政府審計的基本結構[文獻翻譯]

《政府審計的基本結構[文獻翻譯]》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《政府審計的基本結構[文獻翻譯]（12頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網上搜索。

1、 本科畢業(yè)論文（設計） 外 文 翻 譯 題 目 政府審計公告制度的現狀分析及對策 專 業(yè) 會 計 學 外文題目 Basic Structure of Government Auditing 外文出處 《Basic Structure of Government Auditing》[N]. Government Auditing Review VOLUME11，2004-3. 39-45

2、 外文作者 鈴木裕 原文： Basic Structure of Government Auditing 1. Introduction In recent years in Japan, there has been an increasing demand for the external auditing of government departments and agencies

3、, as a result of criticism from citizens on issues concerning public accountability, including the misuse of public funds, evaluation of the effectiveness and outcomes of government programs, information disclosure based on the "right-to-know,"and requests for disclosure of government financial data

4、 through balance sheets. To meet these challenges, it is necessary to establish our public accounting and auditing systems. In particular, as the final step to ensure public accountability, a system for government auditing by a supreme audit institution (hereinafter called "government auditing") mus

5、t be built as a part of public audits. Public audit carried out in the U.S. and the U.K. incorporates government auditing and functions as external auditing systems. Regarding the aim of auditing in the two countries, public audits are carried out as comprehensive audits that include financial audit

6、ing and performance auditing or value-for-money (VFM) auditing. This paper examines the structure of government auditing, in particular performance auditing, incorporating an evaluation of the administration itself (government programs). Performance auditing has been increasingly requested in recent

7、 years. Also in the paper, in order to develop a theory of external auditing, I would like to present the tasks to be performed and the direction to be taken in Japan, regarding criteria for the country to establish a government auditing system, referring to the systems implemented in the U.S., the

8、U.K., and in other countries. 2. Paradigm Shifts in Government Auditing (1) Aim of government auditing In considering the structure of government auditing, the first focus should be on the necessity and aims of government auditing. Accordingly, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the differenc

9、es between government auditing and other related concepts, such as private auditing, public auditing, and the auditing of profit-oriented organizations. Government auditing is also sometimes referred to as public auditing. The U.K. Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866 and the U.S. Budget and

10、Accounting Act of 1921, both of which adopt the concept of public auditing, deem the aim of public auditing to be the discharge of public accountability. Examinations should be made on the differences between public accountability and accountability associated with the auditing of profit-oriented or

11、ganizations (audits of corporate financial statements). The idea of “public” accountability can be classified into the following patterns, according to its point of focus: 1) that highlighting the public sector; 2) that highlighting public authority and power, and national and local governments them

12、selves; 3) that highlighting the function of governmental services; 4) that highlighting the expenditure of the public sector; 5) that highlighting the interest in, concern for, and degree of trust in public organizations; and 6) that highlighting the management of public funds and resources. What i

13、s focused on in terms of public accountability will influence public accounting and auditing, namely the structure of government auditing. Government auditing is carried out to ensure accountability. The scope of auditing national and local governments is expanding due to the quantitative expansion

14、 in their sizes, as well as to qualitative changes oriented towards the evaluation of government programs. Accordingly, the scope of accountability is also expanding to include not only financial accountability but also management accountability and program accountability in order to ensure comprehe

15、nsive public accountability. The shift from accountability to public accountability specifically means that in the history of public auditing, the emphasis has shifted from public responsibility for the use of public money, to which traditional accountability generally refers, towards performance au

16、diting, including the auditing of effectiveness, which is the focus of today’s public accountability. It can be said that this clearly shows the first paradigm shift in the basic structure of government auditing. In effect, the focus of government auditing has changed from financial auditing to perf

17、ormance auditing in response to the demands for performance-related information from the users of government auditing information (mainly taxpayers and citizens) and to the resulting necessity of performance evaluation. This change has led to an expansion in the scope of auditing. Thus, regarding th

18、e aim of audits, government auditing has some audit areas that are completely different from those concerning the auditing of corporate accounts. In government auditing, the scope of financial auditing includes audit areas other than the audit of accounts, and performance auditing includes the evalu

19、ation of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. In the U.S., performance auditing is conducted on the “three Es” as a comprehensive audit, while in the U.K. and Canada, performance auditing is conducted as a VFM audit. In the three countries, performance audit criteria are set for government auditi

20、ng, including VFM auditing criteria, and the tasks and responsibilities of auditors engaged in performance auditing of the government are clearly defined. The performance audit criteria are used for auditing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government programs, and the definitions of th

21、ese “three Es” are considered to be similar in all these countries. Economy audits and efficiency audits are conducted for evaluating productivity and are collectively termed “efficiency auditing” in its broader sense. Inputs to and outputs from governmental activities are used as evaluation measure

22、s for carrying out this audit. Effectiveness auditing is also referred to as program auditing. Its evaluation measures are the outcomes and the social influence of government programs. At present, many countries, in particular the U.S. and the U.K., are aggressively developing technologies and proce

23、dures for auditing the effectiveness of programs, and are strongly promoting research and development on indicators or measures that will constitute measurement criteria, based on cost-benefit analysis and distinctions between “outputs” and “outcomes.” For the evaluation of performance, cost-based b

24、udgeting is required as a premise and accrual basis accounting needs to be introduced into public accounting. What is the background to the shift in focus regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness, which are the objectives of performance auditing? It should be noted that this process of chang

25、e represents an important paradigm shift in the objectives of government auditing. Economy and efficiency, by their nature, have been the clear objectives of government auditing from the very beginning. For the shift of focus from regularity to economy and to efficiency, although there have been som

26、e common processes observed in different countries, the specific steps taken by various countries differed depending upon the degree of importance they attributed to economy and efficiency. For effectiveness auditing, as the financial scale of the government expanded, the progress towards the attain

27、ment of program goals and program outcomes began to be included in the criteria to evaluate the propriety of control over government programs. Thus there was the second paradigm shift in the objectives of government auditing, which now incorporates an evaluation of progress towards the attainment of

28、 program goals and an evaluation of program values. In the U.S., importance is attributed to performance auditing within government auditing. Specifically, the agencies of state and local governments are required to prepare Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) reports and agencies of the feder

29、al government need to prepare annual performance reports pursuant to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. In the U.K., performance auditing is carried out as VFM auditing, for which performance indicators have been developed. It is now seriously questioned whether performance audit

30、ing carried out by government auditing institutions should incorporate auditing to check the propriety, merits and demerits, and misadministration of government programs. Regarding this, program evaluation can justifiably be incorporated in the broader category of performance auditing. It is more

31、rational to think that the role of performance auditing is not to criticize the government but to monitor and instruct the government based on the evaluation of its programs. In government performance auditing, the subjects to be audited are mutually related in multiple layers and it is difficult to

32、 fix the level of assurance based on evaluation criteria. Some basic conditions are therefore required in order for government auditing to be carried out appropriately. Specifically, at the government agencies to be audited, evaluation criteria, especially performance indicators, should urgently be

33、established in reference to the instruction standards clarified by the auditing institutions and to the outstanding shift in focus of such instructions. It is, however, impractical for external auditors to directly audit the performance of the entire administration (their programs) and therefore the

34、 third paradigm shift is required, that is, from direct auditing to the auditing of statements and assertions made by the audited agencies in their service efforts and accomplishment reports. That is why government agencies are now required to create such reports. Through the creation of such report

35、s, the feasibility of effectiveness auditing will dramatically increase. （2）Structures of government auditing Government auditing is carried out to assess the performance of public accountability by government entities: the administration will be able to complete the process of providing public se

36、rvices to citizens through government auditing. Government auditing was initially conducted as compliance audits, which means accurate account auditing or financial auditing. Subsequently, government organizations were required to provide effective public services by efficient management in the perf

37、ormance of their trusteeship obligations, which in turn necessitated performance auditing. According to R. M. Malan, the scope of auditing thus naturally and reasonably expanded. Historically, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) stated in its comprehensive auditing manual published in 1976 that

38、 the scope of government auditing should be expanded to encompass all the important service areas in which a government agency is engaged. Accordingly, the subjects of auditing were no longer limited to accounts, books, records, and documents and were classified into the following three categories:

39、1) financial activities and legal compliance; 2) service efficiency and economy; 3) program results. Item 1) refers to account auditing and compliance auditing, which are at present collectively termed as “regularity auditing.” As the financial scale of the government and the size of its programs ex

40、panded, there was an increasing demand for auditing the economy and efficiency of government programs. Accordingly, the scope of audits to assess the performance of public accountability was expanded and performance auditing began to be carried out to evaluate items 2) and 3) above. In practical aud

41、iting, however, it is observed that the audits of items 2) and 3) often overlap and both audits may incorporate effectiveness evaluation. Presently, the audits of items 2) and 3) are collectively termed as “performance auditing,” and the economy, efficiency, and program audits are called “auditing o

42、n the three E’s,”“comprehensive auditing” or “value for money (VFM) auditing.” In the U.S., it is said that the first major program evaluation was carried out earlier, in 1967, and that the program evaluations made by the GAO developed into program result audits in the 1970s. Thus in the period call

43、ed GAO’s second reform period, its audit functions were expanded. Also, in the U.K., a similar process was followed: the duties and responsibilities of public sector auditors were expanded from the certification of accounts to auditing to detect illegality or abuse and to examine VFM. Regarding the

44、 question of whether performance auditing should incorporate compliance auditing or not, the administrative activities and spending of government organizations are conducted in compliance with budgetary laws and regulations, and programs are implemented according to relevant laws and regulations. In

45、 performance auditing, it is therefore necessary to audit compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. This shows a difference between government auditing and the auditing of non-government non-profit organizations. It is believed that government organizations need to comply with laws and re

46、gulations more strictly than non-government bodies, which affects the financial and performance auditing of government organizations. In the performance auditing of non-government non-profit organizations, beneficiaries of their services may expect economy and efficiency in the use of resources thro

47、ugh the management of these organizations, but there would be a lesser need from these beneficiaries for the evaluation of effectiveness. As a feature of performance auditing, the Auditing Standards of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) point out that “performance

48、 audits should not concentrate solely on criticism of the past but should be constructive.” For government agencies, the indication of budgetary figures and actual results in balance sheets constitutes one way of performance evaluation. In response to an increasing necessity for performance measurem

49、ent, the U.S. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requested federal government agencies to make program result reports based on the Government Performance Result Act (GPRA) of 1993, and the state and local government agencies to create service efforts and accomplishments reports for perfo

50、rmance evaluation. For efficiency and effectiveness auditing, the following three items are seen as essential: 1) information about the efforts, costs, and performance regarding services to be provided by the government to citizens; 2) information about the evaluation of the “three E’s”; 3) reportin

51、g about the efficient and effective use of subsidiaries. The expansion of the scope of auditing to assess the performance of public accountability requires the expansion of the objectives of government auditing. Source: Yutaka SUZUKI.Basic Structure of Government Auditing[N].Government Audit

52、ing Review VOLUME11，2004-3. 39-45. 譯文： 政府審計的基本結構 1、簡介 在日本最近幾年，隨著是政府部門和機構的外部審計需求的日益增加，涉及公眾問責的問題，其中包括濫用公共資金，在信息披露的基礎上批評評價結果的有效性和政府的成果方案，以及公眾通過資產負債表的“知情權”和對政府的財政資料披露的要求。為了應付這些挑戰(zhàn)，有必要建立我們的公共會計和審計制度。尤其是作為最后一步，以確保公眾問責制，政府審計必須作為公共審計工作的一部分建成。公共審計融合了美國和英國政府審計和整合外部審計制度的功能。對于審計的目的兩國進

53、行公共審計綜合審核,包括財務審計和性能審核(VFM)審計。本文探討了政府審計體制，特別是績效審計，納入了政府本身（政府項目）的評估。在最近幾年對績效審計的要求已越來越多。為了發(fā)展理論的外部審計，我想在日本現在將要執(zhí)行的任務和應采取的方向,以國家建立政府審計制度的標準,應該系統的結合美國、英國、和其他一些國家。 2、政府審計模式轉變 (1)政府審計目的 在審議政府審計體制時，首先應該把重點放在政府的必要性和審計目標。因此，有必要明確區(qū)分政府審計及其他相關概念，如私人審計，社會審計，和利潤為導向的組織審計的差異。政府審計有時也被稱為公共審計。1866年英國財政審計法和1921年美國會計預算法

54、，兩者采用公共審計的概念，認為對社會審計的目的是向公眾負責的排放?？荚噾撌枪妴栘熜灾g取得和利潤為導向的組織（企業(yè)財務報表審計）審計相關的問責制的差異。 “公共“問責思想可以分為以下模式，根據其重點：?強調公共部門；?突出公共權力和權力，以及國家和地方政府自己；?突出對政府服務的功能；④突出公共部門的開支；⑤突出中，關心利益，信任和學位公共組織以及突出了公共資金和資源的管理。政府審計的結構是集中在公共責任條款上會影響公共會計和審計。 進行政府審計以確保問責制。審計國家和地方政府的范圍在擴大，由于它們大小數量的擴張，以及對政府方案評價導向的質的變化。因此，問責制的范圍也正在擴大，不僅包括財

55、務問責制，而且還包括管理責任制和問責制方案，以確保全面的公眾問責性。從責任轉移到公眾問責性，具體意思是，社會審計的歷史，重點已向公共資金使用公共責任，這一般是指傳統的問責制，轉向對績效審計，包括審計的有效性，這是今天的公眾問責的重點。可以說，這清楚地表明了政府審計的基本結構第一范式的轉變。實際上，政府審計的重點已經從財務審計，績效審計響應性能相關的審計信息來源于政府（主要是納稅人和公民）的用戶，并由此產生的績效評價信息的需求的必要性。這一變化導致了審計范圍的擴大。因此，關于審計的目的，政府審計的審計領域有一些是完全和有關企業(yè)帳目的審計有所不同。在政府審計下，金融審計的范圍包括審計領域中的決算審

56、計和績效審計，還包括經濟，效率和成效評估。在美國，績效審計是就“三E”作為一個全面的審計，而在英國和加拿大，績效審計作為一個衡量式進行審計。在這三個國家，績效審計準則，是政府為政府審計，包括衡量式審計準則，任務和性能核數師責任審計等明確界定。以績效審計的標準來審核經濟，效率和政府方案的效力，而這些“三E”的定義被認為在所有這些國家都相似的。經濟審計和效益審計進行評估的生產力，在更廣泛的意義統稱為“效益審計”。以政府投入和活動的產出來用作評價措施開展這項審計。審計的有效性也被稱為程序審核。其評價結果和措施是對政府方案的社會影響力。目前，許多國家，尤其是美國和英國，都在積極開發(fā)審計技術和程序方案，

57、并大力推廣的指標或措施，這將構成衡量標準，根據成本效益的研究與發(fā)展分析“產出”和“成果?！睂τ诳冃гu估的區(qū)別，基于成本的預算是必需的前提，權責發(fā)生制為基礎的會計需要納入公共會計介紹的。 績效審計的目標應當是重點轉移到經濟方面的背景，效率和效益應當指出，這一轉變過程，代表了政府審計的目標的重要轉變。根據其性質政府審計的目標一開始就已經向經濟性和效率性轉移。對于重點轉移到經濟，從規(guī)律和效率上看，雖然觀察到不同的國家有一些共同的過程，各國所采取的具體步驟，根據不同的重要性程度而定，其歸因于經濟和效率。對于效益審計，作為擴大政府財政規(guī)模，實現目標的方案和計劃成果實現的進展情況開始評估其標準包括對政府

58、計劃的控制是否恰當。因此，在政府審計中，現在采用的方案是取得進展的目標的實現和第二范式的轉變的目標評價程序值。 美國，重要的是政府內部績效審計。具體來說，國家和地方政府的機構須準備努力服務和取得成績（SEA）的報告和聯邦政府機構需要編制年度業(yè)績報告，根據1993年我國政府績效結果法案（GPRA）。在英國，績效審計作為衡工量值式審計，其性能指標已經制定出來。現在嚴重質疑的是是否應當將政府績效審計納入審計機構審計，檢查是否恰當，優(yōu)點和缺點，以及政府對管理信息系統的管理。對此，方案評價，可以合理地納入績效審計更廣泛的類別。 這是更合理地承認績效審計的作用而不是批評政府，而是要監(jiān)督和指導關于其方案

59、的評價為基礎的政府。在政府績效審計下，被審計對象的多層次相互聯系，這是難以解決缺陷。因此，一些基本的條件需要進行適當的修飾，以便為政府審計提供基礎。具體而言，在政府機構進行審核，評價標準，特別是業(yè)績指標，應立即由審計機關明確參考指令標準，并重點突出有關指示的轉移。但是，不能由一個沒經驗的外部審計師直接進行整個審計方案管理（其方案），因此第三范式轉變是必需的，即從直接審計的各種報表和經審計機構審計的表現作出判斷，斷言他們的服務和成就的報告。這就是為什么政府機構現在需要創(chuàng)建這樣的報告。通過這些報告創(chuàng)建，效益審計的可行性將大大增加。 （2）政府審計結構 政府審計進行評估由政府機構對公眾負責的表現

60、：政府將能夠完成審核，通過政府提供為公民進行公共服務的過程。政府審計最初是進行合規(guī)審計，這意味著準確敘述審計或財務審計。隨后，政府機關都必須在其托管的義務提供有效的管理，而這反過來又必需要有績效審計績效有效的公共服務。根據馬蘭室的審計范圍，因而自然和合理地擴大。從歷史上看，美國總審計局（GAO）的規(guī)定在其全面審計，1976年出版的手冊，政府審計的范圍應擴大到包括所有重要的服務，其中政府機構從事的地區(qū)。因此，審計對象已不再局限于帳簿，報表，記錄和文件，他們被分成以下三類：?財務活動及合法合規(guī)；?服務的效率和經濟性； ?方案成果。第?項，是指審計帳戶和遵守審計，目前統稱為“規(guī)律性的審計?！庇捎谡?/p>

61、的財政規(guī)模和其計劃的規(guī)模擴大，政府對審計的需求不斷增加的經濟和效率。因此，審計的范圍，以評估對公眾負責的表現進行了擴充和績效審計開始進行，以上為評估項目?和?。在實際審計時，它指出，審計的項目②和③經常重疊，都可能納入審計的有效性評價。目前，審計項目的?和③統稱為“績效審計”和經濟，效率和方案審計是所謂的“三E審計”，“全面審計”或“衡量式審計。在美國，第一個主要方案的評價是開展較早，在1967年，該方案提出了高的評價，在20世紀70年代到程序開發(fā)的審計結果。因此，在要求高的第二次改革時期的時侯，其審計職能擴大。此外，在英國，類似的過程如下：在公共部門的職責和審計人員的職責有所增加，除了認證的

62、帳目審計發(fā)現違法或濫用和監(jiān)測的VFM。 關于是否應納入績效審計審計，行政活動和政府機構支出與預算，應該按照有關法律法規(guī)進行各項規(guī)劃正在實施。因此有必要對有關的法律法規(guī)進行審計。這顯示了政府審計之間以及非政府非營利組織審計差異。政府機構比非政府機構更需要遵守法律和法規(guī)，它影響著政府機構的財務和績效審計。對于非政府非營利組織的績效審計，其服務的受益者可能期望通過對資源的節(jié)約使用，進而提高組織的管理和效率。國際審計組織指出，“績效審計不應該僅僅集中在過去的批評，但應該是建設性的。”對于政府機構審計準則的特點，對預算指標在資產負債表數字和實際結果構成一個性能評價的方法。在美國政府會計準則委員會（GASB）要求聯邦政府機構，以計劃的結果對1993年政府績效結果法案（GPRA）的報告，以及州和地方政府機構建立服務工作及績效考核成績報告來回答衡量業(yè)績增長的必要性。為了提高效率和效益審計，下列三個項目被看作是必不可少的：①有關的努力，由公民政府提供的成本和性能方面的服務；?對“三E”評估的信息；?對子公司的高效率和有效性的使用報告。對審計范圍的擴大，以評估對公眾負責的表現，必須實現政府審計的目標發(fā)展。 出處：鈴木裕，政府審計的基本結構[N].政府審計審查第11卷，2004-3，39-45. 12