Determinants of Public Sector Audit Performance Evaluation Results : Focusing on the Characteristics of Executive Auditors and Audit Organizations

Public institutions face persistent issues due to governance structures fundamentally differing from private enterprises. The OECD, recognizing this, stresses the vital role of enhanced internal and external governance frameworks to ensure accountability and efficiency by supplementing private market surveillance. While prior research on public institution performance largely focused on CEO appointments and leadership, in-depth studies on auditors, particularly Executive Auditors—a core internal control component—remain limited. Given auditing's evolving significance, examining Executive Auditors' characteristics on public institution audit evaluations offers significant academic and practical value. This study, therefore, posits that Executive Auditor and audit organization characteristics influence audit evaluations, crucial for institutional oversight. Our empirical investigation analyzes data from 303 institutions evaluated between 2019 and 2023. The analysis shows that sufficient audit department resources drive public institution audit performance and competence. Specifically, ‘audit department's budget ratio’ and ‘current audit staff’ positively influenced overall audit grades and most sub-indicators like professionalism and internal control strengthening. Audit evaluation and competency varied by institution type: ‘public enterprise energy’ and ‘fund-managing quasi-governmental agencies’ showed higher potential in overall grades or ethics/independence, while ‘commissioned executive’ and ‘small/medium quasi-governmental agencies’ lagged in professionalism or internal control, suggesting structural challenges in audit competency for certain types. Furthermore, specific Executive Auditor/audit committee member career backgrounds negatively impacted detailed audit indicators. ‘Public official’ and ‘legal professional’ backgrounds significantly hindered audit department ‘professionalism,’ while ‘politician’ backgrounds negatively affected both ‘professionalism’ and ‘ethics/independence.’ This suggests that auditors with these backgrounds may face heightened scrutiny regarding their independence and professionalism, or potentially hinder the development of the audit department's competency.