Accountability in Governance

 

Accountability in Governance

 

 

 

Accountability ensures actions and

 

decisions taken by public officials are

 

subject to oversight so as to

 

guarantee that government

 

initiatives meet their stated

 

objectives and respond to the needs

 

of the community they are meant to

 

be benefiting, thereby contributing

 

to better governance and poverty

 

reduction.

 

 

 

Accountability is one of the cornerstones of

 

good governance; however, it can be

 

difficult for scholars and practitioners alike

 

to navigate the myriad of different types of

 

accountability. Recently, there has been a

 

growing discussion within both the

 

academic and development communities

 

about the different accountability typologies.

 

This Note outlines the present debate

 

focusing on the definition and substance of

 

different forms of accountability and

 

considers the key role that legislatures play

 

in ensuring accountability.

 

 

 

What is Accountability?

 

The notion of accountability is an

 

amorphous concept that is difficult to define

 

in precise terms. However, broadly

 

speaking,

 

a relationship where an individual or body,

 

and the performance of tasks or functions by

 

that individual or body, are subject to

 

another’s oversight, direction or request that

 

they provide information or justification for

 

their actions.

 

Therefore, the concept of accountability

 

involves two distinct stages:

 

accountability exists when there is answerability

and

 

the obligation of the government, its

 

agencies and public officials to provide

 

information about their decisions and

 

actions and to justify them to the public and

 

those institutions of accountability tasked

with providing oversight. Enforcement

 

suggests that the public or the institution

 

responsible for accountability can sanction

 

the offending party or remedy the

 

contravening behavior. As such, different

 

institutions of accountability might be

 

responsible for either or both of these stages.

 

 

 

Why is Accountability Important

 

to Governance?

 

Evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of

 

public officials or public bodies ensures that

 

they are performing to their full potential,

 

providing value for money in the provision

 

of public services, instilling confidence in

 

the government and being responsive to the

 

community they are meant to be serving.

 

 

 

What types of Accountability?

 

The concept of accountability can be

 

classified according to the type of

 

accountability exercised and/ or the person,

 

group or institution the public official

 

answers to. The present debate as to the

 

content of different forms of accountability

 

is best conceptualized by reference to

 

opposing forms of accountability. As such

 

the main forms of accountability are

 

described below in reference to their

 

opposing, or alternate, concept.

 

 

 

Horizontal vs. Vertical Accountability

 

The prevailing view is that institutions of

 

accountability, such as parliament and the

 

judiciary, provide what is commonly termed

 

horizontal accountability, or the capacity of

 

a network of relatively autonomous powers

 

(i.e., other institutions) that can call into

 

question, and eventually punish, improper

 

ways of discharging the responsibilities of a

 

given official. In other words, horizontal

 

accountability is the capacity of state

 

institutions to check abuses by other public

 

agencies and branches of government, or the

 

requirement for agencies to report sideways.

 

Alternatively, vertical accountability is the

 

means through which citizens, mass media

and civil society seek to enforce standards of

 

good performance on officials.

 

While parliament is typically considered as a

 

key institution in constructs of horizontal

 

accountability, it is also important in vertical

 

accountability. Citizens and civil society

 

groups can seek the support of elected

 

representatives to redress grievances and

 

intervene in the case of inappropriate or

 

inadequate action by government. In

 

addition, through the use of public hearings,

 

committee investigations and public

 

petitioning, parliament can provide a vehicle

 

for public voice and a means through which

 

citizens and civic groups can question

 

government and seek parliamentary

 

sanctioning where appropriate.

 

 

 

Political versus Legal Accountability

 

Parliament and the judiciary act as

 

horizontal constitutional checks on the

 

power of the executive. The role of these

 

two institutions can be further delineated in

 

that parliament holds the executive

 

politically accountable, whilst the judiciary

 

holds the executive legally accountable.

 

These classifications stem from the fact

 

parliament is a political institution, while the

 

judiciary can only adjudicate on legal issues.

 

Together, they provide ongoing oversight in

 

order to keep the government accountable

 

throughout its term in office. They may also

 

be aided by other institutions, such as

 

supreme audit institutions, anti-corruption

 

commissions, ombuds offices and human

 

rights institutes. These secondary

 

‘autonomous institutions of accountability’

 

are typically designed to be independent of

 

the executive; in the case of supreme audit

 

institutions (in ‘Westminster parliamentary

 

systems’), anti-corruption commissions and

 

ombuds offices they often report to

 

parliament while in the cases of supreme

 

audit institutions in Francophone countries

 

and human rights institutes, they may be part

 

of the judiciary.

 

Political accountability usually manifests

 

itself in the concept of individual ministerial

responsibility, which is the cornerstone of

 

the notion of responsible government (see

 

below).

 

 

 

Another School of Thought: Horizontal

 

versus Vertical Accountability

 

A minority of commentators diverge in their

 

opinion as to what constitutes horizontal and

 

vertical accountability. An alternate

 

conception of horizontal and vertical

 

accountability relies on the relationship

 

between parties to determine whether one

 

party exercises horizontal or vertical

 

accountability over the other. In instances

 

where there is a classic top-down, principalagent

 

relationship, whereby the principal

 

delegates to the agent, the agent is

 

accountable to their direct superiors in the

 

chain-of-command and this constitutes a

 

form of vertical accountability. For instance

 

the public official answers to the

 

department/ agency minister, the department

 

answers to the minister, the minister answers

 

to parliament (in particular in parliamentary

 

systems), and parliament answers to

 

citizens.

 

Parliament is again a key actor. In terms of

 

holding government officials to account,

 

parliament is the principal and the official

 

the agent. Parliament, as principal, requires

 

the government and its officials, as agents,

 

to implement the laws, policies and

 

programs it has approved – and holds the

 

government and officials to account for their

 

performance in this regard.

 

Parliament is also an agent, in that the

 

electorate (the principal) elects legislators to

 

enact laws and oversee government actions

 

on their behalf. The electorate then hold

 

legislators to account at election time and, in

 

a few jurisdictions, through recall, where

 

dissatisfied voters can recall their elected

 

representative and vote for an alternative.

 

.

 

The absence of the direct principal-agent

 

relationship relegates the accountability

 

relationship to one of horizontal

 

accountability or social accountability. In

 

order for there to be social or horizontal

accountability a hierarchical relationship is

 

generally lacking between actor and forum,

 

as are any formal obligations to render

 

account.

 

 

 

Social Accountability

 

The prevailing view of social accountability

 

is that it is an approach towards building

 

accountability that relies on civic

 

engagement, namely a situation whereby

 

ordinary citizens and/or civil society

 

organizations participate directly or

 

indirectly in exacting accountability. Such

 

accountability is sometimes referred to it as

 

society driven horizontal accountability

 

The term social accountability is, in a sense,

 

a misnomer since it is not meant to refer to a

 

specific type of accountability, but rather to

 

a particular approach (or set of mechanisms)

 

for exacting accountability. Mechanisms of

 

social accountability can be initiated and

 

supported by the state, citizens or both, but

 

very often they are

 

operate from the bottom-up.

 

It is generally accepted that social

 

accountability mechanisms are an example

 

of vertical accountability. However, a

 

minority of commentators argue that, with

 

respect to social accountability, a

 

hierarchical relationship is generally lacking

 

between actor and forum, as are any formal

 

obligations to render account. Giving

 

account to various stakeholders occurs

 

basically on a voluntary basis with no

 

intervention on the part of the principal.

 

Therefore, social accountability would be a

 

form of horizontal accountability.

 

Social accountability initiatives are as varied

 

and different as participatory budgeting,

 

administrative procedures acts, social audits,

 

and citizen report cards which all involve

 

citizens in the oversight and control of

 

government. This can be contrasted with

 

government initiatives or entities, such as

 

citizen advisory boards, which fulfill public

 

functions.

Often overlooked in considerations of social

 

accountability is the role that legislators can

 

play in providing weight to such grass roots

 

accountability mechanisms. For example, a

 

Member of Parliament can represent the

 

concerns of his/her constituents by

 

questioning a Minister during Question

 

Period in Parliament or by requesting

 

information directly from a government

 

ministry or department.

 

Diagonal Accountability

 

The concept of diagonal accountability is far

 

from settled with two groups of

 

commentators adopting different definitions.

 

The literature does not support a

 

convergence of their ideas. Although, there

 

is conjecture as to what constitutes diagonal

 

accountability, the prevailing view is that

 

diagonal accountability entails vertical

 

accountability actors. Generally speaking

 

diagonal accountability seeks to engage

 

citizens directly in the workings of

 

horizontal accountability institutions. This

 

is an effort to augment the limited

 

effectiveness of civil society’s watch dog

 

function by breaking the state’s monopoly

 

over responsibility for official executive

 

oversight.

 

The main principles of diagonal

 

accountability are:

 

􀂃

 

Mechanisms

 

participate in institutions of horizontal

 

accountability, rather than creating

 

distinct and separate institutions of

 

diagonal accountability. In this way,

 

agents of vertical accountability seek to

 

insert themselves more directly into the

 

horizontal axis.

 

Participate in Horizontal Accountability– Community advocates

􀂃

 

advocates are given an opportunity to

 

access information about government

 

agencies that would normally be limited

 

to the horizontal axis, for instance

 

internal performance reviews etc.

 

Furthermore, they have access to the

 

deliberations and reasons why

 

horizontal accountability institutions

make the decisions they do. Meanwhile,

 

community advocates bring first hand

 

experience about the performance of the

 

government agency to the accountability

 

process.

 

􀂃

 

Community advocates co-opt the

 

horizontal accountability institution’s

 

authority to compel a government

 

agency to answer questions (as in the

 

example given above of an MP

 

questioning a Minister about issues of

 

concern to his/her constituents); and

 

Compel Officials to Answer –

􀂃

 

advocates acquire the authority of the

 

horizontal accountability institution to

 

enforce the findings or influence elected

 

officials.

 

Some argue that civil society can strengthen

 

the effectiveness of horizontal accountability

 

institutions by pressuring existing agencies

 

to do their jobs more effectively. This type

 

of participation in accountability is not

 

direct action against wrongdoing, as with

 

vertical accountability, but rather society driven

 

horizontal accountability, such as

 

citizen advisory boards that fulfill public

 

functions, like auditing government

 

expenditures or supervising procurement.

 

More generally, active citizens and civil

 

society groups can work with elected

 

representatives to enhance parliaments’

 

representation role.

 

A minority of commentators diverge in their

 

opinion as to what constitutes diagonal

 

accountability. Some commentators suggest

 

administrative accountability, exercised

 

primarily through quasi-legal forums, such

 

as ombudsmen, auditors, and independent

 

inspectors reporting directly or indirectly to

 

parliament or the responsible minister, is a

 

form of independent and external

 

administrative and financial oversight and

 

control. This form of accountability is

 

different to the classic top-down/ principal agent

 

relationship because the administrative

 

accountability institution is not in a

 

hierarchical relationship to the public

officials and often do not have formal

 

powers to coerce public officials into

 

compliance. It is argued that these

 

administrative agents are auxiliary forums of

 

accountability that were instituted to help

 

the political principals control the great

 

variety of administrative agents and that

 

their accountability relations are, therefore, a

 

form of diagonal accountability.

 

 

 

Social Accountability versus Diagonal

 

Accountability

 

Recently the World Bank argued that social

 

accountability is broad enough to encompass

 

mechanisms of diagonal accountability. It

 

was argued that diagonal accountability

 

mechanisms can also be considered a form

 

of social accountability.

 

Considering social accountability is not

 

meant to refer to a specific type of

 

accountability, but rather to a particular

 

approach for exacting accountability, it

 

might be a broader concept than diagonal

 

accountability. This lends weight to the idea

 

that diagonal accountability mechanisms

 

could be a component of the broader

 

approach of social accountability.

 

However, this is contrast to some

 

commentators who draw a sharp distinction

 

between social accountability and diagonal

 

accountability. They argue that the state is

 

often resistant to citizens poaching its

 

exclusive oversight domain, instead

 

encouraging new forms of social

 

accountability, which they dismiss as being

 

merely a form of outreach that provides an

 

opportunity for civil society to inform

 

government about public perception of

 

government behavior.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Parliaments are key actors in what has been

 

termed the ‘chain of accountability’. They

 

are, along with the judiciary, the key

 

institution of horizontal accountability, not

 

only in their own right but also as the

 

institution to which many autonomous

 

accountability institutions report. They are

the vehicle through which political

 

accountability is exercised. Along with civil

 

society organizations and the mass media,

 

they are also important institutions in

 

vertical accountability.

 

Newer concepts of accountability have

 

emerged: social accountability and diagonal

 

accountability. The former, defined as

 

‘society driven horizontal accountability’

 

seeks to provide direct answerability from

 

government to citizens; parliaments and

 

elected representatives are important

 

vehicles through which citizens and civic

 

groups can also extract enforcement. And –

 

no matter how defined – parliaments are one

 

of the institutions through which diagonal

 

accountability can be exercised.