Dünyada Kamu Denetim Kurumları: İngiltere, Rusya, Almanya, Hindistan, Çin, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Brezilya Örneği

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 75 - 89

Bilge Kaan Altunoğlu , Muhammet Damar , Ahmet Özen

https://doi.org/10.47899/ijss.1497909

Abstract

Denetim, genel olarak belirlenen standartlara, yasal düzenlemelere veya belirlenmiş prosedürlere uygunluğun değerlendirilmesi ve bu standartların, yasaların veya prosedürlerin gerektirdiği şekilde hareket edilip edilmediğinin kontrol edilmesi sürecidir. Bu süreç, finansal raporlama, iç kontrol sistemleri, yasal uyumluluk, risk yönetimi, operasyonel etkinlik ve verimlilik gibi çeşitli alanlarda gerçekleştirilebilir. Denetimin iki boyutu olup bunlardan özel sektör firmalarının denetimi ve kamu kurumlarının denetimidir. Kamu denetim kurumları kamu harcamalarının denetlenmesinde merkezi bir rol oynamakta ve hükümetin kamu fonlarını nasıl topladığını, yönettiğini ve harcadığını denetlemektedir. Bu tür denetim kamu sektöründe hesap verebilirlik süreci açısından hayati önem taşımakta ve kamu harcamalarının değerlendirilmesi için ölçütler ve izlenmesi için de düzenli bir araç sağlamaktadır. Elbette her ülkenin kendi yapısına özgü kamu denetim kurumları bulunmakta olup diğer ülke kurumlarıyla benzer veya farklılıklara sahip olabilmektedir. Nitekim bu çalışmada küresel alanda gerek ekonomik gerekse coğrafi nitelikleri itibariyle yedi ülke (Çin, İngiltere, Rusya, Almanya, Hindistan, Brezilya ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri) belirlenmiş ve bu ülkelerin kamu denetimlerinin genel görünümü incelenmiştir. Genel olarak, kamu denetimi her ülkede önemli bir rol oynamakla birlikte her ülkede farklılık gösterebilmektedir. Bununla birlikte tüm ülkelerde temel denetim değerleri olarak bağımsızlık, şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik mutlaka göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Sonuç olarak her ülkenin kendi siyasi ve idari yapılanmasına özgü denetim kurumları mevcut olabilse de denetim hedefleri küresel çapta ortak değerler olarak dikkat çekmektedir.

Keywords

Denetim, Denetim Kurumları, Kamu Denetimi, Çin’de Kamu Denetimi, İngiltere’de Kamu Denetimi, ABD’de Kamu Denetimi

Ethical Statement

Herhangi Bir Etik Kurul İznine Gerek Olmamıştır

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

-

Thanks

Yok

Public Audit Institutions Worldwide: Examples from The United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, India, China, The United States, And Brazil

Abstract

Audit is the process of evaluating compliance with established standards, legal regulations, or prescribed procedures, and verifying whether actions are taken in accordance with these standards, laws, or procedures as required. This process can be conducted across various domains such as financial reporting, internal control systems, legal compliance, risk management, operational effectiveness, and efficiency. Audit encompasses two dimensions: private sector firms' audit and public sector entities' audit. Public audit institutions play a central role in auditing public expenditures, overseeing how the government collects, manages, and spends public funds. Such audits are vital for accountability processes in the public sector and provide a structured mechanism for evaluating and monitoring public spending. Public audit institutions vary from country to country, each having its own unique structure, and may share similarities or differences with those of other countries. In this study, considering both economic and geographical characteristics, seven countries (China, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, India, Brazil, and the United States) have been selected to examine the general overview of their public audits. Overall, public audit plays a significant role in every country, albeit with variations. However, fundamental audit values such as independence, transparency, and accountability must be considered universally. Regardless of the political and administrative structure of each country, audit objectives highlight common global values.

Keywords

Audit, Audit Institutions, Public Audit, Public Audit in China, Public Audit in the United Kingdom, Public Audit in the United States

Project Number

-

References

• Alon, A., Mennicken, A., & Samsonova-Taddei, A. (2019). Dynamics and limits of regulatory privatization: Reorganizing audit oversight in Russia. Organization Studies, 40(8), 1217-1239.
• Azuma, N. (2003). The role of the supreme audit institution in NPM: international trend. Government Auditing Review, 10(1), 85-106.
• Azuma, N. (2004). Performance measurement of supreme audit institutions in 4 Anglo-Saxon countries: leading by example. Government Auditing Review, 11(1), 65-99.
• Azuma, N. (2005). The role of the supreme audit institutions in new public management (NPM): The trend of continental countries. Government Auditing Review, 12, 69-84.
• Batashova, A., Popova, E., Chernetskaya, S., Barsukova, S., & Tishchenko, I. (2023). Transformation of approaches to audit in Russia. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 376, p. 05012), EDP Sciences, Rostov-on-Don, Russia, March 1-3, 2023.
• Bechberger, E., Lane, D. C., McBride, T., Morton, A., Quintas, D., & Wong, C. H. (2011). The National Audit Office uses OR to assess the value for money of public services. Interfaces, 41(4), 365-374.
• Benamraoui, A., Chatzivgeri, E., Jory, S. R., & Ajay, R. (2022). VfM audit and the UK public sector: A critical review of the VfM reports. Financial Accountability & Management, 40(2), 127-153.
• Berger, T.MM., Heiling, J. (2015). Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in Germany. In: Brusca, I., Caperchione, E., Cohen, S., Rossi, F.M. (eds) Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in Europe. IIAS Series: Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
• Bhatnagar, P. S., & Sharma, S. (2016). Enhancing Transparency, Accountability and Effectiveness of Supreme Audit Institutions of India Through Communication Networks. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 101-110.
• Bolgova, V.V., Dashin, A.V., Deltsova, N.V., Medentseva, E.V., Startseva, S.V. (2017). Establishment of the Institute of Audit as an Element of Market Relations and Object of Legal Regulation. In: Popkova, E. (eds) Russia and the European Union. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham.
• Cagle, C. S., & Pridgen, A. B. (2015). Accountability in county governments: is auditor type related to audit quality?. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 12(1),79-93.
• Carslaw, C., Pippin, S., & Mason, R. (2012). Are public sector auditors more effective than private sector audit firms when auditing governmental entities? Some evidence from United States counties. Public and Municipal Finance, 1(1), 49-57.
• Cesário, G., Cardoso, R. L., & Aranha, R. S. (2020). The surveillance of a supreme audit institution on related party transactions. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(4), 577-603.
• Clark, C., De Martinis, M., & Krambia‐Kapardis, M. (2007). Audit quality attributes of European Union supreme audit institutions. European Business Review, 19(1), 40-71.
• Cornelia, D. (2012). Great Britain and Germany supreme audit institutions. The Annals of the University of Oradea, Ser.: Economic Science, 21(1), 689-695.Evans, L. (2003). Auditing and audit firms in Germany before 1931. Accounting Historians Journal, 30(2), 29-65.
• de Lima, R. L., & de Lima, D. V. (2019). Experiência do Brasil na implementação das IPSAS. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 16(38), 166-184.
• De Widt, D., Llewelyn, I., & Thorogood, T. (2022). Stakeholder attitudes towards audit credibility in English local government: A post‐Audit Commission analysis. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(1), 29-55.
• Estevam, T. C. W., Rodrigues, J. D., & Da Silva, L. (2021). Implementation of International Standards on Auditing by the Brazilian Courts of Auditors. Revista Catarinense da Ciência Contábil, 20, 1-16.
• Evans, L., & Honold, K. (2007). The division of expert labour in the European audit market: The case of Germany. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(1), 61-88.
• Ferry, L., & Ahrens, T. (2022). The future of the regulatory space in local government audit: A comparative study of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(3), 376-393.
• Ferry, L., & Midgley, H. (2022). Democracy, accountability and audit: the creation of the UK NAO as a defence of liberty. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(2), 413-438.
• Funkhouser, M., & Pu, J. Y. (2019). Government performance auditing in the US and China: Lessons drawn from a comparative review. Chinese Public Administration Review, 10(2), 65-78.
• Gong, T. (2009). Institutional learning and adaptation: Developing state audit capacity in China. Public Administration and Development, 29(1), 33-41.
• Guzov, I. (2016). History of auditing in Russia: periodization and challenges of development. In Paradigma contabilităţii şi auditului: realităţi naţionale, tendinţe regionale şi internaţionale (pp. 257-263), Chişinău, Moldova: Instrumentul Bibliometric National.
• Havens, H. S. (1990). The evolution of the general accounting office: From voucher audits to program evaluations. USA: United States General Accounting Office.
• Hazaea, S. A., Zhu, J., Khatib, S. F., & Arshad, M. (2020). A comparative study of the internal audit system between China and the Gulf Cooperation council countries. Proceeding of International Conference on Business, Economy, Management and Social Studies towards Sustainable Economy, 1(1),1-7.
• Hazgui, M., Triantafillou, P., & Elmer Christensen, S. (2022). On the legitimacy and apoliticality of public sector performance audit: exploratory evidence from Canada and Denmark. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(6), 1375-1401.
• Heald, D. (2018). Transparency‐generated trust: The problematic theorization of public audit. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(4), 317-335.
• Isaev, E. A., Fedchenko, E. A., Gusarova, L. V., Polyakova, O. A., & Vasyunina, M. L. (2021). Performance audit in the public sector: Domestic and foreign experience. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(6),1-14.
• Kesimli, I. (2019). External Audit in USA, European Union, and Turkey. In: External Auditing and Quality. Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0526-9_2
• Khatkhokhu, S. (2019). Development of auditing in Russia. Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, (16), 145-175.
• Kim, N. (2021). Institutional audit regulation in Russia in conditions of sustainable development. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 258, p. 06028), EDP Sciences, Rostov-on-Don, Russia, March 1-3, 2023.
• Kumar, J. (2001). Audit and Accountability in Indian Administration. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 62(1),75-89.
• Lima, L. H., & Magrini, A. (2010). The Brazilian Audit Tribunal's role in improving the federal environmental licensing process. Environmental impact assessment review, 30(2), 108-115.
• Lino, A. F., & Aquino, A. C. B. D. (2017). The diversity of the Brazilian regional Audit Courts on government auditing. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 29(76),26-40.
• Lino, A. F., Azevedo, R. R. D., & Belote, G. S. (2023). The influence of public sector audit digitalisation on local government budget planning: evidence from Brazil. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 35(2), 198-218.
• Lino, A. F., de Azevedo, R. R., de Aquino, A. C. B., & Steccolini, I. (2022). Fighting or supporting corruption? The role of public sector audit organizations in Brazil. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 83, 102384.
• Liu, J., & Lin, B. (2012). Government auditing and corruption control: Evidence from China’s provincial panel data. China Journal of Accounting Research, 5(2), 163-186.
• Manes Rossi, F., Brusca, I., & Condor, V. (2021). In the pursuit of harmonization: comparing the audit systems of European local governments. Public Money & Management, 41(8), 604-614.
• Mathur, B. P. (2018). The comptroller and auditor general: Reform the institution to enforce government’s accountability. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 442-453.
• Mazur, J. (2020). Investigations of the UK NAO: A New Type of Audit?. Kontrola Państwowa, 65(6(395)),762-781.
• McEldowney, J. F. (1991). The National Audit Office and Privatisation. The Modern Law Review, 54(6), 933-955.
• McGee, R. W., & Preobragenskaya, G. G. (2005). The Current State of Auditing in Russia. In: Accounting and Financial System Reform in a Transition Economy: A Case Study of Russia. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23887-5_3
• Melo, M. A., Pereira, C., & Figueiredo, C. M. (2009). Political and institutional checks on corruption: explaining the performance of Brazilian audit institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1217-1244.
• Mir, M., Fan, H., & Maclean, I. (2017). Public sector audit in the absence of political competition. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(9), 899-923.
• Monfardini, P., & Maravic, P. V. (2012). Municipal auditing in Germany and Italy: Explosion, change, or recalcitrance?. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(1), 52-76.
• Morin, D., & Hazgui, M. (2016). We are much more than watchdogs: The dual identity of auditors at the UK National Audit Office. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12(4), 568-589.
• Nath, N. D., Van Peursem, K. A., & Lowe, A. (2005). Public sector performance auditing: Emergence, purpose and meaning. New Zeland: Waikato University.
• Norton, S. D., & Smith, L. M. (2008). Contrast and foundation of the public oversight roles of the US Government Accountability Office and the UK National Audit Office. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 921-931.
• Olivieri, C., Loureiro, M. R., Teixeira, M. A. C., & Abrucio, F. L. (2015). Control and public management performance in Brazil: challenges for coordination. International Business Research, 8(8), 181-190.
• Pritchard, A. C., & Puri, P. (2006). The regulation of public auditing in Canada and the United States: Self-regulation or government regulation?. Fraser Institute Digital Publication, 1-43. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1427641
• Rana, T., Mihret, D. G., & Lemma, T. T. (2023). Performance auditing and neoliberal governmentality: future research directions. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(2), 400-416.
• Roberts, S., & Pollitt, C. (1994). Audit or evaluation? A national audit office VFM study. Public Administration, 72(4), 527-549.
• Scalan, G. (2017). Former audit partners on audit committees: Implications for Russian corporate governance. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 4(1),1-10.
• Selvaraju, T. (2022). Reorganisation and Strengthening of the Indian Public Audit System–Reforms Overdue. Indian Public Policy Review, 3(6 (Nov-Dec)), 67-78.
• Serowaniec, M. (2019). Guarantees of independence of the Supreme Audit Institutions of the EU Member States–a comparative legal analysis. Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i Samorządu, 7(3), 9-20.
• Seyfried, M. (2016). Setting a fox to guard the henhouse? Determinants in elections for presidents of supreme audit institutions: Evidence from the German federal states (1991–2011). Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(4/5), 492-511.
• Shrivastava, S. (2009). Espousing Effective Performance Audit For Good Governance in India. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 70(3), 665-677.
• Singer, R. A. (2012). How to Integrate International Financial Reporting Standards into Accounting Programs. American Journal of Business Education, 5(3), 287-292.
• Sucher, P., & Bychkova, S. (2001). Auditor independence in economies in transition: a study of Russia. European accounting review, 10(4), 817-841.
• Sun, T., Alles, M., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2015). Adopting continuous auditing: A cross-sectional comparison between China and the United States. Managerial Auditing Journal, 30(2), 176-204.
• Suzuki, Y. (2004). Basic structure of government auditing by a supreme audit institution. Government Auditing Review, 11(3), 39-53.
• Sweetman, A., Robinson, T., & Shilnikova, G. (2000). The evolution of audit regulation in a Russian market economy. Journal of East-West Business, 5(3), 95-113.
• Taran, O. L., Lazareva, N. A., & Uzdenova, S. B. (2020, January). The Main Trends in the Development of Internal Audit and the Transformation of the Term “Internal Audit” Essence in Russia. In First International Volga Region Conference on Economics, Humanities and Sports (FICEHS 2019) (pp. 197-201). Atlantis Press.
• Taran, O. L., Soboleva, S. Y., & Orobinskaya, V. N. (2020, January). Actual Problems of Development and Standardization of Internal Audit in Russia. In First International Volga Region Conference on Economics, Humanities and Sports (FICEHS 2019) (pp. 202-206). Atlantis Press.
• Veit, S., & Seyfried, M. (2024). How do Supreme Audit Institutions reflect societal change? A Prosopographical Analysis of Top Civil Servants in the German States (1945–2022). dms–der moderne staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 16(2), 536-554.
• Weihrich, D. (2018). Performance auditing in Germany concerning environmental issues. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(1), 29-42.
• Xiao, J. Z., Yang, S., Zhang, X., & Firth, M. (2016). Institutional arrangements and government audit independence in China. Abacus, 52(3), 532-567.
• Yang, S., Xiao, J. Z., & Pendlebury, M. (2008). Government auditing in China: Problems and reform. Advances in Accounting, 24(1), 119-127.