DAVLAT MOLIYAVIY NAZORATINI MODELLAR VA METODOLOGIK YONDASHUVLARINI XALQARO STANDARTLAR ASOSIDA TAKOMILLASHTIRISH

Shodiyev Yashnarbek Baxriddin o‘g‘li

O‘zbekiston respublikasi Bank moliya akademiyasi
Xalqaro bank ishi fakulteti
Davlat moliyaviy nazorati va auditi(MSc)
mutaxassisligi talabasi

E-mail: yashnarbek300@gmail.com

Annotatsiya: Bu maqolada davlat moliyaviy nazoratini xalqaro standartlar asosida takomillashtirishning nazariy, metodologik va institutsional jihatlari tahlil qilinadi. Davlat moliyaviy nazorati, davlat auditi, ichki nazorat, ichki audit va tashqi audit tushunchalarining funksional farqlari aniqlashtirilib, INTOSAI Professional Pronouncements Framework, ISSAI 100, 200, 300, 400, INTOSAI-P 10 va 12 talablari asosida zamonaviy audit yondashuvlari tizimlashtiriladi. Vestminster, sudlov va kollegial modellarining afzalliklari hamda cheklovlari qiyosiy tahlil qilinadi. Riskka asoslangan, kombinatsiyalashgan, raqamli va samaradorlik auditining institutsional salohiyati baholanadi. PEFA, IMF Fiscal Transparency Code, IPSAS va GFSM 2014 kabi vositalarning davlat moliyaviy boshqaruvi va nazorat tizimini diagnostika qilishdagi o‘rni ochib beriladi. Tadqiqot natijasida O‘zbekiston uchun Integratsiyalashgan risk-asosidagi milliy audit modeli (IRAM), yagona tavsiyalar reyestri, sifatni boshqarish va audit natijadorligini o‘lchash indikatorlarini joriy etish taklif qilinadi.

Kalit so‘zlar: Davlat auditi, moliyaviy nazorat, ISSAI, INTOSAI, risk-asosidagi audit, samaradorlik auditi, ichki audit, tashqi audit, IRAM, PEFA.

СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЕ МОДЕЛЕЙ И МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ПОДХОДОВ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО ФИНАНСОВОГО КОНТРОЛЯ НА ОСНОВЕ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ СТАНДАРТОВ

Шодиев Яшнарбек Бахриддин угли

Банковско-финансовая академия Республики Узбекистан

Факультет международного банковского дела

Магистрант специальности «Государственный финансовый контроль и аудит» (MSc)
E-mail: yashnarbek300@gmail.com

Аннотация: В данной статье анализируются теоретические, методологические и институциональные аспекты совершенствования государственного финансового контроля на основе международных стандартов. Уточняются функциональные различия понятий государственного финансового контроля, государственного аудита, внутреннего контроля, внутреннего аудита и внешнего аудита, а также систематизируются современные подходы к аудиту на основе требований INTOSAI Professional Pronouncements Framework, ISSAI 100, 200, 300, 400, INTOSAI-P 10 и 12. Проводится сравнительный анализ преимуществ и ограничений Вестминстерской, судебной и коллегиальной моделей. Оценивается институциональный потенциал риск-ориентированного, комбинированного, цифрового аудита и аудита эффективности. Раскрывается роль таких инструментов, как PEFA, Кодекс налогово-бюджетной прозрачности МВФ (IMF Fiscal Transparency Code), IPSAS и GFSM 2014, в диагностике системы управления государственными финансами и контроля. В результате исследования для Узбекистана предлагается внедрение Интегрированной национальной риск-ориентированной модели аудита (IRAM), единого реестра рекомендаций, управления качеством и индикаторов измерения результативности аудита.

Ключевые слова: Государственный аудит, финансовый контроль, ISSAI, INTOSAI, риск-ориентированный аудит, аудит эффективности, внутренний аудит, внешний аудит, IRAM, PEFA.

IMPROVING STATE FINANCIAL CONTROL MODELS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES BASED ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Shodiev Yashnarbek Bakhriddin ugli

Banking and finance academy of the Republic of Uzbekistan Faculty of International Banking

Master’s Student (MSc) in Public Financial Control and Audit

E-mail: yashnarbek300@gmail.com

Abstract: This article analyzes the theoretical, methodological, and institutional aspects of improving public financial control based on international standards. The functional differences between the concepts of public financial control, public audit, internal control, internal audit, and external audit are clarified, and modern audit approaches are systematized based on the requirements of the INTOSAI Professional Pronouncements Framework, ISSAI 100, 200, 300, 400, and INTOSAI-P 10 and 12. A comparative analysis is conducted on the advantages and limitations of the Westminster, judicial, and collegiate (board) models. The institutional potential of risk-based, combined, digital, and performance audits is evaluated. The role of tools such as PEFA, the IMF Fiscal Transparency Code, IPSAS, and GFSM 2014 in diagnosing the public financial management and control system is revealed. As a result of the research, the implementation of an Integrated Risk-Based National Audit Model (IRAM), a unified registry of recommendations, quality management, and indicators for measuring audit effectiveness is proposed for Uzbekistan.

Keywords: Public audit, financial control, ISSAI, INTOSAI, risk-based audit, performance audit, internal audit, external audit, IRAM, PEFA.

Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar roʻyxati

1. Hepworth, N. (2024). The distinction between public financial management and internal control (PFM/IC) and public financial administration and internal control (PFA/IC). In Public financial management and internal control (pp. 85–117). Springer.
2. The Institute of Internal Auditors. (2020). The IIA’s Three Lines Model: An update of the Three Lines of Defense. https://www.theiia.org/en/content/position-papers/2020/the-iias-three-lines-model-an-update-of-the-three-lines-of-defense/
3. United Nations General Assembly. (2011). Promoting the efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and transparency of public administration by strengthening supreme audit institutions (A/RES/66/209).
4. INTOSAI. (2019). ISSAI 100: Fundamental principles of public-sector auditing. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements. https://www.issai.org/pronouncements/issai-100-fundamental-principles-of-public-sector-auditing/
5. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2018). ISA 200: Overall objectives of the independent auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. International Federation of Accountants.
6. Power, M. (2000). The audit society — Second thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 111–119.
7. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
8. INTOSAI. (2019d). INTOSAI-P 12: The value and benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions — making a difference to the lives of citizens. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements.
9. INTOSAI. (2019a). ISSAI 100: Fundamental principles of public-sector auditing. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements.; INTOSAI. (2020). ISSAI 200: Financial audit principles. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements.; INTOSAI. (2019b). ISSAI 300: Performance audit principles. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements.; INTOSAI. (2019c). ISSAI 400: Compliance audit principles. INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements.
10. Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2011). Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country assessment. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 215–229.
11. Dye, K. M., & Stapenhurst, R. (1998). Pillars of integrity: The importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. World Bank Institute.
12. INTOSAI Development Initiative. (2016). Supreme Audit Institutions Performance Measurement Framework (SAI PMF). INTOSAI / IDI.
13. Pollitt, C., & Summa, H. (1997). Reflexive watchdogs? How supreme audit institutions account for themselves. Public Administration, 75(2), 313–336.
14. Knechel, W. R. (2007). The business risk audit: Origins, challenges and the role of research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4–5), 383–408.
15. Alles, M., Brennan, G., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2006). Continuous monitoring of business process controls: A pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 7(2), 137–161.
16. PEFA Secretariat. (2018). PEFA handbook. Volume II: PEFA assessment fieldguide. PEFA Secretariat.
17. International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. (2022). Handbook of international public sector accounting pronouncements. International Federation of Accountants.