In both France and Britain, the 1980s and 90s were a period of political and programmatic commitment to new public management reform. One of the consequences has been to managerialise that spectrum of bureaucratic activity running from traditional state audit through inspection to programme and policy evaluation. Significantly, the actual pattern of institutionalisation of the new audit and evaluation practices differs markedly in the two countries. This article proposes a framework for analysing and comparing the changing face of audit and evaluation, and uses this framework to highlight the major differences between France and Britain. In particular, it seeks to explain the relative lack of concern in France with Britishstyle ‘value for money’ studies
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Audebrand, E. (1999), L’.valuation en Réforme: la Relance du Dispositif National d’.valuation des Politiques Publiques, ( Cachan: Ecole Normale Superieure ).
2.
Barzelay, M. (1997), ‘Central audit institutions and performance auditing: a comparative analysis of organisational strategies in the OECD’ , Governance, Vol 10, No 3, pp. 235-260 .
3.
Boyne, G. (2000), ‘External regulation and best value in local government’ , Public Money and Management, Vol 20, No 3, pp. 7-12 .
4.
Clark, D. (1999), ‘Managerialism, administrative justice and public service reform in Britain’ , International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol 65, pp. 473-490 .
5.
Clark, D. and Pearson. J. (1999), ‘Regulating open government: a comparative study of the UK and Canadian regimes’, in Harris, M. and Partington, M. (eds) Administrative Justice in the 21st Century, ( Oxford: Hart ).
6.
Dauncey, H. (1994), ‘The Office Parlementaire d’.valuation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques (OPECST) and the ‘evaluation’ of public policy: the example of French space policy’ , Modern and Contemporary France, Vol 2, No 3, pp. 279-289 .
7.
Duran, P. , Monnier, E. and Smith, A. (1995), ‘Evaluation a la Frangaise’ , Evaluation, Vol 1, No 1, pp. 45-63 .
8.
Fraisse, R. (1995), ‘Les memes elites pour un Etat different?’, in Jobert, B. (ed.), L’.tat, la Finance et la Soci&t&, ( Paris: Editions de Ddcouverte ).
9.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (1982), ‘Policy analysis in British government: the experience of PAR’ , Public Administration, Vol 60, No 4, pp. 429-450 .
10.
Halgand, N. (1998), ‘Centralism, secrecy and unaccountability: a long road to reform in France’, in Olson, O. , Guthrie, J. and Humprey, C. (eds), Global Warning. Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management, ( Oslo: Oslo University Press ).
11.
Henkel, M. (1991), ‘The new “evaluative state”’ , Public Administration, Vol 69, No 1, pp. 121-136 .
12.
Hood, C. , James, O. , Jones, G. , Scott, C. and Travers, A. (1999), Regulation Inside Government ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
13.
Huet, P. (1970), ‘The rationalisation of budget choices in France’ , Public Administration, Vol 48, pp. 273-287 .
14.
Jobert, B. and Theret, B. (1994), ‘France: la consecration republicaine du neoliberalisme’, in Jobert, B. (ed.), Le Tournant Njo-Liberal en Europe ( Paris: L’.armattan ).
15.
Kessler, M-C. (1996), ‘Les grands corps face a l’.urope’, in D’.rcy, F. and Rouban, L. (eds), De la Ve Republique ai l’.urope, ( Paris: Presses de Science Po ).
16.
Lamarque, D. (1999), ‘Evaluation et budget’ , Politiques et Management Public, Vol 17, No 2, pp. 175-186 .
17.
Massardier, G. (2000), ‘Quelle responsabilite pour les experts et les evaluateurs dans l’.ction publique?’ paper presented to 10th colloque international de la Revue Politiques et Management Public, Paris, 9-10 March.
18.
Mescheriakoff, S. A. (1990), ‘Legality, efficiency and equity: the vagaries of administrative legitimacy. The French experience’ , International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol 56, pp. 305-325 .
19.
Ministere de l’.ducation Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, (1998), L’.tat de l’.cole, No 8 (Paris: MEN).
20.
National Audit Office (undated), A Framework for Value for Money Audits, ( London: NAO ).
21.
Nioche, J-P. , (1995), ‘Institutionalising evaluations in France: skating on thin ice?’, in Rist, R. (ed.), Policy Evaluation, ( Aldershot: Elgar ).
22.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000), Public Management Reform, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
23.
Pollitt, C. and Summa, H. (1997), ‘Reflexive watchdogs? How supreme audit institutions account for themselves’ , Public Administration, Vol 75, No 2, pp. 313-336 .
24.
Power, M. (1994) The Audit Explosion, ( London: Demos ).
25.
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
26.
Premier Ministre, Ministre d’.tat, Ministere de la Fonction Publique et des Rdformes Administratives (1989), Le Renouveau du Service Public, (Paris: Service d’.nformation et de Diffusion).
27.
Richard, J. (1998), ‘The view of the general inspectorates’, in Gallouedec-Genuys, F. (ed.) About French Administration, ( Paris: La Documentation Francaise ).
28.
Rouban, L. (1998), The French Civil Service ( Paris: La Documentation Francaise ).
29.
Thoenig, J-C. (1988), ‘Serviteur de l’.tat ou manager public: le debat en France’ , Politiques et Management Public, Vol 6, No 2, pp. 81-92 .
30.
Viveret, P. (1989), L’.valuation des Politiques et des Actions Publiques, ( Paris: La Documentation Francaise ).
31.
Warin, P. (ed.) (1999), L’.valuation en Region. Final report to the Agence pour les Sciences Sociales et Humaines.
