Accountability and the Multidimensional Mandate

Abstract

Public organizations are subject to many kinds of control mechanisms and analysts worry that they often suffer from an “accountability overload.” This article argues that such diagnoses are typically set without an adequate demarcation criterion for identifying accountability practices and separating them from other kinds of interaction, such as strategic pursuit of power or reputational standing. In response, the suggestion is that accountability practices should be restricted to procedures that track the mandate of the organization. This requires clarification of how mandates can be seen as more than a mere heap of conflicting considerations. The concept of a “multidimensional mandate” is introduced as a heuristic for thinking about how different perspectives on organizational action can be integrated. The interpretive test for deciding if a procedure qualifies as an accountability practice is whether it is sufficiently sensitive to the intertwinement of the goals and commitments of the organization. Neither account-givers nor account-holders can legitimately refrain from orienting themselves in this broader normative framework.

Accountability through public participation? Experiences from the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, China

“…It contributed to our insights into these dynamics and suggested ways to further study these dynamics. Third, accountability often implies a multiple accountabilities disorder problem (Eriksen 2020;Overman et al 2020). Our study shows how our framework can be helpful in revealing the nature of this accountability overload problem in concrete cases, and how Chinese governors have aligned the various accountability relationships over time.…”

“…The case is also interesting for theoretical reasons. It allows us to examine whether the introduction of horizontal accountability relations results in multiple accountabilities disorder issues and, if so, how governments deal with them (see Eriksen 2020). Nanjing is a good case to study in this respect, as urban-level participatory governance is introduced in a top-down authoritarian governance context.…”

“…Accountability overload has also been widely discussed by scholars (Bovens et al 2008). Often, officials face the "many eyes" issue: they have to give account to various forums and meet various legitimate, but often conflicting, expectations (Eriksen 2020). This tends to result in what Koppell (2005) calls the "multiple accountabilities disorder".…”

“…This contributes to our knowledge of the introduction, dynamics, and implications of attempts to introduce horizontal accountability practices in existing accountability systems, especially in China but also in a more general theoretical way. Moreover, we expect that this study will allow us to identify the potentials and pitfalls of strategies applied by governors to resolve their accountability deficit or overload issue (Eriksen 2020;Schillemans and Busuioc 2015). The question that guides this research, therefore, is: How have the nature and the focus of accountability evolved as a result of citizens' participation in accountability practices?…”

Organizational Reputation in the Public Administration: A Systematic Literature Review

“…For instance, Rimkutė (2020) states that regulatory agencies emphasize the technical aspects of reputation because evidence‐based decisions are their raison d ’ être . However, Eriksen (2020) proposed a multidimensional model for studying accountability, in which the four reputational facets are not under conflict. His model emphasizes the nested structure of goals that underlie legitimate decision‐making processes in organizations.…”