arbiter
JournalsAccount

How Have the Transformations of Supreme Audit Institutions Shaped Contemporary Public Auditing? A Professional, Process, and Stakeholder Perspective

Nicolas Lagos

Financial Accountability and Management2026https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.70030article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Research on Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) has expanded considerably in recent decades, reflecting their central role in promoting accountability and transparency in government. Based on a systematic review of 364 peer‐reviewed publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, this article examines how SAIs have redefined their work across three analytical dimensions: professional, process, and stakeholder. The analysis shows that the ongoing transformation of audit institutions has not altered the essential nature of public auditing but has introduced four distinctive emphases that characterize contemporary practice: the incorporation of methods drawn from social and computer sciences, the consolidation of globally unified audit methodologies, the shift toward responsive and outcome‐oriented control, and the growing adoption of audience‐centered reporting. Together, these developments demonstrate how public auditing has adapted to complex governance environments while preserving its fundamental oversight and accountability functions.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.70030

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{nicolas2026,
  title        = {{How Have the Transformations of Supreme Audit Institutions Shaped Contemporary Public Auditing? A Professional, Process, and Stakeholder Perspective}},
  author       = {Nicolas Lagos},
  journal      = {Financial Accountability and Management},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.70030},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

How Have the Transformations of Supreme Audit Institutions Shaped Contemporary Public Auditing? A Professional, Process, and Stakeholder Perspective

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.