Accountability in Voluntary Partnerships: To Whom and for What?

Acar, Muhittin; Guo, Chao; Yang, Kaifeng

doi:10.1007/s11115-011-0169-0

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, in the articles we analysed for this subsection, we also noted that authors raise concerns on the lack of expost evaluations (Acar et al, 2008;Willems 2014). Andon's (2012) review identifies a plethora of case studies with evaluations for PPP projects before the kick-off of their operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on Hirschman's (1970) seminal work "Exit, Voice and Loyalty", Acar et al (2012) propose an additional sanctioning mechanism related to the disengagement and withdrawal of partners and/or stakeholders from PPPs. This type of sanction reflects a form of disapproval, but also a type of disciplinary measure.…”

Section: Sanctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, the implementation and management of PPPs are susceptible to a number of potentially problematic practices that need critical attention. In particular, one of the most widely shared critiques in the literature is the lack of accountability (Acar et al, 2008;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). This is the quality or state of PPPs of being answerable to the wide range of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984) and take responsibility for their behaviour and actions (Considine, 2002;Bovens et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These critiques raise serious questions about whether or not PPPs erode the accountability of each sector involved in the partnership, with ultimate repercussions to the system of accountability overall (Cuadrado-Ballesteros, 2014;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Given that the literature of PPPs still yielding more theoretical questions than empirical investigations (Acar et al, 2008;Steets, 2010), how do we know these concerns are well grounded? If this is to happen, what are the accountabilities being eroded with PPPs anyway?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Key mechanisms of the accountability process in public-private partnerships

Estève¹,

Reyes-Gonzalez

2020

RC-SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este estudio analiza el cuerpo de la investigación académica y empírica disponible respecto a las Asociaciones Público-Privadas (APPs). A través de una revisión sistemática de la literatura, exploramos qué tan justificadas son las preocupaciones sobre las APPs erosionando los procesos de rendición de cuentas a los que debieran estar sujetas. Para ello, investigamos más de 50 estudios de APPs publicados entre 1983 y 2017. Estos estudios fueron analizados a través de un marco de categorización que permitió mapear el proceso por el cual la rendición de cuentas de APPs toma lugar en la práctica. Cuatro mecanismos claves sobresalen en este proceso: comportamiento del agente, información sobre el comportamiento, evaluación de información y sanción del comportamiento. Basados en estos mecanismos pudimos identificar, además, cuatro figuras principales con derecho legítimo a solicitar información a las APPs y los mecanismos que utilizan para participar en este proceso general de transparencia y rendición de cuentas. Dado que ninguno de estas figuras principales ejerce control total sobre los cuatro mecanismos clave, argumentamos que esto configura un estado caótico de demandas traslapadas y contradictorias para las APPs. Una falta de coordinación que conlleva, en efecto, a un déficit en la rendición de cuentas. Sin embargo, proponemos que este estado disímbolo de las cosas puede convertirse en una ventaja única en caso de validarse la interdependencia y complementariedad entre las demandas de los principales. This article brings together empirical academic research on accountability in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Via a systematic literature review, we explored how well grounded are concerns about PPPs eroding accountability. We investigated over 50 publications on PPPs, published between 1983 and 2017. These studies were analysed in lights of a categorisation framework of publications to map out the process through which accountability takes place in practice for PPPs. Four key accountability mechanisms stand out in our analysis: behaviour, information, evaluation and sanction. Based upon this analysis, we identified four main account-holders and the mechanisms they employ to participate in the overall accountability process of PPPs. Since none of them can exert full control over the mechanisms of accountability available to them, we argue that this unbalanced and chaotic state of contradicting and overlapping demands of accountability indeed generates accountability deficits, but it can be turned into an advantage if interdependency and complementarity between account-holders is further validated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sanctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Key mechanisms of the accountability process in public-private partnerships

Estève¹,

Reyes-Gonzalez

2020

RC-SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) The extent to which they are grounded in research evidence and solid theory; (3) The extent to which they are guided by mandatory and voluntary accountability systems [12,76,77]; and (4) Built-in mechanisms for evaluation-driven learning, knowledge generation, and continuous improvement.…”

Section: A Capacity Building Agenda As a New Institutional Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categories, Boundaries, and Bridges: The Social Geography of Schooling and the Need for New Institutional Designs

Lawson

2016

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As unprecedented child and family migration patterns continue, neighborhoods, hamlets, towns, cities, states/provinces, and entire nations are impacted. These impacts are especially profound when migrants' first language is not the host nation's dominant one; when they relocate in communities already challenged by poverty, social exclusion, and social isolation; and when educator-controlled, standardized, stand-alone schools continue to focus exclusively on teacher-directed, academic learning during the school day. Under these circumstances, standardized schools struggle to achieve desirable results, making it clear that relations between schools and their host locales are consequential for everyone. Using the United States as a case example, this introductory analysis provides an appreciative framework for the new designs presented in this Special Issue of Education Sciences.

show abstract

Planning for Scale-Up, Scale-Out, Sustainability, Continuous Improvement, and Accountability

Lawson

Veen

2015

Developing Community Schools, Community Learning Centers, Extended-Service Schools and Multi-Service Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accountability in Voluntary Partnerships: To Whom and for What?

Cited by 38 publications

References 30 publications

Key mechanisms of the accountability process in public-private partnerships

Key mechanisms of the accountability process in public-private partnerships

Categories, Boundaries, and Bridges: The Social Geography of Schooling and the Need for New Institutional Designs

Planning for Scale-Up, Scale-Out, Sustainability, Continuous Improvement, and Accountability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About