Читать книгу Study on the Auditing System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics - Liu Jiayi - Страница 7

The auditing system is a normative scheme relating to audit formed under the particular historic conditions, and a sum of work procedures or action guidelines relating to acts of auditing. According to such elements as audit subjects, functional localization, objectives, and roles, auditing is divided into government auditing, internal auditing, and CPA auditing (also known as independent auditing). The auditing system mentioned herein means the government auditing system. Government auditing refers only to actions whereby national professional audit institutions supervise public funds, State-owned assets, and State-owned resources independently according to law. In nature, it is an endogenous “immune system” 8 within the overall system of national governance, with functions of exposure, resistance, and prevention. “No system may be isolated. All systems must interact with each other, forming a complete set.”9 A country’s auditing system, as an important part of the national political system, must be determined by its fundamental political system, social nature, and economic system. We can analyze the connotations of a government auditing system as well as the chosen mode and arrangement design from three aspects.

First is analysis of the relationship between the auditing system and national governance. National governance is the process of controlling and managing State affairs and social affairs and providing services by configuring and exercising State powers, so as to ensure national security, safeguard national interests and the people’s interests, maintain social stability, and realize scientific development.10 The generation and development of countries shows that, despite the differences in historical and cultural traditions and socioeconomic development, all must configure State power to achieve a reasonable division, form the corresponding power structure, and establish a mechanism for mutual balance and restriction among different powers, so as to prevent abuse of power. Under the modern constitutional system, the function of separation of powers never means negatively restricting State power, but dividing various State powers and functions proactively and specifying responsibilities and procedures.11 The design of an auditing system is, in nature, a specific distribution of State audit powers in the national governance system. Government audit emerged to satisfy the need for governing a nation, national governance objectives determine the direction of government audit, and the national governance mode determines the system and form of government audit.12 In addition, the power restriction mode of the national governance system directly determines the framework, mode, and operation mechanism of auditing system.

International practice shows a division into structural power restriction mode and functional power restriction mode.13 Under the former, State power is divided into those of legislation, administration, and jurisdiction, which are separated and restrained mutually, and auxiliary means such as multiparty competition, open election and judicial independence, and so on are adopted, so as to achieve the goal of establishing a capitalist constitutional system and to manifest the nature of the political system. The functional power restriction mode involves the distribution of decision-making power, executive power, and supervisory power generated against the expansion of administrative power, reflecting the quality of the political system through functional division and setting of the operational level and operation mechanism of the political system. Adapting to national governance modes and power restriction modes, the government auditing systems of various countries also have their own characteristics. Audit institutions in some countries are independent from the legislative, judicial, and administrative organs but are responsible to legislative bodies; audit institutions in some other countries are independent from the legislative and administrative organs but have certain rights of judicial decision and are responsible to the legislative bodies. There are countries where audit institutions practice an integrated audit and supervision system; there are countries where audit institutions come under government departments; for example, the Chinese National Audit Office (CNAO), as a government department, independently exercises the audit power according to law under the premier’s guidance and reports its work to the National People’s Congress upon government entrustment.14 The core of any auditing system is to guarantee the independent exercise of audit power according to law, and to effectively give full play to the role of government auditing as the bedrock and important guarantee for national governance.

Second is analysis of the relationship between government auditing and other aspects of national governance. If we regard national governance as a large system, government auditing belongs to the scope of supervision and control, serving the decision-making organs and playing a role of monitoring and restraining the executive organs.15 Compared with other aspects of national governance, government auditing has a unique status. First, it is independent. Among national governance agencies, government audit institutions undertake their audit responsibilities objectively and independently, without specific functions of decision making and management; however, a vast majority of countries also explicitly require legally safeguarding the independent exercise of audit power in accordance with the law, without any intervention. Such role design and institutional guarantee determine that government audit institutions are not tied to the interests of any institution, organization, or individual and can reveal problems, report realities, audit, and offer recommendations objectively and fairly based on the overall situation of national governance so as to safeguard the interests of the State and the general public. Second, it is comprehensive. Government auditing is a regular control system covering all public funds, State-owned assets, and State-owned resources. The wide-ranging audit targets and contents involve many fields of national governance, including a number of institutions and participating personnel. The exertion of audit role is also comprehensive, that is, government auditing can promote duty performance, use of power, and wealth management through auditing the use of public funds, exercise of public powers, and duty performance of public sectors, and improve the corresponding institutional mechanism. Third, it is specialized. As government auditing is highly professional and policy based, auditors should have adequate professional knowledge, rich practical experience, and good organizational and coordination skills, including the skills and knowledge for checking accounts, handling financial affairs, and managing business. By checking audited units in regard to capital, business, material, and information flows, audit institutions can understand the real situation, reveal potential risks, identify prominent issues, act appropriately, and analyze all collected materials relating to the problems precisely so as to put forward audit recommendations. Fourth, it is objective. Audit institutions must adhere to the basic principle of auditing according to the facts and the law. Audit institutions have to detect the source, reveal problems, and analyze causes in a practical manner and make evaluation and recommendations in an objective and fair way, so as to reveal and solve problems on the strength of precise evidence. This is the professional habit and professional ethic of auditing. It is observed that these essential attributes and unique advantages of government auditing determine the relationship between government auditing and other aspects of national governance. That is to say, by independently and fairly reviewing the truthfulness, compliance, and performance of various economic activities concerning national governance, government audit institutions can understand the real situation, reveal hidden risks, reflect prominent problems, and analyze systemic obstacles and defects, so as to solve the problems in a timely and effective manner. In this way, the government auditing plays an “immune system” role of preventing, revealing, and resisting and provides a bedrock and assurance role for standardized, efficient national governance in other aspects.

In view of the above features, to give full play to the role of government auditing as the bedrock of and important guarantee for effective state governance, various countries adopt some common practices. First, most supreme audit institutions (SAIs) are constitutional institutions. As mentioned earlier, a majority of countries stipulate the legal status, responsible person, organizational framework, protective mechanism, and the like, of SAIs in the Constitution, and no adjustment is allowed unless it is made via a constitutional amendment. Second, the independent exercise of audit power in accordance with the law is explicitly specified in the law. Third, legality of auditing authority is emphasized; that is, in the process of fulfilling their supervisory duties, SAIs are generally given the authority of inspection, investigation, reporting, transferring, and, in some cases, temporary handling of major matters, as well as audit disposal and punishment and judicial decision making. Fourth, audit results announcement is emphasized. That is, audit results must be made public. Fifth, exerting the constructive role of audit is highlighted. All of these endow SAIs with the authority to specifically put forward warnings and recommendations.16

Third is analysis of the relationship between auditing system and system functions. A system, in general terms, is characterized by normative and relative stability. Its core function is to improve the order and basically regulate coordinated relationships, work development, operations management, restrictions, and incentives. In brief, the function of a government auditing system is to meet the demand of external systems for government auditing through coordinating the internal operations of the government auditing system, which are mainly specified as follows:

1. Providing the fundamental methods and approaches for government auditing to serve national governance. A government auditing system is generated in conformity with the needs of national governance. “To discuss a system, we should certainly attach importance to the ’nature of the times’ and ’territoriality,’” “a system established and well implemented in a country or region is not necessarily effective in another country or region.” 17 To meet the needs of national governance and operation mechanism, various countries adopt different design modes of auditing, define the basic duties and authorities of auditing in their national governance system, and stipulate the basic methods, approaches, and working modes to exert the functional roles of auditing. The more scientific and reasonable auditing system will better meet the needs of national governance, and the role of government auditing in national governance will be greater.

2. Providing the legal and compulsory foundation for audit supervisory power. Endowed by national laws, the power of supervision through auditing has legality and a mandatory nature, which is mainly reflected in three aspects. First, SAIs should audit in strict accordance with authorities endowed by laws. Second, SAIs should effectively exercise their supervisory power through auditing, and any random waiver is prohibited. Third, audit targets, other units, and individuals must not refuse or hinder audit institutions from legally enforcing their audit power, or they should bear the legal consequences. Audit on the basis of public acceptance and conviction will enjoy much authority and enforceability, and can thus better play its role. By specifying the allocation pattern of audit power, the auditing system can regulate and adjust the relationships among auditors, audit institutions, audited units, and other institutions or organizations, which provides a foundation for legality and enforcement.

3. Specifying the organizational structure and operating rules of auditing. Organizations and rules are elements of a system. Organizations function as the carriers to exercise the power and also the principals to exert the role of systems; rules mean the elaborated relations between procedures and standards. The auditing system defines the space to exercise the audit power in aspects of auditing organization structure and rules of exercise. To be specific, audit institutions, as a material part of the auditing system, are the carriers to implement the auditing system and safeguard audit order and constitute a relatively static space for the execution of audit power. Auditing rules provide a dynamic space for the exercise and development of audit power, and stipulate various procedures and rules on the authorities, restrictions, and responsibilities of audit subjects and auditees. These two spaces constitute two basic dimensions that regulate and restrain every aspect of exercise of audit power.

4. Stipulating the operation mechanism and responsibilities of audit power. Audit supervisory power stems from the powers and responsibilities of audit endowed or entrusted by people to the State through the national political system, while the State, in turn, endows such powers and responsibilities to audit institutions in a legal format. The auditing system provides a basis and guarantee for audit institutions to exercise their power of audit through defining the basic functions, basic properties, statutory authorities, and business boundaries of the government auditing. Meanwhile, the auditing system restricts and restrains the audit power in aspects of normal operation mechanism and power role, so as to balance the audit power and safeguard auditing according to the law and in compliance with the law.

Hence, from the perspective of system functions, the specific contents of an auditing system are designed around the functions of the auditing system, reflecting the requirements of the State and the public for government auditing. In this regard, the contents of the world’s auditing systems are by and large the same, mainly covering audit management system, institutional setting, audit staffing and management, audit duties and authorities, audit targets, audit scope, and audit operation mechanisms. Accordingly, the audit results are the realistic achievements of implementation and exertion of auditing powers. Audit relations mainly include internal relations among audit institutions at higher and lower levels, and between auditors and audit institutions, audit institutions and external institutions or individuals such as other supervision and inspection organs, procuratorial agencies, and auditees.

The preceding analysis concludes that the first two aspects, as the basis of establishment of auditing system, determine the type and design base of the auditing system. Generally speaking, the auditing system is a design and arrangement made through combining the requirements in the first two aspects with the features of auditing, while the specific contents of the auditing system mentioned in the third aspect must embody the requirements for combination. Therefore, the auditing system is a standard system and mechanism, featuring legality and enforceability, established by the State to regulate audit relations. Accordingly, we must design the auditing system based on the requirements of national governance for auditing, and the need to exert the role and functions of auditing, and regulate and standardize all audit relations, in a vision to provide a foundation and guarantee for effective audit activities.