to A certain degree, by the review of the public sector is a necessity. Each of the förslösad skattekrona is a theft from the people, as the minister of social affairs, once put it. However, the question is whether Gustav Möller would have been hesitant in the face of the crowd, as the design of the current monitoring.
review has come to be used as a miracle cure for all manner of ills in the public sector. It has been easy to make out a case for review, and it’s difficult – sometimes almost impossible – to defend themselves against such initiatives. We live in a granskningssamhälle.
to prepare for the next review, or if review of the other. The audits have many of the indications are: monitoring, auditing, quality assurance, monitoring, inspection, certification, surveillance, assessment, ranking, and open-comparisons to be made.
it is Often the apparently trivial suggestion to enhance the knowledge and skills in an area that will lead to a review and then another review, and without any of the existing review will be removed.
the Reasons for the review may vary. Even if the reviews are initiated in order to push the issues of the future, or to completely remove them from the agenda, they are mostly to check to see if the activity is appropriately organised, that the decision is implemented, that the laws, regulations and rules are being followed, that goals and performance requirements met, the fact that professional values are maintained, and that it is not a waste of resources.
Or it might, on the contrary, it is much granskandet in and of itself, has come to stand in the way for innovation and efficiency? We have incorporated the review in the way we act, to the extent that it is instinctive reaction in the face of the new initiative is to ask whether they would be good for business, but if they were to pass an examination?
We’ve teamed up with a group of researchers monitored the development of the granskandet in the six policy areas have been changed from the end of the 1980s to the present day. We have studied in the school, in care of the elderly, the public employment service, the police, the railways, and the asylum application. In addition to this, we have studied the governments in the management’s ambitions when it comes to the granskandet. The results are reported in our book, ”the Granskningssamhället. The public sector under the microscope” (Published in 2019).
We point out some general features of the development.
For one thing, the vast majority of this review has been driven by the desire to make it possible for it to answer.
these Questions have been asked about whether it’s spelled out clear goals and objectives, whether it is the plans and documents on the performance achieved and whether the rules are being complied with. It has not been seen as being of equal importance to the design of the audits, which will make it possible to learn from the experience, in order to be able to (re)organise the activities of the system.
secondly, there has been a large part of the public sector audit come to be controlled by a tight managementidéer. : Management has been caught in a place of honour. The techniques of a financial audit, where there is a strong trust in experts and the relevant international standards, has served as a role model in many areas of life. Comprehensive system of internal control has been in place. Keeping clerical experts, albeit in a modern form, as the controllers and auditors have become more and more numerous, and are highly regarded in the public rooms.
the third purpose of the audits is often come to be framed in a way that has seldom been of particular relevance for assessing the policy programs, the effectiveness of. the purpose of the Audits has been considerably narrow, with a focus on the individual, the institutions and bodies, and even individual, action. Only exceptionally, they are concerned about the impact of the intervention, and how the different departments together, and in co-operation with various private organizations, is helping to tackle social problems.
thus, We have developed a system of relatively narrow, follow-up of non-governmental organisations, however, have neglected to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of public commitments, and regimes. Bearing in mind that all of the policies that we have studied (education, police, employment, infrastructure, etc.) has undergone significant changes, the development of the audit cause for concern.
It was squeezed out (and sometimes forgotten) in the vurmen of företagsinspirerade of them was the realization that the public sector is nothing more than a private, the goal is more complex, and that the money is not a goal in and of itself, but a means to achieve other goals.
The granskningslandskap that we have studied is fragmented, and there has been no clear conception of the whole. It has been easier to add new forms of the examination, other than to remove some of the existing ones. We have had layer upon layer of scrutiny.
it is Interesting, also, that the review is often performed by people other than the government agencies, such as international organisations and NGOS are important to reviewers. When the irregularity is detected, it is often by way of media scrutiny. And the media are dependent upon officials when they believe that errors have been committed, and may not be appealed to a number of criticisms of their own authority, using its whistle blowing.
We draw four main conclusions from our research are:
1
We review a lot. This is particularly true of the tight and regular granskandet, which is against the rules, and indicators, as well as seeking to find fault and impose performance-related responsibilities. Of course, the need for such assessments, but they break easily like others. The danger with such a narrow review is that more attention is directed towards the wrong things, and it gets to be too much in the right as that trust is being eroded, and that it is a very resource-intensive.
2 , should also be examined further.
