Public Organization Review

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 17–32 | Cite as

Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit

  • Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud


Ministries are increasingly subject to control, primarily by State Audit Institutions’. This control is assumed to contribute to improvement. Based on survey data from 353 civil servants in Norway this article analyses the ministries’ and agencies’ responses to the SAIs control. The analysis shows that civil servants in the ministries tend to be less positive to performance audit than civil servants in the agencies. Top executives, irrespective of administrative level, were more negative than middle managers and other public employees. In addition civil servants more exposed to performance audit were, in general, more negative towards it.


Agencies Ministries Performance audit State Audit Institution New Public Management Control Accountability 


  1. Alwardat, Y. A. (2010). External auditors and clients: An investigation of perceptions of value for money (VfM) audit practices in the UK public sector. PhD thesis, University of Westminster, Harrow Business School.Google Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
  3. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Lonsdale, J., & Perrin, B. (2007). Making accountability work: Dilemmas for evaluation and for audit. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32(1987), 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public administration (pp. 422–445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bovens, M. (2007). New forms of accountability and EU-governance. Comparative European Politics, 5(1), 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (1993). The reforming organization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). Profesjonsmangfold, statsmodeller og beslutningsadferd. In B. S. Tranøy & Ø. Østerud (Eds.), Den fragmenterte staten. Reformer makt og styring. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: the relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006a). Agencification and regulatory reforms. In Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 8–49). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006b). Reformer og lederskap: Omstilling i den utøvende makt. Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: the Norwegian case. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Roness, P. G. (2002). Increasing parliamentary control of the executive? New instruments and emerging effects. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 8(1), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Stigen, I. M. (2006). Performance management and public sector reform: the Norwegian hospital reform. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., Egeberg, M., Larsen, H. O., Lægreid, P., & Roness, P. G. (2010). Forvaltning og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  18. De Vries, J., Van der Meer, F. B., & Vissers, G. (2000). Evaluation and organizational learning in government: The impact of institutions. Accessed 13.04.2012.
  19. Eckhoff, T. E., & Jacobsen, K. D. (1960). Rationality and responsibility in administrative and judicial decision-making. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  20. Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (p. 157). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egeberg, M., & Saetren, H. (1999). Identities in complex organizations: A study of ministerial bureaucrats. In M. Egeberg, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Organizing political institutions. Essays for Johan P. Olsen (pp. 93–108). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: effects of agencification. Governance, 22(4), 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fayol, H., & Gray, I. (1988). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  24. Furubo, J. E. (2011). Performance auditing: Audit or misnomer? In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 22–50). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Grönlund, A., Svärdsten, F., & Öhman, P. (2011). Value for money and the rule of law: the (new) performance audit in Sweden. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  26. Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hood, C., James, O., Scott, C., Jones, G. W., & Travers, T. (1999). Regulation inside government: Waste watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Johnsen, Å., Meklin, P., Oulasvirta, L., & Vakkuri, J. (2001). Performance auditing in local government: an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing in Finland and Norway. The European Accounting Review, 10(3), 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Justesen, L., & Skærbek, P. (2010). Performance auditing and the narrating of a new auditee identity. Financial Accountability and Management, 3(26), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty: an institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lægreid, P. (2013). Accountability and new public management In Handbook of accountability. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lægreid, P., & Olsen, J. P. (1978). Byråkrati og beslutninger: En studie av norske departement. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  34. Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance management in practice—the Norwegian way. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(3), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2011). In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Lapsley, I., & Pong, C. K. M. (2000). Modernization versus problematization: value-for-money audit in public services. European Accounting Review, 9(4), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lonsdale, J. (1999). Impacts. In C. Pollitt, X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa, & M. Waerness (Eds.), Performance or compliance?: Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 171–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lonsdale, J., & Bechberger, E. (2011). Learning in an accountability setting. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 268–288). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., & Pollitt, C. (1999). The auditor’s craft. In C. Pollitt, X. Girre, J. Lonsdale, R. Mul, H. Summa, & M. Waerness (Eds.), Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries (pp. 105–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Morin, D. (2001). Influence of value for money audit on public administrations: looking beyond appearances. Financial Accountability and Management, 17(2), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morin, D. (2004). Measuring the impact of value-for-money audits: a model for surveying audited managers. Canadian Public Administration, 47(2), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morin, D. (2008). Auditors general’s universe revisited. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(7), 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nordby, T. (2004). I politikkens sentrum. Variasjoner i Stortingets makt 1814–2004. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  47. Peters, B. G. (2010). Bureaucracy and democracy. Public Organization Review, 1–14.Google Scholar
  48. Pollitt, C. (2003). Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation (vol. 1). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Pollitt, C., Girre, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H., & Waerness, M. (1999). Performance or compliance?: Performance audit and public management in five countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2013). Political accountability and performance audit: the case of the auditor general in Norway. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/padm.12025.Google Scholar
  52. Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., & Johnsen, Å. (2011). Auditors’ understanding of evidence: a performance audit of an urban development programme. Evaluation, 17(3), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roness, P. G., Verhoest, K., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2008). Autonomy and regulation of state agencies: reinforcement, indifference or compensation? Public Organization Review, 8(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rose, R. (1987). Ministers and ministries: A functional analysis. Clarendon Press Oxford.Google Scholar
  55. Sejersted, F. (2002). Kontroll og Konstitusjon. Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag.Google Scholar
  56. Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor, F. W. (1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  59. Tillema, S., & Ter Bogt, H. J. (2010). Performance auditing: improving the quality of political and democratic processes? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(8), 754–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van der Meer, F. B. (1999). Evaluation and the social construction of impacts. Evaluation, 5(4), 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Loocke, E., & Put, V. (2011). The impact of performance audits: A review of the existing evidence. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 175–208). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Vanlandingham, G. R. (2011). Escaping the dusty shelf: legislative evaluation offices’ efforts to promote utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.Google Scholar
  65. Waldo, D. (2006). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Weets, K. (2011). Impact at local government level: A multiple case study. In J. Lonsdale, P. Wilkins, & T. Ling (Eds.), Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government (pp. 248–267). Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Yesilkagit, K., & Van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations