H83 - Public Administration; Public Sector Accounting and AuditsReturn

The study reveals that unlike SAIs from more affluent countries, the majority of SAIs from poorer countries opt to include in their audits more frequently also elements of the international comparison. The paper also brings attention to the fact that about half of the examined SAIs adopted indicators taken over from the audited entities less frequently, since the audited entities usually did not monitor or evaluate the given area. Half of the examined SAIs also provide no independent assurance that the performance indicators published by the audited entities are reliable. In addition, only a minority of the performance audits that assess the economy and effectiveness also get about to address – at least in general terms – the level of efficiency. The authorial recommendation leans towards boosting the SAIs’ transparency concerning the review and publication of the implementation of their recommendations, focusing especially on the implementation side that relates to key audit recommendations. From the methodology perspective, the study makes use the questionnaire survey, the governed structured interview, content analysis of documents and comparison as the research methods.

Many European countries have been carried out a modernization projects in public sector financial reporting since the last two decades. Consequence of a stronger demand for complex, reliable and relevant economic information on government is governments' efforts towards better accountability. IPSAS standards, a full accrual national financial reporting standards closed to, or national standards with clear reference to IPSAS, are often considered as the best tool for that. This article aims to identify key challenges and milestones - four key aspects of these public sector financial reporting modernization projects. It offers a comparison amongst several European countries comparing the ways these countries decided to deal with those challenges and milestones.

In 2007/2008, the Czech Republic has introduced governmental Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to the central government level. This procedure has established formal rules binding to all legislative bodies. The process administration of RIA was entrusted to the Panel for a Regulatory Reform and Effective Public Administration and its permanent Committee for Quality Control of the Regulatory Impact Assessment. At the end of 2011, the RIA process has been changed and a new, independent Committee for the control of RIA proposals has been established. Based on minutes from the Committee's discussions, the presented paper analyses fundamental trends in the RIA process in the 2008-2012 period. The general statistical overview indicates that the volume of legislation reviewed under RIA gradually decreases. On the other hand, the number of proposals not recommended by the Committee for an approval decreased from 7.1 % in 2008 to 6.9 % in 2011. After introducing the new RIA rules, the number of proposals not recommended by the new Committee for an approval during the first discussion of a proposal has dramatically increased to 81 %.