Public Accountability

Bovens, Mark; Schillemans, Thomas; Goodin, Robert E.

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0012

Cited by 313 publications

(349 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

310

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accountability is located in the practice of narrating and justifying activities. This practice typically involves an accountor and an accountee (Bovens et al, 2014;Chan, 1999;Mulgan, 2000;Neyland and Woolgar, 2002;Parker and Gould, 1999;Roberts and Scapens, 1985;Yakel, 2001) and is accompanied by evaluation of accountor's practices against certain standards or criteria (Bovens, 2010;Chan, 1999;Klenk and Pieper, 2012). These can be legal standards that officials need to meet, such as the constitution and the law (Bovens et al, 2008), procedural standards that prescribe how public processes need to be performed and performance requirements that identify outputs and outcomes (Gendron et al, 2001;Jos and Tompkins, 2004;Parker and Gould, 1999;Ryan and Walsh, 2004;Yang and Rho, 2007).…”

Section: Locating Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study examines the shifting location of accountability in the light of the changes ICT brings about to public sector work by re-structuring it, re-organizing public information and knowledge and re-orienting the citizen-official relation. We move away from the view that accountability is a virtue that differentiates good from bad conduct towards a view that sees accountability as a mechanism affected by changes in the context and the structures that organize public work such as technology (Bovens et al, 2014;Bovens, 2010). The paper contributes to studies that explore changes in public accountability conditioned by the mediation of ICT in public sector work (Giritli Nygren, 2010;Pors, 2015;Stamati et al, 2015;Vanhommerig and Karré, 2014;Wong and Welch, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, any attempt to reform a context in order to improve accountability means shifts in existing accountability arrangements (Dubnick, 2011), which do not necessarily lead to better or more accountability. Third, in the context of the public sector there are different accountability arrangements (for an overview see Olsen, 2006 andBovens et al, 2014), this study will look into social or horizontal accountability, which refers to accountability relations that occur between officials and citizens (Bovens et al, 2014). For the purposes of this paper we focus on the work that street-level bureaucrats do which is largely characterized by a direct involvement in public service delivery, frequent interaction with citizens and use of discretion in the application of policy (Buffat, 2015;Pors, 2015;Lipsky, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Re-locating accountability through technology

Petrakaki

2018

IJPSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper explores the implications of e-government for horizontal/social accountability (to citizens) by looking into its shifting location. Its main purpose is to show how the introduction of information and communication technology in the public sector changes how public sector work is organized, shifting the traditional sources of accountability, and to discuss the implications of those changes. Design/methodology/approachThe study comes from desk-based research that brings together literature on electronic government and accountability studies and situates them in the context of a bureaucratic public sector. Findings It shows that e-government entails digitalization of public sector work by restructuring work, reorganizing public information and knowledge and re-orientating officials-citizens relation. It argues that in the e-government era accountability is inscribed in the technology and its embodied standards; is a horizontal technological relation that renders officials accountable to the handling of digital interfaces and renders citizens co-producers of digital information responsible for bringing the publicto account. The paper shows that these changes do not necessarily bring better or worse accountability results but change the sources of accountability bringing shifts in its locations thereby rendering it more precarious. The paper ends by discussing the implications of digital accountability for good public administration.

show abstract

Section: Locating Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Re-locating accountability through technology

Petrakaki

2018

IJPSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This perspective implies that back stage policy making has increased as policy makers try to deal with the complexities of governing in an 'institutional void' (Hajer, 2003). By contrast, others argue that the transition to governance has forced policy making increasingly to the front stage due to an explosion of information and closer scrutiny from non-state actors, including the media (Bovens et al, 2014). In reality, the picture is more nuanced than either of these two accounts and much will depend on contextual factors like, for example, the specifics of English devolution outlined above.…”

Section: Making the Distinction Between Front And Back Stage Policy Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy-making ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage: Assessing the implications for effectiveness and democracy

Ayres

Sandford

Coombes

2017

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1 Policy making 'front' and 'back' stage: Assessing the implications for effectiveness and democracy ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to examine the complex interrelationship between 'front' and 'back' stage policy making. 'Front stage' describes the activities of visible and accountable officeholders in elected bodies, constrained by established bureaucratic rules. 'Back stage' describes the world of unseen decision making where public officials are less constrained by formal rules and public scrutiny. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article examines how front and back stage policy making shape one another and the impact this can have on policy effectiveness and democratic accountability. Findings reveal that policy makers need to think more explicitly about the interplay between front and back stage activities. In the context of English devolution, the transition from back to front stage has been flawed. Central government's purposeful strategy of informal negotiations with very few formal objectives has resulted in low stakeholder buy-in, which has mitigated against the potential effectiveness of back stage decision making.

show abstract

“…Fostering such shifts can allow the investigation and development of 'appropriate' multi-level mechanisms for policy design and delivery, which are suited to manage specific policy issues and contexts, although to what extent such flexibility is desirable and can promote adequate accountability mechanisms can be seen to be strongly contested by some political and public service leaders, or at least be a significant challenge to existing accountability frameworks (e.g. APSC 2012; see also Bovens et al 2014). Open negotiation systems can also foster arenas of policy experimentation and learning that can lead to greater innovation, increased problem-solving capacity and broadly beneficial and acceptable policies (Scharpf 1994;Swanson et al 2010), even though risk-averse governments can see this kind of governance system as a threat to stability and maintaining control over the direction of policy development and implementation.…”

Section: Defining Mlg and Its Conceptual Components: Systems Of Contimentioning

confidence: 99%