The Contingencies of Societal Accountability: Examining the Link Between Civil Society and Good Government
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.
KeywordsCivil society Societal accountability Quality of government Corruption
- 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
- 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
- Apaza C, Johnston M. Rethinking transparency. Engaging civil society, changing perceptions. Unpublished manuscript. 2009.Google Scholar
- 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
- Armony AC. The dubious link: civic engagement and democratization. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Besley T. Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- Cheibub JA, Gandhi J, Vreeland JR. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Publ Choice. 2009;143(1–2):67–101.Google Scholar
- Finkel SE. Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
- Florini A. The coming democracy: new rules for running a new world. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- Grindle M. Going local: decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- Johnston M. Civil society and corruption: mobilizing for reform. Hanham: University Press of America; 2005b.Google Scholar
- Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Measuring governance using cross-country perceptions data. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2005.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- OECD. Fighting corruption: what role for civil society? The experience of the OECD. Paris: OECD; 2003.Google Scholar
- Olson M. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000.Google Scholar
- Putnam R, Leonardi R, Nanetti R. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
- Rothstein B, Teorell J. What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance: 2008; 21(2): 165–190.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tarrow S. Power in movement: social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- Teorell J. The impact of quality of government as impartiality: theory and evidence. QoG Working Paper Series 2009:25.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Vanhanen T. Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries. London: Routledge; 2003.Google Scholar