臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：課責是否能提升績效？臺灣政府審計影響之探討
書刊名：文官制度
作者：蔡馨芳
作者(外文)：Tsai, Hsin-fang
出版日期：2016
卷期：8:4
頁次：頁75-101
主題關鍵詞：審計；績效審計；課責；審計影響；內容分析；Audit；Performance auditing；Accountability；Auditing impact；Content analysis
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:16
政府審計乃國家治理不可或缺之一環，審計機關應持續致力於發揮監督、洞察及前瞻功能，以成為值得人民信賴之典範機關，並有效促進良善國家治理。美國前審計長David Walker於2005年曾表示：「聯邦審計署（Government Accountability Office, GAO）是一個協助提升政府運作效能且負起施政責任的組織。基於此目標，聯邦審計署協助國會監督行政機關運作，洞察提升政府效能的各種方式，並前瞻未來各種挑戰。」然而，審計人員在進行審計工作的傳統信念—透過課責方式可提升施政績效之關係果真存在嗎？課責真的能讓績效提升嗎？抑或只是「吹毛求疵」（nit-picking），針對小錯誤窮追猛打並加以懲罰，最後侵蝕公眾對政府的信任呢？
本文採用量化內容分析法，針對國內審計機關所公布之審計績效報告，解構內容並解讀其對行政機關提供公共服務之效能所造成的影響。基於國內審計機關在主要業務上近年來所獲致之成果，在財務上、內控制度上或政策規劃執行上，協助行政機關發現問題並提出可行之解決方式，並獲得行政機關的採納，對於提升政府績效逐漸產生正面效果及影響力；審計報告中糾正建議強調提升計畫之業務及管理效能及改善計畫之規劃。同時其所產生之影響，主要為著重績效預期結果、重視審計建議之接受度、執行情況及對決策過程之影響等「工具型」及「戰術型」之類型及模式。
Auditing is an indispensable part of governance. The Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) should effectively promote good governance and become a main authority which plays a role for oversight, insight and foresight. David Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), said, “We’re in the business of helping government work better and holding it accountable to the people. To this end, GAO provides Congress with oversight of agency operations, insight into ways to improve government and foresight about future challenges. Auditors are intended for their work to improve the performance of the agencies they audited.” However, has auditing actually imrpoved government performance? Or has it undermined public trust ultimately by nit-picking, pouncing on minor errors and punishing?
This paper adopted quantitative content analysis to describe the performance evaluation of the National Audit Office in Taiwan, to deconstruct and interpret the impacts the audit reports might have had on the effectiveness, efficiency and mechanisms of public services. The author concluded that the work of Supreme Audit Institution assists auditees to find problems and provide feasible solutions, some of which have been adopted. Suggestions such as how to promote the projects’ management and implementation, and how to improve the policy planning are emphasized. Gradually auditing has a positive effect on improving performance. In the meantime, the types of impacts of performance auditing in Taiwan are also instrumental and tactical. In other words, action was often taken during the auditing process to remedy failings found in the functioning of a government entity and have impacts on the decision-making process.
期刊論文
1.Halachmi, Arie(2002)。Performance Measurement, Accountability, and Improved Performance。Public Performance & Management Review，25(4)，370-374。  new window
2.Roberts, Nancy C.(2002)。Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox。Public Administration Review，62(6)，658-669。  new window
3.柯承恩、賴森本(20021000)。推動績效導向之審計制度。研考雙月刊，26(5)=231，59-68。  延伸查詢new window
4.Bouckaert, Geert、Peters, B. Guy(2002)。Performance Measurement and Management: the Achilles' Heel in Administrative Modernization。Public Performance & Management Review，25(4)，359-362。  new window
5.Weiss, Carol H.(1979)。The Many Meanings of Research Utilization。Public Administration Review，39(5)，426-431。  new window
6.Van Der Meer, F.-B.、Edelenbos, J.(2006)。Evaluation in multi-actor policy processes。Evaluation，12(2)，201-218。  new window
7.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。  new window
8.Nalbandian, J.(1994)。Reflections of a "pracademic" on the logic of politics and administration。Public Administration Review，54(6)，531-536。  new window
9.Halachmi, A.、Bouckaert, G.(1994)。Performance measurement, organizational technology and organizational design。Work Study，43(3)，19-25。  new window
10.Halachmi, A.(2002)。Performance measurement: A look at some possible dysfunctions。Work Study，51(5)，230-239。  new window
11.Funkhouser, M.(2003)。Governance and auditing。Local Government Auditing Quarterly，17(1)，3-4。  new window
12.Dubnick, M.(2005)。Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of mechanisms。Public Performance & Management Review，28(3)，376-417。  new window
13.陳華(20100700)。績效審計是項目後評價的最佳方式。內部稽核，71，30-36。  延伸查詢new window
14.張四明(20061000)。強化績效審計與公共課責連結的重要性。政府審計季刊，27(1)，88-96。  延伸查詢new window
15.周琼怡、許哲源(20100600)。施政績效管理之審計。研考雙月刊，34(3)=277，121-126。  延伸查詢new window
16.周琼怡、林珈宇(20090700)。行政院所屬各機關施政績效評估執行情形之審計。政府審計季刊，29(4)=116，36-45。  延伸查詢new window
17.林慶隆(20130900)。政府審計在公共治理之角色與功能。公共治理季刊，1(3)，58-73。  延伸查詢new window
18.林慶隆(20120400)。政府績效審計推動現況與展望。內部稽核，78，5-13。  延伸查詢new window
19.劉坤億(20091000)。政府課責性與公共治理之探討。研考雙月刊，33(5)=273，59-72。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Weiss, C. H.(1998)。Evaluation。Prentice Hall。  new window
2.Argyris, C.、Schön, D.(1978)。Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective。Reading, Mass：Addison-Wesley。  new window
3.Dowdle, Michael W.(2006)。Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas And Experiences。New York：Cambridge University Press。  new window
4.Flinders, Matthew(2008)。Delegated Governance and the British State: Walking without Order。Oxford University Press。  new window
5.徐仁輝(2014)。公共財務管理：公共預算與財務行政。臺北：智勝文化。  延伸查詢new window
6.Behn, Robert D.(2001)。Rethinking Democratic Accountability。Washington, DC：Brookings Institution Press。  new window
7.王佳煌、潘中道、Neuman, W. Lawrence、蘇文賢、江吟梓(2014)。當代社會研究法：質化與量化取向。學富文化公司。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.INTOSAI(2004)。Implementation guidelines for performance auditing，http://www.issai.org/media/13224/issai_3000_e.pdf。  new window
2.Abd Manaf, N. A.(2010)。The impact of performance audit: The New Zealand experience，http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/ 1376/thesis.pdf?sequence=1。  new window
3.審計部(2015)。審計部民國103年度績效報告，http://www.audit.gov.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/78/pta_2797_7393297_47585.pdf。  new window
4.國家發展委員會(2016)。機關施政績效評估，http://www.ndc.gov.tw/News.aspx?n=B3B031E02A85D8B8&sms=5BC851F56C003F6B。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Wilkins, P.、Lonsdale, J.(2007)。Public sector auditing for accountability: New directions, new tricks?。Making accountability work: Dilemmas for evaluation and for audit。New Brunswick, NJ：Transaction。  new window
2.Walsh, A. H.(1996)。Performance auditing and legislative oversight in the context of public management reform: The US experience。Performance auditing and the modernisation of government。Paris：OECD。  new window
3.Van Loocke, E.、Put, V.(2011)。The impact of performance audits: A review of the existing evidence。Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government。Cheltenham：Edward Elgar。  new window
4.Nutley, S.、Webb, J.(2000)。Evidence and the policy process。What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services。Bristol：The Policy。  new window
5.Lonsdale, J.、Bechberger, E.(2011)。Learning in an accountability setting。Performance auditing: Contribution to accountability in democratic government。Northampton, MA：Edward Elgar。  new window
6.Leeuw, F. L.、Sonnichsen, R.(1994)。Evaluations and organizational learning: International perspectives。Can governments learn? Comparative perspectives on evaluation and organizational learning。Piscataway, NJ：Transaction。  new window
7.Funkhouser, M.(2011)。Accountability, performance and performance auditing: Reconciling the views of scholars and auditors。Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government。Northampton, MA：Edward Elgar。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1093（臺灣：1084，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1641614 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67444650
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上