The Limits of Transparency: Expert Knowledge and Meaningful Accountability in Central Banking

Abstract

Recent discussions of accountability in contexts of expert knowledge raise questions about the limits of transparency. Against this background, we discuss the nexus between expert knowledge and meaningful accountability – that is, context-sensitive accountability based on a genuine understanding of a situation. We argue that the concentration of expertise in certain institutions makes it difficult to hold those institutions accountable. In particular, three components challenge meaningful accountability: specialization, inaccessibility and potential biases or conflict of interest. We emphasize the role of ‘epistemic communities’ and their impact on the tension between expert knowledge and independence. Drawing on the deliberative systems literature, we discuss how expert knowledge might be communicated to outsiders to enable meaningful accountability. To illustrate our argument, we draw on the European Central Bank, a case study in which states have chosen a delegation design characterized by a high degree of independence and trust in expert knowledge, to the detriment of accountability. We sketch possible avenues for creating the conditions for meaningful accountability even in the case of institutions with highly concentrated expertise.

Persistence Against the Odds: How Entrepreneurial Agents Helped the UN Joint Inspection Unit to Prevail

“…This brings us to the third question, namely what can be the next steps in studying the accountability of IOs? We need a new research agenda outlining specific types and conditions for meaningful accountability, defined as context‐sensitive accountability based on a genuine understanding of IOs (see also Heldt & Herzog, 2021), across a variety of issue areas in global governance. One of the most pressing research areas entails the explanation of different patterns of scope and depth of accountability across organizations.…”

Expert accountability: What does it mean, why is it challenging—and is it what we need?

“…There are several studies of expert accountability in relation to particular institutions, such as public agencies (e.g., Busuioc, 2013; Schillemans et al, 2021), central banks (e.g., Heldt & Herzog, 2021), judicial review (e.g., Contini & Mohr, 2007), and parliaments (e.g., Crum, 2017; Eriksen & Katsaitis, 2020). Yet, these studies are typically difficult to compare because they define accountability in different ways or leave definitions implicit or underspecified.…”