机电产品文献综述外文原文

嘉兴学院南湖学院外文文献翻译原文题目:公共财政支出绩效审计评价指标体系研究系别：商学系专业：会计学班级：会计N064学号： 2006456691425学牛姓名：孙琪琪一、外文原文原文一：Performanee auditing in local governmentPerformanceauditing has beena Iong-standing componentof accountability in public administration. During the 1980s and 1990s performanee auditing has allegedly beenincreasingly adopted in the new public management.While there has been much research on public management and performanee auditing in central government, local governments been relatively neglected in the literature. Municipalities and counties in local government have an important role in public sector service production in most European countries, and especially in the Nordic coun tries. It is therefore surpris ing that performa nce audit ing in this con text has received so little scholarly attention. This study is aimed at filling some of this gap. The purpose of this comparative study is, therefore, to explore how performance auditing practices,including performancemeasurement,areusedto assessand verify value for money in local government and to enhance the accountability of municipalities and counties. Despite some problems related to the quality of the performa nceaudit reports, the in forma nts perceived performa nceaudit to fun ctio n as a useful, rational public managementtool.In many public sector reforms duri ng the 1980s a nd 1990s, dece ntralizati on has bee non ekey in gredie nt. The Nordic coun tries a nd the Netherla ndsare now relatively extensively decentralized and have been so for some time relative to many other European countries. Along with the delegation of authority, decisions and managementof financial funds, performance measurementand performance auditing are often developed and control systemscentralized. Many audit practices have grown out from changes in public sector management with ideals such as quality, governanceand accountability. In fact, there hasbeenan explosion of audits in many different fields of society, the efficacy of audits is seldom documented and debated. Power argued that audit, despite its role in assessingand verifying the performanceof other organizations, has put itself beyond empirical knowledge about its own effects in favour of a constant programmatic affirmation of its potential. Paradoxically, performance auditing, which presumably is more complex and ambiguous than financial auditing, is probably more important in public sector organizations than in firms even though performance in the public sector is more difficult to verify. Until the mid-1980s researchin public sector auditing was seriously neglected. There has now been some researchon public managementand performance auditing in central government. Local government auditing has been less studied and reported in the literature.Performance auditing may be regarded as old, even as an ancient public management instrument. Nevertheless, performance audit as a large-scale, self-consciously distinct practice, first emerged during the late 1970s. By the late 1990s Performance auditing had been fully established, with its own proceduresand staff, in Australia, Canada, Finland, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the UK and USA. Thus, performance audits are now central activities of governmental organizations close to the political centre in many democratic welfare states. Performance audit is therefore likely to play an important role for accountability in democratic governanceat leastat the central government level.Performance auditing is widespread and important in central government. Yet, what performance audit exactly is remains difficult to ascertain. Glynn reviewed performance audit developments in the national audit offices in six countries: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Sweden. By the early 1980s there was little documentary evidence on what actually happenedin practice. Glynn concluded that by 1985, despite a wealth of experience, there was no standard approach that adequatelycovered all the varied aspectsof value for money auditing. Also Bower, ten years later, reported that there was no general agreement what the term performance audit actually meant. She identified six different but not exhaustive approaches: review of management systems, arrangements and procedures; the performance procedure audit; policy audit; audit of managementrepresentations of performance; comparative performance audit; and quality audit. Despite the variety of performance audit approaches,she argued that there could bea trend towards more certification style. This trend could be due to cost issues as well as to the use of standardized audit approaches to avoid political controversy and appear as more client-oriented in an increasingly competitive public sector auditor market. She therefore concluded that performanceauditing wasin decline in the UK. Performance audit had lost its way from adding value by informing the public as watchdogs. The auditors rather functioned as consultants. Cf. Jacobs on the changing role of performanceauditing in New Zealand and Guthrie and Parkeron the recent history of performanceauditing in the Australian federal public sector.Oneof the most recent and extensive studies of performance auditing is Pollitt et al. (1999). They found that, at a general level, there is professional consensusof performanceaudit as a form of audit focusedon efficiency and effectivenessof public activities. Performance audit differs from .financial or compliance audit in several ways. Financial audit is a regular, more standardized, often annual, verification of information. Performance audit is more usually carried out asan individually tailored project and is less apt for standardization. For instance, professionalssuch as medics, engineers and economists are often employed in performance audits, not only accountants. However, performance audit is distinct from evaluation because performance audit is done with a perspective of guardianship and control and for holding public bodies to account. Performance audit is also distinct from monitoring and ordinary performance measurementbecausethese latter activities are performed as part of managementprocesseswhile performance audit is external and independent of management.Public performance audit is moreover distinct from private audits, as operative, management and quality audits, becausethese are internalized forms of corporate control whereas performance audits are part of the public sector organizations external control systems.Performanceaudits are done on behalf of and in the interest of the public (accountability) and not only on behalf of the owners or the managementof the company or for the government.First, certain public management reforms may impinge upon performance auditing. Such reforms may also introduce new control systemsas accrual accounting instead of cash-based or cameral accounting, and more and new performance information. On the other hand, if the local government auditors have constant level and type of resources(budget and skills), then there maybe more financial audit and less performanceaudit.Second, there is in practice not always a supremeaudit institution (SAI) in local government. The municipal audit market structure may have mandatory municipal audits, either internal or in partnership with other municipalities, as in Norway. The audit may also be external, either public or private, asin Finland. One may thus find a range of auditor types from internal, to co-operation between municipalities, to a competitive market where both municipal auditors as well as private auditors compete for the audits. However, it shouldbe mentioned that governmental performanceaudits could also employ consultants, research projects etc. which in practice, though not formally, may complement or substitute the supreme audit institutions which are present in central government. These factors, the local government audit market structure and the substitutability between municipal performance audits with internal managementcontrol as well as external consulting services, may make performance audit in local government even more complex and ill-defined than governmental performanceaudits.Performance measurementand audit experiencesshow us that local government performance audits have persisted for a long time, with varying degreesof success, while facing resistanceand conflicts between professionals, and lacking substantial evidence of effects. Nevertheless, they are still supported by different political regimes. This review leads to two preliminary conclusions. First, it seemsas much of the conceptual framework on performance audit in general, e.g. influence of public sector reforms and the questions of auditors competence and skills regarding performance auditing, is also applicable for local government. Second, even though researchon instrumental work, such as audits, and institutional pressureshave been going onfor a relatively long time, there is still little knowledge on how they relate to eachother. Institutional theory therefore seemsappropriate for further empirical study and subsequentdiscussion.Source： JohnsenAge, Meklin Pentti, Oulasvirta Lasse,Vakkuri Jarmo. Performance auditing in local government. EuropeanAccounting Review, 2001(9) p：p583-599.5原文二：Performance auditing simplifiedWhat Is PerformanceAuditing?A simple statement of performance auditing would describe it asan examination and analysis of methods of operation to determine if an organizations actual operations are following established policies and procedures. It also relates these actual operations to performance standards,where such exist, and which ideally are established by planners, budgeters,engineers,or others. Where there are differences between the actual operations and the standards,these deviations are analyzed and prescriptive recommendations are made. The auditor also reviews operations to determine the effectiveness and efficiency with which operations are performed. Thesedeterminations are basedon establishedmanagementconceptsand the presence of necessaryoperational controls.One writer has expressedvery well the concept of what is called operational auditing. This term is in reality a synonym for performance auditing andis described as being based on a wide concept of control. This writer states: The operational audit examination covers a review of the objectives of the firm, its operating environment, organizational structure, operating plans and policies, its personnel and physical facilities. These are reviewed in terms of their contribution (or lack of contribution) to operating efficiency or cost savings.The State or Michigan has been a pioneer in this type of audit. It instituted performance auditing in 1963 as a result of a constitutional convention which provided the state with a more modernized type of operation.Probably the most succinct description of the objective of performance auditing is that used by Professor Lennis M. Knighton of the University of Texas who identifies the objectives as the determination of the(1)faithfulness,(2) effectiveness, and(3)efficiency with which the programs are administered.In his words: Faithfulness refers to whether or not programs have been administered in accordance with legislative authorization and policy effectiveness will refer to whether or not planned program objectives have been achieved and efficiency refers to whether or not program objectives were accomplishedat a minimum cost with the maximum benefit being obtainedfor eachdollar spent.For Whom Is It Conducted?Performanceaudits are conducted for managers,both internal and external to the unit being audited. The information contained in the audit reports is the type of intelligence which the managerhimself would gather had he the multiple facilities of the audit staff as part of his organic equipment financial audits provide valuable contributions. Unfortunately, they are more historical in nature than those supplied by the performance audits which are prescriptive. Thus, internal managers are able to discern from the audits how they are operating and how they should operate. They employ the audits as extensions of the managementprocess of control. They employ the audits as extensionsof the managementprocessof control.In all cases,the audit speaksa managementlanguage. Terms such as efficiency and effectiveness, organizational structure, organizational control, deviations from standard, adequacy of standards, propriety of policy, planning and forecasting are common to the audits. Such financial information asis usedis usually supporting data to the basic managementinformation supplied to the interested managers,planners, and budgeters.How Does It Relate to Financial Audits?Financial audits or fiscal audits are essentially examinations which perform two functions. First, they affirm that all receipts which should have beenreceived were in fact accounted for, that all expenditures were properly made, and that services or materials were received therefrom. Second, the financial audit examinesand certifies the financial statementsof the organization being audited.Performanceaudits do include some financial aspects.As a matter of fact, some parts of the organizations financial operations are analyzed and examined during the courseof oneor more of the various functionally oriented performanceaudits. Thus, a complete set of performance audits would also entail a complete examination of most of the organizationsfinancial operations.Also, during each audit certain audit procedures are followed to determine the propriety of the financial actions in the particular functional area. These include an examination of invoice handling, inventory handling, purchaseapprovals, etc. These proceduresare parts of the performance audit and serve to support the contention of many that there is a close relationship between fiscal and performance audits. However, fiscal audits exclusively do not include the many elements of performance auditing.What Areas Are Audited?We have said that these audits go beyond the financial aspects.Then what do they cover? The answer is quite simple, they include the entire area of operation. Organizations frequently divide their operations into functions which are conducive to separateaudit coverage. These areas are usually responsibility areas which can be identified with a single manager within each of the governmental units operations. Examples are inventory operations,capital assetmanagement,personelmanagement.Functions audited may also include such items as budgeting, insurance, procurement, surplus disposal, receiving and inspection (of materials)，and travel and entertainment.Note that theseareasare functional and not operational in the senseof subject matter such as are health, welfare, police and fire, education, highways and streets, and general administration. This does not mean that a performance audit cannot be made, for example, of an educational department.However, when it is, the audit can be more meaningful and mareproductive if eachof the applicable functional areasare identified and separatelyexamined.The Conduct of the PerformanceAuditA brief word describing the technique of conducting the performance audit is now appropriate. The procedure can be easily divided into four separate parts: (1) scheduling the audits, (2) preparing the audit program, (3) performing the audit, and (4) the reporting sequence.Scheduling-When performance auditing was just coming into predominance during the early 1950s,it was thought that the annual audit scheduleshould include a complete audit of each of the functional areas. This was latex determined to be unrealistic. The transformation from complete coveragewas made in two phases.First, it was determinedthat sameaudits related to areaswhich were not sensitive enough to require annual audits. Consequently，some were scheduledfor biannual coverageand some for triannual treatment. The areas in the latter two classes varied from organization to organization.Later it was determinedthat even when audits were performed on such a cyclical arrangement, it was improbable that an entire functional area could be adequately covered in a single audit. Consequently, during each audit only certain sensitive aspects were picked far indepth treatment. At the beginning of each year then, the auditor determines the audit areashe must cover, and he coordinatestheseaudits with the audit echelon aboveand below him to preclude duplication of audit effort.Programming-Here there are varying schools of thought as to the mast effective method. For many yearsit was believed that thereshould be a standardaudit program, an outline of the audit steps which should be performed during each engagementby the audit staff. As time went on, it becameapparent that this technique precluded the audit staff from using its initiative and imagination, and that it encouraged a dependenceon a single set of audit procedures.The new look is a listing of audit output, that is, the questions which the audit is to resolve. This requires the auditor to design his own program so as to come up with the answers to the questions and encouragesthe use of innovative and new approachesto problems.Performanceof the Audit-Here the performanceaudit varies the greatestfrom the financial audit. The former consists of, observations, reviews of procedures being used, discussions with both managementand workers, reviews of both financial and other types of records and reports, analysis of variations between actual operations and established procedures or performance standards, and, throughout the entire operation, the maintaining of a questioning attitude as to why operations are conducted as they are. All through the audit, financial transactions are examined to assure that planned controls are functioning. The non financial aspectsin the more sophisticated audit operations include such elementsas examining the organizational structure, the methods of planning and decision making, the techniques of communication andmotivation, the proceduresfor staffing, training and establishme- t of job requirements, and the methods of control, including their effectiveness and feed-back elements.Reporting-The audit report contains a minimum of tables, schedules, and financial statements.The report is intended to serve as a managementand planning tool and thus is written in a simple non technical manner.Its direction is prescriptive, not historical, in that it tends to suggestmethods of improving operations rather than containing a catalog of the errors that have been discovered.Reports are addressedto executive managementat a higher echelon than that audited; however, copies are also sent to the unit under review. In state government, a copy is usually sent to the top officers of the Senate and House of Delegates or Representatives.Soure：Dittenhofer Mortimer. PerformanceAuditing Simplified. Public Administration Review, 1991(5) ：pp191-195 .10