跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.31.134) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/22 18:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳志豪
研究生(外文):CHEN,JHIH-HAU
論文名稱:我國地方審計機關審計品質與生產力之研究
論文名稱(外文):Auditing Quality and Productivity in Local Auditing Institutions
指導教授:盧文民盧文民引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wen-Min Lu
口試委員:郭國誠王宗誠洪秀婉
口試日期:2016-12-09
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國防大學
系所名稱:財務管理學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:財務金融學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:66
中文關鍵詞:績效評估
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:318
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:93
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究運用具有動態觀點之麥氏生產力指數來探討各縣市政府機關「審計效率」,各縣市政府近年來為了發揮功能財政與推動社會福利政策而持續擴張支出。在此同時,也面臨各國經濟景氣趨緩,財政收入普遍短收,且政府職能擴張相對支出膨脹過速,導致財政赤字持續擴大;也由於各縣市政府赤字不斷地累積攀升,且收入的增加速度遠不及支出之速度,此時政府目前無法對公務機關從事有效整體之「績效評估與管理」,以致於各縣市公務機關無論在行政服務或營運績效皆沒辦法有效掌握,因而甚難提昇地方公務機關之實際績效。而本研究利用審計部公布每年審計公報,針對22個政府審計機關之審計效率進行評估,另探討影響地方審計機關績效之原因,運用迴歸分析方法解析影響地方審計機關績效之關鍵因素,透過報請監察院案件數、處分人數、剔除經費繳庫數對於審計機關提出審核意見數之比例及審計人員數審查各縣市政府機關數等四個解釋變數,瞭解其中影響審計品質效能之原因。此一研究結果可供主管機關作為內部審計績效管理參考之用,以利未來資源投入管理及政策推展之參據。
In this study, we use the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) with a dynamic view to explore the "audit efficiency" of Local Auditing Institutions. In recent years, county and city governments continued to expand expenditure in order to exert functional finance and promote social welfare policies. At the same time, facing the economic slowdown, generally short-term income, and the expansion of government functions relative to the rapid expansion of expenditure, resulting in continued expansion of fiscal deficits; also due to the county and city governments deficits continue to accumulate up, and the rate of increase in income far less than the speed of expenditure.At present, the governments is unable to conduct effective performance evaluation and management of the public service organs, which makes it difficult to improve the performance of the local public authorities in terms of administrative services or operational performance.In this study, we use the Audit Department to publish the annual audit bulletin, evaluate the audit efficiency of 22 government auditing organizations, and explore the reasons that affect the performance of local audit institutions. We use Regression Analysis to analyze the key factors affecting the performance of local audit institutions.Through four explanatory variables, the proportion of cases reported to the Supervisory Institute, the proportion of disposals, the proportion of funds paid back to the country of auditing institutions for the number of audit opinions.We can understand the auditing quality which affect the effectiveness of the reasons. The results can be used as a reference for the internal audit performance management for future resource investment management and policy development.
目 錄
中文摘要
英文摘要
目 錄
圖目錄
表目錄
第一章 緒論
1.1 研究背景與動機
1.2 研究目的
1.3 研究流程
1.4章節架構
第二章 文獻探討
2.1績效評估相關文獻探討
2.2我國政府審計制度介紹
2.3審計品質相關文獻探討
第三章 研究設計
3.1變數選取與定義
3.2研究對象與資料選取
3.3研究方法
第四章 實證分析
4.1各縣市政府審計機關整體生產力變動
4.2以區域探討生產力指數累積變動
4.3直轄市與非直轄市生產力指數累積變動
4.4迴歸模型分析
第五章 結論與建議
5.1 結論
5.2 建議
參考文獻
中文部份
英文部份

圖目錄
圖1-1:研究流程圖
圖2-1:我國政府審計制度摘要表
圖2-2:我國審計相關領域及問題分析
圖4-1:麥氏生產力指數累積變動圖
圖4-2:效率變動分區域累積變動圖
圖4-3:技術變動分區域累積變動圖
圖4-4:生產力變動分區域累積變動圖
圖4-5:五都與非五都效率變動累積變動圖
圖4-6:五都與非五都技術變動累積變動圖
圖4-7:五都與非五都生產力變動累積變動圖

表目錄
表3-1應用資料包絡分析法於審計機關績效評估之文獻
表3-2各投入及產出變數定義
表3-3投入、產出變數敘述統計
表3-4投入產出變數相關係數分析
表3-5影響審計品質代理變數之名稱、定義及資料來源
表4-1各地方審計機關各年度效率變動值
表4-2各地方審計機關各年度技術變動值
表4-3各地方審計機關各年度生產力變動值
表4-4以年探討各縣市審計機關生產力變動表
表4-5各縣市審計機關生產力指數各項平均效率值
表4-6生產力指數變動值與代理變數之廻歸結果





中文部份
1.王肇蘭(2012)。地方政府各服務構面支出效率之評估-兼論支出效率與補助款項之關聯。會計審計論叢,2卷2期,33-67。
2.李綱(2009)。生產力與效率衡量-資料包絡分析法理論與應用。國防管理學報,30卷2期,17-31。
3.林億明(2010) 準固定要素與台灣國際觀光旅館之生產力變動。生產力與效率特刊,191-225。
4.林孝倫(2013)。臺灣審計研究之回顧與前瞻。會計審計論叢,3卷1期,1-47。
5.林嘉誠(2004)。公部門績效評估技術與指標建立。國家政策季刊,3卷2期,1-17
6.邱麗英(2007)。地方政府財政努力績效分析-資料包絡分析法之應用。元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。
7.洪玉秀(2002),專案性計畫績效審計之研究,台北,審計部。
8.洪欣弘(1998)。我國政府審計機關的效率評估-資料包絡分析法的應用。私立淡江大學會計學系研究所碩士論文。
9.吳明隆、王文霖(2004)。高級中學全面品質管理與學校效能關係之研究。學校行政,32期,11-23。
10.郭玉卿(2008)我國地方審計機關之效率評估―資料包絡分析法之應用。國立臺北大學會計學系碩士論文。
11.許義忠(2008)。台灣地區地方政府效率暨生產力之評估。應用經濟論叢, 84期,71-120。
12.劉嘉雯、王泰昌(2008)。會計師任期與審計品質之關聯性研究。管理評論,27卷4期,1-28
13.解芳宜、薛富井(2010)。運用資料包絡分析法探討臺北縣29個鄉鎮市公所之財政效率。會計學報,3卷1期,83-98。
14.楊季臻(2012)。地方審計機關績效之研究。會計學報,4卷2期,115-140。
15.楊季臻(2010)。我國地方審計機關審計效率評估及差異分析之研究。國立東華大學會計與財務金融碩士學位學程碩士論文。
16.審計部(2010)。中華民國99年政府審計年報。
17.審計部(2011)。中華民國100年政府審計年報。
18.審計部(2012)。中華民國101年政府審計年報。
19.審計部(2013)。中華民國102年政府審計年報。
20.審計部(2014)。中華民國103年政府審計年報。
21.審計部(2010)。中華民國99年直轄市及縣市地方決算審核結果年報。
22.審計部(2011)。中華民國100年直轄市及縣市地方決算審核結果年報。
23.審計部(2012)。中華民國101年直轄市及縣市地方決算審核結果年報。
24.審計部(2013)。中華民國102年直轄市及縣市地方決算審核結果年報。
25.審計部(2014)。中華民國103年直轄市及縣市地方決算審核結果年報。


英文部份
1.Ahlenius, I. B. (2000). Performance audits, evaluations and supreme audit institutions. Auditing, 27(1), 1-21.
2.Anderson, P. and Petersen, N.C. (1993), “A procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment
Analysis,” Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp.1261-1264.
3.Alfaraih, M., Alanezi, F., & Almujamed, H. (2012). The influence of institutional and government ownership on
firm performance: evidence from Kuwait. International business research, 5(10), p192.
4.Almutairi, A. R., K. Dunn, and T. Skantz. 2009. Auditor tenure, auditor specialization and information
asymmetry. Managerial Auditing Journal 24(7): 600-623.
5.Asare, S., Cohen, J., & Trompeter, G. (2005). The effect of non-audit services on client risk, acceptance and
staffing decisions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(6), 489-520.
6.Banker, R. D., A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper. (1984), Some models for estimating technical and scale
efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9): 1078-1092.
7.Becker, C., M. DeFond, J. Jiambalvo, and K. Subrahmanyam. 1998. The effect of audit quality on earnings
management. Contemporary Accounting Research 15(1): 1-24.
8.Burgess, J. F. & Wilson, P. W. (1995). Decomposing hospital productivity changes, 1985-1988: A nonparametric
Malmquist approach. The journal of productivity analysis, 6, 343-363.
9.Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, W. E. (1982). Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and
Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers. The Economic Journal, 92, 73-86.
10.Carey, P., and R. Simnett. 2006. Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review 81 (3): 653-
676
11.Chang, H. C., Huang, B. N. & Yang, C. W., 2011. Military expenditure and economic growth across different
groups: A dynamic panel Granger-causality approach. Economic Modelling, 28, 2416-2423.
12.Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European
Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444.
13.Coelli T. (1996). A Guide to Deap Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis Computer Program, Department of
Econometrics. Armidale, Australia: University of England
14.Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., García-Sánchez, I. M., & Prado-Lorenzo, J. M. (2013). Effect of modes of public
services delivery on the efficiency of local governments: A two-stage approach. Utilities Policy, 26, 23-35.
15.Davis, L. R., B. Soo, and G. Trompeter. 2000. Auditor tenure, auditor independence and earnings management.
Working paper. Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
16.Deger, S., & Smith, R. (1983). Military expenditure and growth in LDCs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27
(2), 335-353
17.Dollery, B., & Manley, K. (2007). A Note on Performance Measurement in Victorian Local Government.
Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 13(1), 22.
18.Dopuch, N., and D. A. Simunic. 1980. The nature of competition in the auditing profession: A descriptive and
normative view. In Regulation and the Accounting Profession: 77-94.
19.Drake, L. M., & Simper, R. (2003). An evaluation in the choice of inputs and outputs in the efficiency
measurement of police forces. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(6), 701-710.
20.Dunn, K., and B. W. Mayhew. 2004. Audit firm industry specialization and client disclosure quality. Review
of Accounting Studies 9 (1): 35-58.
21.Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall, Inc.
22.Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
120, 253–281.
23.Ferrier G. D., & Hirschberg J. G. (1997). Bootstrapping confidence intervals for linear programming
efficiency scores: with illustrations using Italian bank data. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 19–33.
24.Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang, 1994, “Productivity Growth, Technical Progress and
Efficiency Changes in Industrialized Countries,” American Economic Review, 84: 66-83.
25.Game, C. (2006). Comprehensive performance assessment in English local government. International journal of
productivity and performance management, 55(6), 466-479.
26.Giroux, G., & Jones, R. (2011). Measuring audit quality of local governments in England and Wales. Research
in Accounting Regulation, 23(1), 60-66.
27.Gloany, B. and Roll, Y., An application procedure for DEA. MAGA, Vol. 17, No.3, 1989, pp.237-250.
28.Gorman, M. F., & Ruggiero, J. (2008). Evaluating US state police performance using data envelopment
analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(2), 1031-1037.
29.Kao, C., Chang, P. L., & Hwang, S. N. (1993). Data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of
forest management. Journal of Environmental Management, 38(1), 73-83.
30.Lewin, A. Y., Morey, R. C., & Cook, T. J. (1992). Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts.
Omega, 10(4), 401-411.
31.Lee, B. L., & Worthington, A. C. (2015). A network DEA quantity and quality-orientated production model: An
application to Australian university research services. Omega.
32.Liu, J.S. and Lu, W.M., “DEA and Ranking with the Network-based Approach: A Case of R&D Performance,” Omega-
The International Journal of Management Science, accepted, 2010.
33.Liu, J.S. Yang, C., Lu, W. M., and Chuang, M., “A Network-based Approach for Increasing Discrimination in
Data Envelopment Analysis,” Journal fo the Operational Reasearch Society, Vol. 60, No. 11, 2009, pp.1502-
1510.
34.Malmquist, S. (1953). Index Numbers and Indifference Surface. Trabajos de Estadistica, 4(16), 209-242.
35.Neidermeyer, A. A., & Neidermeyer, P. E. (2005). Audit anticipation: does it impact job performance?.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(1), 19-29.
36.Ng, A. Y., & Gujar, G. C. (2009). Government policies, efficiency and competitiveness: the case of dry ports
in India. Transport Policy, 16(5), 232-239.
37.Neto, J. Q. F., & Angulo-Meza, L. (2007). Alternative targets for data envelopment analysis through multi-
objective linear programming: Rio de Janeiro Odontological Public Health System Case Study. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 58(7), 865-873.
38.Owhoso, E. V., W. F. Messier, and J. G. Lynch. 2002. Error detection by industry-specialized teams during
sequential audit review. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (3): 883-900.
39.Pathak, J., Chaouch, B., & Sriram, R. S. (2005). Minimizing cost of continuous audit: Counting and time
dependent strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(1), 61-75.
40.Pilcher, R. (2005). Local government financial key performance indicators-not so relevant, reliable and
accountable. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 451-467.
41.Quellette, P., & Vierstraete, V. (2004). Technological change and efficiency in the presence of quasi-fixed
inputs: A DEA application to the hospital sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(3), 755-763.
42.Richard, P. (1993). Measuring internal audit performance. Australian Accountant, 63(4), 21-23.
43.Seiford, L. M. and Zhu, J., “Profitability and Marketability of the Top 55 U. S. Commercial Banks,”
Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 9, 1999, pp 1270-1288
44.Simar L., & Wilson P. W. (1999). Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices. European Journal of
Operational Research, 115, 459-471.
45.Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in
nonparametric frontier models. Management Science 44, 49-61.
46.Stier, S. (2015). Political determinants of e-government performance revisited: Comparing democracies and
autocracies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 270-278.
47.Sun, S. (2002). Measuring the relative efficiency of police precincts using data envelopment analysis. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, 36(1), 51-71.
48.Teoh, S. H., and T. J. Wong. 1993. Perceived auditor quality and the earnings response coefficient.
Accounting Review 68 (April): 346-366.
49.Thanassoulis, E. (1995). Assessing police forces in England and Wales using data envelopment analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 641-657.
50.Warfield, T. D., J. J. Wild, and K. L. Wild. 1995. Managerial ownership, accounting choice, and
informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (1): 61-91.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top