scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Public sector governance and accountability

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The recent 7th International Critical Management Studies Conference on Corporate Governance and Accountability in the Public Sector (CMS 7) as discussed by the authors was a special issue focusing on the public sector.
About
This article is published in Critical Perspectives on Accounting.The article was published on 2013-11-01 and is currently open access. It has received 200 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Public sector & Accountability.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology?

TL;DR: In this article, a case study of the Italian city of Genoa shows that the smart city utopia acts as a generator of a collective imaginary while promoting the interests of business elites and diverting the attention away from urgent urban problems, such as urbanization.
Journal ArticleDOI

Corporate governance and accountability of state-owned enterprises: Relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives

TL;DR: In this paper, a special issue on corporate governance, accounting and accountability of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is presented, which highlights the need to analyse challenges for corporate governance and accountability.
Journal ArticleDOI

From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics

TL;DR: The problem of what characterises decision-aiding for public policy making problem situations is addressed, and the need to expand the concept of rationality which is expected to support the acceptability of a public policy is shown.
Posted Content

Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a framework for the use of analytics in supporting the policy cycle and conceptualise it as "Business Analytics" and suggest a framework to support public policy making.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme

TL;DR: The authors discusses the rise of New Public Management (NPM) as an alternative to the tradition of public accountability embodied in progressive-era public administration ideas and argues that there was considerable variation in the extent to which different OECD countries adopted NPM over the 1980s.
Book

Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a challenging reinterpretation which interweaves an account of recent institutional changes in central, local and European Union government with methodological innovations and theoretical analysis.
Journal ArticleDOI

The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification

Lois Quam
- 07 Mar 1998 - 
TL;DR: Doctors and NHS managers will enjoy this perspective as they try to cope with difficult challenges in auditing, and Michael Power is rightly critical of the current high status given to the act of observing rather than the acts of doing.
Journal ArticleDOI

Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework†

TL;DR: 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 as discussed by the authors.
Journal ArticleDOI

Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework☆

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe an institutional framework for the conceptualization of management accounting change. But they do not discuss the role of organizational routines and institutions in shaping the processes of change, and three categorizations of institutional change are explored.
Frequently Asked Questions (15)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Public sector governance and accountability" ?

The collection of papers in this special issue has primarily been drawn from the papers representing the ‘ ‘ Corporate Governance and accountability in the Public Sector ’ ’ stream of the Seventh International Critical Management Studies Conference ( CMS 7 ), which was held at the University of Naples Federico II, Italy, in July 2011. The remainder of this editorial is structured as follows. Finally, Section 4 reflects on the papers and offers some perspectives for future research. 

This final section reflects on the papers presented in this special issue and suggests some directions for future research. Three general observations can be made with respect to the papers. However, because her research only addresses internal auditors as part of a much broader governance repertoire, this study does not come up with very concrete suggestions for coping with the role conflicts of internal auditors. In brief, these observations suggest that more attention has to be paid to the relationships between the different elements of the public sector governance domain, which could be done by the realization of comprehensive research programmes in this field. 

In this new conception of accountability accounting was the key element, reflecting a high trust in the market and private business methods and a low confidence in the public servants and the traditional professionals, whose activities had to be closely evaluated through sophisticated accounting and management techniques. 

According to NPG, the make-or-buy decision formerly associated with the NPM paradigm has become a means by which resources, knowledge, and different competencies are shared to promote cooperation in the provision of services. 

Moreover Bovens’ (2009, p. 201) points out that ‘‘the most important consequence is a decrease in intensity and scope of public accountability’’. 

Corporate governance can be defined as a concept of structures, rules, procedures and mechanisms for the proper steering and controlling of corporations (Colley et al., 2005; OECD, 2004). 

The cooperative contract starts from the assumption that there has to be a certain degree of trust between the client and the contractor, and that punishment is not an appropriate means of dealing with failure. 

The term ‘‘governance networks’’ is used to label the more or less stable patterns of societal relationships (interactions, cognitions, and rules) between mutually dependent (public, semi-public, and/or private) actors in complex policy issues or policy programmes (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, pp. 69–70). 

Accountability in the public sector is described as a heterogeneous, complex, chameleon-like and multifaced concept encompassing several dimensions (Barberis, 1998; Mulgan, 2000; Sinclair, 1995). 

‘‘The effect has been to deprive particularly the political but also administrative leadership of levers of control and of influence and information, raising question of accountability and capacity’’ (Christensen and Laegreid, 2007, p. 12). 

In the next section the authors will focus on the current shift in public management and accountability as discussed by the recent research literature on this topic, namely that from New Public Management to New Public Governance. 

Some claim that it may lead to a disproportionate focus on measurability at the expense of the sustainable provision of public value. 

Horizontal accountability concerns the moral and social obligations as perceived by organizations to report to stakeholders or the mutual arrangement between bodies of equal standing to provide public services (Bovens, 2007). 

A wide range of actors have been involved in the public sector reforms, such as corporations, foundations, and other agencies including both private and intergovernmental actors. 

NPM is more hierarchical and typically based on contractual relationships, whereas NPG recognizes the importance of interdependent horizontal relationships.