Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 380–402 | Cite as

The Contingencies of Societal Accountability: Examining the Link Between Civil Society and Good Government

Article

Abstract

Corruption interferes with and distorts the processes of political decision making and implementation, often to the disadvantage of the already disadvantaged. Yet our understanding of the factors that might propel a political system from lower to higher levels of probity remains speculative. This article examines the role of one category of actors often touted as an important countervailing force to political power: civil society. Existing case study research provides evidence that civil society can play a decisive role in holding public officials accountable, but that the success of such societal accountability is contingent upon a number of favorable contextual and institutional conditions. The analyses presented here use panel country data to examine whether the strength of civil society affects corruption. The results corroborate the findings of existing case studies; a vibrant civil society mitigates corruption but only provided that conditions such as political competition, press freedom, and government transparency exist in the country.

Keywords

Civil society Societal accountability Quality of government Corruption 

References

  1. Abers R. From clientelism to cooperation: local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Polit Soc. 1998;26(4):511–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abers R. Reflections on what makes empowered participatory governance happen. In: Fung A, Wright EO, editors. Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso; 2003. p. 200–8.Google Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S, editors. Handbook of economic growth. North Holland: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Ackerman J. Co-governance for accountability: beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice’. World Dev. 2003;32(3):447–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ades A, Di Tella R. Rents, competition, and corruption. Am Econ Rev. 1999;89:982–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alesina A, Devleeschauwer A, Easterly W, Kurlat S, Wacziarg R. Fractionalization. J Econ Growth. 2003;8:155–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alvarez M, Cheibub J, Limongi F, Przeworski A. Classifying political regimes. Stud Comp Int Dev. 1996;31(2):3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apaza C, Johnston M. Rethinking transparency. Engaging civil society, changing perceptions. Unpublished manuscript. 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Arato A. Accountability and civil society. In: Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C, editors. Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Armony AC. The dubious link: civic engagement and democratization. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. Arndt C, Oman C. Uses and abuses of governance indicators. OECD. Development Center 2006. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/3DC8D16D-6A98-499D-BEEC-333DA3C54F2B/FinalDownload/DownloadId-7806CE6111E6B60B819F11E117015809/3DC8D16D-6A98-499D-BEEC-333DA3C54F2B/ieg/governance/oman_arndt_paper.pdf Accessed on 2011-06-20.
  12. Avritzer L. New public spheres in Brazil: local democracy and deliberative politics. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2006;30(3):623–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baiocchi G. Participation, activism, and politics: the Porto Alegre experiment in deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. In: Fung A, Wright EO, editors. Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Batista CR. The effectiveness of law: civil society and the public prosecution in Brazil. In: Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C, editors. Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2006. p. 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Batory A. Why do anti-corruption laws fail in Central Eastern Europe? A target compliance perspective. Regul Govern. 2012;6:66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bellver A, Kaufmann D. Transparenting Transparency: Initial Empirics and Policy Applications. 2005. Available at SSRN: doi:10.2139/ssrn.808664 or http://ssrn.com/abstract=808664. Accessed 16 Apr 2010.
  17. Besley T. Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Chang ECC, Golden MA, Hill SJ. Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Polit. 2010;62:177–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheibub JA, Gandhi J, Vreeland JR. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Publ Choice. 2009;143(1–2):67–101.Google Scholar
  20. Davidson JS. Politics-as-usual on trial: anti-corruption campaigns in Indonesia. Pac Rev. 2007;20(1):75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finkel SE. Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  22. Florini A. The coming democracy: new rules for running a new world. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Fox J. The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: lessons from Mexico. World Polit. 1994;46(2):151–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerring J, Thacker S. Political institutions and governance: pluralism versus centralism. Br J Polit Sci. 2004;34(2):295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golden M, Picci L. Pork-barrel politics in postwar Italy, 1953–94. Am J Polit Sci. 2008;52(2):268–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grindle M. Going local: decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Johnston M. Syndromes of corruption: wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston M. Civil society and corruption: mobilizing for reform. Hanham: University Press of America; 2005b.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Measuring governance using cross-country perceptions data. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2005.Google Scholar
  30. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. The world wide governance indicators project: answering the critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4149; 2007. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/. Accessed 20 Oct 2009.
  31. Knack S. Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: a critique of the cross-country indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3968; 2006. Available at: http://econ.worldbank.org/. Accessed 30 Jan 2011.
  32. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A. The economic consequences of legal origins. J Econ Lit. 2008;46:285–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambsdorff JG. Causes and consequences of corruption: what do we know from a cross-section of countries? In: Rose-Ackerman S, editor. International handbook on the economics of corruption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Lee C. Labor unions and good governance: a cross-national, comparative analysis. Am Sociol Rev. 2007;72:585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemos-Nelson AT, Zaverucha J. Multiple activation as a strategy of citizen accountability and the role of the investigating legislative commissions. In: Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C, editors. Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  36. Levine R. Law, endowments and property rights. J Econ Perspect. 2005;19(3):61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindberg SI. Byzantine complexity: making sense of accountability. Working Paper No. 28, Political Concepts Series. International Political Science Association; Committee on Concepts and Methods; 2009.Google Scholar
  38. Lindstedt C, Naurin D. Transparency is not enough: making transparency effective in reducing corruption. Int Polit Sci Rev. 2010;31(3):301–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mainwaring S. Introduction. In: Mainwaring S, Welna C, editors. Democratic accountability in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maoro P. Corruption and growth. Q J Econ. 1995;110(3):681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall MG, Jaggers K. Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2002: dataset users’ manual. College Park: University of Maryland; 2002.Google Scholar
  42. Marwell G, Oliver P. The critical mass in collective action: a micro-social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCubbins MD, Schwartz T. Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols versus fire alarms. Am J Polit Sci. 1984;28:165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montinola GR, Jackman RW. Sources of corruption: a cross-country study. Br J Polit Sci. 2002;32:147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. North D. Institutions, institutional change, and performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Donnell GA. Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2001;36(1):7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. OECD. Fighting corruption: what role for civil society? The experience of the OECD. Paris: OECD; 2003.Google Scholar
  48. Olken B. Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. J Polit Econ. 2007;115(2):200–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olson M. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  50. Pande S. The right to information and societal accountability: the case of the Delhi PDS Campaign. IDS Bulletin. 2008;38:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paxton S. Social capital and democracy: an interdependent relationship. Am Sociol Rev. 2002;67:254–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Persson A, Rothstein B & Teorell J. The failure of anti-corruption policies. A theoretical mischaracterization of the problem. Governance: 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-04912.2012.01604x
  53. Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C. Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  54. Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000.Google Scholar
  55. Putnam R, Leonardi R, Nanetti R. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  56. Rose-Ackerman S. Corruption and government: causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rothstein B. Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rothstein B. Anti-corruption: the indirect ‘big bang’ approach. Rev Int Polit Econ. 2011;18(2):228–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothstein B, Kumlin S. Making and breaking social capital: the impact of welfare state institutions. Comp Polit Stud. 2005;38:339–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rothstein B, Teorell J. What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance: 2008; 21(2): 165–190.Google Scholar
  61. Sadek MT, Batista Cavalcanti R. The new Brazilian public prosecution: an agent of accountability. In: Mainwaring S, Welna C, editors. Democratic accountability in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  62. Salamon LM, Sokolowski SW, List R. Global civil society: an overview. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies; 2003.Google Scholar
  63. Schedler A. Conceptualizing accountability. In: Schedler A, Diamond L, Plattner M, editors. The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers; 1999.Google Scholar
  64. Skocpol T, Ganz M, Munson Z. A nation of organizers: the institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the United States. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2000;94(3):527–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smulovitz C, Perruzzotti E. Societal accountability in Latin America. J Democr. 2000;11(4):147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tarrow S. Power in movement: social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  67. Tarrow S. Making social science work across space and time. a critical reflection on Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1996;90(2):389–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teorell J. The impact of quality of government as impartiality: theory and evidence. QoG Working Paper Series 2009:25.Google Scholar
  69. Teorell J, Samanni M, Charron N, Holmberg S, Rothstein B. The quality of government dataset, version 27 May 2010. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se.
  70. Thomas M. What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? Eur J Dev Res. 2010;22(1):31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Treisman D. The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J Public Econ. 2000;76:399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Treisman D. What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;10:211–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vanhanen T. Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries. London: Routledge; 2003.Google Scholar
  74. Véron R, Williams G, Corbridge S, Srivastava M. Decentralized corruption or corrupt decentralization? Community monitoring of poverty-alleviation schemes in Eastern India. World Dev. 2006;34(11):1922–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wampler B. When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comp Polit. 2008;41(1):61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ziblatt D. Review article: how did Europe democratize? World Polit. 2006;58:311–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations