Abstract
This article proposes a novel methodological approach to the quantitative classification of Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) models, drawing on DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) institutional isomorphism theory — the application of Hamming distance metrics from coding theory. Five SAIs (U.S. GAO, U.K. NAO, German Bundesrechnungshof, South Korean BAI, and the Accounts Chamber of Uzbekistan) are compared across eight institutional characteristics. The principal finding: Uzbekistan's Accounts Chamber is institutionally much closer to the German Bundesrechnungshof model (distance = 4) than to the Anglo-Saxon NAO (distance = 6) or GAO (distance = 8) models. This result challenges the Anglo-centric assumptions prevailing in the post-Soviet audit reform literature.
References
Stapenhurst R., Titsworth J. Features and functions of supreme audit institutions // PREM Notes. — Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002. — No. 59.
Pollitt C., Bouckaert G. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis — Into the Age of Austerity. 4th ed. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Hamming R.W. Error detecting and error correcting codes // The Bell System Technical Journal. — 1950. — Vol. 29, No. 2. — pp. 147–160.
Presidential Decree of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PF-100 of 10 July 2024 "On measures to introduce modern audit types in the activities of the Accounts Chamber". — Tashkent, 2024.
Presidential Decree of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PF-252 of 18 December 2025 "On further improvement of the state audit system". — Tashkent, 2025.
DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields // American Sociological Review. — 1983. — Vol. 48, No. 2. — pp. 147–160.
Power M. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Bouckaert G., Nakrošis V., Nemec J. Public administration and management reforms in CEE: main trajectories and results // The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. — 2017. — Vol. 10, No. 1. — pp. 9–29.