Dissecting the Semantics of Accountability and Its Misuse

Abstract

Even if we could agree the core principles of good governance, we would have no sense of how those principles ought to be expressed. People might accept that an organisation should be transparent but differ over how much transparency is required, what it is to be transparent (actively publish reports? respond to requests for information?), or-most importantly perhaps-on who decides transparency's parameters at any point in time. What, alternatively, is it to accept democratic voice? What constitutes acceptable democratic restraint? To what degree can a democratic say over micro-level decisions (specific placements of wind farms for instance) be balanced against an organisation's effective pursuit of already-mandated macrolevel goals (operationalizing a carbon-mitigation energy plan). Governance not only requires everyday decision-making processes in order to decide questions such as these but has shied away from solving them by allocating unilateral decision-making power to single decision-makers. It has instead developed ever-morecomplex mechanisms that test decision-makers, expose them to scrutiny and often to retribution. No decision-maker's power is absolute therefore, although precisely how their non-absolutism can be characterised may differ in different circumstances. The degree that law simply prohibits specific kinds of executive behaviour varies for instance. Law might delegate power over executives to boards themselves or designate organisational stakeholders either as decision-makers or as decision-reviewers. Or it might aim at some mixture of the three. Questions of what it means-in everyday operational terms-for powers to be delegated arise, as do questions of how powers of restraint may be expressed. What executive discretion even means is subject to negotiation, struggle and debate both within law-making, within organisations and between the two.

Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences

“…Bovens describes these obligations existing between an actor and a “forum,” a term that highlights that obligations may be with a collective rather than an individual, and alludes to a degree of public judgement taking place based on them. O'Kelly and Dubnick suggest the use of two metaphors in addition to the forum; the agora as the “fundamental social milieu from which reasons, purposes and norms emerge”, and the bazaar , in which “people develop relationships…rooted in their trading with others” (O'Kelly & Dubnick, 2014). These also suggest the public nature of accountability relationships and highlight that obligations might have different characters or respond to different logics and norms.…”

“…I adopt what has been called a “relational” approach to accountability (O'Kelly & Dubnick, 2014, p. 3). This recognizes that real‐world accountability processes involve complex social relations between a wide range of actors at a particular point in time, and through which expectations are set up and actions measured against them.…”