Risk Management in the Public Sector: A Comparative Analysis of Central Government Settings in France, Germany, and Italy

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Léonard Gourbier, Silvia Iacuzzi, Emanuele Padovani, Iris Saliterer
{"title":"Risk Management in the Public Sector: A Comparative Analysis of Central Government Settings in France, Germany, and Italy","authors":"Léonard Gourbier,&nbsp;Silvia Iacuzzi,&nbsp;Emanuele Padovani,&nbsp;Iris Saliterer","doi":"10.1111/faam.12416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, public organizations have come under increasing pressure to implement comprehensive risk management (RM) systems that are based on international frameworks and standards. However, little is known about whether different countries have addressed this issue in their regulatory strategies and how they have done so. To address this gap, this study conducts a cross-country analysis and introduces and applies an analytical framework to compare the different RM approaches adopted by the central governments of France, Germany, and Italy. This comparison sheds light on the regulatory landscape in the three largest countries in the European Union and reveals the diverse RM frameworks with varying focuses, drivers, designs, and levels of integration. Although each country has unique nuances in its approaches, commonality is the primary perception of risk as a threat. This stance, although understandable in the context of financial risks, calls for a shift toward viewing risk as an opportunity, thus promoting a balanced approach that goes beyond mere compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":"41 2","pages":"293-307"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12416","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, public organizations have come under increasing pressure to implement comprehensive risk management (RM) systems that are based on international frameworks and standards. However, little is known about whether different countries have addressed this issue in their regulatory strategies and how they have done so. To address this gap, this study conducts a cross-country analysis and introduces and applies an analytical framework to compare the different RM approaches adopted by the central governments of France, Germany, and Italy. This comparison sheds light on the regulatory landscape in the three largest countries in the European Union and reveals the diverse RM frameworks with varying focuses, drivers, designs, and levels of integration. Although each country has unique nuances in its approaches, commonality is the primary perception of risk as a threat. This stance, although understandable in the context of financial risks, calls for a shift toward viewing risk as an opportunity, thus promoting a balanced approach that goes beyond mere compliance.

公共部门的风险管理:法国、德国和意大利中央政府设置的比较分析
近年来,公共组织面临越来越大的压力,需要实施基于国际框架和标准的综合风险管理(RM)系统。然而,对于不同国家是否在其监管战略中解决了这一问题以及它们是如何做到的,人们知之甚少。为了解决这一差距,本研究进行了一项跨国分析,并引入并应用了一个分析框架来比较法国、德国和意大利中央政府采用的不同RM方法。这一比较揭示了欧盟三个最大国家的监管格局,并揭示了具有不同重点、驱动因素、设计和集成水平的不同RM框架。虽然每个国家的做法都有独特的细微差别,但共同性是将风险视为威胁的主要看法。这种立场虽然在金融风险的背景下是可以理解的,但它要求将风险视为机遇,从而促进一种超越单纯合规的平衡方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信