It has been argued that the EU suffers from serious accountability deficits. But how can we establish the existence of accountability deficits? This article tries to get to grips with the appealing but elusive concept of accountability by asking three types of questions. First a conceptual one: what exactly is meant by accountability? In this article the concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences. The second question is analytical: what types of accountability are involved? A series of dimensions of accountability are discerned that can be used to describe the various accountability relations and arrangements that can be found in the different domains of European governance. The third question is evaluative: how should we assess these accountability arrangements? The article provides three evaluative perspectives: a democratic, a constitutional and a learning perspective. Each of these perspectives may produce different types of accountability deficits.

/pdf/analysing-and-assessing-accountability-a-conceptual-58cmpq4s8b.pdf

Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework†

Preface Introduction: The Decline of Confidence in Government Joseph S. Nye, Jr. PART ONE: The Scope and Performance of Government The Evolving Scope of Government Ernest R. May Measuring the Performance of Government Derek Bok Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government Gary Orren PART TWO: The Menu of Explanations Is It Really the Economy Stupid? Robert Z. Lawrence Social and Cultural Causes of Dissatisfaction with U.S. Government Jane Manbridge The Polarization of American Parties and Mistrust of Government David C. King The Politics of Mistrust Richard E. Neustadt PART THREE: Data on Public Attitudes toward Governance Changing Attitudes in America Robert J. Blendon, John M. Benson, Richard Morin, Drew E. Altman, Mollyann Brodie, Mario Brossard, And Matt James Postmaterialist Values and the Erosion of Institutional Authority Ronald Inglehart Public Trust and Democracy in Japan Susan J. Pharr Conclusion: Reflections, Conjectures, and Puzzles Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and Philip D. Zelikow Notes Contributors Index

Why people don't trust government

This paper distinguishes between two main concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and accountability as a mechanism. In the former case, accountability is used primarily as a normative concept, as a set of standards for the evaluation of the behaviour of public actors. Accountability or, more precisely, being accountable, is seen as a positive quality in organisations or officials. Hence, accountability studies often focus on normative issues, on the assessment of the actual and active behaviour of public agents. In the latter case, accountability is used in a narrower, descriptive sense. It is seen as an institutional relation or arrangement in which an actor can be held to account by a forum. Here, the locus of accountability studies is not the behaviour of public agents, but the way in which these institutional arrangements operate. The present paper argues that distinguishing more clearly between these two concepts of accountability can solve at least some of the current conceptual conf...

Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism

In recent years, there has been a drive to strengthen existing public accountability arrangements and to design new ones. This prompts the question whether accountability arrangements actually work. In the existing literature, both accountability ‘deficits’ and ‘overloads’ are alleged to exist. However, owing to the lack of a cogent yardstick, the debate tends to be impressionistic and event-driven. In this article we develop an instrument for systematically assessing public accountability arrangements, drawing on three different normative perspectives. In the democratic perspective, accountability arrangements should effectively link government actions to the ‘democratic chain of delegation’. In the constitutional perspective, it is essential that accountability arrangements prevent or uncover abuses of public authority. In the learning perspective, accountability is a tool to make governments effective in delivering on their promises. We demonstrate the use of our multicriteria assessment tool in an analysis of a new accountability arrangement: the boards of oversight of agencies.

/pdf/does-public-accountability-work-an-assessment-tool-449ypb8ssx.pdf

Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool

Improved accountability is often called for as an element in improving health system performance. At first glance, the notion of better accountability seems straightforward, but it contains a high degree of complexity. If accountability is to be more than an empty buzzword, conceptual and analytical clarity is required. This article elaborates a definition of accountability in terms of answerability and sanctions, and distinguishes three types of accountability: financial, performance and political/democratic. An analytic framework for mapping accountability is proposed that identifies linkages among health sector actors and assesses capacity to demand and supply information and exercise oversight and sanctions. The article describes three accountability purposes: reducing abuse, assuring compliance with procedures and standards, and improving performance/learning. Using an accountability lens can: (1) help to generate a system-wide perspective on health sector reform, (2) identify connections among individual improvement interventions, and (3) reveal gaps requiring policy attention. These results can enhance system performance, improve service delivery and contribute to sound policymaking.

Accountability and health systems: toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance

Introduction Accountability is a cornerstone of public governance and management because it constitutes the principle that informs the processes whereby those who hold and exercise public authority are held to account. Although accountability regimes vary in important respects among political systems, taken collectively they encompass processes whereby citizens hold their governors to account for their behaviour and performance directly through elections; the representatives of citizens in legislative assemblies hold political executives and public servants accountable through mechanisms of public scrutiny and audit; political executives hold their subordinate officials accountable through hierarchical structures of authority and responsibility; and, among other things, courts and various administrative tribunals and commissions hold legislatures, executives or administrative officers accountable to the law (Cooper, 1995; Stone, 1995; Mulgan, 1997). The purposes that accountability are meant to serve are essentially threefold, although they overlap in several ways. The first is to control for the abuse and misuse of public authority. The second is to provide assurancein respect to the use of public resources and adherence to the law and public service values. The third is to encourage and promote learning in pursuit of continuous improvement in governance and public management. Because accountability is an integral dimension of governance and public management it cannot be affected by the extent to which governance and public management are subject to ever increasing complexity (Thomas, 1998). Governments everywhere are under increasing pressures to be both more productive and more effective — to achieve not only the greatest degree of economy and efficiency possible but also to secure desired outcomes in respect to economic

The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform

This article reviews the evidence for the existence of a ‘public sector service value chain’, offering a new way of thinking about what Bouckaert and his colleagues have called the micro-performanc...

People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain?:

Dans cet article, nous examinons les elements qui attestent de l’existence d’une « chaine de valeur du service dans le secteur public » et proposons une nouvelle facon d’envisager ce que Bouckaert et ses collegues ont appele l’approche « micro-rendement » en matiere de renforcement de la confiance envers les institutions publiques (Bouckaert et al. 2002). Nous nous concentrerons plus particulierement sur le role de la prestation de service dans le renforcement de la confiance des citoyens. Nous procederons cependant dans le cadre d’un modele plus large, un modele qui relie la prestation de service a d’autres aspects importants du rendement administratif, en particulier la gestion des personnes. Nous appellerons ce modele la « chaine de valeur du service dans le secteur public » et nous nous appuierons sur des travaux de Heskett et d’autres experts du secteur prive (Heskett et al. 1994, 1997). Nous examinerons les elements qui attestent de l’existence de liens entre l’engagement du personnel (satisfaction et devouement) et la satisfaction des clients dans le secteur public, et entre la satisfaction des clients du secteur public et la confiance des citoyens. Nous identifions les cinq principaux « facteurs » de satisfaction a l’egard des services dans le secteur public et examinons les pretendus « facteurs » de l’engagement du personnel ainsi que les donnees qui mettent en evidence l’influence que semble avoir la prestation de service sur la confiance des citoyens au Canada. Nous evoquerons un programme de recherche prospectif permettant d’identifier les facteurs de satisfaction et de devouement du personnel ainsi que les facteurs de confiance envers les institutions publiques et de determiner si les liens proposes dans la « chaine de valeur du service dans le secteur public » peuvent etre valides de facon empirique.

Ralph Heintzman

Papers

The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform

People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain?:

Le personnel, le service et la confiance : Existe-t-il une chaîne de valeur du service dans le secteur public ?

The Human Paradox