1 / 9

Some experience of the SAO of Hungary in performing the roles described in the Principal Paper

First meeting of the INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators Moscow, 20-21. May 2008. Some experience of the SAO of Hungary in performing the roles described in the Principal Paper. By Dr. Gusztáv Báger, director general Dr. Pál Csapodi secretary general.

addison-compton
Download Presentation

Some experience of the SAO of Hungary in performing the roles described in the Principal Paper

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. First meeting of the INTOSAI Working Group on Key National IndicatorsMoscow, 20-21. May 2008. Some experience of the SAO of Hungary in performing the roles described in the Principal Paper By Dr. Gusztáv Báger, director generalDr. Pál Csapodi secretary general

  2. Approaches followed on the subject-in-question • A new priority: advisory activity promoting reforms • It needs SAO’s involvement with national indicators efforts • So far • Focus on indicators measuring own performance, but • Emphasis on taking over international standards • Providing technical expert advice

  3. Key indicators for measuring own performance • Two goals: • To increase efficiency of audit work • To inform broader efforts to others, due to the fact that programme-based budgeting is on the agenda in Hungary • Three elements of the applied system: • program.-based budgeting: priorities broken down in activities, outcomes • Assessment of individual performances • Quality management system of the audit work

  4. System for Registration of Audit Data and SAO Tasks named “Szekreter” • “Szekreter” is an information system supporting • the processing of SAO’s yearly Audit Plan, • the follow-up and its possible changes, • the operative drafting of the audits in details, • recording of their implementation and the following of audit findings. • The colleagues involved in the audits have to keep a registration to show the total of working hours of SAO spent with the single/individual audit.

  5. Taking over international standards • Motivations: • Growing number of international commitments • Growing importance of international comparisons • Experience in three important fields: • Meeting the environmental requirements (e.g. joint audits) • Best practices in the field of R&D • Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs)

  6. Providing technical/expert advice • To avoid a loss of independence SAO is involved in improving indicators based on experience of audit only (no own proposal for new ones) • Main areas: • Budgetary indicators • Indicators for specific fields: e. g. education, development-policy • Proposals for the National Assembly, Government and agencies are made in audit reports and analytical studies

  7. Proposals for improving budgetary indicators (1) • Task to be solved to meet the requirements of great variety of the users: • Long term comparative series • Relevant structures of data for political decision-making • Performance indicators be in line with target indicators • Debt indicators for foreign investors according to international standards • Information needs of the IMF and EU • Ageneral problem identified: the information system is disintegrated • Partial systems exist – communication is done often manually only • Inconsistencies – not efficient

  8. Proposals for improving budgetary indicators (2) • Shortcomings in the light of the IMF Manual on Fiscal Transparency: • No access to indicators on non-budgetary institutions (foundations etc.) • It is difficult to build in time series from budgetary indicators • No full-ranged indicators are available for tax-relieves and quasi-fiscal activities • No adequate range of social indicators for budgetary impact analysis

  9. Proposals for improving budgetary indicators (3) • Further requirements of public sector reforms identified: • Needs of programme-based budgeting • More detailed and reliable economic and social indicators • Performance indicators according to programmes • Following: a change towards performance management at institutional level a need for accrual accounting • Instead of the organisational classification the way of providing public service taken as a basis for suppliers of indicators

More Related