Advertisement

Dissecting the Semantics of Accountability and Its Misuse

  • Ciarán O’Kelly
  • Melvin J. Dubnick
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we address the many different meanings that accountability harbors and examine the effects of such complex and multifaceted interpretations in the light of governance quality. We seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on the so-called ‘unaccountability.’ We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between different actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reflect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes, or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship—one that is hierarchical and monopolistic—and reflect therefore a drive to power and domination. This represents a violation of accountability at the cost of the overall quality of governance.

Keywords

Accountability Governance relationships Public values Quality of governance 

References

  1. Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bambrough, R. (1960). Universals and family resemblances. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 61, 207–222.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/61.1.207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, R. (2001). Legitimating identities: The self-presentations of rulers and subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berliner, J. S. (1952). The informal organization of the soviet firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66(3), 342–365.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1885308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berliner, J. S. (1957). Factory and manager in the USSR. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1), 107–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00101-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovens, M. A. P. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bovens, M. A. P. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 183–208). Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
  10. Bovens, M. A. P. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bovens, M. A. P. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bovens, M. A. P., Curtin, D., & ‘t Hart, P. (2010). The real world of EU accountability: What deficit? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bovens, M. A. P., Schillemans, T., & Goodin, R. E. (2014). Public accountabilty. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook public accountability (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bovens, M. A. P., Schillemans, T., & ‘t Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public administration, 86(1), 225–242.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00716.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bovens, M. A. P., t Hart, P., et al. (2005). Multilevel governance and public accountability in Europe: Which institutions, which practices, which deficit? Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  16. Brandsma, G. J. (2013). Controlling comitology: Accountability in a multi-level system. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brandsma, G. J., & Schillemans, T. (2012). The accountability cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 953–975.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Browning, G. (2004). Rethinking RG Collingwood: Philosophy, politics and the unity of theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself (Feminism & Psychology). New York, NY: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Collingwood, R. G. (1944 [1939]). An autobiography. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Clarendon press.Google Scholar
  22. Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neo-liberalism. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  23. Darwall, S. L. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Darwall, S. L. (2013). Honor, history, and relationship: Essays in second-personal ethics II (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.Google Scholar
  26. Dubnick, M. J. (2007). Situating ccountability: Seeking salvation for the core concept of modern governance. New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  27. Dubnick, M. J. (2011). Public accountability: Performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration & The Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Dubnick, M. J. (2014a). Accountability as a cultural keyword. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dubnick, M. J. (2014b). Toward an ethical theory of accountable governance. In International Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 20–24 July.Google Scholar
  30. Dubnick, M. J., & Frederickson, H. G. (2011). Introduction. In H. G. Frederickson & M. J. Dubnick (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. xxiii–xxxii). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  31. Eisenstat, R. A., Spector, B., & Beer, M. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review (November–December), 4–12.Google Scholar
  32. Fleischacker, S. (1991). Philosophy in moral practice: Kant and Adam Smith. Kant-Studien, 82(3), 249–269.  https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1991.82.3.249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fried, C. (1982). Contract as promise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fried, C. (2012). Contract as promise thirty years on. Suffolk University Law Review, 45, 961.Google Scholar
  35. Gailmard, S. (2014). Accountability and Principal-Agent Theory. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goodin, R. E. (1975). The logic of bureaucratic back scratching. Public Choice, 21(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goodin, R. E. (1987). Apportioning responsibilities. Law and Philosophy, 6(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Harlow, C. (2014). Accountability and constitutional law. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 195–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hirschman, A. O. (1997). The passions and the interests: Political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Holden, N. J. (2011). “Not with the mind alone” A critique of “Knowledge transfer between Russian and Western firms: Whose absorptive capacity is in question?” by Snejina Michailova and Irina Jormanainen. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(4), 350–356. http://doi.org/abs/10.1108/17422041111180782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 515–521.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00612.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hood, C. (2014). Accountability and blame avoidance. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 603–616). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kant, I. (2005). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). London: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Kelty, C. (2008). Responsibility: McKeon and Ricoeur. Anthropological Research on the Contemporary Working Paper (12).Google Scholar
  47. Khestanov, R. (2014). The role of culture in early Soviet models of governance. Studies in East European Thought, 66(1-2), 123–138. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-014-9206-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology (Cambridge studies in the history of psychology). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Licht, A. N. (2001). The mother of all path dependencies: Toward a cross-cultural theory of corporate governance systems. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 26(1), 147–205.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.208489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lindblom, C. E. (2002). The market system: What it is, how it works, and what to make of it. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Litwack, J. M. (1991). Legality and market reform in Soviet-type economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(4), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Macfie, A. L. (1967). The individual in society: Papers on Adam Smith. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  54. Macneil, I. R. (2001). The relational theory of contract: Selected works of Ian MacNeil. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  55. Mansbridge, J. (2014). A contingency theory of accountability. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Maron, M. (1986 [1981]). Flight of the ashes [Flugasche] (D. N. Marinelli, Trans.). London: Readers International.Google Scholar
  57. Marshak, R. J. (2003). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Further extensions. Academy of Management Review, 28, 9–10. http://doi.org/10.2307/30040685.Google Scholar
  58. McKeon, R. (1957). The development and the significance of the concept of responsibility. Revue internationale de philosophie, 39(1), 3–32.Google Scholar
  59. Meijer, A. J., & Bovens, M. A. P. (2005). Public accountability in the information age. In V. Bekkers & V. Homburg (Eds.), The information ecology of e-government. e-government as Institutional and technological innovation in public administration. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public administration, 78(3), 555–573.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Norton, M. (2014). Mechanisms and meaning structures. Sociological Theory, 32(2), 162–187. http://doi.org/10.1177/0735275114537631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Kelly, C., & Dubnick, M. J. (2006). Taking tough choices seriously: Public administration and individual moral agency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 393–415.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Kelly, C., & Dubnick, M. J. (2013). Power and the ethics of reform. In H. G. Frederickson & R. K. Ghere (Eds.), Ethics in public management (2nd ed., pp. 59–88). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  64. O’Kelly, C., & Dubnick, M. J. (2014). Authority, accountability and authorisation. In American Society for Public Administration Annual Conference, Washington, DC. 13 March.Google Scholar
  65. Olkkonen, M.-E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 202–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olsen, J. P. (2014). Accountability and ambiguity. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 106–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading, MA: Adison Wesley.Google Scholar
  68. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Patil, S. V., Vieider, F., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Process versus outcome accountability. In M. A. P. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 69–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 541–565.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pinkard, T. (1999). Virtues, morality and sittlichkeit: From maxims to practices. European Journal of Philosophy, 7(2), 217–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Philadelphia: Open University.Google Scholar
  73. Raphael, D. D. (2007). The impartial spectator: Adam Smith’s moral philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ricoeur, P. (2000 [1995]). The concept of responsibility: An essay in semantic analysis (D. Pellaur, Trans.). In The just (pp. 11–35). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rorty, A. O., & Wong, D. (1993). Aspects of identity and agency. In O. Flanagan & A. O. Rorty (Eds.), Identity, character and morality: Essays in moral psychology (pp. 19–34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., et al. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and brain sciences, 36(4), 393–414.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schillemans, T., & Bovens, M. A. P. (2011). The challenge of multiple accountability: Does redundancy lead to overload? In H. G. Frederickson & M. J. Dubnick (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. 3–21). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  78. Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2014). Predicting public sector accountability: From agency drift to forum drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 191–215.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schmidtz, D. (2007). When justice matters. Ethics, 117(3), 433–459. http://doi.org/10.1086/511734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sennett, R. (2007). The culture of the new capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Shalizi, C. (2012). In Soviet Union, optimization problem solves you. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/insoviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/
  82. Smith, A. (1999 [1776]). The wealth of nations books I–III. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, A. (2009 [1759]). The theory of moral sentiments. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  84. Spufford, F. (2010). Red plenty. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  85. Strydom, P. (1999). The challenge of responsibility for sociology. Current Sociology, 47(3), 65–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392199047003006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Suchman, M. C., & Edelman, L. B. (1996). Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition. Law & Social Inquiry, 21(4), 903–941.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00100.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tanney, J. (2000). Playing the rule-following game. Philosophy, 75(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tyler, T. R. (2010). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Abingdon: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  90. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and social psychology review, 7(4), 349–361.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Hooft, S. (2004). Ricoeur on responsibility. Borderlands: ejournal, 3(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  92. Vincent, N. A. (2010). On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(1), 77–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-009-9087-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wallace, R. J. (1994). Responsibility and the moral sentiments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Wallace, R. J. (2014). Practical reason. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford.Google Scholar
  95. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (new ed., vol. 1). Berkley, CA.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Cultural theory of responsibility. In J.-E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice (pp. 283–294). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  97. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ciarán O’Kelly
    • 1
  • Melvin J. Dubnick
    • 2
  1. 1.Queen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  2. 2.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations