Main Article Content
Research aim: This study discloses the relationship between governance arrangements and network types (networking) and the effectiveness of follow-up practice.
Design/ Methodology/ Approach: Governance network theory (GNT) was utilised together with the interpretative phenomenological approach. Fifty-five governance actors in the Malaysian public sector that consist of the auditors, auditees, regulators and other relevant actors were divided into four groups. Their stories and experiences collected via interviews constitute the main data for this study.
Research finding: This study noted three phases of follow-up strategies which are pre; during; and post-tabling of the Auditor-General’s (AG) report in Parliament. This follow-up practice involves a new way of governing with the involvement of many actors. It is not limited to auditors and auditees. Data from this study evidenced that networking approaches based on three types of network, namely coordinative, cooperative and collaborative, have enhanced follow-up practice as evident in the dissemination of punitive audit issues to the right actors for further action.
Theoretical contribution/ Originality: This research has provided evidence that study of follow-up on performance audit issues in practice encapsulates social behaviour, societal governance, and network perspective and produces stimulating results.
Practitioner/ Policy implication: Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) must find a way to reduce the hierarchical nature of its work by entrenching its strategy, structure and process to ease governance arrangements and networking between various actors outside the SAI organisation in resolving the audit issues raised in the AG report through effective follow-up practice.
Research limitation/ Implication: The researcher did not select performance auditing issues individually per se to see how each issue with punitive elements is addressed through a follow-up process. In order to perform in-depth research, researchers should select punitive issues and execute case study research.
Type of article: Research paper
Keywords: Performance Auditing, Follow-Up Practice, Governance Arrangement, Networking, Governance Network
JEL Classification: M42, M48, H83, H77
The Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives (AJAP) articles are published under a licence equivalent to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (CC BY-NC-ND). The licence allows users to copy, distribute, and transmit an article as long as the author is attributed. The article is not used for commercial purposes. The work is not modified or adapted in any way.
Authors are required to sign the Exclusive License to Publish agreement upon publication in the AJAP. The agreement grants the Publisher (Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Malaya) to publish and disseminate the articles.
Articles published in the AJAP are digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Article Processing Charge
Articles publish in AJAP is free submission, production and publication charges. However, all accepted articles are required for language editing. The AJAP officially appointed and outsourced proofreader will conduct this process, and the authors will cover the cost. AJAP does not profit from this process and transaction.
Alwardat, Y.A. (2010). External auditors and clients: an investigation of perceptions of value for money (VfM) audit practices in the UK public sector (Doctoral dissertation, University of Westminster). https://doi:10.1111/ijau.12037
Alwardat, Y.A., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. (2015). Value for money and audit practice in the UK public sector. International Journal of Auditing, 19(3), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12037
Arthur, A., Rydland, L.T., & Amundsen, K. (2012). The user perspective in performance auditing—A case study of Norway. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1098214011408283
Barrett, P. (2012). Performance auditing: Addressing real or perceived expectation gaps in the public sector. Public Money and Management, 32(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12037
Bawole, J.N., & Ibrahim, M. (2016). Contesting claims on measuring performance in the public sector using performance audits: Evidence from the literature. Public Organisation Review, 16(3), 285-299. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0312-4
Berg, B.L (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Penguin Book.
Bhandari, (2014). Engaging Civil Service Organisations in SAI Audit. International Journal of Government Auditing, 41(2), 24–30. http://www.intosaijournal.org/
Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315879390-7
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/ 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 843-860. http://doi.org/10.1007/2F978-981-10-5251-4_103
Bringselius, L. (2014). The Dissemination of Results from Supreme Audit Institutions: Independent Partners with the Media? Financial Accountability and Management, 30, 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12028
Brooks, R.C., & Pariser, D.B. (1995). Audit Recommendation Follow‐Up Systems: A Survey of the States. Public Budgeting and Finance, 15(1), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5850.01032
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research. London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Cresswell, T. (2014). Place: An introduction. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2F41166121
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Funnell, W., & Wade, M. (2012). Negotiating the credibility of performance auditing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(6), 434-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.04.005
Government Transformation Programmes Roadmap. (2010). Retrieved from, http://www.pmo.gov.my/
Hoque, Z., & Pearson, D. (2018). Accountability reform, parliamentary oversight and the role of performance audit in Australia. In Podger, A., Su, T., Wanna, J, Chan, H.S., & Niu, M. (Eds.), Value for Money Budget and Financial Management Reform in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Australia, (pp. 175). Acton, Australia: ANU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krz22.15
Irawan, A.B., & McIntyre‐Mills, J. (2016). Application of Critical Systems Thinking to Performance Auditing Practice at the Indonesian Supreme Audit Institution: Issues and Challenges. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 33(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2325
ISSAI 3000, (2004). Implementation guidelines for Performance Auditing, XVIII Congress of the International Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions, INTOSAI, Budapest.
Keast, R., & Mandell, M. P. (2013). Network performance: a complex interplay of form and action. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805251
Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490601185716
Kells, S., & Hodge, G. (2011). Performance Auditing and Public Sector Innovation: Friends with Benefits or Strange Bedfellows? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 33(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2011.10779383
Klijn, E.H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802263954
Klijn, E.H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy and Politics, 40(4), 587-606. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655431
Klijn, E.H., & Koppenjan, J.F. (2000). Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(2), 135-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030000000007
Klijn, E.H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063-1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Sage.
Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: new government-society interactions. Sage.
Lonsdale, J. (2008). Balancing Independence and Responsiveness: A Practitioner Perspective on the Relationships Shaping Performance Audit. Evaluation, 14(2), 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1356389007087541
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi‐organisational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00103
McGee, R., & Gaventa, J. (2011). Shifting power? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. IDS Working Papers, (383), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2011.00383_2.x
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jos-sey-Bass.
Mihret, D.G., & Yismaw, A.W. (2007). Internal audit effectiveness: An Ethiopian public sector case study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(5), 470-484. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710750757
Morçöl, G. (2014). Complex governance networks: An assessment of the advances and prospects. Complexity, Governance and Networks, 1(1), 5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.7564/14-CGN5
Morin, D. (2014). Auditors General’s impact on administrations: A Pan-Canadian study (2001-2011). Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(5), 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-10-2013-0948/full/html
Morin, D. (2015). Parliamentarians’ relations with the Auditor-General of Canada during Sheila Fraser’s mandate. In Hoque, Z. (Eds.), Making Governments Accountable: The Role of Public Accounts Committees and National Audit Offices (pp. 59). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768618-4
Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78, 555-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218
Myers, M.D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. Sage.
Mzenzi, S.I., & Gaspar, A.F. (2015). External auditing and accountability in the Tanzanian local government authorities. Managerial Auditing Journal, 30(6/7), 681-702. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2014-1028/full/html
Osborne, S.P. (2006). The new public governance?. Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1473325002001003636
Pehe, J. (2012). Society: A Streetcar Named Graft. Transitions Online, (08/28).
Raudla, R., Taro, K., Agu, C., & Douglas, J. W. (2015). The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organisations: The Case of Estonia. Public Organisation Review, 16, 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0308-0
Reed, J., & Cinq-Mars, J. (2014). How to Increase the Impact of Environmental Performance Audits?. International Journal of Government Auditing, 41(2), 17-23. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351273480
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2014). Auditee Strategies: An Investigation of Auditees’ Reactions to the Norwegian State Audit Institution’s Performance Audits. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.907309
Reichborn-kjennerud, K. (2015). Resistance to Control — Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit. Public Organisation Review, 15, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/2Fs11115-013-0247-6
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., & Vabo, S. I. (2017). Performance audit as a contributor to change and improvement in public administration. Evaluation, 23(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1356389016683871
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/2Fj.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
Romzek, B.S. (2015). Living accountability: hot rhetoric, cool theory, and uneven practice. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001553
Siddiquee, N.A. (2010). Managing for results: lessons from public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011012312
Siddiquee, N.A. (2014). The Government Transformation Programme in Malaysia: A Shining Example of Performance Management in the Public Sector. Asian Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 268-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2014.943256
Siddiquee, Noore Alam. (2013). The public bureaucracy: an analytical overview. In N. A. Siddiquee (Ed.), Public management and governance in Malaysia: trends and transformations. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Introduction governance network research: Towards a second generation. In Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 1-21). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625006_1
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration and Society, 43(8), 842-868. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0095399711418768
Stamati, T., Papadopoulos, T., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2015). Social media for openness and accountability in the public sector: Cases in the Greek context. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 12-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.004
Sullivan, H., Williams, P., Marchington, M., & Knight, L. (2013). Collaborative futures: discursive realignments in austere times. Public Money and Management, 33(2), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763424
Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In Discourse theory in European politics. Palgrave Macmillan: UK, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523364_1
Torfing, J. (2006). Governance networks and their democratic anchorage. In New spaces of European governance (pp. 109-128). Facultas Verlags-und Buchhandels. https://doi.org/ 10801643509048745334&hl
Van Loocke, E., & Put, V. (2011). The impact of performance audits: A review of the existing evidence. Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in democratic government, 175-208. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857931801.00016
Vangen, S., Hayes, J.P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing cross-sector, inter-organisational collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237-1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.903658
Wilkins, P., Phillimore, J., & Gilchrist, D. (2017). Collaboration by the public sector: findings by watchdogs in Australia and New Zealand. Public Money and Management, 37(3), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1282249
Xavier, J. A., Siddiquee, N. A., and Mohamed, M. Z. (2016). The Government Transformation Programme of Malaysia: a successful approach to public service reform. Public Money and Management, 36(2), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1118927
Yang, K. (2012). Further understanding accountability in public organisations actionable knowledge and the structure–agency duality. Administration and Society, 44(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0095399711417699
Yapa, P.S. (2014). In whose interest? An examination of public sector governance in Brunei Darussalam. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(8), 803-818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.03.003