integration of government performance audit from the mission, customers, internal processes, learning and growth of four dimensions to expand the performance standards, and explore the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, security, , quality, environmental protection and fairness of specific criteria, such as government performance audit in the application.
The chapter concludes with the Qinghai-Tibet Railway from the specific cases of economic, social effects, environmental standards and other specific criteria to illustrate the performance audit the practical application of evaluation criteria.
Finally, the establishment of standards and indicators to the government performance audit is the basis for this indicator system is determined by the nature, will to some extent has restricted the development of performance audit of government departments one of the factors. The current period, the performance audit concluded China on the basis of practical experience, and drawing foreign practices and the establishment of a government department to national conditions and indicators of performance audit standard system, and gradually improved, with the status quo of China's public management and reform of the political system in line process, and it is consistent with the development of the performance audit.
Performance audits in China at present only in some countries auditing organs conducting the trial, the case could collect limited performance audit standards for the analysis of the main conclusions of the audit was conducted in accordance with their speculation.
The performance of government institutions is a very complicated issue, because of the multiplicity of objectives, ambiguous and difficult to quantify their performance assessment, this is the greatest performance audit problems. A more detailed assessment of the indicators should be performance audits in the future research and practice, in the gradual accumulation of experience on the basis of gradual development.
The current performance audit of the study, should increase the fairness of the evaluation. However, fairness, democracy and all of the relevant policy, the current audit mainly from the economic point of evaluation audited units work on the political, policy issues do not express their views, performance audits on how to properly evaluate the fairness of the issue, while not suspected interfere in the management of departments being audited the terms of reference, future research can strive toward this direction.
引文
①约翰·格林著,徐瑞康、文硕译:绩效审计[M].中国商业出版社1990年版,第87页。
①邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外绩效审计[M].中国审计出版社2001年版,第484页。
②审计署外事司:国外效益审计简介[M].中国时代经济出版社2003年版,第93页。
③屠洪梅、吴象婴,刘力云译:美国政府审计准则[J].审计研究资料,1997年第6期。
①审计署2004年赴英国中长期审计业务进修培训班译:英国国家审计署绩效审计手册[M].中国审计,2004年第9期。
①邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外效益审计[M].中国时代经济出版社2004年版,第328页。
①财政部财政科研所《绩效预算》课题组:美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社2004年版,第2页。
①杨肃昌、肖泽忠、李培根:中国国家审计问题调查综述[J].审计研究,2003年第2期,第46页。
①萧英达、张继勋、刘志远:国际比较审计[M].立信会计出版社,2000年版,第387页。
②项俊波:国家审计法律制度研究[M].中国时代经济出版社,2002年版,第102页。
③财政部、经贸委、人事部、计委:国有资本金效绩评价规则[Z]. http//www.jincao.com/fa/law17.04.htm。
①United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003. p129.
①Anna J. Palmer. Performance Measurement in Local Government [J]. Public Money & Management, 1993, (9/10): p35.
②Clarke, P. J. Performance Evaluation of Public Sector Programmers [J]. Administration, 1984, (1):p294-322.
③Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3): p167.
④Andrew Flynn, Andrew Gray, William Jenkins and Brian Rutherford. Making Indicators Perform [J]. Public Money and Management, 1988, (4): p40.
①Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3): p161.
①Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. the balanced scorecard [M]. Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995, p181.
②罗伯特.S.卡普兰,大卫.P.诺顿著,周大勇译:战略中心型组织[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2004,第138页。
③Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004,第249页。
④吴建南、郭雯菁,绩效目标实现的因果分析:平衡计分卡在地方政府绩效管理中的应用[J].北京,管理评论,2004,(6):第25页。
①胡玉明编著,平衡计分卡是什么——一个管理工具的神话[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004。第157,195-197页。
②彭国甫、盛明科、刘期达,基于平衡计分卡的地方政府绩效评估[J].长沙:湖南社会科学,2004,(5):第24-25页。
①United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards[S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.p129.
①Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004,第101页。
①刘旭涛:政府绩效管理,制度、战略与方法[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2003年,第172页。
①Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004,第178页。
①阿里.哈拉契米,张梦中、丁煌等译:政府业绩与质量测评——问题与经验[M].广州:中山大学出版社,2003,第197页。
②财政部财政科学研究所《绩效预算》课题组,美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社,2004,第168-169页。
①Margaret Lightbody. Environmental Auditing: the audit Theory Gap[J]. Accounting Forum, 2000, (6): p153.
②Linda Lewis. Environmental Audits in Local Government: a Useful Means to Progress in Sustainable Development[J]. Accounting Forum, 2000, (9): p300.
①United States General Accounting Office. Environmental Auditing: A Useful Tool That Can Improve Environmental Performance and Reduce Costs[R]. Washington, D. C. GAO. 1995. p32.
①James Q. Wilson. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1989, p132.
②孙柏瑛:当代地方治理——而向21日一纪的挑战[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2004,第119页。
③H. George Frederickson. New Public Administration [M]. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. 1980,p1-12.
①日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001,第20页。
②潘岳:环境保护和社会公平[Z]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/ 1033/2950357.html.
①日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001,第21-22页。
①Stuart S. Grifel, Stephen L. Morgan, Paul D. Epstein. Evolving roles for auditors in government performancemeasurement[J]. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 2002, (4): p32.
②Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey, Bridget O’Neil Susel. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration[J]. Public Administration Review, 1998, (7/8): p320.
①宗刚:青藏铁路的建设与西藏发展的影响[J].中国藏学,2006 (2)。
②多吉占堆:青藏铁路将给西藏带来什么[J].铁路知识,2005 (2)。
[1]蔡春:绩效审计论[M].中国时代经济出版社,2006年6月。
[2]约翰·格林著,徐瑞康、文硕译:绩效审计[M].中国商业出版社1990年版。
[3]邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外绩效审计[M].中国审计出版社2001年版。
[4]审计署外事司:国外效益审计简介[M].中国时代经济出版社2003年版。
[5]屠洪梅、吴象婴,刘力云译:美国政府审计准则[J].审计研究资料,1997年第6期。
[6]审计署2004年赴英国中长期审计业务进修培训班译:英国国家审计署《绩效审计手册[J].中国审计,2004年第9期。
[7]财政部则政科研所《绩效预算》课题组:美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社2004年版。
[8]萧英达、张继勋、刘志远:国际比较审计[M].立信会计出版社,2000年版。
[9]罗伯特.S.卡普兰,大卫.P.诺顿著.周大勇译:战略中心型组织[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2004年版。
[10]Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004年版。
[11]吴建南、郭雯菁:绩效目标实现的因果分析,平衡计分卡在地方政府绩效管理中的应用[J].北京:管理评论,2004年第6期。
[12]胡玉明:平衡计分卡是什么——一个管理工具的神话[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004年版。
[13]项俊波:国家审计法律制度研究[M].中国时代经济出版社,2002年版。
[14]彭国甫、盛明科、刘期达,基于平衡计分卡的地方政府绩效评估[J].长沙:湖南社会科学,2004年第5期。
[15]刘旭涛:政府绩效管理,制度、战略与方法[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2003年版。
[16]阿里.哈拉契米,张梦中、丁煌等译:政府业绩与质量测评——问题与经验[M].广州:中山大学出版社,2003年版。
[17]孙柏瑛:当代地方治理——面向21日一纪的挑战[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2004年版。
[18]日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001年。
[19]宗刚:青藏铁路的建设与西藏发展的影响[J].中国藏学,2006年第2期。
[20]多吉占堆:青藏铁路将给西藏带来什么[J].铁路知识,2005年第2期。
[21]杨肃昌、肖泽忠、李培根:中国国家审计问题调查综述[J].审计研究,2003年第2期。
[22]潘岳:环境保护和社会公平[Z]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/ 1033/2950357.html.
[23]财政部、经贸委、人事部、计委:国有资本金效绩评价规则[Z]. http//www.jincao.com/fa/law17.04.htm。
[24]United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.
[25]Anna J. Palmer. Performance Measurement in Local Government [J]. Public Money & Management, 1993.
[26]Clarke. P. J. Performance Evaluation of Public Sector Programmers [J]. Administration, 1984, (1).
[27]Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3).
[28]Andrew Flynn, Andrew Gray, William Jenkins and Brian Rutherford. Making Indicators Perform [J]. Public Money and Management, 1988,(4).
[29]Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986,(3).
[30]Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. the balanced scorecard[M]. TranslatingStrategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
[31]United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.
[32]Margaret Lightbody. Environmental Auditing: the audit Theory Gap [J]. Accounting Forum, 2000(6).
[33]Linda Lewis. Environmental Audits in Local Government: a Useful Means to Progress in Sustainable Development [J]. Accounting Forum, 2000(9).
[34]United States General Accounting Office. Environmental Auditing: A Useful Tool That Can Improve Environmental Performance and Reduce Costs [R]. Washington, D. C. GAO. 1995.
[35]James Q. Wilson. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1989.
[36]H. George Frederickson. New Public Administration [M]. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. 1980.
[37]Stuart S. Grifel, Stephen L. Morgan, Paul D. Epstein. Evolving roles for auditors in government performance measurement [J]. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 2002(4).
[38]Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey, Bridget O’Neil Susel. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration [J]. Public Administration Review, 1998,(7/8).
①邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外绩效审计[M].中国审计出版社2001年版,第484页。
②审计署外事司:国外效益审计简介[M].中国时代经济出版社2003年版,第93页。
③屠洪梅、吴象婴,刘力云译:美国政府审计准则[J].审计研究资料,1997年第6期。
①审计署2004年赴英国中长期审计业务进修培训班译:英国国家审计署绩效审计手册[M].中国审计,2004年第9期。
①邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外效益审计[M].中国时代经济出版社2004年版,第328页。
①财政部财政科研所《绩效预算》课题组:美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社2004年版,第2页。
①杨肃昌、肖泽忠、李培根:中国国家审计问题调查综述[J].审计研究,2003年第2期,第46页。
①萧英达、张继勋、刘志远:国际比较审计[M].立信会计出版社,2000年版,第387页。
②项俊波:国家审计法律制度研究[M].中国时代经济出版社,2002年版,第102页。
③财政部、经贸委、人事部、计委:国有资本金效绩评价规则[Z]. http//www.jincao.com/fa/law17.04.htm。
①United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003. p129.
①Anna J. Palmer. Performance Measurement in Local Government [J]. Public Money & Management, 1993, (9/10): p35.
②Clarke, P. J. Performance Evaluation of Public Sector Programmers [J]. Administration, 1984, (1):p294-322.
③Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3): p167.
④Andrew Flynn, Andrew Gray, William Jenkins and Brian Rutherford. Making Indicators Perform [J]. Public Money and Management, 1988, (4): p40.
①Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3): p161.
①Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. the balanced scorecard [M]. Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995, p181.
②罗伯特.S.卡普兰,大卫.P.诺顿著,周大勇译:战略中心型组织[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2004,第138页。
③Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004,第249页。
④吴建南、郭雯菁,绩效目标实现的因果分析:平衡计分卡在地方政府绩效管理中的应用[J].北京,管理评论,2004,(6):第25页。
①胡玉明编著,平衡计分卡是什么——一个管理工具的神话[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004。第157,195-197页。
②彭国甫、盛明科、刘期达,基于平衡计分卡的地方政府绩效评估[J].长沙:湖南社会科学,2004,(5):第24-25页。
①United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards[S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.p129.
①Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004,第101页。
①刘旭涛:政府绩效管理,制度、战略与方法[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2003年,第172页。
①Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004,第178页。
①阿里.哈拉契米,张梦中、丁煌等译:政府业绩与质量测评——问题与经验[M].广州:中山大学出版社,2003,第197页。
②财政部财政科学研究所《绩效预算》课题组,美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社,2004,第168-169页。
①Margaret Lightbody. Environmental Auditing: the audit Theory Gap[J]. Accounting Forum, 2000, (6): p153.
②Linda Lewis. Environmental Audits in Local Government: a Useful Means to Progress in Sustainable Development[J]. Accounting Forum, 2000, (9): p300.
①United States General Accounting Office. Environmental Auditing: A Useful Tool That Can Improve Environmental Performance and Reduce Costs[R]. Washington, D. C. GAO. 1995. p32.
①James Q. Wilson. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1989, p132.
②孙柏瑛:当代地方治理——而向21日一纪的挑战[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2004,第119页。
③H. George Frederickson. New Public Administration [M]. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. 1980,p1-12.
①日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001,第20页。
②潘岳:环境保护和社会公平[Z]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/ 1033/2950357.html.
①日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001,第21-22页。
①Stuart S. Grifel, Stephen L. Morgan, Paul D. Epstein. Evolving roles for auditors in government performancemeasurement[J]. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 2002, (4): p32.
②Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey, Bridget O’Neil Susel. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration[J]. Public Administration Review, 1998, (7/8): p320.
①宗刚:青藏铁路的建设与西藏发展的影响[J].中国藏学,2006 (2)。
②多吉占堆:青藏铁路将给西藏带来什么[J].铁路知识,2005 (2)。
[1]蔡春:绩效审计论[M].中国时代经济出版社,2006年6月。
[2]约翰·格林著,徐瑞康、文硕译:绩效审计[M].中国商业出版社1990年版。
[3]邢俊芳、陈华、邹传华:最新国外绩效审计[M].中国审计出版社2001年版。
[4]审计署外事司:国外效益审计简介[M].中国时代经济出版社2003年版。
[5]屠洪梅、吴象婴,刘力云译:美国政府审计准则[J].审计研究资料,1997年第6期。
[6]审计署2004年赴英国中长期审计业务进修培训班译:英国国家审计署《绩效审计手册[J].中国审计,2004年第9期。
[7]财政部则政科研所《绩效预算》课题组:美国政府绩效评价体系[M].经济管理出版社2004年版。
[8]萧英达、张继勋、刘志远:国际比较审计[M].立信会计出版社,2000年版。
[9]罗伯特.S.卡普兰,大卫.P.诺顿著.周大勇译:战略中心型组织[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2004年版。
[10]Paul. R. Niven著,胡玉明等译:政府及非营利组织平衡计分卡[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004年版。
[11]吴建南、郭雯菁:绩效目标实现的因果分析,平衡计分卡在地方政府绩效管理中的应用[J].北京:管理评论,2004年第6期。
[12]胡玉明:平衡计分卡是什么——一个管理工具的神话[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004年版。
[13]项俊波:国家审计法律制度研究[M].中国时代经济出版社,2002年版。
[14]彭国甫、盛明科、刘期达,基于平衡计分卡的地方政府绩效评估[J].长沙:湖南社会科学,2004年第5期。
[15]刘旭涛:政府绩效管理,制度、战略与方法[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2003年版。
[16]阿里.哈拉契米,张梦中、丁煌等译:政府业绩与质量测评——问题与经验[M].广州:中山大学出版社,2003年版。
[17]孙柏瑛:当代地方治理——面向21日一纪的挑战[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2004年版。
[18]日本会计检察院,罗泉译:从公平的角度进行绩效审计[J].北京:国际审计纵横,2001年。
[19]宗刚:青藏铁路的建设与西藏发展的影响[J].中国藏学,2006年第2期。
[20]多吉占堆:青藏铁路将给西藏带来什么[J].铁路知识,2005年第2期。
[21]杨肃昌、肖泽忠、李培根:中国国家审计问题调查综述[J].审计研究,2003年第2期。
[22]潘岳:环境保护和社会公平[Z]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/ 1033/2950357.html.
[23]财政部、经贸委、人事部、计委:国有资本金效绩评价规则[Z]. http//www.jincao.com/fa/law17.04.htm。
[24]United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.
[25]Anna J. Palmer. Performance Measurement in Local Government [J]. Public Money & Management, 1993.
[26]Clarke. P. J. Performance Evaluation of Public Sector Programmers [J]. Administration, 1984, (1).
[27]Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986, (3).
[28]Andrew Flynn, Andrew Gray, William Jenkins and Brian Rutherford. Making Indicators Perform [J]. Public Money and Management, 1988,(4).
[29]Christopher Pollitt. Beyond the Managerial Model: the Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government and the Pubic Services [J]. Financial Accountability & Management, 1986,(3).
[30]Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. the balanced scorecard[M]. TranslatingStrategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
[31]United States General Accounting Office. Government Auditing Standards [S]. Washington, D. C.: GAO. 2003.
[32]Margaret Lightbody. Environmental Auditing: the audit Theory Gap [J]. Accounting Forum, 2000(6).
[33]Linda Lewis. Environmental Audits in Local Government: a Useful Means to Progress in Sustainable Development [J]. Accounting Forum, 2000(9).
[34]United States General Accounting Office. Environmental Auditing: A Useful Tool That Can Improve Environmental Performance and Reduce Costs [R]. Washington, D. C. GAO. 1995.
[35]James Q. Wilson. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It [M]. New York: Basic Books. 1989.
[36]H. George Frederickson. New Public Administration [M]. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. 1980.
[37]Stuart S. Grifel, Stephen L. Morgan, Paul D. Epstein. Evolving roles for auditors in government performance measurement [J]. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 2002(4).
[38]Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey, Bridget O’Neil Susel. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration [J]. Public Administration Review, 1998,(7/8).