4 minute read
4.6. The SAI of South Africa – auditing for accountability and inclusivity
144 – 4 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY EVALUATION AND OVERSIGHT
Box 4.4. The SAI of Korea – auditing for accountability and inclusivity
Advertisement
Objective
The Korean government has formulated and implemented various policies to tackle the housing shortage and to stabilise the housing of the middle and lower income families. However, according to BAI, these policies and programmes did not seem to produce the desired effects and may have caused various side effects, including: the privatisation of public development interests; destruction of comparatively favourable residences for middle and lower income families; and waste from suspension or delay of some programmes. BAI reviewed the appropriateness of the planning, implementation, and feedback stages, as well as institutional and programme performance. In The housing stabilisation policy and key programmes for the middle and lower income families, BAI provides alternative policy options that can contribute to housing stabilisation of middle and lower income families.
Type
Performance audit.
Scope and methodology
BAI analysed the whole process of core public housing programmes, including the programme planning stage, the implementation stage, and the feedback stage. The audit centred on the core programmes of rental housing and urban area improvement.
The main target institutions for the audit were the housing policy-formulating government agency, housing policy-delivery public institutions, and local agencies.
Criteria
Country laws/regulations (Framework Act on National Land); key national indicators on housing (housing supply rate, long-term rental rate).
Resources
Approximately 90 staff days for the preliminary study and 60 staff days for the field audit, which included 12 professional experts.
Outcomes/benefits
The audit pointed to an inconsistency between long- and medium-term housing supply plans. It found that an excess housing supply was caused by an inadequate supply plan that did not fully reflect the recent trends of low fertility and population aging. The following recommendations were made: 1) ensure consistency between medium and long term plans through efficient co-ordination; 2) take action to remedy the supply gap according to area and size; and 3) update the long-term housing policy by incorporating the changes in household type. The audit aimed to enhance the effectiveness of the government's housing policy by making housing supply plans more demand-oriented, and by specially responding to the needs of lowincome families.
Good practices used
This was a unique performance audit as it reviewed the entire policy cycle of a major government programme through planning, implementing, and feedback stages. Following various recommendations to improve the performance of the programme, the government has taken action.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
4 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY EVALUATION AND OVERSIGHT – 145
Box 4.4. The SAI of Korea – auditing for accountability and inclusivity (continued)
Lessons learned
Reviewing the entire policy cycle of a major government policy and programme (through the formulation, implementing, and feedback stage) is a valuable way of finding root causes of deficiencies in order to make recommendations to correct them and achieve the intended results.
Further reading
BAI (2013), The housing stabilization policy of the middle and lower income families (서민주거안정시책 추진실태 공개문), Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea, www.bai.go.k r/bai/cop/bbs/detailBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_100000000009&nttId=1489&mdex=bai 20&searchCnd=all_NTT_SJ_CN&searchWrd=%EC%84%9C%EB%AF%BC%EC%A3%BC% EA%B1%B0%EC%95%88%EC%A0%95&searchBgnDe=&searchEndDe=&searchYear=&pag eIndex=1&recordCountPerPage=10, (available in Korean only). Sources: OECD Survey of Peer Supreme Audit Institutions; further reading links above.
Box 4.5. The SAI of the Netherlands – auditing for accountability and inclusivity Objective
For this audit in the Netherlands, the Court of Audit investigated whether ministers evaluated the effectiveness of policies with a social objective. The Court audited policy expenditure in 2010, when the government spent EUR 111 billion on policy with social objectives. A year later, the Court did a follow up audit that looked into the reasons why ministries did not evaluate the effectiveness of these policies.
Type
Performance audit.
Scope and methodology
The Court looked at nearly 1 200 policy evaluation reports published between 2006 and 2010 and assessed if they evaluated the effectiveness of policy. The audit included: use of public information and government information to make an inventory of reports; a checklist to assess the reports; and extensive communication with those audited concerning their interpretation of the facts.
Criteria
Country laws.
Resources
265 working days.
Outcomes
The Government Accounts Act states that ministers are responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of their policies. The Court of Audit recommends to improve the department’s scans of policy effectiveness and to introduce a comprehensive programme of policy scans in accordance with central government budget regulations. If a minister thinks an effectiveness audit is neither feasible nor desirable for a particular policy measure, the reasons should be explained to the House of Representatives and the minister should reconsider the benefit and need for the policy, with the possible outcome being that the policy is terminated. Finally, ministers should improve the quality of the information they provide to the House of Representatives on the policy evaluations they carry out.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
