MZUMBE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
(SOB)
PROGRAMM: BAF-PS 3
COURSE: PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING II
CODE: ACC 325
LECTURER: MR MTUI
NATURE WORK: INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
GROUP NO: 05

S/N NAMES REG NO

1 JOSEPH ZEDRICK MUYA 12302117/T.19
2 HAMIDA M MNTAMBO 12302039/T.19
3 MBUKE SOSOMA 12302018/T.19
4 RAPHAEL M STEPHANO 12302610/T.18
5 ISIHAKA I ALLY 12302048/T.19
6 CHRISTINA
7 CHANCE SWAI 12302003/T.19
8 KHALID MILONGO 12302148/T.19
9 HIDAYA C ONANI 12302075/T.19
10 VICTOR CALIST CHARLES 12302017/T.19
11 GETRUDA R MATHIAS 12302141/T.19
12 PATRICK FESTO 12302058/T.19
13 MAGDALENA S MATONYA 12302054/T.19
14 KADIO MKWIZU 12302683/T.18
15 BARAKA S MUHIDINI 12302657/T.18
2(a) Remark the key issues on the changing of accountability dimension from what known as
New Public Management (NPM) to New Public Governance (NPG)
INTRODUCTION
New public management, is defined by school of political science as an approach that seeks
to build an administration by implementing flexibility, transparency, minimum government,
de-bureaucratization, decentralization, the market orientation of public service and
privatization. It is a paradigm shift from traditional public administration to new public
management.

New public governance, is a twenty-first century approach addressing the delivery of

publicly-funded services. It developed in response to some of the effects of the new public
management approach in the 1990’s and 1990’s which in brief, encouraged the delivery of
public services to become more business-like and allowed for publicly-funded services to be
delivered by commercial and non-profit organization (De Gruyter, 2013).

Accountability, is taking responsibility for a particular action or goal. In public sector

accountability as the appropriate people taking responsibility for working towards
appropriately defined results.

MAIN BODY

The following are the key issues on the changing of accountability dimension from what is
known as new public management (NPM) to new public governance (NPG) as discussed by
Almquist (2012)

Focus, the dimension of accountability changed from new public management to new public
governance so as to change the focus from intra-organization where the focus is within an
organization and the information about the organization are not to be collaborated, where
under NPG there is inter-organization which means focus is between two organizations and
the procedures occur when two or more organizations joins together and share information
which will be useful for the organizations for several reasons such as it may make it easier for
the organizations to compete against other organizations creating competition. This will lead
to more transparency in the organizations and the officials will be more accountable when
rendering the services so as to beat the competition and meet the targeted objectives.

Objectives, accountability changed from new public management to new public governance
so as to meet the objective of improving the inter-organizational coordination and outcomes
of a network of organizations with different competencies as a result the accountability of the
public officials when providing services improves, where under NPM accountability of the
officials aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the single organizations’
public service delivery without considering the competency of other organization on the
provision of the same public service.

Performance, the new public management based on the vertical performance of a single
organization, accountability is particularly concentrated in terms of results or output of
individual organization (result-oriented). New public governance, there is horizontal
performance of the network of organizations therefore accountability is in terms of the
outcome of the network, that means outcomes of collaborative efforts.

Management control, under new public management there is hierarchical control of the
results of single organization through performance indicators on efficiency and effectiveness.
New public governance enables control through dialogue driver systems of performance
indicators strengthening the contribution of individual organizations to the network
performance. Governing the outcome by analysis or evaluation of the network.

In new public management, managing the outputs is done by assessing the objectives of financial
reporting of a single public organization. Under new public governance whole of government
accounting and consolidated reporting.

CONCLUSION

To make a clear distinction on the changing of accountability dimension from new public
management to new public governance, the new public management is more hierarchy and
typically based on contractual relationships, whereas new public governance recognizes the
importance of interdependent horizontal relationships.
 REFERENCE

https://schoolofpoliticalscience.com

https://www.degruyter.com

Roland, A. (2012), ‘Public sector governance and accountability’, Critical perspective on

accounting, volume 24, issues 7-8, pp 479-487
(b) Assess how parliament’s scrutiny of public entities’ performance supports public sector
accountability.
Accountability is an important component of good governance. It all comes down to the
state's relationship with its citizens and the extent to which the state is held accountable for its
actions. Accountability refers to the legal and reporting framework, organizational structure,
strategy, procedures, and activities that assist in ensuring that any organizations that use
public funds and make decisions that affect people's lives can be held accountable.
Public sector accountability is not led by any one agency but a range of entities, agencies, and
institutions. For example, accountability for overseeing how public resources are used
involves members of Parliament, public entities, courts and tribunals, inquiry agencies, and,
often, monitoring by civil society groups and the media.
Scrutiny of public sector entities can be defined as any activity that involves examining (and
being prepared to challenge) the expenditure, administration, and policies of the government
of the day. It often includes examining the wider context in which the government is
operating, in order to identify opportunities and risks that may currently lie outside the ambit
of government. Scrutiny can take place at any point—it may be forward looking,
retrospective, or assess ongoing activity. According to New Zealand parliament, the
parliamentary scrutiny of public performance is important because it helps to demonstrate
whether public entities can account for what they have done and what they have achieved.
Public entities have to follow a regular annual schedule, such as planning by deciding which
activities to carry out, performing, which can be done by doing the planned activities to
agreed standards of quality as well as cost, reporting, which means the results of the work
carried out are being described, demonstrating the economy, efficiency and cost
effectiveness; and scrutiny is done by the reports, which are reviewed to ensure that public
entities are properly accounting for their performance..
ACCA mentioned the Parliament’s scrutiny of public entities’ performance supports public
sector accountability as follows:
First, choosing a committee system that allows members of parliament to examine issues in
greater depth than the House of Representatives allows. Committees look into government
spending, as well as the performance and operations of government departments and state-
owned businesses. They accomplish this by analyzing the budget and end-of-year financial
data, making comments, and reporting to parliament.
Second, the public can comment on and suggest modifications to draft legislation, as well as
engage in other legislative tasks such as investigations, through the committees chosen. They
also make reports to parliament on reports from parliament's officers.
REFERENCE

https://oag.parliament.nz

https://www.accaglobal.com