Desigining Audit and Performance Systems in a Multi-Agency Environment: The Case of the European Union

  • Roger Levy
Chapter

Abstract

The delivery of accountability goals in public policy is one of the key functions of democratic government. Traditionally, this function has been associated with the growth and development of legislative power. Latterly, as legislatures have relinquished control over the initiation of legislation to executives, their relative importance as monitoring agencies has grown. In order to assist in this process, a plethora of external audit agencies, internal audit and performance units within government and external regulatory bodies have been created over the years.

Keywords

Member State Common Agricultural Policy Structural Fund Member State Level Project Cycle Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albaek, E. Policy evaluation; Design and utilisation. Knowledge in Society 1989;2, 2 6–19.Google Scholar
  2. Albaek, E. Why all this Evaluation? Theoretical Notes and empirical Observations on the Functions and Growth of Evaluation in Denmark. Paper presented at the 1st International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., Olsen. J.P. A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972;17,1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities. First Annual report on the implementation of the Structural Funds. Brussels: European Commission, COM(90) 516, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities. Second Annual report on the implementation of the reform of the Structural Funds. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the Ecs, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities. Fourth Annual report on the implementation of the Structural Funds. Brussels: European Commission COM (93) 530, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Commission of the European Communities. La Bonne Gestion Financiere, Texte F. Brussels: European Commission SEC (95)477, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Cyert, R.M., March, J.G. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, H. Interagency Evaluation in the Canadian Federal Government. Paper presented at the 1st International Evaluation Conference, Vancouver, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Dunleavy, P., Hood, C. From Old Public Administration to New Public Management. Public Money and Management 1994;14(3), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Court of Auditors. Study of the financial system of the European Communities. Official Journal of the European Communities 1981 ;C342 Vol 24.Google Scholar
  12. European Court of Auditors. Special report on job creation or maintenance in the granting of aid to regional investments. Official Journal of the European Communities 1982;C345 Vol. 25.Google Scholar
  13. European Court of Auditors. Annual report concerning the financial year 1988 together with the institutions replies. Official Journal of the European Communities 1989; C312 Vol. 32.Google Scholar
  14. European Court of Auditors. Annual report concerning the financial year 1992 together with the institutions replies. Official Journal of the European Communities 1993;C309 Vol. 36.Google Scholar
  15. Fayol, H. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman, 1949.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, A., Jenkins, B., Segsworth, B. Eds. Budgeting, Auditing and Evaluation; functions and integration in seven governments. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. Henkel, M. The New Evaluative State. Public Administration 1991 ;69(1): 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hood, C. A Public Management for all Seasons. Public Administration 1991 ;3–19.Google Scholar
  19. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities. Reform of the Structural Funds. Session 1987–88, 14th Report, HL paper 82, London: HMSO, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities. Regional Development Policy. Session 1991–92, 4th. Report, HL paper 20, London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities. EC Development Aid. Session 1992–93, 21st Report, HL paper 89, London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. Klijn, E.H., Koppenjon, Terneer, K. Managing Networks in the Public Sector: a theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration 1995; 73(3):437–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knox, C, McAllister, D. Policy Evaluation: incorporating users views. Public Administration 1995;73(3):413–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and Environment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Levy, R. That Obscure Object of desire: Budgetary Control in the EC. Public Administration 1990;68(2): 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy, R. 1992: Towards Better Budgetary Control in the EC? Corruption and Reform 1991 ;6: 285–302.Google Scholar
  27. Levy, R. Budgetary Control Reform in Canada: A Model for the EC? International Review ofAdministrative Sciences 1992;58: 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy, R. Audit an Accountability in a Multi-Agency Environment: The Case of the Common Agricultural Policy in the UK. Financial Accountability and Management 1994; 10(1): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levy, R. Subsidiarity, Accountability and the Management of EU Programmes. Paper delivered at the European Community Studies Association Conference. Charleston, SC, 11–14 May, 1995a.Google Scholar
  30. Levy, R. Managing EU Programmes: Subsidiarity and the Accountability Gap. Paper delivered at the UACES Research Conference. Birmingham, 18–19 September, 1995b.Google Scholar
  31. Lindblom, CE. The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review 1959;19(2):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metcalfe, L. After 1992: Can the Commission Manage Europe? Australian Journal of Public Administration 1992;51(l):117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe, L. International Policy Co-ordination and Public Management Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 1994;60:271–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
  35. Peterson, J. Playing the Transparency Game — consultation and policy making in the European Union. Public Administration 1995;73(3):473–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollitt, C. Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management. Evaluation 1995;1(2): 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Power, M. The Audit Explosion. London: Demos, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. Power, M. Auditing, Financial Management and Evaluation: An Interview with Alan Pratley. Evaluation 1995;1(2):251–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. School for Advanced Urban Studies. European Social Fund: Recent Developments. Seminar held on 23/4 Apr. 1992 and reported in European Information Service No. 130,1992.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, H.A. Administrative Behaviour. New York: The Free Press, 1945.Google Scholar
  41. Strasser, D. The Finances of Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1992.Google Scholar
  42. Taylor, F.W. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper, 1911.Google Scholar
  43. Warrian, P. Principal-Agent Issues in the Delivery of Jointly Funded Social Assistance Programmes: Recent Canadian Inter-Governmental Experiences. Paper presented to Workshop on Inter and Intra Governmental Arrangement for Productivity, University of Twente, Dec. 15–16, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Levy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations