Introduction:
The modern public governance system has been using the concept of public accountability to denote its commitment towards its citizens as envisaged in the philosophy of the modern democratic state. It is believed that the word “accountable” has originated from the Latin term “computer”, which means “to count”. It requires a person to produce “a count” of the properties or money left in his or her care (Mark Bevir: 2007; 1). Even today, accountability has been used more profusely in the financial context on the pattern it had used earlier. However, the term’s usage has acquired many dimensions and left behind the scope of accountability considered under the domain of control “exercised through financial bookkeeping or budgetary records” alone.
Meaning of Public Accountability:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “accountable” as “liable to be called to account”. Similarly, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as a quality or state of being accountable, especially an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s action. The Encyclopedia of Governance defines accountability as an abstract noun and refers to the capacity and obligation of someone to produce an account.
The term defined in this sense can be applied in individual and organizational contexts and inferred to be assumed or applied willingly (internal or self-imposed) or externally, respectively. Moreover, it does not differentiate between public or private and political or administrative institutions. It varies from one organization to another organization in terms of its system, scope, focus, pattern or mode. In other words, the need for accountability is a universal one. The concept of accountability, when applied in government or in a public law context, may be taken as “public accountability”.
Accountability primarily means that someone is answerable to someone else for certain specified tasks legitimately assigned to the person answerable and endowed with requisite authority and resources. Robert Gregory believes that “it requires agents (elected leaders and government officials), to give an account of their actions to specified others, who have the right and capacity to monitor performance and to invoke sanction and rewards, and to answer to these with the account of how and why decisions were made, discretion exercised, and action taken” (2007:341).
Mohit Bhattacharya opines that “the major concern is how to ensure that who wield power exercise it responsibly, so that they can be held accountable for their actions”. He found that accountability has three purposes: controlling abuse of bureaucratic power and discretion, assurance to perform in accordance with standards and quality, and continuous improvement in governance and public management.
DFID has put the meaning of accountability “ensuring that officials in public, private and voluntary sector organisations are answerable for their actions and that there is redress when duties and commitments are not met”. The DFID consider that there are many ways in which people and organisations can be held accountable. These are: standard setting, investigation, answerability, and sanction. Thus, accountability has changed with the times and prevailing contemporary conditions.
Concept of Public Accountability:
Amitai Etzioni (1975) believes that people employ the term accountability in three concrete contexts. First, it refers “to greater responsibility and responsiveness”. Second, it is used “to allude to greater attention to the community”. Third, it means “the greater commitment to values”.
Etzioni also suggested that the term accountability is used in four alternative conceptions forms. First, “The symbolic use of autonomy is a gesture only. An administrator may make vague promises about improving accountability mechanism, but never follow through”. Second, “Accountability may be an ongoing political process as the administrator reacts to the pressure of particular interest groups, depending on the power they wield”, and “change in relative power will produce a significant change in accountability”.
Third, per the formal legal approach, accountability is considered a “formal system of checks and balances” that “promotes accountability”. However, in practice, Etzioni has observed that there are real power wielders behind the scenes making decisions and getting those decisions legitimized through the formal system. Fourth, “the guidance approach sees accountability as the interaction of all these (above stated three) factors plus a moral base, with the administrator playing an active role in mobilizing, educating, forming new alternatives, and coalition building”. Thus, Etzioni has attempted to understand the dynamics of accountability in the administrative process of an organization.
Stone (1995) has argued that the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility has five conceptions: parliamentary control, managerialism, judicial/ quasi-judicial review, constituency relations and market. Romrek and Ingrahm (2000) identified four types of accountability: hierarchical, legal, professional and political.
Jabbra and Dwivedi (1998) defined public service accountability as “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”. In their opinion, accountability consists of five elements: organizational or administrative, legal, professional, political, and moral. Organizational accountability is the traditional hierarchical accountability, but the legal aspect pertains to legislative and judicial scrutiny. Professional means conforming to the professional code established and practised to fulfil the public interest. Political accountability envisages legitimacy to the programme and actions, and morality means respecting the social value system and more than merely behaving as per the law of the land.
The New Public Management has introduced a paradigm shift in the traditional public administration and administrative law by focusing on performance and policy output instead of being concerned only with regular and effective implementation of the authority deciding substantive public policies. It could distinguish respective operational domains of politics and administration and advocate more autonomy for policy implementation from the legislative process, at least in modern complex societies (if not in India or other developing countries). Now, political accountability has become more procedural and administrative accountability has become more focused on output.
The concept of accountability has to face many challenges because of the emergence of New Public Management or in the times of “market economy” or “entrepreneurial management”. The contemporary changes like focus on efficiency, outcome, competition, value for money, catalytic role of the government, autonomy, partnership and customer orientation, etc, brought in by NPM have challenged the concept of accountability in terms of its standards, agents and means.
Now, the accountability procedures emphasise economy, efficiency and productivity in place of public interest, democratic values and political and citizen rights. The concern for accountability (agent to whom the governance needs to be accountable) has also changed from collective citizenship (people-centred tradition) to individual citizenship (customer-oriented). The citizen has been redefined as a customer or client, and the social rights available to collective citizenship have been diminished under new commercial conditions.
In the case of means of accountability, there has been a perceptible dilution of political neutrality and erosion of public accountability to the general public. It has made the civil servants more vulnerable to political executive and ministerial control, making them more loyal to the minister.
Robert Gregory (2007) defined accountability as “the necessary arrangements intended to ensure both the constitutionally appropriate use of elective political power itself, and the coordinated, systematic and planned bureaucratic implementation of the policy purposes defined through the exercise of power”. It (accountability) “is concerned with how well (or badly) public officials (political or administrative) operates in the public interest and more with whether thy abuse their position of authority‟.
It is also “concerned with reducing the opportunity for corruption, maladministration, or legal impropriety that come to people in positions of power”. However, the effectiveness of this kind of accountability depends on the nature of the legal system and the independence of the judiciary from political power. Accountability, when defined in this sense, may be termed as legal accountability or constitutional accountability.
Tero Erkilla (2007) observed that accountability is categorized into six different types based on the features, mechanisms and administrative context. These are: political, bureaucratic, personal, professional, performance, and deliberation accountability. The first four types are considered traditional, and the latter two are termed as “new” or “alternative” types of accountability.
Erkilla found a shift in power from the late 1980s in the context of the State. These shifts are: (i) An upward shift emphasizing the role of international organizations and (ii) A downward shift of decentralization granting local government more autonomy and a shift towards private and non-government organizations in terms of externalization of government activities.
Thus, there has been a change in the locus of power of the State, and it has made the traditional means of accountability ineffective. Erkilla considers that “it is attributed to the rise of new governance models which are seen to challenge the traditional mechanism of accountability”. Therefore, the scholar (Erkilla) believes this has changed the term “accountability” conceptual framework.
Further, traditionally and normally, political and administrative accountability is said to apply to public office positions. Therefore, a brief account of these two concepts is provided below.
Political accountability is closely related to democracy and legitimacy, and those who govern are answerable for their action to the people, either directly or indirectly. This kind of accountability is external in nature and depends on the form and mechanisms of political representation, linking citizens to their legislators, and on the formalized relationship between executive and legislative powers. In this kind of accountability, citizens hold their legislators accountable through the electoral process. It determines the quality of democracy and public management. Although considered limited instruments, the electoral process and ministerial accountability in a parliamentary system are used to keep control over political power and make it responsive to the electorate’s wishes. Therefore, there has always been a demand to make political accountability applicable at the decision-making level, and that is also in a procedural manner.
Administrative accountability is apparently more straightforward because it operates within a more definite hierarchical structure where there is a certain division of labour and competencies and where both the content and process of decision-making are explicitly stated, and hence, the role played by individuals can be examined in more detail. It is easier to identify and account for what is to be accountable, to whom and for what in case of administrative or ministerial accountability as it is easier to apportion responsibility for specific policy issues or administrative decisions. In such kind of accountability, one can extract and isolate the causes and effects (in decisions or policies or the circumstances of social and economic life) more easily and clearly.
Accountability and Responsibility:
Mulgan considers that accountability was first conceptually included in the idea of responsibility but later gained ground as an individual concept, even to the extent of outweighing responsibility in both importance and scope. He defined accountability as a “process of being called to account to some authority for one’s actions‟ or “a process of giving an account”. Robert Gregory states: “By comparison, accountability is a matter of political and organizational housekeeping, whereas responsibility is often about moral conflicts and issue of life and death”.
Uhr puts it: “Accountability is about compliance with authority, whereas responsibility is about empowerment and independence”. Paul Thomas put it this way: Preventing the potential use of power is the ultimate goal of numerous accountability arrangements and procedures adopted by contemporary governments (1998:348). Thus, accountability is negative in its approach, whereas responsibility is considered to be positive as it emphasizes taking action/s required for the betterment. In other words, accountability is about minimizing misgovernment, and responsibility is about maximizing good government.
Process of Accountability:
The process of accountability refers to three questions: who is accountable?; To whom is someone accountable?; and for what (matter) is someone accountable to another one?’ The answer to these three questions describes the accountability process. Mohit Bhattacharya has identified that a public official is accountable to the internal hierarchy, legislature, judiciary, citizens and media.
Means and Methods:
The multidimensionality of the process of accountability not only requires several tools and techniques but is also indispensable to employ many modes to make the mechanism effective. In other words, it involves control mechanisms to keep the public administration under control by making appropriate laws and policies and regulating political and administrative discretion. It also means preventing power misuse and building citizens’ confidence in public institutions. Traditionally, the control over administration is considered internal and external.
The internal means of control (organizational or hierarchical accountability) are budget system, personnel management including annual confidential reports, efficiency survey, professional standards, administrative leadership, hierarchical order, enquiries and investigations, etc.
However, external control is more extensive and traditionally comprises legislative, executive, judicial and citizen controls. Legislative control is exercised by the elected representatives by various means and acts as a custodian of the people’s interest. This mode of control is different in the parliamentary and presidential forms of government, but it is general, periodical, informational, theoretical, limited, restricted and not as effective as it ought to be.
On the other hand, executive control is exercised by the chief executive (political executive, President in case of the Presidential system and Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister in case of a parliamentary system) over the governance. This control is fuller in content, constant, simulative, corrective and directive one.
Judicial control is exercised by courts over the administrative acts that keep the governance within the constitutional and statutory realm. The judicial accountability ensured by the courts also means the protection of the rights and liberties of citizens by ensuring the legality of policy or administrative acts. L. D. White, “The purpose of legislative supervision is principally to control the policy and the expenditure of the executive branch. The end sought by judicial control of administrative acts is to ensure their legality and thus, protect citizens against unlawful trespass on their constitutional and other rights”. M. P. Sharma called the judicial control “Judicial Remedies”.
There are various kinds of institutions and mechanisms like an ombudsman, administrative courts, procurator-general, parliamentary commissioner, Lokpal and Lokayukta, consumer courts, etc, providing access to individuals to redress their grievances and ensuring accountability in the public delivery system. The mechanism of recalling public officials, a referendum on controversial issues, public opinion, social audit, Jan Sunwai, etc., also provides a voice to the citizens and checks misuse of powers and keeping the citizens’ interest as a primary concern of the governance.
Mohit Bhattacharya believes decision-makers should have legitimacy and must possess moral conduct. Legitimacy is ensured through the constitutional electoral system, especially to elect the legislature to determine public policy or empower it to make major decisions for society/nation and other legislative measures. These means may be insufficient or may not have the desired level of efficacy if not supplemented with moral and social values promoting and propagating social justice, public interest, and necessary professional values. Therefore, several measures intending to curb/ check corruption, regulate private interest in public affairs, and establish standards of conduct in public life are to be made as the components of the strategy of ensuring social values in the public administrative system of the society concerned.
Further, he (Mohit Bhattacharya) felt that the governance should be responsive and open one. Public participation and consultation, debates and discussions constituting advisory bodies, organizing public meetings and ensuring freedom of speech to everyone are integral and indispensable means to make administrative institutions responsive to the citizens and their needs. Similarly, parliamentary questions, public information services, public hearings, official reports including gazette notifications and annual reports and above all, the transparency measures undertaken in the recent past have made the system of governance more open and transparent. These measures strive to open the government’s decision-making system for public scrutiny and public officials to act in the public interest.
Bhattacharya also considers that accountability should ensure optimal utilization of resources and must improve efficiency and effectiveness in utilising national resources. The resources and their optimum utilization determine the quality of life of the members of society. Therefore the budgets, financial procedures, investment rules, parliamentary committees, audit institutions and procedures, public enquiries and planning systems are devised to control and decide the distribution pattern of the resource distribution and utilization.
The information system, a new value system devised for good governance for developing countries and NPM, especially regarding value-for-money audits, setting objectives and standards, programme guidelines, approval feedback from the public, etc., helps improve efficiency and effectiveness in administration. Moreover, the e-governance system ensures efficiency, economy, objectivity and equity, and many other measures strive to make governance more accountable and responsible.
The process of “regulation”, “delegation”, and “internationalization” has added a new dimension to the conception of accountability as the new non-majoritarian institution of economic and political governance is playing an important role in establishing horizontal accountability.
Further, concepts like a quasi-market form of accountability (measured in terms of standard market and performance indicators), horizontal accountability (described as the checks and balances that various non-majoritarian institutions perform in a democratic system), and democratic accountability (quality of democracy, especially in terms of protection of individual rights in general, rule of law, probity, and performance of the public sector in particular) have been added to the traditional conception of accountability. This has become essential as the institutions present worldwide for providing services to the citizens as a private player under public public-private partnership model or as a service provider under the contracting-out strategy must be accountable and answerable to the stakeholders and the citizens of one or more nations.
Conclusion:
In the present time, the conception of accountability has not been confined to public administration; rather, it has also reached the private and third sectors. The concepts, tools and techniques applied to ensure accountability worldwide are similar in many respects, especially in their approaches and principles. Civil societies, particularly in the form of national and international level NGOs, have increasingly taken on the task of monitoring the operation of both governments and intergovernmental institutions, particularly in the newer fields of governance where the rights of citizens have created a new kind of accountability.