ABSTRACT
In many member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the term “accountability” has grown to an iconic status that permits this chameleon-like term to be attached to a wide range of causes and agendas (Dubnick and Justice 2004). This expansive role is reflected and reinforced by the growing use of accountability institutions (mechanisms). National audit offices have expanded their purview beyond traditional financial and compliance auditing to focus on performance auditing and assessments. Performance auditing has become a central feature of the national audit offices of most advanced nations, and this auditing has often been replicated by inspectors general offices located inside agencies. Indeed, some offices have been pushed into ever more expansive policy roles in which they are introducing new issues to policy agendas and adjudicating budget forecasts. Policy evaluation has taken its place as a management discipline in many governments, along with expectations for periodic studies and program assessments or reviews. Performance measurement has become institutionalized in most OECD nations, and most advanced nations have worked to integrate performance information into their budget formulation processes. While earlier attempts foundered, most nations have retained their performance budgeting systems for over ten years (OECD 2005).
