Accountability in Public Policy Partnerships

Abstract

Contents 3 Why Organisations Ought to be Accountable 3.1 Major justifications for accountability 3.1.1 Consequentialist justifications 3.1.2 Power and stakeholder theory 3.1.3 Power and the democratic deficit 3.2 The alternative: Justifying accountability through delegation 3.2.1 Delegation and the duty to act in the best interest of the principal 3.2.2 Delegation and the need for appropriate accountability mechanisms 3.2.3 Ex-post and hypothetical delegation 3.3 The advantages of justifying accountability through delegation 3.4 Form should follow function 4 Partnerships in Practice 4.1 Partnership types … 4.1.1 Advocacy and awareness-raising partnerships 4.1.2 Rule setting and regulation partnerships 4.1.3 Policy implementation partnerships 4.1.4 Information-generating partnerships 4.2 … and their accountability arrangements 4.2.1 Legal and fiscal accountability arrangements 4.2.2 Financial accountability 4.2.3 Elements of process accountability 4.2.4 Accountability for outcomes 4.2.5 Accountability through independence and professionalism 4.2.6 Overview over partnerships and their main accountability arrangements 5 Concrete Partnership Accountability Standards 5.1 Advocacy and awareness-raising partnerships: Basic standards for all partnerships 5.1.1 Accountability for complying with relevant rules and regulations 5.1.1.1 Choose a well-governed host organisation 5.1.1.2 Adopt clear internal rules vi Contents 5.1.1.3 Create an effective oversight body with the ability to apply sanctions 5.1.2 Financial accountability 5.1.2.1 Adopt a system of internal financial controls 5.1.2.2 Adopt accounting and reporting policies complying with donor demands and generating reliable, relevant, comparable and understandable information 5.1.2.3 Conduct independent audits for large partnerships 5.1.3 Accountability for working towards the partnership's mission 5.1.3.1 Define a clear mission 5.1.3.2 Orient partnership activities along the mission

Gender-based violence (GBV) coordination in humanitarian and public health emergencies: a scoping review

“…Uganda’s protracted humanitarian emergency was one of the first pilots of the Humanitarian Cluster Approach in 2006 and was praised by humanitarian actors and GBV specialists for improving GBV coordination [ 39 ]. The Uganda GBV sub-cluster reduced duplication, enhanced GBV services quality, defined a standardized referral pathway, developed a system for collecting GBV data, and formed a consortium to implement common trainings and mobilise funds [ 39 , 40 ]. The establishment of sub-national or decentralised coordination structures which complement national level functions was also deemed beneficial in several settings.…”

“…Fourteen sources explored issues of GBV localisation and inclusion of local actors in GBV coordination [ 15 , 19 , 21 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 50 – 53 , 55 ]. Despite significant global policy commitments, in practice, GBV localisation has been minimal, with little international funding channelled to local organizations, and several barriers and enablers were identified for local actors engaging in UN-led GBV coordination mechanisms.…”

“…Several sources noted cultural, linguistic and logistical barriers for local and national NGOs engaging in humanitarian coordination mechanisms, including meetings not being held in appropriate languages to facilitate participation [ 40 , 46 , 52 ]. In Haiti, for example, GBV coordination was criticised for holding meetings in English or French rather than Kreyol, thus excluding grassroots NGOs [ 52 ].…”

What can we learn on public accountability from non-health disciplines: a meta-narrative review

“…However, multiple relations lead to multiple types of accountability, which in turn give rise to competing demands. Also, international organisations 30 and partnerships between the public sector, private sector and civil society 31 were considered to be surrounded by networks of accountability relations.…”

“…Accountability is a derivative of ‘being accountable’, a quality or state of being where one accepts—or is obliged to accept—responsibility for one's actions (or inactions) towards another. 31 It thus presupposes a relationship between two actors where one actor (the agent or duty bearer) has to account for his actions to another actor (the principal or claims holder), because the actions of the agent affect the principal or because they have been carried out on behalf of the principal.…”