Management Accountability
The Signals sent by Auditing and Evaluation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6296626 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ray C Rist (United States Government Accountability Office, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 355-369 |
| Publication date | 1989-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Public Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0143-814X • E-ISSN: 1469-7815 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0143814x00008503 |
| OpenAlex | W2064694682 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
Auditing and Evaluation are two strategies which governments may use to ascertain if existing policies and programs are being administered as they ought. They provide critical information by which to determine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government action and are the basis for holding accountable those responsible for the government policies and programs. The analysis compares the strengths and weaknesses of auditing and evaluation as means of monitoring accountability. Three types of accountability are discussed. Auditing makes its strongest contributing to managerial accountability through a focus on fiscal or regulatory issues
Accountability · Action (physics · Audit · Business · Focus (optics · Government (linguistics · Internal audit · Joint audit · Operational auditing · Political science · Public relations · Strengths and weaknesses · Accounting · Accounting and Organizational Management · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Psychology · Public Policy and Administration Research
| Citations per year | 0.1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1997 - 2006 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |