Advertisement

Taking Pluralism Seriously Within an Ethic of Accountability

  • Jesse DillardEmail author
  • Judy Brown
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Business Ethics Research book series (ABER, volume 4)

Abstract

In previous work, an ethic of accountability has been proposed as a useful framework for considering the rights and responsibilities of the various constituencies within social systems. Here, we review and refine an ethic of accountability and extend the discussion by considering ways to articulate it within a contested and pluralistic context. We propose agonistic pluralism as a way of theorizing the contested domain within which accounting and accountability systems are conceived, developed, and implemented. To take pluralism seriously requires moving beyond Habermas’ consensus oriented communicative action to a more realistic theorization that recognizes the inherent power asymmetries and antagonisms in contemporary liberal democracies. We offer agonistic pluralism as a theoretical alternative and discuss guidelines wherein it can be applied.

Keywords

Public Interest Organizational Management Economic Institution Power Relationship Democratic Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund for supporting this research as part of a funded project on “Dialogic Accounting: The Challenge of Taking Multiple Perspectives Seriously”, Contract No. VUW1011.

References

  1. Bebbington, J., J. Brown, and B. Frame. 2007a. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics 61(2/3): 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebbington, J., J. Brown, B. Frame, and I. Thomson. 2007b. Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(3): 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, S. 2011. Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic – Communicative divide. Planning Theory 10(2): 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. 2009. Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20(3): 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J., and J. Dillard. 2012. Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2012.06.003#doilink
  6. Dillard, J. 2007. Legitimating the social accounting project: An ethic of accountability. In Sustainability accounting and accountability, ed. J. Unerman, B. O’Dwyer, and J. Bebbington, 37–53. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillard, J. 2008. An ethic of accountability. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 13: 1–18.Google Scholar
  8. Dillard, J. 2011. Framing sustainability within an ethic of accountability. In Sustainable business practices: Challenges, opportunities, and practices, vol. I, ed. S. McNall, J. Hershauser, and G. Basile, 107–125. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Dillard, J., and J. Brown. 2012. Agonistic pluralism and imagining CSEAR into the future. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 32(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillard, J., and R. Roslender. 2011. Taking pluralism seriously: Embedded moralities in management accounting and control systems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22(2): 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillard, J., and K. Yuthas. 2001. A responsibility ethic of audit expert systems. Journal of Business Ethics 30: 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillard, J., and K. Yuthas. 2011. Critical dialogics, agonistic pluralism and accounting information systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. accinf.2011.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.%20accinf.2011.07.002.
  13. Gaffikin, F., and M. Morrissey. 2011. Planning in divided cities: Collaborative shaping of contested space. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glynos, J., and D. Howarth. 2007. Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, R. 2002. The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(7): 687–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griggs, S., and D. Howarth. 2008. Populism, localism and environmental politics: The logic and rhetoric of the stop Stansted expansion campaign. Planning Theory 7(2): 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and rationalisation of society. Trans. T. McCarthy. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: The critique of functional reason. Trans. T. McCarthy). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. Hillier, J., and P. Healey. 2010. The Ashgate research companion to planning theory. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Howarth, D. 2010. Power, discourse, and policy: Articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 3(3): 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kant, I. (1993/1785). Metaphysics of morals, 3rd ed. Trans. J. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  22. Kapoor, I. 2008. The postcolonial politics of development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, 2nd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  24. Levinas, E. 1998. entre nous: On thinking-of-the-Other. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mouffe, C. 1997. Decision, deliberation and democratic ethos. Philosophy Today 41(1): 24–30.Google Scholar
  26. Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research 66(3): 745–758.Google Scholar
  27. Murtagh, B., and G. Ellis. 2011. Skills, conflict and spatial planning in Northern Ireland. Planning Theory and Practice 12(3): 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. New Zealand Education Act 1989. Section 162 (4)(a)(v).Google Scholar
  29. Niebuhr, R. 1963. The responsible self. San Francisco: Harper Press.Google Scholar
  30. Purcell, M. 2009. Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory 8(2): 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Söderbaum, P., and J. Brown. 2010. Democratizing economics: Pluralism as a path towards sustainability. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Torfing, J. 1999. New theories of discourse. Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  2. 2.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Accounting and Commercial LawVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations