机电产品文献综述外文原文.doc

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 学生姓名： 孙 琪 琪 一、外文原文原文一：Performance auditing in local governmentPerformance auditing has been a long-standing component of accountability in public administration. During the 1980s and 1990s performance auditing has allegedly been increasingly adopted in the new public management. While there has been much research on public management and performance 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 countries. It is therefore surprising that performance auditing in this context 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 performance measurement, are used to assess and 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 performance audit reports, the informants perceived performance audit to function as a useful, rational public management tool.In many public sector reforms during the 1980s and 1990s, decentralization has been one key ingredient. The Nordic countries and the Netherlands are 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 management of financial funds, performance measurement and performance auditing are often developed and control systems centralized. Many audit practices have grown out from changes in public sector management with ideals such as quality, governance and accountability. In fact, there has been an 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 assessing and verifying the performance of 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 research in public sector auditing was seriously neglected. There has now been some research on public management and 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 procedures and 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 governance at least at 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 happened in practice. Glynn concluded that by 1985, despite a wealth of experience, there was no standard approach that adequately covered all the varied aspects of 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 management representations of performance; comparative performance audit; and quality audit. Despite the variety of performance audit approaches, she argued that there could be a 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 performance auditing was in 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 performance auditing in New Zealand and Guthrie and Parker on the recent history of performance auditing in the Australian federal public sector.One of the most recent and extensive studies of performance auditing is Pollitt et al. (1999). They found that, at a general level, there is professional consensus of performance audit as a form of audit focused on efficiency and effectiveness of 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 as an individually tailored project and is less apt for standardization. For instance, professionals such 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 measurement because these latter activities are performed as part of management processes while performance audit is external and independent of management. Public performance audit is moreover distinct from private audits, as operative, management and quality audits, because these are internalized forms of corporate control whereas performance audits are part of the public sector organizations external control systems. Performance audits are done on behalf of and in the interest of the public (accountability) and not only on behalf of the owners or the management of the company or for the government.First, certain public management reforms may impinge upon performance auditing. Such reforms may also introduce new control systems as 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 may be more financial audit and less performance audit.Second, there is in practice not always a supreme audit 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, as in 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 should be mentioned that governmental performance audits 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 management control as well as external consulting services, may make performance audit in local government even more complex and ill-defined than governmental performance audits. Performance measurement and audit experiences show us that local government performance audits have persisted for a long time, with varying degrees of success, while facing resistance and 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 seems as 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 research on instrumental work, such as audits, and institutional pressures have been going on for a relatively long time, there is still little knowledge on how they relate to each other. Institutional theory therefore seems appropriate for further empirical study and subsequent discussion. Source：Johnsen Age, Meklin Pentti, Oulasvirta Lasse, Vakkuri Jarmo. Performance auditing in local government. European Accounting Review, 2001(9)：pp583-599.10原文二： Performance auditing simplifiedWhat Is Performance Auditing?A simple statement of performance auditing would describe it as an 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. These determinations are based on established management concepts and the presence of necessary operational controls.One writer has expressed very well the concept of what is called operational auditing. This term is in reality a synonym for performance auditing and is 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 accomplished at a minimum cost with the maximum benefit being obtained for each dollar spent.For Whom Is It Conducted?Performance audits 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 manager himself 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 management process of control. They employ the audits as extensions of the management process of control.In all cases, the audit speaks a management language. 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 as is used is usually supporting data to the basic management information 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 been received were in fact accounted for, that all expenditures were properly made, and that services or materials were received therefrom. Second, the financial audit examines and certifies the financial statements of the organization being audited.Performance audits do include some financial aspects. As a matter of fact, some parts of the organizations financial operations are analyzed and examined during the course of one or more of the various functionally oriented performance audits. Thus, a complete set of performance audits would also entail a complete examination of most of the organizations financial 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, purchase approvals, etc. These procedures are 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 separate audit 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 asset management, personel management.Functions audited may also include such items as budgeting, insurance, procurement, surplus disposal, receiving and inspection (of materials)，and travel and entertainment. Note that these areas are functional and not operational in the sense of 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 mare productive if each of the applicable functional areas are identified and separately examined.The Conduct of the Performance AuditA 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 schedule should include a complete audit of each of the functional areas. This was latex determined to be unrealistic. The transformation from complete coverage was made in two phases. First, it was determined that same audits related to areas which were not sensitive enough to require annual audits. Consequently，some were scheduled for biannual coverage and some for triannual treatment. The areas in the latter two classes varied from organization to organization.Later it was determined that 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 areas he must cover, and he coordinates these audits with the audit echelon above and below him to preclude duplication of audit effort.Programming-Here there are varying schools of thought as to the mast effective method. For many years it was believed that there should be a standard audit program, an outline of the audit steps which should be performed during each engagement by the audit staff. As time went on, it became apparent that this technique precluded the audit staff from using its initiative and imagination, and that it encouraged a dependence on 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