Redesigning Accountability: From Muddles to Maps

Conflict of Interest in Policing and the Public Sector

“…Adopting the broad rubric of social accountability to examine the problem of conflict of interest draws attention to the relationship between account-givers and receivers, for those who are given responsibility in the name of the public are authorized to act in particular ways, but only on condition of accountability for those acts. The duty of accountability is constituted by a shared acceptance that one actor owes an explanation to another (Day and Klein 1987: 5; see also Gray 1992;Gray et al 1996;Mulgan 1997), but the initiative in accountability processes should be with the recipient of accounts, as questioners, rather than with the account-giver (Uhr 1993).…”

“…Despite recognition of the challenges posed by conflicts of interest, poor understanding of the 272). Therefore, holding individuals and organizations to account is a complex and difficult activity (Uhr 1993;Thomas 1998).…”

“…The power and authority vested in the public sector and the need for organizations to retain public legitimacy make social aspects of accountability vital. Uhr's (1993) work implies that the initiative in accountability processes should be with the recipient of accounts, as questioners, rather than with the account-giver. It is the capacity to call for explanations for conduct that 'defines the locus of authority in any given society' (Day and Klein 1987: 9; see also Buttny 1993).…”

The Processes of Public Accountability

“…The exercise of any responsibility necessarily involves the exercise of individual discretion (Lucas 1993: 187), a point sometimes glossed over by a reference to the classic debate between Friedrich and Finer half a century ago (eg. Uhr 1990: 273-5;1993a: 4; Thynne and Goldring 1987: 8). While instructions and rules from supervisors may provide subordinates with goals or set them limits, such instructions or rules cannot determine everything that may need to be done and accounted for.…”

“…In contrast, most writers now emphasise the variety of channels of public accountability, particularly for public servants (eg. Uhr 1989aUhr , 1989bUhr , 1993aWaterford 1991;Corbett 1992: Ch 9;Wanna et al 1992: Ch 17;Finn 1993;Jackson 1995). Departmental officials are said to be accountable not only to their immediate superiors and ultimately to the minister but also to a range of external institutions, such as parliament and its committees, reviewing officers such as the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman and the courts (see also Reid 1984: 9-1 1).…”