Accountability in Public Management and Administration in Bangladesh

Talib A. Younis, Iqbal Md. Mostafa

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138716483
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351768627
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This title was first published in 2000:  This timely volume makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the issues faced by developing countries embarking on the path of democracy and economic development. Accountability in public management and administration is an essential element in the decision making process. It provides a comprehensive study of public institutions and their management in a developing context.

PART I

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

1 The Meaning of Accountability

Introduction

The electorate, that is the people, elect the government and expect many things from it. Not least of these is that it will be accountable to them at large. In fact, if the government is accountable to the people, it follows that citizens will have no problem in meeting their basic obligations; as tax payers, for example, they will not object to paying tax, knowing that public money is being well spent on the welfare and development of society. Ultimately, everything is dependent upon the sincerity of the government’s commitment to honour promises made before gaining power. Unfortunately, however, it has been observed in recent years that governments are not always keen to enlighten their electorates. Accordingly, decision-making, public spending and many other issues become grey areas where the facts are often obscure. Governments do not always want to have to explain their actions, for example, regarding the reasons why their officials seem at times to exercise irrational authority and power, and why people encounter red tape, maladministration, and so on. It would appear that governments believe themselves to be in possession of a mandate to govern according to their own desires, without being required to account for their actions. In fact, it is the view of scholars, writers and administrative thinkers that many - some would say almost all - the countries of the world are encountering problems of accountability. These problems may be multi-faceted and their consequences may vary, but they should still be identified and analysed in order to trace their main underlying themes. By throwing light on the root of the problem, perhaps some suggestions can be offered towards increasing accountability.

In the face of the increasing power of political leaders and the complexity of government institutions on one hand, and bureaucratic power on the other, accountability has been a key issue in both democratic and non-democratic societies. Public accountability is one of the greatest challenges facing government. Democracy and accountability go hand-in-hand; therefore, democracy does not end with the election of those who are given delegated power to run the country’s affairs, but continues with the enduring obligation of the elected to give a satisfactory explanation and justification of their conduct. So, democratic society depends upon a system of public management which is accountable, open and transparent.

As the public institutions of states have become more complex, the concept of accountability has itself increased in its complexity. The very meaning of the term has become blurred around the edges. Gephart argues that the definition and other discussions of it do not themselves make clear exactly what the term means. As he notes:

In short, accountability has been everyone’s watchword, but its meaning is clouded and elusive. Concurrently, related methodology and techniques are either unclear, or totally unknown to those intimately involved. As many states have demonstrated, it is easier to legislate than to accomplish (Gephart, 1975: p.xi).

The country of Brazil provides us with another indicator of the complexity of the accountability issue, if it is linguistic one, as Campos states: ‘the word “accountability” does not exist in the Portuguese language, thus making the task of writing a chapter on public service accountability in Brazil a real challenge’ (Campos, 1988: pp.201-213).

This chapter will examine the concept and analyse different notions and processes of accountability over different periods of time. The specific objective is to uncover the precise meaning(s) of accountability.

The Historical Development of Accountability

The concept of accountability is younger than organised government, but it has not had the same meaning in all epochs. In essence, the definition depends upon the nature of the state itself. For example, accountability in the first truly political state, the Athenian State, meant ‘lawfulness’. The concept was direct, simple and comprehensive. To clarify the meaning of accountability over time, it is imperative at this stage to discuss the different models of it that have existed.

Day and Klein begin their discussion with Ancient Athens (Day and Klein, 1987: pp. 10-16). In the Athenian State, all authority followed from the Assembly of the citizens, and officials were accountable to it (see fig. 1.1). The officials were bound to submit periodic reports to the office of the Assembly of the citizens, ten times a year, giving accounts of their conduct. If they failed in this duty they were liable for some kind of punishment.

Figure 1.1 Athenian Model of Accountability

In this society, the financial activities of officials were audited. Audit was the servant of the Assembly. The model of accountability implied here is basic and straightforward.

In examining the later feudal model of accountability in Europe, we observe that accountability was an assertion that all authority followed from the King, and officials were accountable to him. The King was ultimately accountable to God for his actions (see fig. 1.2). It should be noted here that the concept of fiscal accountability emerged in this form of society where division of labour and specialisation - two key aspects of bureaucracy - developed among the officials of the King. So, in England, officials were answerable for their performance as well as for fiscal propriety.

The transitional model, coming lately, developed the notion that all authority followed from Parliament, not from the sovereign. From the sixteenth century onwards, the idea of accountability to Parliament was developed and practised by holding the sovereign and his /her ministers accountable to it (see fig. 1.3).

Figure 1.2 Feudal Model of Accountability

At this stage, a tug-of-war developed between the executive and the legislature regarding parliamentary control over expenditure, in an attempt to ensure that money was spent legally, without waste or corruption. By the seventeenth century, Locke showed by his Contract Theory of Government that accountability was a crucial link in the chain between the executive and the legislature (Locke, 1947: p. 128). By the nineteenth century, Mill was stressing the need for ministerial accountability through which the executive could be held accountable to the parliament (Mill, 1962: p.232).

Figure 1.3 Transitional Model of Accountability

Two forms of the accountability process are seen in the simple modern model of accountability (see fig. 1.4) for central government and local government. This model shows that all authority follows from the people and the line of accountability travels through civil servants to ministers and ultimately to Parliament, which is accountable to the people at large. Several mechanisms were devised to make governmental bodies/organisations accountable both financially and for programme performance.

Figure 1.4 Simple Modern Model of Accountability

The simple modem model shows that there is as yet no parliamentary accountability at local level. As the activities of government become ever more complex, it is difficult to accommodate the concept of accountability at a local level, and more so to establish a link of accountability between central and local government. However, in contemporary society, new links between different levels of government have been forged. As the tax collection state turns into a service delivery state, a hierarchy of administration below that of the civil servant is created. Simultaneously, professional bodies have emerged, as the welfare state also becomes the professional state (see fig. 1.5).

Now the link of accountability between central and local government has been established, parliamentary accountability at central government level is directly linked to the emergent local government system. This type of model is sometimes called the ‘complex modern model’.

Figure 1.5 Complex Modern Model of Accountability

Concepts of Accountability

At its simplest, accountability means answerability for the discharge of duties or conduct. It requires satisfactory reasons for one’s conduct and an acknowledgment of responsibility for one’s actions. But accountability is not synonymous with responsibility. Mosher argues that subjective or psychological responsibility is a feeling of responsible behaviour that is more synonymous with loyalty, identification and conscience than it is with accountability and answerability (Mosher, 1968: p.8). However, on the other hand, he believes that ‘objective responsibility is closely akin to accountability or answerability’ (p.7). He defines objective responsibility as a responsibility of a person or organisation to someone else, outside of self, for something or for some kind of performance, where penalties may follow if one fails to carry out directives. Finer, in his paper ‘Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government’ argues that one definition of responsibility may mean that a person is accountable to any agency or individual that determines the lines of his obligations and terms of continued employment, and exerts authority over that person. Conversely, a second definition refers to an internal and personal sense of moral obligation. Finer says, ‘in the first definition, the essence is the externality of the agency or persons to whom an account is to be rendered’ (Finer, 1966: p.249).

However, Simon et al. define responsibility as responsiveness to administrative decisions, and accountability as the enforcement of this. By accountability, they include ‘those methods, procedures and forces that determine what values will be reflected in administrative decisions’ (Simon et al, 1991: p.513). However, they also observe that ‘accountability is the enforcement of responsibility’ (p.513).

It is now clear that there is a relationship between accountability and responsibility. The meaning of responsibility corresponds to the concept of accountability (Gray and Jenkins, 1985: p. 138; Thynne and Goldring, 1981: p. 199; Hart 1968: p.212). The correspondence has also been observed by Pfiffner and Presthus: ‘accountability refers to the formal or legal locus of responsibility’ (Pfiffner and Presthus, 1960: p.539).

Accountability is not only the foundation of any governing process (Jabbra and Dwivedi, 1988: p.8) but is also a check on power and authority, exercised by both politicians and administrators. Accountability refers both to a mechanism and a process, by which the political leadership of a country discharges its routine duties through ministers and public officials, who are required to account for their actions/inactions. The purpose is to free the government from challenges to its authority, to avoid potential mistakes by public officials, and to protect public interests.

Accountability, then, clearly refers to the following basic elements: public interest; the formulation and implementation of public policies; the role of political leadership; the role of administrators; the exercise of power and authority. The relationship between public and political leadership, and public interest in how power is exercised are of course a major theme in public management literature. These elements are interrelated and interdependent in the sense that government fulfils public interest via the output of its administrators. They in turn formulate and implement public policies, and their responsibility and accountability must be accepted by government/political leadership. On the other hand, government is held accountable to the people by the holding of regular, free and competitive elections. Both government and administrators possess and utilise power, and through the exercise of power (legal-rational) their accountability to the people can be tested.

Jabbra and Dwivedi categorise accountability in five ways: administrative or organisational accountability, legal accountability, political accountability, professional accountability, and moral accountability. According to them, ‘Public service accountability involves the methods by which a public agency or a public official fulfils its duties and obligations and the process by which that agency or the public official is required to account for such actions’ (Jabbra and Dwivedi, 1988: p.5).

Other definitions of accountability focus on other elements such as fiscal probity, programme, process and outcome. Thynee and Goldring note that the notions ‘task’, ‘appropriate’ and ‘accountable’ are used to clarify the complex meanings of accountability. ‘Task’ will require public officials to perform certain jobs, whereas ‘appropriate’ will lead them to perform the jobs in a responsible and responsive manner. Finally, ‘accountable’ will tell them how they are subject to controls (Thynee and Goldring, 1987).

It is imperative at this stage to clarify Western democratic concepts of accountability. In a democratic polity, elected assemblies and public officials are given power to enable them to discharge their duties. However, there is the obvious danger that this power may be abused; for example, ministers may seek or give political patronage, public officials may show nepotism or favouritism to subordinates or clients. The powers that ministers or officials may or may not misuse can at worst violate the rights of the very people that they represent. There is, therefore, a need to adopt a more open attitude to information; if power is to be effectively controlled, arguably, both elected assemblies and public officials should give satisfactory justification for their activities. Accountability refers to this answerability for policy, performance, governmental actions and processes.

Accountability is in the public interest, and the redress of individual grievances is an important component of it. If a person is not made accountable for the exercise of authority delegated to him or her, and higher authorities fail to take action to remedy a situation, then as a consequence, that individual will not pay attention to the redress of individual grievances. So, a clear line of command from the top to the bottom, and a return line of responsibility and accountability from the bottom to the top, are essential. Otherwise, the exercise of authority as the power to direct is impossible. However, the notion of authority as the right to call people to account needs to be accompanied by the power, whether legitimate or not, which in turn must be accompanied by accountability. In other words, some control must exist over the exercise of power.

Accountability also requires openness. If the process of decision-making is open and visible to the electorate, then it can be seen to be fair. In addition, for the sake of effective control of power, there must exist an open attitude to information. The upper levels of any organisation can accumulate power at the expense of the lower levels, a situation which can lead to mismanagement. So, accountability is about effective scrutiny, which implies effective access to information; without this,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acronyms/Abbreviations
• Authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
• PART II DESCRIPTIVE ASPECTS
• PART III THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• PART IV COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
• PART V APPLICATIONS
• PART VI CONCLUSION
• References
• Appendices
• Index