OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance by Perpustakaan_Integriti

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

78 – 2 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY FORMULATION

Key Function 3: Establishing regulatory policy Box 2.9. The SAI of Korea – comprehensive audit and inspection to support the success of regulatory reform in Korea Objective The “Framework act of administrative regulation” was enacted in 19989 as excessive regulation had hindered the efficiency of economy and potential of growth. Following repeated claims by stakeholders of the lack of effectiveness of reform activity, Korea’s SAI, the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI), examined the appropriateness of system and management and the status of implementation and execution of the economic regulatory reform.

Type Other (comprehensive) audit, performance audit.

Scope and methodology The scope included: review the quality of the implementation process of regulatory reform committee activities, the regulatory impact analysis system, and the regulatory register system, including sunset-regulation.10

Criteria Country laws, key national performance index (KNIs), entity objectives.

Resources Twenty-eight auditors over 55 days (total of 1540 days).

Outcomes BAI had two main findings: 1) When the regulatory reform committee chose the evaluation regulations, or tasks, to evaluate, they did not select “core task” but “regular task”, as this was usually considered easier to assess; and 2) the contents of analysis reports of regulatory effectiveness were insufficient and biased, creating a misrepresentation of the true picture. BAI work in this area is detailed in two main reports: Korea (BAI – Korean Board of Audit and Inspection): Regulatory Reform Policy 1125/2009 and Korea (BAI): Economic Regulation Reform 0813/2007.

Good practice used This case comprehensively considered the regulatory management structure and the adequacy of regulatory tools simultaneously (e.g. regulatory impact analysis system, sunset regulation), providing a more comprehensive assessment of the potential link between management and effectiveness.

Further reading http://english.bai.go.kr/bai_eng/cop/bbs/listBoardArticle.do?mdex=bai_eng19&bbsId=BBSM STR_200000000004 BAI (2006), Impact Assessment System, Board of Audit and Inspection, Seoul, http://english.bai.go.kr/bai_eng/cop/bbs/detailBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_20000000000 4&nttId=11510&searchCnd=7&searchWrd=&searchBgnDe=&searchEndDe=&searchYear=&se archCate=&mdex. Source: OECD Survey of Peer Supreme Audit Institutions; further reading links above.

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

Articles inside

References

Notes

in EU agencies

4.7. The SAI of Brazil – audit for national development policy

4.6. The SAI of South Africa – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.5. The SAI of the Netherlands – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.4. The SAI of Korea – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.3. The SAI of Canada – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

systems (iSA-Gov

4.3. SAI activities in assessing policy evaluation and oversight

Taking stock: SAI activities in supporting policy evaluation and oversight

4.1. Key elements of evaluating for results and performance improvement

Notes

References

Chapter 4 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy evaluation and oversight

Government

3.3. The SAI of the Netherlands – assessing financial risk exposure of government

3.2. The SAI of Poland – the annual state budget execution audit

3.1. Level of SAI activity in assessing key elements of policy implementation, by country

3.5. SAI activities in assessing policy implementation

3.4. Key elements in the exercise of internal control and risk management

Taking stock: SAI activities in supporting implementation

Key Function 8: Exercise of internal control and risk management

3.1. Key elements of co-ordinating and communicating

Chapter 3 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy implementation

References

Notes

2.10.The SAI of Portugal – strengthening controls in state owned enterprises

workforce sustainability and population ageing

2.8. The SAI of South Africa – budget and strategic plan review

regulatory reform in Korea

Congress and the Executive

2.5. The SAI of the Netherlands – linking evidence-based decisions with efficiency gains

2.6. Types of assessment of key functions of policy formulation, by 10 surveyed SAIs

2.5. SAI activities in assessing policy formulation

Taking Stock: SAI activities in supporting policy formulation

2.3. Key elements of establishing regulatory policy

Key Function 3: Establishing regulatory policy

Key Function 4: Exercise of internal control and risk management

2.3. Spending reviews: Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

2.4. Key elements of setting internal control policy and managing risk

2.2. Innovative and joint approaches to policy-making: Peru’s “Edu-Lab”

2.1. The Government of Finland’s OHRA “Steering System Reform Effort”

2.1. Key elements of strategic whole-of-government steering and planning

References

Chapter 2 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy formulation

Notes

Key messages to SAIs: Being aware and prepared

Key Function 1: Strategic whole-of-government steering and planning

The outcome: Considerations for all governance actors

1.2. Select SAI activities across the policy cycle

Chapter 1 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into the policy cycle

Why is the OECD undertaking this work? Integrating evidence into the policy cycle

Executive summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1.1. Key functions of the policy cycle in a strategic and open state

The report’s main findings: SAIs are active in assessing functions of the entire policy cycle

TABLE OF CONTENTS