English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

<p>This research is to explore materiality concept in government audit. Based on a case study on a local government audit office, this research discovers that: in judging material information, government audit differs significantly from corporate audit on three aspects, ‘tight materiality thresholds’, ‘focus on qualitative considerations’, and ‘income and expenditure as materiality-focused subjects’. And furthermore, it argues that these sharp differences result from inherent contextual situations in government audit: pressure from public accountability; high auditor status; power in collecting evidence; and public stakeholder interests. The outcome of the research conveys a message: materiality is contextual. It is uneasy, unreasonable and unnecessary to copy directly from corporate materiality models or guidelines to government audit; rather, the study on governmental context itself is necessary and unavoidable in developing government audit materiality guidelines.</p

international journal of economics and finance

Government Audit Materiality (Part One): How and Why is It Different from Corporate Audit Materiality – A Theoretical Matrix on Three Materiality Differences and Corresponding Contextual Reasons