Courts of Accounts and Performance Auditing: an Institutional Logics Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2025.232251Keywords:
Courts of accounts, Institutional logics, Performance audit, Basic educationAbstract
Courts of Accounts play an essential role as auxiliary bodies of the Legislative Branch in the external oversight of public accounts, tasked with ensuring the proper and regular application of public resources. With the modernization of public administration, in addition to traditional compliance and financial audits, these institutions have also begun conducting performance audits aimed at evaluating organizational performance. This study aims to analyze the institutional logics present in performance audits of basic education conducted by Brazilian Courts of Accounts. A qualitative approach was adopted, with a document analysis of 74 performance audit reports conducted by 21 Courts of Accounts. The results highlight the coexistence of two institutional logics: the managerial logic, associated with the auditor’s role as a management consultant, and the legalist logic, linked to the auditor’s role as a judge and public accountant. The study reveals that, although classified as performance audits, they remain significantly influenced by the legalist logic predominant in Courts of Accounts. This influence, evidenced by the strong presence of attributes characteristic of compliance audits, may impact results by limiting performance evaluation and the promotion of improvements in public management.
Downloads
References
Abrucio, F. L. (1997). O impacto do modelo gerencial na administração pública: Um breve estudo sobre a experiência internacional recente. Escola Nacional de Administração (ENAP).
Abu Hasan, H., Frecknall‐Hughes, J., Heald, D., & Hodges, R. (2013). Auditee perceptions of external evaluations of the use of resources by local authorities. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(3), 291–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12015
Alford, D. P. of S. R. R., Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 442–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214537810
Aragão, C. V. de. (2014). Burocracia, eficiência e modelos de gestão pública: Um ensaio. Revista Do Serviço Público, 48(3), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v48i3.391
Arantes, R. B., Loureiro, M. R., Couto, C., & Teixeira, Marco Antonio Carvalho. (2010). Controles democráticos sobre a administração pública no Brasil: Legislativo, tribunais de contas, Judiciário e Ministério Público. In Burocracia e política no Brasil: desafios para a ordem democrática no século XXI.
Barzelay, M. (2002). Instituições centrais de auditoria e auditoria de desempenho: Uma análise comparativa das estratégias organizacionais na OCDE. Revista Do Serviço Público, 53(2), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v53i2.283
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
Brasil, Tribunal de Contas da União. (2020). Manual de Auditoria Operacional do TCU. https://portal.tcu.gov.br/data/files/F2/73/02/68/7335671023455957E18818A8/Manual_auditoria_operacional_4_edicao.pdf
Britto, É. A. de. (2014). Governança e accountability no setor público: auditoria operacional como instrumento de controle das ações públicas a cargo do TCE-MG. Revista TCE-MG, 32(1).
Camargo, B. H. F. (2020). Abordagem constitucional dos tribunais de contas: Uma análise acerca da evolução de suas competências para alcance da avaliação qualitativa. Revista Controle - Doutrina e Artigos, 18(1), 342–376. https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v18i1.590
Campelo, Graham Stephan Bentzen. (2010). Administração pública no Brasil: ciclos entre patrimonialismo, burocracia e gerencialismo, uma simbiose de modelos. Ciência & Trópico, 34.
Cavalcante, P. L. C., Lotta, G. S., & Oliveira, V. E. de. (2018). Do insulamento burocrático à governança democrática: as transformações institucionais e a burocracia no Brasil. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (Ipea).
Diaz, M. D. M. (2012). Qualidade do gasto público municipal em ensino fundamental no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 32, 128-141.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 232–263).
Furtado Marques, M. (2022). O CONTROLE INTERNO E EXTERNO NA ADMINISTRAÇÃO PÚBLICA. Revista Científica Semana Acadêmica, 10(223), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.35265/2236-6717-223-12156
Gomes, M. B. (2002). Auditoria de desempenho governamental e o papel de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores (FES). Revista Do Serviço Público, 53(2), 36–78. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v53i2.284
Gonçalves, R. C. de M. G., Fregonesi, M. S. F. do A., & Moreira, V. B. (2020). Respostas a lógicas institucionais conflitantes: Um estudo da participação nos lucros e resultados. Organizações & Sociedade, 27(92), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9270924
Graciliano, E. A., Moreira, J. C. F., Nunes, A. de P., Pontes, F. C. de M., & Zampa, F. F. (2010). Accountability na administração pública federal: contribuição das auditorias operacionais do TCU. Pensar Contábil.
Grossi, G., Hancu-Budui, A., & Zorio-Grima, A. (2023). New development: The shift of public sector auditing under the influence of institutional logics—the case of European Court of Auditors. Public Money & Management, 43(4), 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2023.2179777
Issai, I. (2019). 300, Performance Audit Principles . https://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_access/ISSAI_100_to_400/issai_300/ISSAI_300_en_2019.pdf
Jantz, B., Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., & Vrangbaek, K. (2015). Control and autonomy—the sais in norway, denmark, and germany as watchdogs in an npm-era? International Journal of Public Administration, 38(13–14), 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1069839
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772
Lino, A. F., & Aquino, A. C. B. (2020). Lógicas institucionais conflitantes e a independência de Tribunais de Contas. USP International Conference in Accounting.
Lino, A. F., & Aquino, A. C. B. de. (2017). A diversidade dos Tribunais de Contas regionais na auditoria de governos. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 29(76), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x201803640
Lonsdale, J. (1999). Impact. In Performance Or Compliance?: Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries (pp. 171–193). Oxford University Press on Demand.
Lonsdale, J., Wilkins, P., & Ling, T. (2011). Performance auditing: Contributing to accountability in Democratic government. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634436
Marques Neto, F. P. de Azevedo. (2009). Os grandes desafios do controle da administração pública. Nova Organização Administrativa Brasileira.
Mattei, G., Grossi, G., & Guthrie A.M., J. (2021). Exploring past, present and future trends in public sector auditing research: A literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(7), 94–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-09-2020-1008
Menezes Filho, N. A., & Amaral, L. F. L. E. D. (2009). A relação entre gastos educacionais e desempenho escolar. Repositório Insper
Morin, D. (2014). Auditors General's impact on administrations: A pan-Canadian study (2001-2011). Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(5), 395-426.
Oliveira, D. A. (2015). Nova gestão pública e governos democrático-populares: Contradições entre a busca da eficiência e a ampliação do direito à educação. Educação & Sociedade, 36(132), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1590/es0101-73302015152440
Oliveira, V. E., Menezes Filho, N. A., & Komatsu, B. K. (2022). A relação entre a qualidade da gestão municipal e o desempenho educacional no Brasil. Economia Aplicada, 26(1), 81-100.
Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 596–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215592913
Parker, L. D., Schmitz, J., & Jacobs, K. (2020). Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: An institutional logics perspective. Financial Accountability & Management, 37(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12243
Pereira, L. C. B. (2002). Reforma da nova gestão pública: Agora na agenda da América Latina, no entanto... Revista Do Serviço Público, 53(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v53i1.278
Picheth, S. F., & Crubellate, J. M. (2019). Mudança, lógicas institucionais e emergência de novos atores: A renaturalização da maternidade no Brasil. Organizações & Sociedade, 26(90), 486–512. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9260905
Pierre, J., & de Fine Licht, J. (2019). How do supreme audit institutions manage their autonomy and impact? A comparative analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(2), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1408669
Polzer, T., Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A., & Seiwald, J. (2016). Institutional hybridity in public sector reform: Replacement, blending, or layering of administrative paradigms. In How Institutions Matter! (pp. 69–99). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x201600048b003
Rana, T., Steccolini, I., Bracci, E., & Mihret, D. G. (2021). Performance auditing in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research avenues. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(3), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12312
Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015589981
Reginaldo, S. G., Xavier, A. R., Santana, J. R., Vasconcelos, J. G., dos Santos, M. J. C., Neto, J. S., & Scipião, L. R. D. N. P. (2021). A performance-based funding da educação básica no Brasil. Research, Society and Development, 10(2), e46510212468-e46510212468.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (2014). Performance audit and the importance of the public debate. Evaluation, 20(3), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389014539869
Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., González-Díaz, B., Bracci, E., Carrington, T., Hathaway, J., Jeppesen, K. K., & Steccolini, I. (2019). Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: An institutional analysis. The British Accounting Review, 51(5), 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100842
Santiso, C. (2007). Eyes wide shut? The politics of autonomous audit agencies in emerging economies. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.982663
Secchi, L. (2009). Modelos organizacionais e reformas da administração pública. Revista de Administração Pública, 43(2), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-76122009000200004
Stapenhurst, Rick, & Titsworth, J. (2006). Parliament and supreme audit institutions. The Role of Parliament in Curbing Corruption.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958– 1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
Thorton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 99–128). SAGE.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522
Wanna, J., Ryan, C., & Ng, C. (2001). From accounting to accountability: A centenary history of the australian national audit office. Allen & Unwin Academic.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Celina Costa Lima dos Reis, Diana Vaz de Lima
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
