Dubnick, Melvin J. And Justice, Jonathan B., “Accounting for Accountability.” Paper prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association meetings, Chicago, IL, September 2-5, 2004.
Abstract:
Accountability is often presented as a means by which to achieve the collective and individual goods of democracy, justice, administrative performance, and ethical conduct in governance. Treating this presumption as a collection of testable hypotheses rather than as a self- evident truth leads to an interest in operationalizing and measuring accountability. Accountability is, however, a conceptually and empirically slippery word, subject to a host of competing definitions, interpretations, understandings, and rhetorical usages. One solution is to turn from accountability-the-word to accountability-the-concept. Consideration of the complexity of the conceptual space of accountability as well as its historical contingency suggests that the development of a meaningful empirical program for accountability research requires explicitly locating specific measures and their organizing analytical frameworks within maps of the conceptual space and historical ontology of accountability as a mode of governance. Once this is done, it becomes feasible to propose meaningful empirical research programs for investigating accountability as a mode of governance by understanding the location of measurable elements of accountability systems within analytic frameworks and conceptual space.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores the conceptual, empirical, and methodological challenges of defining, measuring, and researching accountability in governance.
Differentiating Accountability as Word and Concept
- Accountability as a word (accountabilityW) functions symbolically, indexically, and iconically, but its meaning varies with context.
- The concept (accountabilityC) is rooted in historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts, making it more precise for empirical study.
Challenges of Accountability as a Word
- The term is ambiguous, expansive, and difficult to translate across languages and cultures.
- Its synonymic nature allows rhetorical flexibility but hampers operationalization and clarity.
Conceptual Foundations of Accountability
- AccountabilityC is a complex idea expressed through multiple frames: cultural, institutional, social, organizational, task environment, and psychological.
- These frames are related by “family resemblances” rather than a single definition, emphasizing context-dependent understanding.
Accountability in Governance Contexts
- Accountability is linked to governance activities, emphasizing social expectations, norms, and moral communities.
- It functions as a performative moral discourse, shaping social relationships and legitimacy within communities.
Mapping Accountability for Empirical Study
- Mapping involves locating observable elements within a conceptual framework, considering dimensions like ethics, standards, and decision-making.
- It requires positioning accountability within a multidimensional space, such as the degree of discretion, normative origin, and type of standards.
Historical and Cultural Contingency of Accountability
- The phenomenon is dynamic and context-dependent, operating across multiple dimensions of governance.
- Mapping must account for shifting manifestations depending on issues, arenas, and social environments.
Methodological Approach to Accountability
- The study relies on pragmatic, ontological, and historical methods to understand accountability’s nature.
- It emphasizes the importance of contextual mapping and recognizing the fluid, contingent nature of accountability systems.
Foucaultian Framework of Accountability
- Focuses on three dimensions: knowledge, power, and ethos.
- Emphasizes viewing accountability as an effect, not a strict theory or method.
Historical Ontology and Mapping of Governance
- Analyzes the invention and roots of accountability concepts historically.
- Uses Foucault’s idea of “mapping” to visualize how governance activities are made thinkable and practicable.
Dimensions of Governmentality in Accountability
- Knowledge: How individuals understand social relationships and contexts.
- Power: Techniques and technologies used to control and regulate behavior.
- Ethos: How individuals adapt their identities and strategies to meet expectations.
Challenges in Measuring Accountability
- Quantitative measures often capture only parts like transparency, not accountability itself.
- Measuring practices, processes, and mechanisms can help test accountability promises more effectively.
Frameworks for Empirical Analysis
- Use of middle-range theories and causal mechanisms to connect measurable elements.
- Examples include multi-level causal models and institutional analysis frameworks like Ostrom’s IADF.
Micro and Macro Levels of Accountability
- Micro-level: Focuses on individual perceptions, behaviors, and decision-making processes.
- Macro-level: Looks at structural arrangements, institutional conditions, and overall performance.
Conditions and Mechanisms of Accountability
- Conditions: Social relationships, normative standards, and feasible reporting.
- Mechanisms: Processes linking conditions to actions, such as monitoring, knowledge dissemination, and sanctions.
Empirical Measures and Research Approaches
- Psychological approaches emphasize individual experiences and social psychology.
- Institutional approaches focus on structural indices, organizational rules, and aggregate performance data.
Limitations and Omissions in Research
- Both approaches often overlook cultural and historical contexts.
- Recognizing these gaps can improve understanding of accountability’s complexity.
Testing Promises of Accountability
- Comparing accountability-based governance with other modes at an aggregate level is possible.
- Emphasizes studying processes, conditions, and mechanisms to understand how accountability influences outcomes.
Implications for Policy and Practice
- More accountability does not always lead to better results.
- Micro-level analysis can reveal how beliefs about scrutiny affect individual and collective behavior.
Overall Insights
- Accountability is contingent, historically specific, and best understood through frameworks.
- Combining micro and macro analyses offers a comprehensive view of accountability’s role in governance.