基层审计机关绩效审计的困境与对策分析
|
摘要
近年来,审计理论界和实务界对政府绩效审计进行了一系列的相关研究,在一定程度上推动了我国绩效审计的发展,但基层审计开展绩效审计的程度仍不均衡。本文从绩效审计的含义入手,阐述了绩效审计在我国的发展历程及现状,总结出适合基层审计机关的评价指标体系及绩效审计程序,并分析了目前我国基层审计机关开展绩效审计存在的一系列难点和问题,并在其基础上提出了相应的应对措施,希望能对基层审计机关开展绩效审计有所帮助。
Nowadays performance audit is the mainstream of government auditing in the world, since 1983 China has established auditing system, so far, the Government Performance Audit has experienced three stages from pilot to explore until now to carry it out in large scale which can be described as remarkable results. In recent years, the audit theory and practice for the government sector performance audit conducted a series of related research, to a certain extent, promoting the development of our performance audit. But the extent of the audit in grass-roots level is still not balanced, they carry out effective audit according to their characteristics and the need, showing a certain degree of complexity lag and risk.
The definition of performance audit is various in different countries around the world, but they are all carried out around the”three E”. Combined with the special nature of our performance audit, the author is more inclined to performance auditing in the national audit institutions of government and its public sector, as well as their management, use and control of public resources, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of independent monitoring and evaluation activities. Economy, efficiency, effectiveness are the three basic elements of the performance audit and they are a whole organic.
National audit office as a main body of performance audit has the general characteristics of public organization, therefore, the major factors affect the performance audit is in common with the general organization. The first is structure. we all know, our policy is a typical audit and supervision of administrative-type model, the dual leadership model makes the auditing organs audit the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the government work, under the leadership of the same level government's economy. The upper audit institutions’business leaders are often weakened by the same level government, with a direct impact on the quality of the performance audit work. The second is organizational structure. National audit agencies, social audit organizations and internal audit institution constitute the organizational system of audit. Judging from the current organizational system, the three formed a mutual link and non-subordination structure. Furthermore, there are no set of powers or responsibilities of internal audit in the organization of audit institutions in our country, which will certainly affect the effect of audit. The third is the law and regulations. At present, China has not yet issued unified national laws, regulations or guidelines relating to performance audit. Those having been promulgated local laws and regulations relate little to the content of performance audit, which makes the auditors find it’s difficult to follow in the method, scope of and the specific procedures. The fourth is oriented model. The majority style of our performance audit carried out by all levels of government is the problem-oriented model. Fifth, for the evaluation indicators, performance auditing system is a performance audit of the evaluation criteria and are the yardstick of comparing and evaluateing. At present, China's performance audit standards were still in the state audit. The lack of Evaluation System create difficulties for the performance audit’evaluation conclusions. In essence, it is a "post-supervision" and serious to undermine the role played by the audit. The fifth is the quality of personnel. From the current knowledge structure of our country's grass-roots in audit institutions, the personnel are major in auditing, financing, accounting whose knowledge structures are single and interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary talents are very few. The existing staff’s operational quality of the performance audit can not meet the requirements.
Performance audit is an essential kind of public responsibilities of resource management, which become more important with the development of economic and social. We break the current multiple difficulties in performance auditing at the grassroots level basing on the national experiences from other countries. First is the reform of management system. Starting with enhancing the independence of Government Auditing, the style of our government will change from Government Audit to Legislative Audit, and change the dual leadership to the vertical leadership, and enhance the independence of audit work. Second is an integrated of organizational structure. The sub-trial, trial and secondary co-trial should be implemented, establishing internal audit positions in audit institutions, giving full play to the supervision of the audit. Third is to formulate relevant laws and regulations to amend the "Audit Law" ,formulate of the "Government Performance Auditing Standards", introduce the "Government Performance Audit and Evaluation Guide", providing the legal environment in order to carry out the performance audit. Fourth is to build multi-audit model. The risk-oriented and problem-oriented model are both the important and optimal choice, which put equally emphasis on risk and prevention tips through the project from beginning to end, and strengthen the effect of implementation in audit. Fifth is the formulate of evaluation index system. As the object of performance audit was mainly microscopic and specific econimy activities, so when the primary audit institutions establish the index system, the specificity of primary performance audit and avaluation should be considered. And the qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation should be combined. Sixth is to optimize the team. We should resolve the constraints of human resource by making an inventory of stock and take-ism and so on through the entrance of the good talent customs.
In a word, it is an arduous and systematic project to construct the audit system with Chinese characteristics. It is not overnight, need for in-depth study by specialists and scholars who provide a solid theoretical support and policy guidance and it also requires auditors in grass-roots to carry out practice, and provides a wealth of successful experiences and failure lessons to achieve the rapid development of government performance audit, which finally become systematic arrangements to promote all levels of government to improve the effectiveness of institutional.
Nowadays performance audit is the mainstream of government auditing in the world, since 1983 China has established auditing system, so far, the Government Performance Audit has experienced three stages from pilot to explore until now to carry it out in large scale which can be described as remarkable results. In recent years, the audit theory and practice for the government sector performance audit conducted a series of related research, to a certain extent, promoting the development of our performance audit. But the extent of the audit in grass-roots level is still not balanced, they carry out effective audit according to their characteristics and the need, showing a certain degree of complexity lag and risk.
The definition of performance audit is various in different countries around the world, but they are all carried out around the”three E”. Combined with the special nature of our performance audit, the author is more inclined to performance auditing in the national audit institutions of government and its public sector, as well as their management, use and control of public resources, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of independent monitoring and evaluation activities. Economy, efficiency, effectiveness are the three basic elements of the performance audit and they are a whole organic.
National audit office as a main body of performance audit has the general characteristics of public organization, therefore, the major factors affect the performance audit is in common with the general organization. The first is structure. we all know, our policy is a typical audit and supervision of administrative-type model, the dual leadership model makes the auditing organs audit the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the government work, under the leadership of the same level government's economy. The upper audit institutions’business leaders are often weakened by the same level government, with a direct impact on the quality of the performance audit work. The second is organizational structure. National audit agencies, social audit organizations and internal audit institution constitute the organizational system of audit. Judging from the current organizational system, the three formed a mutual link and non-subordination structure. Furthermore, there are no set of powers or responsibilities of internal audit in the organization of audit institutions in our country, which will certainly affect the effect of audit. The third is the law and regulations. At present, China has not yet issued unified national laws, regulations or guidelines relating to performance audit. Those having been promulgated local laws and regulations relate little to the content of performance audit, which makes the auditors find it’s difficult to follow in the method, scope of and the specific procedures. The fourth is oriented model. The majority style of our performance audit carried out by all levels of government is the problem-oriented model. Fifth, for the evaluation indicators, performance auditing system is a performance audit of the evaluation criteria and are the yardstick of comparing and evaluateing. At present, China's performance audit standards were still in the state audit. The lack of Evaluation System create difficulties for the performance audit’evaluation conclusions. In essence, it is a "post-supervision" and serious to undermine the role played by the audit. The fifth is the quality of personnel. From the current knowledge structure of our country's grass-roots in audit institutions, the personnel are major in auditing, financing, accounting whose knowledge structures are single and interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary talents are very few. The existing staff’s operational quality of the performance audit can not meet the requirements.
Performance audit is an essential kind of public responsibilities of resource management, which become more important with the development of economic and social. We break the current multiple difficulties in performance auditing at the grassroots level basing on the national experiences from other countries. First is the reform of management system. Starting with enhancing the independence of Government Auditing, the style of our government will change from Government Audit to Legislative Audit, and change the dual leadership to the vertical leadership, and enhance the independence of audit work. Second is an integrated of organizational structure. The sub-trial, trial and secondary co-trial should be implemented, establishing internal audit positions in audit institutions, giving full play to the supervision of the audit. Third is to formulate relevant laws and regulations to amend the "Audit Law" ,formulate of the "Government Performance Auditing Standards", introduce the "Government Performance Audit and Evaluation Guide", providing the legal environment in order to carry out the performance audit. Fourth is to build multi-audit model. The risk-oriented and problem-oriented model are both the important and optimal choice, which put equally emphasis on risk and prevention tips through the project from beginning to end, and strengthen the effect of implementation in audit. Fifth is the formulate of evaluation index system. As the object of performance audit was mainly microscopic and specific econimy activities, so when the primary audit institutions establish the index system, the specificity of primary performance audit and avaluation should be considered. And the qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation should be combined. Sixth is to optimize the team. We should resolve the constraints of human resource by making an inventory of stock and take-ism and so on through the entrance of the good talent customs.
In a word, it is an arduous and systematic project to construct the audit system with Chinese characteristics. It is not overnight, need for in-depth study by specialists and scholars who provide a solid theoretical support and policy guidance and it also requires auditors in grass-roots to carry out practice, and provides a wealth of successful experiences and failure lessons to achieve the rapid development of government performance audit, which finally become systematic arrangements to promote all levels of government to improve the effectiveness of institutional.
引文
1、审计署科研所:《美国政府审计准则》,中国财政经济出版社,2004年。
2、审计署外事司:《国外效益审计简介》,中国时代经济出版社,2003年。
3、尹平,《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年。
4、彭欢:《政府绩效审计研究》,《厦门大学学报》,2008年4月1日。
5、周亚荣:《我国政府绩效审计理论研究与实践现状》,《审计与经济研究》,2008年第3期。
6、武静:《我国政府绩效审计问题研究》,《山东大学学报》,2006年第8期。
7、沈翠玲:《我国政府绩效审计的发展历程》,《国际商务财会》,2009年第4期。
8、侯玲:《政府绩效审计评价指标体系初探》,《审计月刊》,2009年第5期。
9、彭春华、孙宝有:《我国政府绩效审计的现状及对策》,《湛江师范学院学报》, 2005年第8期。
10、马丽娟:《我国政府绩效审计的现状及对策研究》,《东北师范大学学报》,2008年第5期。
11、王会金、易仁平:《试论政府绩效审计的若干理论问题》,《审计研究》,2007年第1期。
12、管锦岭:《我国绩效审计难点研究》,《消费导刊》,2009年第7期。
13、王红、李继志、石少华:《我国政府绩效审计思考》,《财会通讯》,2009第4期
14、黄蓉晖:《基层审计机关开展绩效审计工作的几点思考》,《经济研究参考》,2009年第3期。
15、董正法:《县级审计机关开展绩效审计的对策》,《现代商业》,2009年第2期。
16、阮春玲:《论基层审计机关开展绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2009年第1期。
17、王会金:《政府绩效审计在我国的实践与现实内容》,《现代管理科学》,2007年第9期。
18、宁森:《我国绩效审计探讨》,《现代商贸工业》,2009年第6期
19、曾荣、陈莉:《国家审计机关绩效之影响因素》,《中国工会财会》,2009年第4期
20、谷玉凤:《基层政府绩效审计初探》,《内控与审计》,2009年第4期。
21、钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期。
22、戚振东、吴清华:政府绩效审计:《国际演进及启示》,《会计研究》,2008年第2期。
23、罗红生:《我国政府绩效审计面临的问题与对策》,《审计与理财》,2008第3期。
24、王如燕:《北京市政府环境投资项目绩效审计评价指标体系框架研究》,《中国管理信息化》,2008年第3期。
25、王孝军:《也谈绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第5期。
26、吴猛:《论政府绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第3期。
27、张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期。
28、谢志华等:《政府绩效审计职能之二维层面:解除受托责任与实现决策有用》,《审计研究》,2006年第3期。
29、张立民,赵彩霞:《论善治政府治理理念下政府审计职能的变革—基于政府绩效评价视角的分析》,《中山大学学报》,2009年第2期。
30、王光远:《管理审计理论》,中国人民大学出版社,1997年。
31、窦晓飞:《中国特色的政府绩效审计模式设计》,《科技与管理》,2009年第2期。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009第5期,第69页
②审计署科研所:《美国政府审计准则》,中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第10页。
③钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009第5期,第69页。
④戚振东、吴清华:《政府绩效审计:国际演进及启示》,《会计研究》,2008你第2期,第29页。
⑤钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第71页。
①王如燕:《北京市政府环境投资项目绩效审计评价指标体系框架研究》,《中国管理信息化》,2008年第3期,第33页。
②钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第70页。
③尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第273页。
④尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第279页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第248页。
②审计署科研所:《美国政府审计准则》,中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第10页。
③该准则适用于2004年1月1日及以后完成的财务审计和鉴证业务,以及2004年1月1日及以后开始的绩效审计
①审计署外事司:《国外效益审计简介》,中国时代经济出版社,2003年,第39页。
②钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第69页。
①王光远:《管理审计理论》,中国人民大学出版社,1997年,第173页。
①张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第258页。
②窦晓飞:《中国特色的政府绩效审计模式设计》,《科技与管理》,2009年第2期,第9页。
③吴猛:《论政府绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第3期,第29页。
④沈翠玲:《我国政府绩效审计的发展历程》,《国际商务财会》,2009年第4期,第80页。
①张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①侯玲:《政府绩效审计评价指标体系初探》,《审计月刊》,2009年第5期,第19页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第268页
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第270页。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第70页。
②张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①谢志华等::《政府绩效审计职能之二维层面:解除受托责任与实现决策有用》,《审计研究》,2006年第3期,第33页。
②鲍晨辉:《我国政府绩效审计研究--基于公共财政视角》,《上海审计》,2009年第3期,第28页。
③张立民,赵彩霞:《论善治政府治理理念下政府审计职能的变革—基于政府绩效评价视角的分析》,《中山大学学报》,2009年第2期,第178页。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第71页。
①徐臣涛:《浅析经济效益审计评价标准》,《财会通讯》,2007年第3期,第29页。
②该指标体系取自大庆市红岗区审计局的资料。
2、审计署外事司:《国外效益审计简介》,中国时代经济出版社,2003年。
3、尹平,《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年。
4、彭欢:《政府绩效审计研究》,《厦门大学学报》,2008年4月1日。
5、周亚荣:《我国政府绩效审计理论研究与实践现状》,《审计与经济研究》,2008年第3期。
6、武静:《我国政府绩效审计问题研究》,《山东大学学报》,2006年第8期。
7、沈翠玲:《我国政府绩效审计的发展历程》,《国际商务财会》,2009年第4期。
8、侯玲:《政府绩效审计评价指标体系初探》,《审计月刊》,2009年第5期。
9、彭春华、孙宝有:《我国政府绩效审计的现状及对策》,《湛江师范学院学报》, 2005年第8期。
10、马丽娟:《我国政府绩效审计的现状及对策研究》,《东北师范大学学报》,2008年第5期。
11、王会金、易仁平:《试论政府绩效审计的若干理论问题》,《审计研究》,2007年第1期。
12、管锦岭:《我国绩效审计难点研究》,《消费导刊》,2009年第7期。
13、王红、李继志、石少华:《我国政府绩效审计思考》,《财会通讯》,2009第4期
14、黄蓉晖:《基层审计机关开展绩效审计工作的几点思考》,《经济研究参考》,2009年第3期。
15、董正法:《县级审计机关开展绩效审计的对策》,《现代商业》,2009年第2期。
16、阮春玲:《论基层审计机关开展绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2009年第1期。
17、王会金:《政府绩效审计在我国的实践与现实内容》,《现代管理科学》,2007年第9期。
18、宁森:《我国绩效审计探讨》,《现代商贸工业》,2009年第6期
19、曾荣、陈莉:《国家审计机关绩效之影响因素》,《中国工会财会》,2009年第4期
20、谷玉凤:《基层政府绩效审计初探》,《内控与审计》,2009年第4期。
21、钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期。
22、戚振东、吴清华:政府绩效审计:《国际演进及启示》,《会计研究》,2008年第2期。
23、罗红生:《我国政府绩效审计面临的问题与对策》,《审计与理财》,2008第3期。
24、王如燕:《北京市政府环境投资项目绩效审计评价指标体系框架研究》,《中国管理信息化》,2008年第3期。
25、王孝军:《也谈绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第5期。
26、吴猛:《论政府绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第3期。
27、张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期。
28、谢志华等:《政府绩效审计职能之二维层面:解除受托责任与实现决策有用》,《审计研究》,2006年第3期。
29、张立民,赵彩霞:《论善治政府治理理念下政府审计职能的变革—基于政府绩效评价视角的分析》,《中山大学学报》,2009年第2期。
30、王光远:《管理审计理论》,中国人民大学出版社,1997年。
31、窦晓飞:《中国特色的政府绩效审计模式设计》,《科技与管理》,2009年第2期。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009第5期,第69页
②审计署科研所:《美国政府审计准则》,中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第10页。
③钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009第5期,第69页。
④戚振东、吴清华:《政府绩效审计:国际演进及启示》,《会计研究》,2008你第2期,第29页。
⑤钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第71页。
①王如燕:《北京市政府环境投资项目绩效审计评价指标体系框架研究》,《中国管理信息化》,2008年第3期,第33页。
②钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第70页。
③尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第273页。
④尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第279页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第248页。
②审计署科研所:《美国政府审计准则》,中国财政经济出版社,2004年,第10页。
③该准则适用于2004年1月1日及以后完成的财务审计和鉴证业务,以及2004年1月1日及以后开始的绩效审计
①审计署外事司:《国外效益审计简介》,中国时代经济出版社,2003年,第39页。
②钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第69页。
①王光远:《管理审计理论》,中国人民大学出版社,1997年,第173页。
①张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第258页。
②窦晓飞:《中国特色的政府绩效审计模式设计》,《科技与管理》,2009年第2期,第9页。
③吴猛:《论政府绩效审计》,《审计与理财》,2008年第3期,第29页。
④沈翠玲:《我国政府绩效审计的发展历程》,《国际商务财会》,2009年第4期,第80页。
①张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①侯玲:《政府绩效审计评价指标体系初探》,《审计月刊》,2009年第5期,第19页。
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第268页
①尹平:《政府审计理论与实务》,中国财政经济出版社,2008年,第270页。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第70页。
②张盼:《中美政府绩效审计比较》,《审计监督》,2009年第3期,第21页。
①谢志华等::《政府绩效审计职能之二维层面:解除受托责任与实现决策有用》,《审计研究》,2006年第3期,第33页。
②鲍晨辉:《我国政府绩效审计研究--基于公共财政视角》,《上海审计》,2009年第3期,第28页。
③张立民,赵彩霞:《论善治政府治理理念下政府审计职能的变革—基于政府绩效评价视角的分析》,《中山大学学报》,2009年第2期,第178页。
①钟刚、谢赤、周黛:《政府绩效审计研究动态评析》,《财经理论与实践》,2009年第5期,第71页。
①徐臣涛:《浅析经济效益审计评价标准》,《财会通讯》,2007年第3期,第29页。
②该指标体系取自大庆市红岗区审计局的资料。