Accountability

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.[1] As in an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) and individual contexts. In leadership roles,[2] accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of "being called to account for one's actions".[3][4] It is frequently described as an account giving relationship between individuals, e.g. "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A's (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct"and more.[5] Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability. Another key area that contributes to accountability is good records management.[6]

History and etymology

"Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon).[7] While the word itself does not appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman England,[8][9] the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-lending systems that first developed in Ancient Egypt,[10] Israel,[11] Babylon,[12] Greece,[13] and later, Rome.[14]

Political

Political accountability is when a politician makes choices on behalf of the people and the people have the ability to reward or sanction the politician.[15] In representative democracies citizens delegate power to elected officials through periodic elections in order to represent or act in their interest.[15] The challenge then becomes why would rulers with such power, who presumably have divergent interests from the people, act in the best interest of the people?[16] Citizens can rely on rewards or sanctions to threaten or reward politicians who might otherwise act antithetical to the people's interest.[16] Accountability occurs when citizens only vote to re-elect representatives who act in their interests, and if representatives then select policies that will help them be re-elected.[16] "Governments are 'accountable' if voters can discern whether governments are acting in their interest and sanction them appropriately, so that those incumbents who act in the best interest of the citizens win reelection and those who do not lose them."[16]

Representatives can be held accountable through two mechanisms: electoral replacement and rational anticipation.[17] In electoral replacement citizens vote to replace representatives who are out of step with their interests. Rational anticipation requires that representatives anticipate the consequences of being out of step with their constituency and then govern in accordance with citizens' wishes to avoid negative consequences.[17] Accountability can still be achieved even if citizens are not perfectly knowledgeable about representative's actions as long as representatives believe that they will be held accountable by citizens they will still act in accordance with the citizens' interests.[18]

Electoral

Electoral accountability refers to citizens using the vote to sanction or reward politicians, but other forms of political accountability do exist.[16]

Some researchers have considered the accountability using formal theory, which makes assumptions about the state of the world to draw larger conclusions (link). Voters can hold representatives accountable through the process of sanctioning, voters voting the incumbent out of office in response to poor performance.[19] While politicians face a decrease in vote share as a result of poor performance, they are less likely to see an increase in vote share for good performance.[20] Selection, voters choosing candidates based on who will best represent their interests, is another method by which voters hold their representative accountable.[19] These methods of accountability can occur simultaneously with voters holding representatives accountable using sanctioning and selection.[19] These conclusions rely on the assumption that voters do not observe the policy implemented by the incumbent, but do know their own welfare.[19]

Some factors make it harder for voters to sanction incumbents. When politicians do not have control over the outcomes, then accountability breaks down because it is harder to hold them accountable.[20] Further, when organizations are unable to monitor elections and provide information to voters, then voters struggle to sanction the incumbent.[21] Thus, when voters have more information about the incumbent's performance, the incumbent is more likely to voter sanctioning.[21] Further, when incumbents face sanctioning, challengers are more like to enter the race.[21]

Administrative

Refer to the liability of government servants to give a satisfactory account of the use of their power and resources. It is often that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, checking the accountability is the basis of the success of Public Administration.

Public goods

Politicians may be incentivized to provide public goods as a means of accountability.[22] The ability of voters to attribute credit and blame of outcomes also determines the extent of public goods provision.[22][23] Research suggests that public goods provision is conditional on being able to attribute outcomes to politicians as opposed to civil servants.[23] This can be enhanced by more short-run and visible inputs and outcomes such as famine relief or drinking water, whereas low-visibility issues such as sanitation and education may be more difficult to attribute credit and thus less likely to provided.[22]

Another condition determining how voters use the provision of public goods to hold leaders accountable is whether the prioritization of public goods is determined either directly via vote or delegated to a governing body.[24][25] An experiment in New Mexico regarding proposed spending during the state's 2008 special summer legislative session provides evidence that legislators update their positions when learning about voters' policy preferences, indicating representative democracy can increase accountability when politicians learn about voters' preferences.[24] A 2016 experiment in Afghanistan regarding rural development projects, however, finds that when voters directly prioritize their preferences at the ballot box, they perceive the quality of local government to be higher than when a governing committee prioritizes development projects.[25] These contrasting outcomes highlight the trustee-vs-delegate debate, though the lack of objective superior outcomes in projects decided by vote as opposed to committee in the Afghanistan experiment indicate neither is superior to the other in determining which public good should be given priority.[26][27]

Other research indicates voters use elections to hold politicians accountable for the provision of public goods.[28][29] In India, rural areas are charged a flat rate for electricity, but in the province of Uttar Pradesh, line loss - electricity that is consumed but not billed bill - is significantly higher in election years relative to non-election years and increases in line loss reliably predict electoral gains.[28] To put this in context, voters rewarded incumbent politicians with a 12% increase in party seats in response to a 10% increase of unbilled electricity in 2007 elections.[28] In Ghana, the improvement of road conditions is linked to increasing vote share for incumbent parties.[29] Both of these research outcomes hinge on the context of voters being able to attribute the service of public goods to politicians, however.[28][29][23]

Politicians may also have incentives to respond to pressure for public goods provision in electoral autocracies.[30][31] There is evidence that as autocratic governments lose seats in their party legislatures, they respond by increasing spending on public goods such as education, healthcare, and pensions.[30] There is further evidence suggesting higher quality of life, civil liberties, and human development in electoral autocracies, lending credence to the theory that autocratic rulers use elections as a bellwether against popular discontent and citizen opposition and in turn increase public goods provision to dampen grievances of disgruntled citizens, even in non-democracies.[31]

Non-electoral

Governments are held accountable if citizens can punish and/or reward the government to influence it to pursue the best interests of citizens.[32] While scholars who study democratic theory emphasize the role of elections in ensuring accountability,[33][34][35][36][37] another strand of scholars investigates non-electoral forms of accountability in democracies and non-democracies[38][39][40][41] and the conditions that make unelected leaders represent the interests of the general public.[42][43][44][45]

Political protest

Political changes after protests can be the result of the protests per se or symptoms of shifts in political preferences underneath the observable phenomena of the protests. One study of the Tea Party movement in the United States has shown that protests per se have an impact on political change.[38] Other scholars have studied the effect of protests on political changes in developing countries. Mass protests instigated by economic hardship and political repression occurred in 16 sub-Saharan African countries, and 21 governments in the region implemented significant political reforms such as adoption of multiparty elections.[39] Authoritarian regimes in Africa distorted the market and reduced the cost of farm produce in favor of urban workers at the cost of rural farmers in the 1980s to prevent urban unrest, which is more visible and easier to mobilize than rural protests.[46]

Selectorate

Belsky et al. point out, whereas, under more democratic governance accountability is built into the institution of the state by a habit of regular elections, accountability in autocratic regimes[47] relies on a selectorate; a group that legitimizes or delegitimizes the autocrats powers according to selectorate theory. The primary mechanism at a selectorate's disposal is deposition, which is a form of exit. Beyond that institutions can act as credible restraints on autocracy as well.

Civil society

In democracies, voluntary associations, interest groups, and associational activity can improve the performance of the government.[48][49][50][51] One study has also shown that civil society organizations such as NGOs can increase the performance of local government according to the central government's standards by monitoring and disclosing information about local government performance in authoritarian regimes like China.[40] Solidary groups – groups based on shared moral obligations and interests – in rural China, where members of the group share moral obligations and interests, can hold local officials accountable as well.[42]

At the local level, various accountability measures exist that impact the job performance of elected officials.[52][53][54] In Uganda, civil society organizations (CSOs) that divulge to the public how well an incumbent is performing their job duties, in a district with an upcoming competitive election, increases the performance of the politician for the rest of their term.[55] In contrast to these works, meta-analysis released in 2019 uncover no effects from CSO voter information campaigns on political accountability after examining the results from seven trials across six countries.[56] In Ghana, election-day monitoring of polling centers for district-level positions, as well as gaining awareness of monitoring in an upcoming election, increases job performance among incumbents as these officials spent more of their annual Constituency Development Fund allocations from the central government on public goods for the electorate.[52] In locales with weaker institutions, when citizens elect leaders with higher levels of competency, these officials have a greater ability to overcome the barriers of bad informal institutions and deliver more goods anShared d long-term investment projects for the constituency without needing to raise their taxes.[53] Additionally, many local elections are for positions that involve performing jobs with a single function, such as school board member or sheriff. These elected officials are held accountable to their positions mainly through the information provided to the public through the media.[54] When the media focuses attention on data trends associated with these positions, constituents are then able to use this information to retrospectively vote for or against the incumbent based on the performance shown while in office.[54]

Public opinion poll

Approval ratings generated through public opinion polling create a measure of job performance during an incumbent's term that has implications for whether the official will retain their seat, or if reelection will even be sought.[57][58] These approval ratings are predictors of election outcomes when combined with other factors included in Bayesian Model Averaging forecasts.[59] In the United States, senator job approval ratings affect whether a senator will retire, the quality of candidates that seek to challenge the incumbent, the amount of money the senator can raise to seek reelection if they decide to run, and the outcome of the election itself.[57] Thus, strategic incumbent senators will seek reelection less when their approval ratings are low during their time in office.[57][58]

Accountability for unelected leaders

Threat or fear of losing power

Selectorates are those on whom a leader depends in order to hold onto power and those who have the ability to depose a leader.[60] When selectorates' hold on power is not overly dependent on the leader in office, selectorates can remove poorly performing leaders, and this accountability by selectorates render it possible for autocracies to perform better for the benefit of all.[47]

Moral standing and social norms

The solidary groups in rural China can hold local officials accountable when 1) the solidary group encompasses everyone under the local government's jurisdiction, and 2) local officials are embedded in the group as members; the recognition from these groups encourages local officials to carry out their official tasks as they value high moral standing in the group.[42]

Shared-interests

Traditional leaders in Zambia provide local public goods despite the fact that they lack an electoral incentive to provide public goods.[44] Many customary chiefs never leave the communities they lead permanently and depend on local sources for a significant portion of their income, thus, traditional leaders may facilitate bringing local public goods in the present and benefit from the community's development over time just like stationary bandits in Olson's argument.[44][41]

Accountability and corruption

Political corruption refers to "the misuse or the abuse of public office for private gains", where corrupt practices include fraud, appropriation of public funds, or accepting bribes are some examples of corrupt practices.[61][62][63] Corruption can be negative for politicians' evaluations, since citizens' may perceive corruption as a signal of poor performance, motivating them to sanction the incumbent.[64] In fact, the model of retrospective voting that suggests that voters incentivize good politicians' behavior by rewarding good and punishing bad performance, citizens are expected to sanction corrupt politicians.[61] However, recent studies suggest that, though voters have a general distaste for corruption, they often fail to punish corrupt incumbents; and that some of them also receive benefits from their representatives' corrupt practices, and prefer to retain this type of politicians.[65][61] Moreover, in high-corrupt contexts, voters may become more tolerant or even prefer corrupt politicians because others are also perceived as corrupt, leading to a corrupt equilibrium "where voters are generally willing to retain corrupt politicians", which is referred to as a "political corruption trap".[65] The high corruption equilibrium is difficult to break due to the interaction between corrupt politicians, voters who tolerate and retain corrupt politicians, and potential entrants or challengers who are also apt to engage in corrupt practices, leading to the maintenance of corruption.[65]

The literature about corruption finds mixed results about the role of political institutions —such as the executive, electoral institutions, federalism, and the judiciary— on the reduction of corruption.[66] Moreover, democracy seems to have a null effect on reducing corruption.[66] Nevertheless, economic development is associated with a decrease in corruption.[66] Furthermore, so far, the only agreement in the literature is that freedom of the press contributes to the reduction of corruption, by exposing these actions.[66] In fact, documentation on how a corrupt government (Fujimori's government from 1998–2000, in Peru) strategically undermined check and balance institutions, suggests that the media —e.g. newspapers and, mainly, television— is crucial, due to its broad scope to disseminate information to the public.[67] Additionally, there is also evidence about the importance of local media —such as local radio stations— in holding accountable corrupt incumbents and promoting noncorrupt politicians.[68] Nevertheless, information about corruption may not only lead to vote losses for the incumbent parties, but also for the challenger parties, as well to the erosion of partisan attachments, which implies that information about corruption also provokes citizens' disengagement from the political process.[64] On the other hand, there is evidence that points out to the fact that, despite strategic evasion and unintentional consequences, anticorruption initiatives are beneficial, as they allow to lower malfeasance and increases social welfare, even where strategic evasion is relatively large.[69]

Organizational

Ethical
See also: Social accounting and Environmental accounting

Within an organization, the principles and practices of ethical accountability aim to improve both the internal standard of individual and group conduct as well as external factors, such as sustainable economic and ecologic strategies. Also, ethical accountability plays a progressively important role in academic fields, such as laboratory experiments and field research. Debates around the practice of ethical accountability on the part of researchers in the social field – whether professional or others – have been thoroughly explored by Norma R.A. Romm in her work on Accountability in Social Research,[70] including her book on New Racism: Revisiting Researcher Accountabilities, reviewed by Carole Truman in the journal Sociological Research Online.[71] Here it is suggested that researcher accountability implies that researchers are cognizant of, and take some responsibility for, the potential impact of their ways of doing research – and of writing it up – on the social fields of which the research is part. That is, accountability is linked to considering carefully, and being open to challenge in relation to, one's choices concerning how research agendas are framed and the styles in which write-ups of research "results" are created.

Security

The traceability of actions performed on a system to a specific system entity (user, process, device). For example, the use of unique user identification and authentication supports accountability; the use of shared user IDs and passwords destroys accountability.

Individuals within organizations

Because many different individuals in large organizations contribute in many ways to the decisions and policies, it is difficult even in principle to identify who should be accountable for the results. This is what is known, following Thompson, as the problem of many hands.[72] It creates a dilemma for accountability. If individuals are held accountable or responsible, individuals who could not have prevented the results are either unfairly punished, or they "take responsibility" in a symbolic ritual without suffering any consequences. If only organizations are held accountable, then all individuals in the organization are equally blameworthy or all are excused. Various solutions have been proposed. One is to broaden the criteria for individual responsibility so that individuals are held accountable for not anticipating failures in the organization. Another solution, recently proposed by Thompson, is to hold individuals accountable for the design of the organization, both retrospectively and prospectively.[73]

Accountability is an element of a RACI to indicate who is ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.

Public/private overlap

With the increase over the last several decades in public service provided by private entities, especially in Britain and the United States, some have called for increased political accountability mechanisms for otherwise non-political entities. Legal scholar Anne Davies, for instance, argues that the line between public institutions and private entities like corporations is becoming blurred in certain areas of public service in the United Kingdom, and that this can compromise political accountability in those areas. She and others argue that some administrative law reform is necessary to address this accountability gap.[74]

With respect to the public/private overlap in the United States, public concern over the contracting of government services (including military) and the resulting accountability gap has been highlighted recently following the shooting incident involving the Blackwater security firm in Iraq.[75]

In education

Student accountability is traditionally based on hang school and classroom rules, combined with sanctions for infringement. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), accountability is "A program, often legislated, that attributes the responsibility for student learning to teachers, school administrators, and/or students. Test results typically are used to judge accountability, and often consequences are imposed for shortcomings."[76]

In contrast, some educational establishments such as Sudbury schools believe that students are personally responsible for their acts, and that traditional schools do not permit students to choose their course of action fully; they do not permit students to embark on the course, once chosen; and they do not permit students to suffer the consequences of the course, once taken. Freedom of choice, freedom of action, freedom to bear the results of action are considered the three great freedoms that constitute personal responsibility. Sudbury schools claim that "'Ethics' is a course taught by life experience". They adduce that the essential ingredient for acquiring values—and for moral action is personal responsibility, that schools will become involved in the teaching of morals when they become communities of people who fully respect each other's right to make choices, and that the only way the schools can become meaningful purveyors of ethical values is if they provide students and adults with real-life experiences that are bearers of moral import. Students are given complete responsibility for their own education and the school is run by a direct democracy in which students and staff are equals.[77][78][79][80][81][82]

Media and accountability

Econometric research has found that countries with greater press freedom tend to have less corruption.[83] Greater political accountability and lower corruption were more likely where newspaper consumption was higher in data from roughly 100 countries and from different states in the US.[84] Congressmen who receive less press coverage are less likely to produce a positive impact for their constituencies, they are less likely to stand witness before congressional hearings, and federal spending for the district is lower.[85] One explanation for the positive impact of media on accountability stems from Besley and Burgess' work.[86] They argue that media resolves the information asymmetries between citizens and government and provides a way of overcoming obstacles preventing political action.[86] When elected officials and the public gain information, the public is better equipped to hold politicians accountable and politicians are more responsive.[87][85] Ferraz & Finan demonstrate this in the Brazilian context.[88] In their work, they find releasing audit reports prior to elections creates a more informed electorate which holds incumbent officials accountable.[88]

While large evidence supports the positive impact of press freedom on political accountability, other work has highlighted the significance of factors such as media concentration and ownership as government tools for influencing or controlling news content.[89] Non-democratic regimes use media for a variety of purposes such as – (i) to enhance regime resilience, (ii) censor or (iii) strategically distract the public.[90][91][92] Control of the media may also be especially beneficial to incumbents in new or developing democracies, who consider media control a spoil of office.[93]

An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the US and Europe since World War II noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet: "The digital revolution has been good for freedom of expression [and] information [but] has had mixed effects on freedom of the press": It has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of Internet journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.[94] Various systems have been proposed for increasing the funds available for investigative journalism that allow individual citizens to direct small amounts of government funds to news outlets or investigative journalism projects of their choice.

Electoral manipulation and accountability

Studies on political accountability have emphasized the key role of elections in promoting accountability in democratic settings. It is through elections that citizens hold governments accountable for past performance.[95][96] However, the role of elections in fostering accountability is often undermined by electoral manipulation and fraud.[97] By preventing citizens from removing leaders through elections based on their performance in office, electoral manipulation breaks down accountability and may even undercut the consolidation of democratic institutions.[98]

Electoral manipulation is not rare: some estimates point out that in the last two decades up to one fourth of elections suffered some form of substantial manipulation.[97] This includes a large array of preelection and election-day tactics, such as outlawing rival parties and candidates, employing violence and intimidation, and manipulating voter registration and vote count.[99] Some efforts at improving accountability by preventing electoral manipulation and fraud have obtained a certain measure of success, such as using cell-phone applications for monitoring and disseminating polling station results[100] and employing domestic or international election observers.[101][102] However, governments sometimes simply shift the type or the place of manipulation in order to deceive observers and monitoring agencies.[101][102]

Governments, politicians and political parties are more likely to resort to electoral manipulation and fraud when they believe they might be removed from office and face few institutional constraints to their power.[103] Alternatively, low political competition has also been linked to some forms manipulation, such as abolishing presidential term limits.[104] Further, well-connected candidates are more likely to resort to vote count fraud.[100] However, governments may engage in electoral manipulation not only to obtain victory at a given election or to remain longer in office, but also for post-election reasons such as reducing the strength of the opposition and increasing their own bargaining power in the subsequent period.[97]

Standards

Accountability standards have been set up, and organizations can voluntarily commit to them. Standards apply in particular to the non-profit world and to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Accountability standards include:

  • INGO Accountability Charter, signed by a large number of NGOs to "demonstrate their commitment to accountability and transparency"[105]
  • AccountAbility's AA1000 series. "principles-based standards to help organisations become more accountable, responsible and sustainable. They address issues affecting governance, business models and organizational strategy, as well as providing operational guidance on sustainability assurance and stakeholder engagement"[106]
  • Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) 2010 standards. A standard for humanitarian organizations to help them "design, implement, assess, improve and recognize accountable programmes"[107]

In addition, some non-profit organizations set up their own commitments to accountability:

  • Accountability, Learning and Planning System (ALPS) by ActionAid, a framework that sets out the key accountability requirements, guidelines, and processes.[108]

See also

Footnotes
  1. Dykstra, Clarence A. (February 1938). "The Quest for Responsibility". American Political Science Review. 33 (1): 1–25. doi:10.2307/1949761. JSTOR 1949761.
  2. Williams, Reyes(2006) Leadership accountability in a globalizing world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Mulgan, Richard (2000). "'Accountability': An Ever-Expanding Concept?". Public Administration. 78 (3): 555–573. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00218.
  4. Sinclair, Amanda (1995). "The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses". Accounting, Organizations and Society. 20 (2/3): 219–237. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y.
  5. Schedler, Andreas (1999). "Conceptualizing Accountability". In Andreas Schedler; Larry Diamond; Marc F. Plattner (eds.). The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 13–28. ISBN 978-1-55587-773-6.
  6. David, R. (2017). Contribution of records management to audit opinions and accountability in government. South African Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v19i1.771
  7. Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed.
  8. Dubnick, Melvin (1998). "Clarifying Accountability: An Ethical Theory Framework". In Charles Sampford; Noel Preston; C. A. Bois (eds.). Public Sector Ethics: Finding And Implementing Values. Leichhardt, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press/Routledge. pp. 68–8l.
  9. Seidman, Gary I (Winter 2005). "The Origins of Accountability: Everything I Know About the Sovereign's Immunity, I Learned from King Henry III". St. Louis University Law Journal. 49 (2): 393–480.
  10. Ezzamel, Mahmoud (December 1997). "Accounting, Control and Accountability: Preliminary Evidence from Ancient Egypt". Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 8 (6): 563–601. doi:10.1006/cpac.1997.0123.
  11. Walzer, Michael (1994). "The Legal Codes of Ancient Israel". In Ian Shapiro (ed.). the Rule of Law. NY: New York University Press. pp. 101–119.
  12. Urch, Edwin J. (July 1929). "The Law Code of Hammurabi". American Bar Association Journal. 15 (7): 437–441.
  13. Roberts, Jennifer T. (1982). Accountability in Athenian Government. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  14. Plescia, Joseph (January 2001). "Judicial Accountability and Immunity in Roman Law". American Journal of Legal History. 45 (1): 51–70. doi:10.2307/3185349. JSTOR 3185349.
  15. Fearon, James (1999). Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Przeworski, Adam; Stokes, Susan Carol; Manin, Bernard (2003). Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521641531. OCLC 58400209.
  17. Stimson, James A.; MacKuen, Michael B.; Erikson, Robert S. "Dynamic Representation". American Political Science Review. 98 (3): 543–565.
  18. Arnold, R. Douglas. (1990). The logic of congressional action. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300056591. OCLC 472546186.
  19. Przeworski, Adam; Stokes, Susan Carol Stokes; Stokes, Susan C.; Manin, Bernard (September 1999). Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175104. ISBN 9780521646161.
  20. Martin, Lucy; Raffler, Pia (4 August 2019). "Fault Lines: The Effects of Bureaucratic Power on Electoral Accountability" (PDF). American Journal of Political Science. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 December 2019. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
  21. Grossman, Guy, Michelitch, Kristin, & Prato, Carlo. 2018. Candidate Entry & Vote Choice in the Wake of Incumbent Performance Transparency. EGAP Pre-analysis Plan.
  22. Batley, Richard; Mcloughlin, Claire (October 2015). "The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach". World Development. 74: 275–285. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.018.
  23. Martin, Lucy, & Raffler, Pia. forthcoming. Fault Lines: the Effects of Bureaucratic Power on Electoral Accountability. American Journal of Political Science.
  24. Butler, Daniel M. (22 August 2011). "Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment". Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 6 (1): 55–83. doi:10.1561/100.00011019. S2CID 155004601.
  25. Beath, Andrew, Christia, Fotini, & Enikolopov, Ruben. 2017. Direct democracy and resource allocation: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan. Journal of Development Economics, 124, 199–213.
  26. Rehfeld, Andrew (May 2009). "Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy". American Political Science Review. 103 (2): 214–230. doi:10.1017/S0003055409090261. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 53957756.
  27. Fox, Justin; Shotts, Kenneth W. (October 2009). "Delegates or Trustees? A Theory of Political Accountability". The Journal of Politics. 71 (4): 1225–1237. doi:10.1017/S0022381609990260. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 9879793.
  28. Min, Brian; Golden, Miriam (February 2014). "Electoral cycles in electricity losses in India". Energy Policy. 65: 619–625. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.060.
  29. Harding, Robin (October 2015). "Attribution And Accountability: Voting for roads in Ghana". World Politics. 67 (4): 656–689. doi:10.1017/S0043887115000209. ISSN 0043-8871. S2CID 20470554.
  30. Miller, Michael K. (October 2015). "Electoral Authoritarianism and Human Development". Comparative Political Studies. 48 (12): 1526–1562. doi:10.1177/0010414015582051. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 154285722.
  31. Miller, Michael K. (May 2015). "Elections, Information, and Policy Responsiveness in Autocratic Regimes". Comparative Political Studies. 48 (6): 691–727. doi:10.1177/0010414014555443. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 154879177.
  32. Przeworski, Adam, Herausgeber. Stokes, Susan Carol, Herausgeber. Manin, Bernard, Herausgeber. Democracy, accountability, and representation. ISBN 978-1-139-17510-4. OCLC 967395197.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. Barro, Robert J. (March 1973). "The control of politicians: An economic model". Public Choice. 14–14 (1): 19–42. doi:10.1007/bf01718440. ISSN 0048-5829. S2CID 154999534.
  34. Besley, Timothy J.; Burgess, Robin (2002). "The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India" (PDF). SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.319012. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 8657561.
  35. Ferejohn, John (1986). "Incumbent performance and electoral control". Public Choice. 50 (1–3): 5–25. doi:10.1007/bf00124924. ISSN 0048-5829. S2CID 153577661.
  36. Manin, Bernard; Przeworski, Adam; Stokes, Susan C. (13 September 1999), "Elections and Representation", Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–54, doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175104.002, ISBN 978-0-521-64616-1
  37. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (5 April 2010). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. doi:10.4324/9780203857090. ISBN 9780203857090.
  38. Madestam, Andreas; Shoag, Daniel; Veuger, Stan; Yanagizawa-Drott, David (30 September 2013). "Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement*" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 128 (4): 1633–1685. doi:10.1093/qje/qjt021. ISSN 0033-5533.
  39. Bratton, Michael; van de Walle, Nicolas (July 1992). "Popular Protest and Political Reform in Africa". Comparative Politics. 24 (4): 419. doi:10.2307/422153. ISSN 0010-4159. JSTOR 422153.
  40. Anderson, Sarah E.; Buntaine, Mark T.; Liu, Mengdi; Zhang, Bing (8 May 2019). "Non‐Governmental Monitoring of Local Governments Increases Compliance with Central Mandates: A National‐Scale Field Experiment in China". American Journal of Political Science. 63 (3): 626–643. doi:10.1111/ajps.12428. ISSN 0092-5853.
  41. Baldwin, Kate; Holzinger, Katharina (16 June 2019). "Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy: Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability". Comparative Political Studies. 52 (12): 1747–1774. doi:10.1177/0010414019852686. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 197832991.
  42. Tsai, Lily (2007). "Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China". The American Political Science Review. 101 (2): 355–372. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070153. S2CID 146348780.
  43. Besley, Timothy J. (2007). Making autocracy work. Centre for Economic Policy Research. OCLC 255778387.
  44. Baldwin, Kate (2015). The Paradox of Traditional Chiefs in Democratic Africa. Cambridge University Press.
  45. Baldwin, Kate (2019). "Elected MPs, Traditional Chiefs, and Local Public Goods: Evidence on the Role of Leaders in Co-Production From Rural Zambia". Comparative Political Studies. 52 (12): 1925–1956. doi:10.1177/0010414018774372. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 158062055.
  46. Bates, Robert (1981). Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. University of California Press.
  47. Besley, Timothy and Masayuki Kudamatsu. 2007. “Making Autocracy Work.” Working paper.
  48. BOIX, CARLES; POSNER, DANIEL N. (October 1998). "Social Capital: Explaining Its Origins and Effects on Government Performance". British Journal of Political Science. 28 (4): 686–693. doi:10.1017/s0007123498000313. ISSN 0007-1234. S2CID 4503343.
  49. EDWARDS, BOB; FOLEY, MICHAEL W. (September 1998). "Civil Society and Social Capital Beyond Putnam". American Behavioral Scientist. 42 (1): 124–139. doi:10.1177/0002764298042001010. ISSN 0002-7642. S2CID 144681913.
  50. Ehrenberg, John (1999). Civil Society: The critical History of an Idea. New York University Press.
  51. Putnam, Robert D.; Leonardi, Robert; Nonetti, Raffaella Y. (27 May 1994). Making Democracy Work. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7. ISBN 978-1-4008-2074-0. S2CID 155009926.
  52. OFOSU, GEORGE KWAKU (2 August 2019). "Do Fairer Elections Increase the Responsiveness of Politicians?" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 113 (4): 963–979. doi:10.1017/s0003055419000479. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 201385531.
  53. Carreri, Maria (2018). "Can Good Politicians Compensate for Bad Institutions? Evidence from an Original Survey of Italian Mayors". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3239492. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 160023663.
  54. Berry, Christopher R.; Howell, William G. (August 2007). "Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting". The Journal of Politics. 69 (3): 844–858. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00579.x. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 42972242.
  55. GROSSMAN, GUY; MICHELITCH, KRISTIN (1 February 2018). "Information Dissemination, Competitive Pressure, and Politician Performance between Elections: A Field Experiment in Uganda". American Political Science Review. 112 (2): 280–301. doi:10.1017/s0003055417000648. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 15659219.
  56. Dunning, Thad; Grossman, Guy; Humphreys, Macartan; Hyde, Susan D.; McIntosh, Craig; Nellis, Gareth, eds. (4 July 2019). Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning. doi:10.1017/9781108381390. ISBN 9781108381390.
  57. HIGHTON, BENJAMIN (May 2008). "Job Approval and Senate Election Outcomes in the United States". Legislative Studies Quarterly. 33 (2): 245–261. doi:10.3162/036298008784311019. ISSN 0362-9805.
  58. Brown, Adam R.; Jacobson, Gary C. (December 2008). "Party, Performance, and Strategic Politicians: The Dynamics of Elections for Senator and Governor in 2006". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 8 (4): 384–409. doi:10.1177/153244000800800403. ISSN 1532-4400. S2CID 154373150.
  59. Erikson, Robert S.; Bafumi, Joseph; Wilson, Bret (October 2001). "Was the 2000 Presidential Election Predictable?". Political Science & Politics. 34 (4): 815–819. doi:10.1017/S1049096501000750. ISSN 1049-0965.
  60. BUENO DE MESQUITA, BRUCE; MORROW, JAMES D.; SIVERSON, RANDOLPH M.; SMITH, ALASTAIR (17 September 2002). "Political Institutions, Policy Choice and the Survival of Leaders". British Journal of Political Science. 32 (4): 559–590. doi:10.1017/s0007123402000236. ISSN 0007-1234.
  61. De Vries, Catherine E.; Solaz, Hector (11 May 2017). "The Electoral Consequences of Corruption". Annual Review of Political Science. 20 (1): 391–408. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-111917. ISSN 1094-2939.
  62. Ferraz, Claudio; Finan, Frederico (1 May 2008). "Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 123 (2): 703–745. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.222.8752. doi:10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703. ISSN 0033-5533. S2CID 8148400.
  63. Helping Countries Combat Corruption. The Role of the World Bank. World Bank. 1997.
  64. Chong, Alberto; De La O, Ana L.; Karlan, Dean; Wantchekon, Leonard (1 January 2015). "Does Corruption Information Inspire the Fight or Quash the Hope? A Field Experiment in Mexico on Voter Turnout, Choice, and Party Identification". The Journal of Politics. 77 (1): 55–71. doi:10.1086/678766. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 8379010.
  65. Klašnja, Marko; Little, Andrew T.; Tucker, Joshua A. (July 2018). "Political Corruption Traps*". Political Science Research and Methods. 6 (3): 413–428. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.45. ISSN 2049-8470.
  66. Routledge handbook of comparative political institutions. Gandhi, Jennifer, 1975–, Ruiz-Rufino, Rubén. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN 978-1-315-73137-7. OCLC 907374446.CS1 maint: others (link)
  67. Mcmillan, John; Zoido, Pablo (December 2004). "How to Subvert Democracy: Montesinos in Peru" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18 (4): 69–92. doi:10.1257/0895330042632690. ISSN 0895-3309. S2CID 219372153.
  68. "DOI Name 10.1162 Values". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  69. Fisman, Raymond; Golden, Miriam (26 May 2017). "How to fight corruption". Science. 356 (6340): 803–804. Bibcode:2017Sci...356..803F. doi:10.1126/science.aan0815. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28546172. S2CID 206658780.
  70. Romm, Norma R.A. (2001). Accountability in Social Research. New York: Klower Academic. ISBN 978-0-306-46564-2.
  71. Truman, Carole (2010). "Review of New Racism: Revisiting Researcher Accountabilities". Sociological Research Online. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
  72. Thompson, Dennis (2005). "The Problem of Many Hands" in Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business and Healthcare. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–49. ISBN 978-0521547222
  73. Thompson, Dennis F. (2014). "Responsibility for Failures of Government: The Problem of Many Hands," American Review of Public Administration 44 (3): 259–273.
  74. "oxford law – the faculty and its members : anne davies". Competition-law.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
  75. Harriman, Ed (28 September 2007). "Blackwater poisons the well". London: Commentisfree.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
  76. "Glossary of Important Assessment and Measurement Terms". National Council on Measurement in Education. Archived from the original on 22 July 2017. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
  77. Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America – A View from Sudbury Valley, "'Ethics' is a Course Taught By Life Experience." Retrieved, 24 October 2009.
  78. Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience "Back to Basics – Moral basics." Archived 11 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved, 24 October 2009.
  79. Feldman, J. (2001) "The Moral Behavior of Children and Adolescents at a Democratic School." Pdf. __This study examined moral discourse, reflection, and development in a school community with a process similar to that described by Lawrence Kohlberg. Data were drawn from an extensive set of field notes made in an ethnographic study at Sudbury Valley School (an ungraded, democratically structured school in Framingham, MA), where students, ranging in age from 4 to 19, are free to choose their own activities and companions. Vignettes were analyzed using grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis, and themes were developed from an analysis of observations of meetings. Each theme describes a participation level that students assume in the process and that provide opportunities for them to develop and deepen understanding of the balance of personal rights and responsibilities within a community. The study adds to the understanding of education and child development by describing a school that differs significantly in its practice from the wider educational community and by validating Kohlberg's thesis about developing moral reasoning. Retrieved, 24 October 2009.
  80. The Sudbury Valley School (1970), The Crisis in American Education — An Analysis and a Proposal.(p. 49-55). Retrieved, 24 October 2009.
  81. Greenberg, D. (1992) "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned!" Education in America – A View from Sudbury Valley. Retrieved, 24 October 2009.
  82. Reiss, S. (2010), Whatever Happened to Personal Responsibility? Retrieved 18 August 2010.
  83. Brunetti, Aymo; Weder, Beatrice (2003), "A free press is bad news for corruption", Journal of Public Economics, 87 (7–8): 1801–1824, doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(01)00186-4
  84. Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles; Payne, Mark (2000), "Are You Being Served?: Political Accountability and Quality of Government" (PDF), Working Paper, Inter-American Development Bank Research Department (438), retrieved 17 August 2014 and Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles; Payne, Mark (2003), "Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government" (PDF), Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 19 (2): 445–490, doi:10.1093/jleo/19.2.445, hdl:10419/87999, retrieved 31 August 2014
  85. Snyder, James M.; Strömberg, David (2010), "Press Coverage and Political Accountability", Journal of Political Economy, 118 (2): 355–408, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.210.8371, doi:10.1086/652903, S2CID 154635874
  86. Besley, Timothy; Burgess, Robin (2001), "Political agency, government responsiveness and the role of the media", European Economic Review, 45 (4–6): 629–640, doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00133-7
  87. Barbera, Pablo; Casas, Andreu; Nagler, Jonathan; Egan, Patrick; Bonneau, Richard; Jost, John; Tucker, Joshua (2019), "Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data", American Political Science Review, 113 (4): 883–901, doi:10.1017/S0003055419000352, PMC 7672368, PMID 33303996
  88. Ferraz, Claudio; Finan, Frederico (2008), "Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effect of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (2): 703–745, doi:10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.703, S2CID 8148400
  89. Besley, Timothy; Prat, Andrea (2006), "Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability" (PDF), American Economic Review, 96 (3): 720–736, doi:10.1257/aer.96.3.720, S2CID 13849989
  90. Munger, Kevin; Bonneau, Richard; Nagler, Jonathan; Tucker, Joshua (2019), "Elites Tweet to Get Feet Off the Streets: Measuring Regime Social Media Strategies During Protest", Political Science Research and Methods, 7 (4): 815–834, doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.3
  91. King, Gary; Pan, Jennifer; Roberts, Margaret (2013), "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression", American Political Science Review, 107 (2): 326–343, doi:10.1017/S0003055413000014
  92. King, Gary; Pan, Jennifer; Roberts, Margaret (2013), "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument", American Political Science Review, 111 (3): 484–501, doi:10.1017/S0003055417000144
  93. Boas, Taylor; Hidalgo, F. Daniel (2011), "Controlling the Airwaves: Incumbency Advantage and Community Radio in Brazil", American Journal of Political Science, 55 (4): 869–885, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00532.x
  94. Starr, Paul (2012), "An Unexpected Crisis: The News Media in Post-industrial Democracies" (PDF), International Journal of Press/Politics, 17 (2): 234–242, doi:10.1177/1940161211434422, S2CID 146729965, retrieved 31 August 2014, Since 2000, the newspaper industry alone has lost an estimated “$1.6 billion in annual reporting and editing capacity... or roughly 30 per cent", but the new non-profit money coming into journalism has made up less than one-tenth that amount.
  95. Democracy, accountability, and representation. Przeworski, Adam., Stokes, Susan Carol., Manin, Bernard. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 1999. ISBN 0-521-64153-5. OCLC 40256085.CS1 maint: others (link)
  96. Besley, Timothy J.; Kudamatsu, Masayuki (1 May 2007). "Making Autocracy Work". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1127017. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  97. Simpser, Alberto (2013). Why governments and parties manipulate elections : theory, practice, and implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-30688-2. OCLC 826857655.
  98. Long, James Dunway (2014). Voting, Fraud, and Violence: Political Accountability in African Elections (Thesis). University of California San Diego.
  99. Schedler, Andreas (2002). "The Menu of Manipulation". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 36–50. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0031. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154830665.
  100. Callen, Michael; Long, James D. (2015). "Institutional Corruption and Election Fraud: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan" (PDF). American Economic Review. 105 (1): 354–381. doi:10.1257/aer.20120427. ISSN 0002-8282.
  101. Ichino, Nahomi; Schündeln, Matthias (2012). "Deterring or Displacing Electoral Irregularities? Spillover Effects of Observers in a Randomized Field Experiment in Ghana". The Journal of Politics. 74 (1): 292–307. doi:10.1017/S0022381611001368. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 10426326.
  102. Beaulieu, Emily; Hyde, Susan D. (2009). "In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion: Strategic Manipulation, International Observers, and Election Boycotts". Comparative Political Studies. 42 (3): 392–415. doi:10.1177/0010414008325571. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 155078768.
  103. Hafner-Burton, Emilie Marie; Hyde, Susan D.; Jablonski, Ryan S. (6 September 2012). "When Do Governments Resort to Election Violence?". British Journal of Political Science. Rochester, NY. SSRN 1667063.
  104. McKie, Kristin (2019). "Presidential Term Limit Contravention: Abolish, Extend, Fail, or Respect?". Comparative Political Studies. 52 (10): 1500–1534. doi:10.1177/0010414019830737. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 159155380.
  105. "About the Charter". Archived from the original on 17 May 2013. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
  106. Website: "AccountAbility | Setting the Standard for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development – Standards". Archived from the original on 8 September 2013. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
  107. Webpage: "HAP International RSS feed". Archived from the original on 3 July 2013. Retrieved 28 July 2013.
  108. ActionAid (2005). ALPS - Accountability, Learning, and Planning System.

References
  • Bovens, Mark. The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
  • Mastop, Rosja. "Characterising Responsibility in Organisational Structures: The Problem of Many Hands" in Deontic Logic in Computer Science, eds. G. Governatori and G. Sartor (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2010). pp. 274–287. ISBN 978-3-540-70524-6
  • Thompson, Dennis F. "Responsibility for Failures of Government: The Problem of Many Hands," American Review of Public Administration 44:3 (2014), 259–273.
  • Thompson, Dennis F. "The Responsibility of Advisers" in Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business and Healthcare (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 33–49. ISBN 978-0521547222

Further reading
  • Mark Bovens, "Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism," West European Politics 33 (2010), 946–967.
  • Sterling Harwood, "Accountability," in John K. Roth, ed., Ethics: Ready Reference (Salem Press, 1994), reprinted in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996).
  • David Luban, Alan Strudler, and David Wasserman, "Moral Responsibility in the Age of Bureaucracy," Michigan Law Review 90 (1992), 2348–2392.
  • Romm, Norma RA (2001) Accountability in Social Research. New York: Springer.
  • Dennis Thompson, "The Responsibility of Advisers" in Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business and Healthcare (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 33–49. ISBN 978-0521547222
  • Williams, Christopher (2006) Leadership accountability in a globalizing world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Painter-Morland Mollie, Ghislain Deslandes, (2015), "Authentic leading as relational accountability: Facing up to the conflicting expectations of media leaders", Leadership, online available 2 April, DOI:1742715015578307.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.