Advertisement

New Reporting Tools at the Central Government Level: Experiences in Light of a Budgeting and Accounting Reform in Austria

  • Iris Saliterer
  • Sanja KoracEmail author
Chapter
  • 37 Downloads
Part of the Public Sector Financial Management book series (PUSEFIMA)

Abstract

Set in the context of an extensive budgeting and accounting reform, this chapter offers insights into the new reporting tools’ relative advantage and usefulness from the perspective of public managers (directors general and heads of department in ministries and central government agencies) as well as from the perspective of politicians (federal legislators, i.e. members of parliament). The findings suggest that practices and procedures that create a time lag between the disclosure of financial statements and outcome reports prevent legislators as the main addressees of such reports from gaining an integrated view of the government’s financial and non-financial performance. The chapter also highlights the role of intermediaries and approaches of popular reporting (also known as citizen-centric reporting) in ‘translating’ rich financial and non-financial information.

Keywords

Central government Accrual IPSAS Performance 

References

  1. Alves, M., Sayegh, A., Renteria, C., et al. (2017, November). Austria. Fiscal Transparency Evaluation. International Monetary Fund. Technical Assistance Report.Google Scholar
  2. Andriani, Y., Kober, R., & Ng, J. (2010). Decision Usefulness of Cash and Accrual Information: Public Sector Managers’ Perceptions. Australian Accounting Review, 20(2), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann, A. (2012). The Influence of the Nature of Government Accounting and Reporting in Decision-Making: Evidence from Switzerland. Public Money & Management, 32(1), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BHG. (2013). Bundesgesetz über die Führung des Bundeshaushaltes (Bundeshaushaltsgesetz 2013 – BHG 2013) StF: BGBl. I Nr. 139/2009 (NR: GP XXIV RV 480 AB 578 S. 51.)Google Scholar
  5. Bourdeaux, C. (2008). Integrating Performance Information into Legislative Budget Processes. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 547–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  7. Downes, R., Von Trapp, L., & Jansen, J. (2018). Budgeting in Austria. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnsen, A., Lapsley, I., & Pallot, J. (2005). Accounting, Accountability and Devolution: A Study of the Use of Accounting Information by Politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly’s First Term. The Irish Accounting Review, 12(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  9. Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnsen, A., & Lapsley, I. (2014). Reforming Central Government: An Evaluation of an Accounting Innovation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4–5), 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossi, G., Reichard, C., & Ruggiero, P. (2016). Appropriateness and Use of Performance Information in the Budgeting Process: Some Experiences from German and Italian Municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guthrie, J. (1998). Application of Accrual Accounting in the Australian Public Sector–Rhetoric or Reality. Financial Accountability & Management, 14(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guthrie, J., Olson, O., & Humphrey, C. (1999). Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward. Financial Accountability & Management, 15(3–4), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ho, A. T.-K. (2006). Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IFAC. (2000). Government Financial Reporting. Accounting Issues and Practices. Study 11. New York: International Federation of Accountants. http://www.ifac.org
  15. IFAC. (2006). IPSAS 1 – Presentation of Financial Statements. http://www.ifac.org
  16. Jones, S., & Puglisi, N. (1997). The Relevance of AAS 29 to Australian Public Sector: A Cause for Doubt? Abacus, 33(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Joyce, P. G., & Sieg, S. (2000). Using Performance Information for Budgeting: Clarifying the Framework and Investigating Recent State Experience. Prepared for the 2000 Symposium of the Center for Accountability and Performance of the American Society for Public Administration.Google Scholar
  18. Jorge, S. M., da Costa Carvalho, J. B., & Fernandes, M. J. (2008). From Cash to Accruals In Portuguese Local Government Accounting: What Has Truly Changed. Revista de Estudos Politécnicos/Polytechnical Studies Review, VI(10), 239–261.Google Scholar
  19. Katsikas, E., Manes-Rossi, F., & Orelli, R. L. (2016). Towards Integrated Reporting: Accounting Change in the Public Sector. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kober, R., Lee, J., & Ng, J. (2010). Mind Your Accruals: Perceived Usefulness of Financial Information in the Australian Public Sector Under Different Accounting Systems. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(3), 267–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2008). Performance Information and Performance Steering: Integrated System or Loose Coupling? In V. Dooren & V. de Walle (Eds.), Performance Information in the Public Sector (Governance and Public Management Series). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Liguori, M., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Some Like it Non-Financial... Public Management Review, 14(7), 903–922.Google Scholar
  23. Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montesinos, V., Brusca, I., Rossi, F. M., & Aversano, N. (2013). The Usefulness of Performance Reporting in Local Government: Comparing Italy and Spain. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moynihan, D., & Beazley, I. (2016). Toward Next-Generation Performance Budgeting: Lessons from the Experiences of Seven Reforming Countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nasi, G., & Steccolini, I. (2008). Implementation of Accounting Reforms. An Empirical Investigation into Italian Local Governments. Public Management Review, 10(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nogueira, S. P. S., & Jorge, S. M. F. (2017). The Perceived Usefulness of Financial Information for Decision Making in Portuguese Municipalities the Importance of Internal Control. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 18(1), 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD. (2007). Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
  29. Posner, P., & Park, C.-K. (2007). Role of the Legislatur in the Budget Process: Recent Trends and Innovations. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  30. Rauskala, I., & Saliterer, I. (2015). Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in Austria. In I. Brusca et al. (Eds.), Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in Europe – The Challenge of Harmonization (pp. 12–22). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ricci, P. (2019). Accountability. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, M. (Ed.). (2007). Performance Budgeting: Linking Funding and Results. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Saliterer, I., & Korac, S. (2018). Externe Evaluierung der Haushaltsrechtsreform des Bundes im Jahr 2017. Endbericht. Available via: https://www.bmf.gv.at/
  34. Saliterer, I., Korac, S., Bergmann, A., & Fuchs, S. (2018). Evaluierung der Haushaltsrechtsreform des Bundes im Jahr 2017. Arbeitspaket 3 – Doppisches Haushaltswesen. Available via: https://www.bmf.gv.at/
  35. Saliterer, I., Korac, S., Moser, B., & Rondo-Brovetto, P. (2019). How Politicians Use Performance Information in a Budgetary Context – New Insights from the Central Government Level. Public Administration online first.Google Scholar
  36. Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Budgeting and Budgetary Institutions. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  37. Steger, G. (2012). Budget Reform in Austria: From Traditional to Modern Budgeting. Presupuesto y Gasto Público, 69, 147–162.Google Scholar
  38. Sterck, M., & Scheers, B. (2006). Trends in Performance Budgeting in Seven OECD Countries. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. (2009). Strengthening the Link Between Performance Measurement and Decision Making. Public Administration, 87(4), 853–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ter Bogt, H. J. (2008). Management Accounting Change and New Public Management in Local Government: A Reassessment of Ambitions and Results – An Institutionalist Approach to Accounting Change in the Dutch Public Sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(3), 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ter Bogt, H. J., Van Helden, G., & Van Der Kolk, B. (2015). Challenging the NPM Ideas About Performance Management: Selectivity and Differentiation in Outcome-Oriented Performance Budgeting. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Dooren, W., & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2008). Performance Information in the Public Sector: How It Is Used. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Van Helden, J. (2016). Literature Review and Challenging Research Agenda on Politicians’ Use of Accounting Information. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.German University of Administrative SciencesSpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations