Résumés
Résumé
Si elle permet d’expliquer la croissance de l’audit dans le secteur public, la théorie de la société de l’audit de Michael Power échoue à expliquer pourquoi l’audit, quelquefois, se rétracte. En généralisant les mécanismes de conquêtes professionnelles mises en lumière par Michael Power et en mettant en évidence la compétition interprofessionnelle, la théorie du système des professions d’Andrew Abbott permet de surmonter cette difficulté. L’histoire institutionnelle de l’audit dans le secteur public fédéral canadien est revisitée à l’aide de cette théorie. Elle permet une approche dépassionnée de l’histoire et laisse entrevoir à terme un rééquilibrage des forces professionnelles entre le Bureau du vérificateur général, le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor et le Bureau du contrôleur général.
Abstract
While Michael Power’s theory of the “audit society” is useful for explaining the expansion of auditing in the public sector, it nevertheless fails to explain why auditing practice occasionally contracts. This difficulty can be surmounted, however, through Andrew Abbott’s “system of professions” theory, which generalizes the mechanisms of professional turf battles brought out by Michael Power and which highlights interprofessional competition. This theory is used to review the institutional history of auditing in the Canadian federal public sector. It is of greater use in developing a detached approach to history and suggests that in the long run, rebalancing will occur between the Office of the Auditor General, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and the Office of the Comptroller General.
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Abbott, A. (2005). « Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions », Sociological Theory, vol. 23, n° 3, p. 245-274.
- Abbott, A. (2003). « Écologies liées : à propos du système des professions », dans P.-M. Menger, Les professions et leurs analyses sociologiques, Paris, INED, p. 29-50.
- Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
- Benoit, L. E. et C. E. S. Franks (2006). « Faute d’un clou : le rôle de la vérification interne dans le scandale des commandites », Rétablir l’imputabilité, études vol. 2, Ottawa, Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux, p. 261-337.
- Brophy, J. et L. M. McGimpsey (1980). « Internal Audit and Program Evaluation in the Government of Canada », Optimum, vol. 11, n° 2, p. 16-25.
- Champy, F. (2009). La sociologie des professions, Paris, Quadrige/PUF.
- Clark, I. D. et H. Swain (2005). « Distinguishing the Real from the Surreal in Management Reform: Suggestions for Beleaguered Administrators in the Government of Canada », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 48, n° 4, p. 453-476.
- Cutt, J. (1988). Comprehensive Auditing in Canada: Theory and Practice, New York, Praeger.
- Dubar, C. et P. Tripier (1998). Sociologie des professions, Paris, Armand Collin.
- Francis, J. R. (1994). « Auditing, Hermeneutics, and Subjectivity », Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 19, n° 3, p. 235-269.
- Fraser, B. W. (2004). « Cool under Fire », Internal Auditor, vol. 61, n° 4, p. 72-77.
- Fraser, S. (2007). « Public Scrutiny Puts SAI Audit Practices to the Test », International Journal of Government Auditing, n° 1, p. 1-5.
- Free, C. et V. Radcliffe (2009). « Accountability in Crisis: The Sponsorship Scandal and the Office of the Comptroller General in Canada », Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, n° 2, p. 189-208.
- Glynn, J. J. (1985). « Value for Money Auditing: An International Review and Comparison », Financial Accountability & Management, vol. 1, n° 2, p. 113-128.
- Gomery, J. H. (2004a). Audience publique / Public Hearing, vol. 1, Ottawa, Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires, 7 septembre.
- Gomery, J. H. (2004b). Audience publique / Public Hearing, vol. 2, Ottawa, Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires, 8 septembre.
- Gomery, J. H. (2004c). Audience publique / Public Hearing, vol. 3, Ottawa, Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires, 9 septembre.
- Gomery, J. H. (2004d). Audience publique / Public Hearing, vol. 4, Ottawa, Commission d’enquête sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires, 13 septembre.
- Good, D. A. (2007). Politics of Public Money: Spenders, Guardians, Priority Setters, and Financial Watchdogs inside the Canadian Government, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
- Harder, P. et E. Lindquist (1997). « Expenditure Reporting and Reporting in the Government of Canada: Recent Developments and Backgrounds », dans J. Bougault, M. Demers et C. Williams, Public Administration and Public Management: Experiences in Canada, Québec, Publications du Québec, p. 71-89.
- Hodgetts, J. E. (2007). « Royal Commissions and Public-service Reform: Personal Reflections », Canadian Accounting Perspectives, vol. 50, n° 4, p. 525-540.
- Hollander, M. J. et M. J. Prince (1993). « Analytical Units in Federal and Provincial Governments: Origins, Functions and Suggestions for Effectiveness », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 6, n° 2, p. 190-224.
- Johnson, A. W. (1971). « The Treasury Board of Canada and the Machinery of Government of the 1970s », Revue canadienne de science politique, vol. 4, n° 3, p. 346-366.
- Johnson, D. (2002). Thinking Government: Ideas, Policies, Institutions and Public-Sector Management in Canada, Petersborough, Broadview Press Ltd.
- Kelly, J. et E. Lindquist (2003). « Metamorphosis in Kafka’s Castle: The Changing Balance of Power among the Central Budget Agencies of Canada », dans J. Wanna, L. Jensen et J. De Vries, Controlling Public Expenditure, Bodmin, Edward Elgar, p. 85-105.
- Larson, M. S. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, Berkeley, University of California Press.
- Larson, P. et D. Zussman (2010). « Departmental Audit Committees: An Evaluation », Optimum, vol. 40, n° 4, p. 29-50.
- Malloy, J. (2004). « An Auditor’s Best Friend ? Standing Committees on Public Accounts », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 47, n° 2, p. 165-183.
- O’Neal, B. (1994). Reorganizing Government: New Approaches to Public Service Reform, Ottawa, Library of Parliament.
- OAG (2011). 2011 June Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (2004). 2004 November Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (2002). 2002 May Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (1993). 1993 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (1987). 1987 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (1984). 1984 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- OAG (1983). 1983 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
- Paquin, M. (1997). « Administrative Modernization within the Canadian Government », J. Bourgault, M. Demers et C. Williams, Public Administration and Public Management Experiences in Canada, Québec, Publications du Québec, p. 143-154.
- Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Prince, M. J. et J. A. Chenier (1980). « The Rise and Fall of Policy Planning and Research Units: An Organizational Perspective », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 23, n° 4, p. 519-541.
- Rogers, H. (1978). « Management Control in the Public Service », Optimum, vol. 9, n° 3, p. 14-28.
- Rowat, D. C. (1963). « Canada’s Royal Commission on Government Organization », Public Administration, vol. 41, n° 2, p. 193-205.
- Saint-Martin, D. (1998). « The New Managerialism and the Policy Influence of Consultants in Government: An Historical-Institutionalist Analysis of Britain, Canada and France », Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, vol. 11, n° 3, p. 319-356.
- Savoie, D. (2008). Court Government and the Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
- Savoie, D. (1996). « Reforming the Expenditure Budget Process: The Canadian Experience », dans D. J. Savoie, Budgeting and the Management of Public Spending, Cheltenham, Brookfield, p. 299-314.
- Sinclair, S. (1979). Cordial but not Cosy: A History of the Office of the Auditor General, Toronto, McCelland and Stewart.
- Sutherland, S. L. (2002). The Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Government in Exile?, Working Paper no 31, p. 1-29.
- Sutherland, S. L. (1991). « Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility: Every Reform Is Its Own Problem », Revue canadienne de science politique, vol. 24, n° 1, p. 91-120.
- Sutherland, S. L. (1990). « The Evolution of Program Budget Ideas in Canada: Does Parliament Benefit from Estimates Reform ? », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 33, n° 2, p. 133-164.
- Sutherland, S. L. (1986). « The Politics of Audit: The Federal Office of the Auditor General in Comparative Perspective », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 29, n° 1, p. 118-148.
- Sutherland, S. L. (1981). « State Audit: A Canadian Maverick ? », Public Money, vol. 1, n° 3, p. 39-43.
- Sutherland, S. L. (1980). « On the Audit Trail of the Auditor General: Parliament’s Servant 1973-1980 », Canadian Public Administration, vol. 23, n° 4, p. 616-644.
- Troupin, S. (2012). Professionalizing Public Administration( ?) The Cases of Performance Audit in Canada and the Netherlands, Thèse défendue en vue de l’octroi du titre de PhD, KU Leuven.