Suchergebnisse

The Auditors-General can have a profound impact on the work of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), in terms of the quality, autonomy and efficiency of audit work. In Sweden, this recruitment is prepared by the Committee on the Constitution, before the final decision is made by Parliament. The appointment is, however, shrouded in mystery and not even candidate profile requirements are openly advertised. This lack of transparency is problematic, since the SAI is positioned at the heart of the democratic accountability process. Because Sweden has a model with ten parallel Auditors-General, there have been ten Auditors-General over the period 2003-2015. This article compares their profiles and outlines five explanations. Results show that their professional and academic qualifications have increased, whereas their experience from hands-on audit work has decreased. Results also indicate that most of the Auditors-General have been recruited from a rather narrow circle of people around the Government Offices. Five explanations are outlined. In particular, we argue that the recruitments can be understood as an expression for a wish to increase the standing of the Swedish National Audit Office (SNAO) and the quality of its work. This follows partly from an increasing awareness of the extensive powers at the hands of the Auditors-General in the Swedish model.