미국의 공공감사법령 체계 및 시사점

The rapid transformation of the administrative environment—marked by the expansion of administrative functions and the rise of diverse administrative entities through privatization and outsourcing—has heightened the need for more thorough and practical audits of increasingly diversified and complicated administrative actors and related institutions. This administrative environment has expanded the scope of public audits beyond traditional legality assessments to include evaluations of economic efficiency, administrative effectiveness, and operational performance. In this context, we can focus on public auditing. Public auditing refers to the process in which authorized audit institutions, based on relevant legal provisions, evaluate central and local government agencies, as well as other public entities, by reviewing their organizational systems, policies, projects, operations, and activities using specific audit criteria and performance indicators. Given this scope, public audits are characterized by their broad range in terms of audit subjects, objectives, and methodologies. In particular, establishing a sound public audit policy should be based not on constitutionality but on standards of adequacy and policy rationality. This makes comparative legal analysis particularly meaningful, and underscores the relevance of examining the U.S. public audit system, which operates a diverse and multilayered audit framework. The need to analyze the legal framework of public audits in the United States and draw lessons to improve South Korea’s public audit system is thus both clear and timely. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the United States recognized the need to strengthen structural oversight to combat corruption and abuse of power within the government. This led to a fundamental overhaul of the public audit system, beginning with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. In addition to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which performs high-level, accounting-focused audits, the U.S. introduced various internal oversight institutions within executive agencies, including the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Together, these institutions form an audit system that ensures both independence and effectiveness through mutual checks and functional separation. Notably, a distinctive feature of the U.S. public audit system is the institutionalization of whistleblower protection as part of its anti-corruption and ethics framework. Concerning this, the OSC, in particular, plays a central role by holding investigatory authority over whistleblower retaliation and violations of political neutrality, thereby serving as a key actor in detecting and correcting personnel-related misconduct. Among these, the OIG is widely regarded as the core institution of public auditing in the U.S. It serves as a powerful internal audit body aimed at preventing corruption and enhancing administrative transparency, and it pursues both independence and effectiveness in its operations. As such, the OIG system presents a significant model for South Korea as it seeks to improve its own public audit framework. Currently, South Korea's Public Audit Act provides only general and broad direction relating to the policy of public auditing. It is therefore essential to study not only the strengths and limitations of the U.S. model but also those of other countries, in order to develop a more practical and effective public audit legal system tailored to our nation’s administrative environment.