Abstract
Accountability is a much studied subject in the social sciences and is known for its complexity, context dependence, and ambiguity. By conducting a comprehensive literature review and analysis across nonprofit, public, and private sector literatures, this article identifies the causes of ambiguities present in many accountability frameworks and describes the trend toward understanding accountability as a constructed concept combining both instrumental and interpretive elements. The relationship between legitimacy and accountability is considered. The authors develop a holistic accountability framework that facilitates defining and implementing accountability in complex, multi-stakeholder environments, by providing a means to operationalize commonly encountered but ambiguous accountability goals through a social process of deliberative dialogue. The authors conclude by summarizing limitations of the approach and describing future research needed.
Résumé
La responsabilisation est un sujet abondamment étudié dans les sciences sociales, et connue pour sa complexité, sa dépendance contextuelle et son ambiguïté. Par la conduite d’une étude et d’une analyse exhaustives à travers les publications des secteurs sans but lucratif, public et privé, cet article s’attache à identifier les causes des ambiguïtés présentes au sein de nombreux cadres de responsabilisation. Il décrit la tendance en faveur d’une compréhension de la responsabilisation en tant que concept construit associant tant des éléments instrumentaux qu’interprétatifs. La relation entre légitimité et responsabilisation fait l’objet d’une étude. Les auteurs développent un cadre holistique de responsabilisation facilitant la définition et la mise en œuvre de cette dernière dans des environnements complexes, aux parties prenantes multiples. Une méthode est proposée pour opérationnaliser les objectifs de responsabilisation couramment rencontrés mais ambigus, par le biais d’un processus social de dialogue délibératif. Les auteurs concluent par une synthèse des limitations de l’approche et la description de la recherche future nécessaire.
Zusammenfassung
Die Rechenschaftspflicht ist ein viel untersuchtes sozialwissenschaftliches Thema, das für seine Komplexität, Kontextabhängigkeit und Ambiguitätbekannt ist. Mittels einer umfassenden Literaturstudie und -analyse der vorhandenen Literatur in den Nonprofit-, öffentlichen und privaten Sektoren werden in dem vorliegenden Beitrag die Gründe der Unklarheiten, die in zahlreichen Rahmenwerken zur Rechenschaftspflicht vorliegen, herausgestellt, und es wird der Trend beschrieben, der sich in Richtung Verständnis der Rechenschaftspflicht als ein erstelltes Konzept, das instrumentelle und interpretative Elemente verbindet, bewegt. Weiterhin wird die Beziehung zwischen Legitimität und Rechenschaftspflicht betrachtet. Die Autoren entwickeln ein ganzheitliches Rahmenwerk, das die Definition und Implentierung der Rechenschaftspflicht in einem komplexen Umfeld mit mehreren Stakeholdern ermöglicht, indem ein Mittel zur Operationalisierung von allgemein vorherrschenden, aber nicht eindeutigen Zielen zur Rechenschaftspflicht durch einen sozialen Prozess beratender Dialoge bereitgestellt wird. Am Ende fassen die Autoren die Grenzen dieser Vorgehensweise zusammen und beschreiben notwendige zukünftige Forschungen.
Resumen
La responsabilidad es un tema muy estudiado en las ciencias sociales y es conocido por su complejidad, dependencia del contexto y ambigüedad. Mediante la realización de una revisión y un análisis integral del material publicado en los sectores sin ánimo de lucro, público y privado, este documento identifica las causas de las ambigüedades presentes en muchos marcos de responsabilidad, y describe la tendencia hacia la comprensión de la responsabilidad como un concepto construido que combina tanto elementos instrumentales como interpretativos. Se considera la relación entre la legitimidad y la responsabilidad. Los autores desarrollan un marco de responsabilidad holístico que facilita definir e implementar la responsabilidad en entornos complejos y con múltiples partes interesadas, proporcionando un medio de operacionalizar las metas sobre responsabilidad encontradas comúnmente pero ambiguas mediante un proceso social de diálogo deliberativo. Los autores concluyen resumiendo las limitaciones del enfoque y describiendo la investigación futura necesaria.
摘要
问责制是社会科学中研究较多的话题,其特点有复杂性、背景依赖性和模糊性。通过对非营利、公共和私人部门的文献进行综合审阅和分析,本文指出许多问责框架出现模糊之处的原因,提出结合了工具性元素和诠释性元素的理解问责制这一概念,并对理解问责制这一发展趋势进行阐述。本文分析了合法性和问责制的关系。审慎对话的社会过程使得常见而又模糊的问责目标具有可落实性。通过提供实现这种可落实性的一种方法,作者提出整体性的问责框架,该框架有利于在复杂、有多个利益相关者的情况下界定和实施问责制。作者在文末总结了这种方法的局限性,并指出将来所需研究的内容。
ملخص
المساءلة موضوع تم دراسته كثيرا في مجال العلوم الإجتماعية و هو معروف بتعقيداته ، الإعتماد على السياق ، والغموض. من خلال إجراء مراجعة أدبية شاملة وتحليل عبر قطاع غير ربحي، و آداب عام وخاص ، هذه المقالة تحدد أسباب الغموض الحالي في كثير من إطارات المساءلة، وتصف الإتجاه نحو فهم المساءلة كمفهوم بناء يجمع بين عناصر فعالة وتفسيرية. تعتبر العلاقة بين الشرعية والمساءلة. المؤلفون وضعوا إطار شامل للمساءلة التي تسهل تحديد وتنفيذ المساءلة في بيئات معقدة ، أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين، من خلال توفير وسيلة لتفعيل مواجهة شائعة ولكنها مساءلة غامضة الأهداف من خلال عملية الحوار الاجتماعي التداولي. إختتم المؤلفون بتلخيص أوجه القصور في النهج ووصف البحوث اللازمة في المستقبل.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abeles, M. (2008). Rethinking NGOs: The economy of survival and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 15(1), 241–258.
Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Development, 32(3), 447–463.
Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), 473–502.
Avina, J. (1993). The evolutionary life cycle of non-governmental development organizations. Public Administration and Development, 13(5), 453–474.
Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Benjamin, D. (2009). Protecting the protectors: NGO action and the responsibility to protect. International Journal on World Peace, 26(1), 31–50.
Bergsteiner, H., & Avery, G. C. (2008). A generic multiple constituency matrix: Accountability in private prisons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 631–660.
Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public administration theory. International Review of Administrative Science, 73(1), 7–26.
Brandsen, T., Van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9/10), 749.
Brennan, N., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 885–906.
Brown, L. D. (2008). Creating credibility: Legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.
Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 569.
Campbell, H. (2005). Business economic impacts: The new frontier for corporate accountability. Development in Practice, 15(4), 413–421.
Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.
Carman, J. G., & Fredericks, K. A. (2010). Evaluation capacity and nonprofit organizations: Is the glass half-empty or half-full? American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 84–104.
Charnovitz, S. (2006). Accountability of non-governmental organizations in global governance. In L. Jordan & P. van Tuijl (Eds.), NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Earthscan: Sterling, VA.
Christensen, R. A., & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 195.
Dees, J., & Anderson, B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving not steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In P. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–31). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.
Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.
Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for Northern and Southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56.
Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (Eds.). (2007). Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.
Eisenberg, P. (2005). What is the future for the nonprofit world? The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 8(1), 81–91.
Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(1), 335–350.
Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy, 1, 1–20.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.
Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2001). Very public scandals: Nongovernmental organizations in trouble. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(1), 49–66.
Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patters of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.
Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic Model”. Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 203–229.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. New York: Macmillan.
Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.
Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An Investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 676–694.
Gugerty, M. (2009). Signaling virtue: voluntary accountability programs among nonprofit organizations. Policy Sciences, 42(3), 243–273.
Hanberger, A. (2009). Democratic accountability in decentralised governance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(1), 1–22.
Hohnen, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: An implementation guide for business. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/csr_guide.pdf.
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New York, NY: Guildford.
James, E. (2003). Commercialism and the mission of nonprofits. Society, 40(4), 29–35.
Jordan, L., & van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political responsibility in transnational NGO advocacy. World Development, 28(12), 2051–2065.
Jordan, L., & Van Tuijl, P. (Eds.). (2006). NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185–192.
Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488–497.
Knutsen, W. L., & Brower, R. S. (2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 588–610.
Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
Koppell, J. G. (2008). Global governance organizations: Legitimacy and authority in conflict. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 177–203.
Lee, M. (2004). Public Reporting: A Neglected Aspect of Nonprofit Accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–379.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Mulgan, R. (2000). Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 89–97.
Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14, 339–353.
Nelson, P., & Dorsey, E. (2008). New rights advocacy: Changing strategies of development and human rights NGOs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
O’Connell, L. (2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: The role of stakeholders in a program’s field. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 85–93.
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 801–824.
OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved 10 October, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf.
Ospina, S., Diaz, W., & O’Sullivan, J. (2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 5–31.
Peruzzotti, E. (2006). Civil society, representation and accountability: Restating current debates on the representativeness and accountability of civic associations. In L. Jordan & P. Van Tuijl (Eds.), NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Earthscan: Sterling, VA.
Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking About Government The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Reich, R., Dorn, L., & Sutton, S. (2009). Anything goes: Approval of nonprofit status by the IRS. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.stanford.edu/~sdsachs/AnythingGoesPACS1109.pdf.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240–253.
Sabeti, H. (2009). The emerging fourth sector: Report. Washington, DC and Aspen, Colorado: The Aspen Institute, Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schrage, M. (2005). Ethics, shmethics; CIOs should stop trying to do the “right thing” when implementing IT and focus instead on getting their implementations right. CIO, 18(11), 1.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). Disaggregated sovereignty: Towards the public accountability of global government networks. Government & Opposition, 39(2), 159–190.
Smith, S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sorens, J. (2009). The partisan logic of decentralization in Europe. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(2), 255–272.
Stoll, M. L. (2008). Backlash hits business ethics: Finding effective strategies for communicating the importance of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 17–24.
Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.
Strandberg, C. (2005). The convergence of corporate governance and social responsibility. Burnaby, Canada: Canadian Co-operative Association. Retrieved 10 October, 2011, from http://www.corostrandberg.com/pdfs/Corporate_Governance.pdf.
Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 16–26.
Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Berghe, L., & Louche, C. (2005). The link between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility in insurance. The Geneva Papers, 30(3), 425–442.
Ward, K., Wyatt, E., Craib, C., Harris, M., Wilson, M., & Chow, C. (2010). CSR Trends 2010: Stacking up the results. Toronto, ON: Craib Design & Communications and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.csrwire.com/reports/1189-CSR-Trends-2010.
Weisband, E. (2007). Conclusion: Prolegomena to a postmodern public ethics: Images of accountability in global frames. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Weisband, E., & Ebrahim, A. (2007). Introduction: Forging global accountabilities. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541–555.
Wilson, W. (1887/1987). The study of administration. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 10–25). Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Old Dominion University colleagues, John C. Morris, and Robert Kenter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, A.P., Taylor, J.A. Resolving Accountability Ambiguity in Nonprofit Organizations. Voluntas 24, 559–580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9266-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9266-0