2. Accountability mechanism

Step 1 of 1

2. Accountability mechanism

Romzek and Dubnik (1994) signal four alternative systems of accountability based on variations in two critical factors: Source of agency control (internal vs. external) and Degree of control over agency actions (high vs. low):

Hierarchical/Bureaucratic accountability systems (internal control, high degree of control over agency actions)

  • Expectation of managers are managed through focusing attention on the priorities of those at the top of the hierarchy;
  • Characteristics include the superior-subordinate relationship, orders are unquestioned, standard operating rules and procedures, and close supervision;
  • Superior-subordinate relationship;
  • Supervision is the basis of the relationship

Legal accountability (external control, high degree of control over agency actions)

  • An outside individual or group is in a position to impose formal sanctions or assert formal contractual relations;
  • Typically, the outsider makes laws or other policy mandates that the public administrator is obliged to follow
  • Principle-agent relationship;
  • Fiduciary/contractual responsibility is the basis of the relationship

Professional accountability (Internal control, Low degree of control over agency actions)

  • Public officials must rely on skilled or expert employees to provide appropriate solutions to problems. These employees expect to be held accountable for their actions but insist agency managers give them the latitude to do the best job possible;
  • Layperson-expert relationship;
  • Deference to experts characterizes this accountability system

Political accountability (external control, Low degree of control over agency actions)

  • Question is whom does the public official represent and to whom is he/she accountable. Is it the public or the person that appointed them (elected official);
  • Constituent-representative relationship;
  • Responsiveness to constituents (e.g., public, elected officials) characterizes this accountability system

In particular, a crucial issue pertains the relationships between the accountor and the accountee that, especially in innovative fields or within the public sector, have frequently led to an excessive emphasis only on the aspects related to the outcomes and the results achieved. This has fostered the compulsive adoption of variously conceived systems to monitoring and evaluating the performance, often in the search of an irrational and obsessive “measurement culture”.