Diametrical effects in governmental accountability – the auditor general’s struggle to sustain balance in performance auditing reports and media disclosure

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to unravel characteristics of performance audit (PA) reports and official responses to them, associated critiques and alleged unintended consequences.Design/methodology/approachThis archival research study has centered on PA reports and associated newspaper articles, books and reports, identified through database searches and the snowball approach. Mixed analysis approaches included content analysis, discourse analysis and informal analysis.FindingsAuditees tend to oppose perceived unfair or inappropriate methods and process dimensions of the PAs more than the amount of criticism they face. The blame avoidance concept is therefore more accurate than the blame gaming one. The total amount of critical wording could still matter, as the media may disproportionally enlarge the significance of PA reports. Disclosure and interpretation of PA reports, and the associated media debates, could yield diametrical repercussions.Research limitations/implicationsThe research results may lack generalizability. Future studies could extend this work by covering a longer time period or being comparative in nature.Practical implicationsTo achieve (more) effective and legitimate PAs, it is necessary to adequately understand, balance and display accountability perceptions of those held accountable. The choice of auditing methods and incorporation of auditees’ views seem paramount to the way auditees respond to PAs and ought therefore to be carefully selected, alongside specific wording.Originality/valueJuxtaposition of critical wording with other characteristics of PA reports and how ministries respond to them gives insight into key sources of criticism and debate circumstancing accountability.