萨班斯-奥克斯利法案和对政府问责的不懈追求

Michelle C. Pautz, C. Washington
{"title":"萨班斯-奥克斯利法案和对政府问责的不懈追求","authors":"Michelle C. Pautz, C. Washington","doi":"10.1177/0095399709339011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the corporate financial scandals of the late 1990s, Congress responded by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 to improve accountability of both the private sector and of government. Although discussions of accountability and Sarbanes‐Oxley are pertinent to both the public and private sectors, the authors focus on the attempts of the act to encourage government accountability through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In a broader context, the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley fits within public administration’s constant emphasis of reform—particularly those reforms under the rubric of New Public Management that are intended to promote accountability. The authors’ purpose in this article is twofold. First, public administration literature is largely silent on Sarbanes‐Oxley despite its implications for the field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarbanes‐Oxley illustrates the perils of modern government reform efforts. Using Koppell’s five conceptions of accountability, the authors demonstrate how Sarbanes‐Oxley, like many reforms before it, may actually hinder accountability despite its explicit promises to promote it.","PeriodicalId":153353,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Society","volume":"765 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sarbanes‐Oxley and the Relentless Pursuit of Government Accountability\",\"authors\":\"Michelle C. Pautz, C. Washington\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0095399709339011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the wake of the corporate financial scandals of the late 1990s, Congress responded by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 to improve accountability of both the private sector and of government. Although discussions of accountability and Sarbanes‐Oxley are pertinent to both the public and private sectors, the authors focus on the attempts of the act to encourage government accountability through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In a broader context, the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley fits within public administration’s constant emphasis of reform—particularly those reforms under the rubric of New Public Management that are intended to promote accountability. The authors’ purpose in this article is twofold. First, public administration literature is largely silent on Sarbanes‐Oxley despite its implications for the field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarbanes‐Oxley illustrates the perils of modern government reform efforts. Using Koppell’s five conceptions of accountability, the authors demonstrate how Sarbanes‐Oxley, like many reforms before it, may actually hinder accountability despite its explicit promises to promote it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":153353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Society\",\"volume\":\"765 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709339011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709339011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在20世纪90年代末的企业财务丑闻之后,国会通过了2002年的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(Sarbanes - Oxley Act),以改善私营部门和政府的问责制。尽管对问责制和萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的讨论与公共部门和私营部门都相关,但作者将重点放在该法案通过创建上市公司会计监督委员会来鼓励政府问责制的尝试上。在更广泛的背景下,萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的通过符合公共行政不断强调的改革——特别是那些旨在促进问责制的新公共管理标题下的改革。作者写这篇文章的目的是双重的。首先,尽管萨班斯-奥克斯利法案对该领域的影响很大,但公共管理文献在很大程度上对其保持沉默。其次,也许更重要的是,萨班斯-奥克斯利法案说明了现代政府改革努力的危险。利用科佩尔的五种问责制概念,作者论证了萨班斯-奥克斯利法案,就像之前的许多改革一样,尽管明确承诺促进问责制,但实际上可能会阻碍问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sarbanes‐Oxley and the Relentless Pursuit of Government Accountability
In the wake of the corporate financial scandals of the late 1990s, Congress responded by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 to improve accountability of both the private sector and of government. Although discussions of accountability and Sarbanes‐Oxley are pertinent to both the public and private sectors, the authors focus on the attempts of the act to encourage government accountability through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In a broader context, the passage of Sarbanes‐Oxley fits within public administration’s constant emphasis of reform—particularly those reforms under the rubric of New Public Management that are intended to promote accountability. The authors’ purpose in this article is twofold. First, public administration literature is largely silent on Sarbanes‐Oxley despite its implications for the field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Sarbanes‐Oxley illustrates the perils of modern government reform efforts. Using Koppell’s five conceptions of accountability, the authors demonstrate how Sarbanes‐Oxley, like many reforms before it, may actually hinder accountability despite its explicit promises to promote it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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