O’Kelly, Ciarán and Melvin J. Dubnick, “Accountability and its Metaphors: From Forum to Agora and Bazaar.” Prepared for PSG VII: Quality and Integrity of Governance The European Group of Public Administration, Speyer, Germany, 10-12 September 2014.
Abstract:
In this paper we seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on so-called ‘unaccountability.’. We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between different actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reflect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship – one that is hierarchical and monopolistic – and reflect therefore a drive to power and domination.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores various metaphors and relational perspectives on accountability within governance, critiquing traditional models and proposing broader conceptual spaces.
Broader Perspectives on Accountability
- The paper advocates for a relational view of accountability beyond traditional models.
- It emphasizes understanding accountability as a complex, multifaceted social process involving diverse relationships.
Limitations of the Bovens Forum Model
- The Bovens model centers on an ‘accountability forum’ as a juridical space for responsibility and judgment.
- Its focus on process and hierarchy may restrict the development of a more comprehensive relational theory.
Alternative Accountability Spaces: Agora and Bazaar
- The ‘agora’ is a primordial, social space where collective purposes and norms emerge through everyday interactions.
- The ‘bazaar’ represents ground-level, mutual exchange relationships that develop accountability through practical, informal dealings.
Relational Foundations and Moral Theory
- Accountability is rooted in social relationships based on sympathy and second-personal moral considerations.
- Theories from Smith and Darwall highlight the importance of intersubjective norms and moral sentiments in shaping accountability.
Metaphors and Theoretical Development
- Metaphors like ‘forum,’ ‘agora,’ and ‘bazaar’ help conceptualize different accountability spaces.
- Overreliance on metaphors can hinder the development of a more robust, theoretical understanding of relational accountability.
Key Critique and Future Directions
- The paper critiques the narrow focus of existing models and calls for expanding the relational perspective.
- It suggests that accountability involves ongoing negotiation within multiple social spaces, not just hierarchical oversight.
Foundations of Social and Moral Self-Examination
- Moral self-examination is a learned skill rooted in social interactions and mutual recognition.
- It depends on individuals engaging with others as moral equals, authorities, and subjects of esteem.
Role of Mutual Recognition and Authority
- Mutual recognition underpins social relations, where authority is based on moral equality, not formal office.
- The effectiveness of social influence relies on perceived deservingness of authority, not hierarchy alone.
The Relational Power of Accountability Spaces
- Accountability derives from emergent social legitimacy, not just formal processes.
- Proper social expectations and shared purposes develop through ground-level interactions, influencing compliance.
Hierarchical vs. Ground-Level Dynamics
- Formal mechanisms like surveillance depend on ground-level social dynamics for effectiveness.
- Disruptions such as gaming performance targets often stem from tensions between hierarchy and local social realities.
The Ground-Level Social Environment
- Actual influence of accountability forums depends on local social interactions, networks, and culture.
- These dynamics are morally egalitarian and foster shared purposes beyond formal authority.
Hierarchy and the Limitations of Formal Accountability
- Accountability is hierarchical by nature, passing knowledge upward and inducing compliance.
- Its strength is limited if there is a poor fit with ground-level social realities, leading to reliance on principal-agent tools.
The Bazaar as an Emergent Social Space
- The bazaar describes informal exchanges where relationships and mutual interests develop fleetingly.
- Such exchanges are fundamental to human interaction and organizational productivity, not inherently corrupt.
Characteristics and Significance of Bazaar
- Bazaar involves reciprocal trade of favors, influence, and esteem, rooted in Smith’s ideas of self-interest and prudence.
- It is ubiquitous, essential for cooperation, and can lead to trust and more stable accountability over time.
Ubiquity and Productivity of Bazaar Exchanges
- Self-interested exchanges are unavoidable and rely on normative mutual respect.
- Repeated interactions can deepen relationships, fostering reliability and organizational trust.
The Role of Informal Exchange in Bureaucracies
- Bureaucratic back-scratching and informal networks like the Soviet tolkach demonstrate ground-level exchange sustaining formal systems.
- Such informal relations fill gaps created by top-down control and are normative, not necessarily exploitative.
Hostility Toward Bazaar in Accountability Forums
- Concerns focus on corruption and illegibility of informal exchanges outside formal scrutiny.
- These exchanges are often viewed as trivial or sinister, threatening formal authority and transparency.
Relational Nature of Accountability and Power
- Assertions of unaccountability often aim to impose hierarchical control rather than address ground realities.
- Failures of accountability often reflect power struggles and the inability of formal mechanisms to override local social dynamics.
Political and Normative Aspects of Accountability
- Accountability is intertwined with political power, used to reinforce organizational purposes and authority.
- It is often polemical, serving interests of order and domination rather than purely moral or ethical standards.
Limitations of Principal-Agent Models
- Formal models emphasize process and hierarchy but overlook the negotiated, emergent ground-level social relations.
- Effective accountability depends on understanding and integrating these relational dynamics.
The Broader Context of Accountability
- Actual organizational performance relies on diverse expectations, including informal exchanges and local trust.
- Formal forums are only one element; ground-level social environments shape conduct and accountability.
Final Reflection on Accountability and Human Interaction
- Accountability is fundamentally relational, involving ongoing negotiations and shared social purposes.
- Formal mechanisms alone cannot fully capture or control the complex, human-centered nature of administrative work.