Dubnick, Melvin J., “If Accountability is Everything, Maybe it’s Nothing.” Prepared for presentation at the 2024 American Society for Public Administration Annual Conference, Minneapolis MN, April 13, 2024.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document discusses the evolving conceptualization and scholarly debates surrounding accountability and planning in governance studies.
Historical Comparison of Planning and Accountability
- Planning was once regarded as a universal solution, especially during its “golden age” from the 1920s to 1960s.
- Accountability is now increasingly seen as a complex, contested concept with no clear core, similar to planning’s past debates.
Challenges in Defining Accountability
- Many studies treat accountability as elusive, fuzzy, or magical, leading to conceptual confusion.
- Scholars have attempted various approaches, including reducing accountability to elemental properties or normative benchmarks, but consensus remains elusive.
Efforts to Clarify Accountability Concepts
- Researchers like Schillemans, Lindberg, and Rached have mapped accountability’s subtypes and sought minimal or normative definitions.
- Despite these efforts, the core conceptual problem persists, with some scholars accepting ambiguity as inherent.
Proposed Solution: Conceptual “Unpacking”
- Luhmann’s idea of accountability as a “condensed concept” suggests it evolves through actualizations in different contexts.
- The approach advocates analyzing accountability as layered, with each application adding to its potential meanings, rather than seeking a fixed core.
Lessons from Planning’s “Golden Age”
- The planning field experienced a similar search for a core concept, with some advocating for a distinct discipline and others minimizing the concept’s importance.
- Studying this history offers insights into managing the evolving, layered nature of accountability.
Final Reflection on Conceptual Ambiguity
- The author suggests embracing accountability’s layered, historical development rather than seeking a definitive, fixed meaning.
- This perspective allows researchers to analyze accountability as a dynamic, context-dependent phenomenon.
Author’s Note:
This paper was originally intended to be part of the ASPA Symposium on Advancing Accountability Studies in a Changing World, sponsored by Public Performance and Management Review and ASPA’s Section on Public Performance and Management.