外文翻譯--審計和管理

1、<p>　　中文3850字，2130單詞</p><p>　　出處： Richard Brown. Auditing And Pubic Administration [J]. Interal Auditor, 2010,16: 60-65.</p><p><b>　　外文文獻翻譯 </b></p><p><b&g

2、t;　　原文: </b></p><p>　　Auditing And Administration</p><p>　　Schools of public administration over the years have given attention bordering on idol worship to "who gets what, when, and

3、how." In some ways that worship is understandable. Public budgeting and the appropriations process are at the heart of policy and decision making in American government. Schools and programs in public administration

4、 teach budgeting under a variety of titles. When contemplating career opportunities, their students learn that budgeting is where the action is. </p><p>　　Regrettably, little attention has been given in Amer

5、ican public administration to issues of accountability how funds are used; how their use is reported to the public; and what impact funding has had. Auditing raises these questions and provides answers.' But auditing

6、 is little known in public administration circles and, with few exceptions, public administration does not teach auditing.' The concept of financial, efficiency, and effectiveness accountability is almost foreign to

7、public administr</p><p>　　since mid-1990s public executive agencies in the United States have dramatically expanded evaluation activities. This expansion has been marked by the establishment of large plannin

8、g and evaluation staffs in cabinet level departments of the federal government, the publication of numerous books on the topic, the appearance of journals devoted exclusively to evaluation, and the introduction of evalua

9、tion courses and fields of concentration at major universities </p><p>　　Nevertheless, the considerable growth and change of formal post audit and evaluation activities at the state legislative level has gon

10、e largely unnoticed. The U.S. General Accounting Office GAO, created in 1921, has received somewhat more attention. However, its important role as a congressional agency is still not well understood. State legislatures e

11、valuate existing government programs departments require authorization for new programs. But the publication of formal performance audit reports h</p><p>　　The growth of performance audit reports reflects th

12、e growth of the organizations which produce them. The Council of State Governments reported that in 1998 there were only five states where sole post audit responsibilities rested with a legislative auditor. By the mid-19

13、70s the number had grown to 25 and in others the legislatures shared post audit responsibility with executive branch agencies. By the 1977-78 biennium 44 states had at least one legislative staff agency with primary resp

14、onsibilit</p><p>　　Regrettably, little attention has been given in American public administration to issues of accountability? how funds are used; how their use is reported to the public; and what impact fun

15、ding has had. </p><p>　　There are two major structural approaches to performance </p><p>　　auditing in state legislatures. One places the performance auditing capacity in the office of the legis

16、lative auditor. In most cases the legislative auditor and his staff are responsible to a legislative audit committee which includes members of both chambers and political parties. Traditionally, legislative auditors conf

17、ined their activities to financial and compliance audits. Recently, auditors have increased efforts to assess not only efficiency but also the effectiveness of state agencies an</p><p>　　In 1967, for example

18、, the Montana Office of the Legislative Auditor placed the performance auditing capacity in the legislative auditor's office. Before 1973, however, the office produced only financial-compliance audits. Since then the

19、 auditor has issued performance audits covering topics such as workmen's compensation, the state motor vehicle pool, and milk price regulations. In addition, eight sunset reviews have been carried out, covering state

20、 regulatory boards such as those on accountants,</p><p>　　The establishment of a special purpose legislative audit or evaluation committee with its own professional staff is a second approach to building a p

21、erformance audit capacity. These staffs generally conduct performance reviews, while the more traditional audit work is left to the states' audit agencies. In all cases these committees include members of both politi

22、cal parties. The Connecticut Program Review and Investigations Committee, established in 1972, is an example of the special purpose com</p><p>　　Despite the different structures for performance audit efforts

23、, staff directors agree on the need to recruit staff without regard to political affiliation. Most staffs include fewer than 15 professional employees. Almost all agencies try to hire people with varied educational backg

24、rounds. </p><p>　　The most prevalent academic disciplines include business and public administration, and the social sciences. A few staffs include lawyers, behavioral and natural scientists, and statisticia

25、ns. Staff directors believe that basic research competence, analytical ability, and oral and written communication skills are more important than backgrounds in specific fields. In contrast, individuals with strong backg

26、rounds in accounting and finance continue to perform financial audits. Most state legislati</p><p>　　One major difference among the staffs is the degree to which legislators participate in various stages of

27、the projects. In most states legislators formally chose the topics for study while the staff always designs the audit reviews and collects the data. In a few states legislators participate by holding legislative hearings

28、, visiting program sites, or in one state even assisting in interviews. Staff personnel analyze the data, reach conclusions, and draft audit reports. </p><p>　　In almost all states the staff drafts recommend

29、ations. Legislators normally participate in the recommendations process through adopting, modifying, or rejecting them. Adoption by legislators can mean merely rubberstamping staff recommendations or actively debating an

30、d altering those recommendations. </p><p>　　Most legislative audit agencies send a copy of completed final reports for comment to the executive branch agency under review. These comments are published as par

31、t of the reports. Many post audit agencies conduct regular report flow-up activities Annual staff reports note the extent of progress in implementing report recommendations by the legislature and executive branch. State

32、legislative auditors are placing renewed emphasis on the specific uses made of the reports by both legislative and ex</p><p>　　the considerable growth and change of formal post audit and evaluation activitie

33、s at the state legislative level has gone largely unnoticed. </p><p>　　Executive agency officials do not always view the process this way. They fall into the ready trap that if only more money were available

34、 more good would result. If left to themselves, it seems likely that public works and highway departments would surely pave the whole nation with concrete. This type of agency thinking gave birth to a wildlife flyway and

35、 feeding system proposed for varied species of fowl as they crossed through the Tennessee Valley .</p><p>　　When presented to the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, officials estimated tha

36、t 100,000 birds, including innumerable ducks, could be expected to use the system. When the board chairman discovered the cost would be $100,000, he exclaimed: "My God, that a buck a duck!" No one knows if feed

37、ing a duck on its way to wintering in better weather is worth a dollar, but it is not a bad way to think about the flyway and feeding system program. </p><p>　　Overly zealous quest for audit implementation,

38、however, can lead auditors to avoid important areas, where either controversy or disinterest could result in a lack of action on staff recommendations. This would impair, rather than assist, legislators in their oversigh

39、t responsibilities. </p><p>　　The easiest way to improve an audit implementation score is to learn what key officials want and then put it in an audit report. No one advocates that strategy. Simply providing

40、 objective information for consideration in future decisions is a crucial task of performance audit-evaluation. </p><p>　　Many audit-evaluations bring to the attention of key officials potential problems bef

41、ore they become actual and costly ones. A Kansas audit on water use policies recommended ways to improve existing water laws and integrate current information about water use for more effective management of cu

42、rrent water resources. The audit has served as a study document for legislative hearings and regional conferences on water use, and its findings and recommendations should enable planners to make better de</p><

43、;p>　　Many important effects of the audit process are intangible and thus not readily susceptible to measurement. The labels "watch dog" and "bird dog" did not come to audit agencies by accident. Au

44、dits of government agencies have long been considered valuable because they are believed to help minimize fraud, waste, mismanagement, and unrealistic budget requests. Like a regular medical examination, this "preve

45、ntive effect" is valuable but difficult to measure in dollars. There are instances of officia</p><p>　　There seems to be great enthusiasm for distributing appropriate shares of the public purse, but lit

46、tle concern for evaluating what is accomplished with the shares. </p><p>　　Audit work requires objectivity, professionalism, and freedom from political pressures, which suggests a considerable degree of inde

47、pendence within the legislative setting. This difficult balancing act looks more precarious when one considers the evidence produced in the seven case studies? two of the seven key factors likely to lead to audit impleme

48、ntation are legislator approval of audit report topics and legislator interest in the audits. These factors suggest the need for a strong sensitivit</p><p>　　Without such assurances, the controversy which in

49、evitab inevitably surrounds performance audit work is likely to bring disappointing results-less than totally objective work performed by a less than totally professional staff. The schools of public administration have

50、not played a major role in the development of public sector auditing. Yet many of the leading concerns of government auditing should be the concerns of public administration. </p><p>　　Few professors of publ

51、ic administration teach auditing of any variety. Courses in legislatures as organizations are scarce. Those that exist focus primarily on law-making and usually ignore the oversight and accountability responsibilities of

52、 legislatures. </p><p>　　The direction of courses in public administration schools is subject to many competing emphases: for example, behavioral research, quantitative research, and institutional research.

53、None of these options should allow students to escape from some basic core work in economics and finance, research techniques statistics, interviewing, surveys, etc., accounting, and oral and written communications-all o

54、f which are essential to understanding and performing effective audit and oversight work. Given th</p><p>　　Pubic administration has failed American governmental and financial administration by not stressing

55、 that public officials must be held accountable for the financial resources entrusted to them. Accountability includes financial, compliance, and performance auditing. Careful financial reporting and auditing is required

56、. Periodic outside examinations of organizational and program efficiency and effectiveness should be understood and welcomed. Public administration education and training should str</p><p><b>　　譯文:

57、0;</b></p><p><b>　　審計和管理</b></p><p>　　多年以來，公共行政管理學校在對公共資金問題上給予了足夠重視，這些問題包括“誰得到什么，在什么時候，以及通過怎樣的方式得到。”在某些方面，政府管理部門對公共資金問題的重視是可以理解的。在美國政府決策中,公共預算與撥款過程處于核心地位，公共行政管理學校以及課程教學等預算支出通過嚴

58、格審核，并讓他們的師生知道公共財政支出的方向，預算資金也安排了就業(yè)領域方面的開支，因而在預算資金的使用過程中，需要加強對公共財政預算的管理。 </p><p>　　而令人遺憾的是，很少有人關注美國公共財政支出的績效問題，比如如何使用資金，以及資金產生了什么影響等，雖然審計發(fā)現和提出了這些問題，也給予了答案，但仍然很少有人關注。對于公共財政績效審計，人們就更不會關注。經濟性、效率性和效益性的審計概念幾乎應用于國外公

59、共項目上，而政府主管還不很清楚績效審計，目前在對公共財政項目審計、評估上，行政部門并未涉及更深層次、更持久的研討:公共部門管理者如何向立法機關報告公共財政資金的使用情況，是否可將公共財政資金作為預算過程的組成部分來對待和實現呢?公共財政預算部門必須探索解決這些問題并給出合適的答案。 </p><p>　　自90年代中期以來，美國公共執(zhí)行機構逐漸擴大，此次擴大的特點是在聯邦政府增加了大量的規(guī)劃和評估人員，因此，就需

60、要相應擴大審計和評估的范圍，很多學校都開設了有關政府公共管理和財政預算以及審計的課程，很多出版物也增加了公共管理，財政預算和審計的欄目，以增加審計人員的數量，滿足政府和社會的需要。 </p><p>　　美國審計署(GAO)，于1921年創(chuàng)建，被受關注。然而，它的重要作用，目前國會還難以理解，還沒有得到肯定。國家立法機構審核、評估政府計劃部門的新項目，通過之后才能得到授權。但在1979年正式的績效審計報告出現以后

61、，通過國會審查政府部門新建項目已經成為一種普遍現象,績效審計報告送到立法項目評估部LPES,其發(fā)表在羅特格斯大學交易所學院的政治發(fā)展報告上,紐約州政府機構公布在134個州的調查中有20個審計機構在1977年創(chuàng)建了績效審計?？冃徲媹蟾娴脑鲩L反映了組織機構的變化發(fā)展。國會報告中稱,二十世紀 70年代中期的公共項目的數量僅有25個,在某些情況下,立法機構的職責,和職業(yè)審計機構相同。1977年到1978年,其他44個州中至少有一個立法機構與責

62、任審計部。在1998年的國家報告里,每個州至少有五家職業(yè)審計與一個立法機構。 </p><p>　　很多州是通過下面兩種主要途徑來實現其績效審計考核目標的: </p><p>　　審計在國家立法機關中來體現績效性。一個績效審計辦公室里的能力在于立法審計師。在大多數情況下，立法審計師和他的工作人員有責任對一個立法審計委員會成員包括兩院及政黨來負責，在傳統(tǒng)意義上，主要表現在審計人員的

63、常規(guī)財務審計和合規(guī)性審計上。而最近，審計人員增加了審核和評估，尤其加強了在效率性、有效性方面的審計。比如，1967年，在蒙大拿州的立法辦公室，立法審計師把績效審計作為立法能力的一個考核標準。而就在1973年之前，辦公室只有財務審計。自從那時起，審計師把績效審計覆蓋到一些重大課題和重要項目上，如對工人的賠償，國家機動車的使用，牛奶價格法規(guī)等。另外，在短時期里， 蒙大拿州州的管理委員會要求會計師、水管工和銀行職員執(zhí)行績效考核，之后其他州也采

64、用這種審計方法，包括加利福尼亞、夏威夷，伊利諾斯州，堪薩斯州，明尼蘇達州，和田納西州。 </p><p>　　建立特殊立法審查機構或評定委員會來體現績效審計。通常將職員素質納入績效考核之中，而更傳統(tǒng)的審計工作則留給各州審計機構?？的腋駥徲嫼驼{查委員會，創(chuàng)建于1972年，這是一種典型的特殊委員會，在2001年，該會通過嚴格的績效考核后，立法機構對該委員會授權，賦予委員會審計和調查的法定權力，之后對委員會的工作進行

65、審查。委員會中有10名職員曾發(fā)表了12項評估課題，如職業(yè)教育開支、醫(yī)療補助資金使用進行了績效考核，也有對環(huán)境保護部門的工作和公民權利維護情況進行了審查。其他州也使用這種途徑和方法包括麻薩諸塞州、密西西比州、紐約、維吉尼亞州和華盛頓。 </p><p>　　績效審計工作有不同方法，員工和董事同意在不考慮政治因素的情況下，來招聘員工，并對新招聘員工進行定期績效考核，以激發(fā)員工內部的積極性，來適應激烈的社會競爭，提高工

66、作效率。 </p><p>　　最普遍的學科包括公共管理審計和商業(yè)。一些員工包括律師、行為學家、自然科學家和統(tǒng)計人員。政府主管認為，與基礎研究能力、分析能力、以及口頭和書面溝通能力背景比較起來，更看重公共管理審計領域。另外，如果個人具有較強會計與金融方面的能力，并能夠進行財務審計和績效審計，將更加容易得到重視。 </p><p>　　審計人員在遵循多數州立法機關的總體指導方針下，

67、在1972年簽訂“黃皮書”，它為審計政府公共部門組織、計劃，活動，和功能提供幫助，黃皮書的封面是審計工作的標準，標準包括人員資格、規(guī)劃、監(jiān)督、證據，報告以及審核。 </p><p>　　績效審計主要的差異是對政府公共項目在實施不同階段上的審計。大多數州議員選擇公共項目前期來進行審核，審計人員總是通過對公共項目后期回顧和收集數據來進行審計，另有幾個州對公共項目進行中期考核，通過舉行立法聽證會，查看網站，或者通過協(xié)助

68、采訪，分析數據，來制定和完成審計報告，這些做法根本達不到績效審計的效果和要求。 </p><p>　　國家管理層用立法程序，通過采用、修改、或否決草擬建議的方式，建立一套完善的績效審計和管理體系，立法會議員通過積極討論后提出有效合理的建議，使得績效審計和管理體系盡快建立并頒布實施。大多數立法審計機關征求意見后授權給政府主管行政部門審查，之后完成最后的報告副本，這些意見成為公布報告中的重要部分。許多定期報告通過審計

69、機構進行嚴格的年度審查，調查工作人員在實施立法和執(zhí)行行政部門公共項目的進展程度。審計人員根據立法報告中提出的重點問題和行政管理部門的具體職能、進行重新績效考核。 </p><p>　　執(zhí)行機構的官員并不始終按照這種績效審計的方式來進行工作和管理，只要能夠獲取更多金錢，能夠提供更多好處就會背離當初的本職。在公共工程和公路部門項目的招標上，這些官員中就會發(fā)生舞弊，以權謀私，侵吞國家公共財政資金。完善的績效審計和管理體

70、系會審有利于杜絕這種腐敗行為。 </p><p>　　把這種完善的績效審計和管理體系介紹給田納西河流域管理局的董事局，董事長估計，在田納西河流域近10萬鳥類,可以節(jié)約成本$ 100,000,他感嘆道:“我的上帝,這群鴨子!”沒有人知道這種飼養(yǎng)和管理方式可以有這么大的效果。 </p><p>　　在政府管理部門考核中,審計人員運用績效審計進行考核,一種最簡單的方法是通過執(zhí)行評分卡來提高審計,

71、之后主要官員把評分放在審計報告中，但沒有人主張使用它，因為在未來的決策中提供客觀信息是才是這些官員的重要任務。 </p><p>　　許多績效審計通常關注公共問題，實際上這是有成效的。關于水資源的使用政策，堪薩斯采用績效審計方式來改善現有水資源緊缺的現狀，來提高水資源利用效率，以便更有效地管理現有水資源。區(qū)域會議研究關于水資源利用狀況，與會者建議應將規(guī)劃從現在開始實施，以使水資源決策得到更好貫徹。 許多重要審計過

72、程的影響都是無形的，因此不容易測量，從標簽上的“看門狗”和“探子”來看，審計機構審計不到，就不會感到意外了。政府審計部門的審計長久以來一直被視為很有價值，因為公眾相信，政府審計能夠減少欺詐、浪費、管理不善，以及不切實際的公共財政預算要求，就像普通的體檢一樣，這“預防效果”是有價值的?？冃徲嫷倪^程中也存在很多這樣的情況，有問題官員多數選擇辭職，審計人員表示抗議，憤怒，或沮喪，因為這有損績效審計。比如這樣的辭職，對于南卡羅來納州公共醫(yī)療補

73、助金績效審計就沒有任何意義，但支持者卻認為，良好的績效審計工作，將促進更好的管理。 </p><p>　　審計工作需要客觀性，專業(yè)性，不受政治壓力的影響，這意味著立法應賦予審計獨立權和自由權，這是一個難題。而在立法機關之間，這些因素預示著很強的敏感性和聯系性，在調和這些矛盾時，需要有強大權勢作保障，而最有希望在于主要的審計官員，把任命權賦予總審計師。 </p><p>　　如果沒

74、有這樣的保證，權力，圍繞績效審計工作就不可避免地會帶來令人失望的結果， 審計師就達不到完全客觀的審計效果，并且在專業(yè)工作人員執(zhí)行問題上也會出現問題，政府公共管理部門在公共財政績效審計發(fā)展上也就沒有發(fā)揮重要作用，然而，政府審計關注的在于公共行政管理方面。一些教授在公共學校傳授的審計課程內容很豐富，而在立法機構傳授的審計課程非常有限，因為立法機關主要側重于制定法律，通常忽視監(jiān)督和績效審計。 </p><p>　　在公

75、共管理學校課程設計上，受到來自許多課程的競爭：例如，行為研究，定量研究和制度研究等方面的課程，而所有這些選擇都不應該允許學生擺脫一些基本核心課程，比如經濟學和金融、會計、審計 (統(tǒng)計、訪談、問卷調查等) 等方面，所有這些都是為理解和執(zhí)行有效審計和監(jiān)督工作要求而服務的。由于實踐過程中暴露出審計人員知識的不足，所以公共行政管理學校的年輕學生應學習和掌握基本的管理和審計知識，為政府審計部門培養(yǎng)人才。 </p><p>

76、　　而這些年輕學生很少有興趣了解公共行政的機制和政府工程的實效性和重要性，他們只對股票分紅和金錢產生極大的熱情， 而對公共財政資金績效審計漠不關心。 </p><p>　　公共管理失敗之后，政府官員強調，必須追究美國政府和公共財政管理局的責任。財政管理局關于財務審計情況，合規(guī)審計情況和績效審計狀況，進行謹慎的分析，他們強調財務報告和審計報告是必需的。另外定期檢查，遵循嚴格的審計程序將提高審計工作效率。在一般審計部