O’Kelly, Ciarán, and Melvin J. Dubnick. “Dissecting the Semantics of Accountability and Its Misuse.” In Quality of Governance: Values and Violations, ed. Hester Paanakker, Adam Masters, and Leo Huberts, 45-79. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
Abstract: In this chapter, we address the many different meanings that accountability harbors and examine the effects of such complex and multifaceted interpretations in the light of governance quality. We seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on the 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. This represents a violation of accountability at the cost of the overall quality of governance.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document explores the semantics, conceptual models, and relational dynamics of accountability within governance and organizational contexts.
The Complexity of Governance Principles
- Governance involves diverse interpretations of transparency and democratic voice.
- Decision-making power is shared and scrutinized, not centralized, to ensure accountability.
The Role of Metaphors in Accountability
- Words like “forum” shape how accountability is understood and practiced.
- Bovens’s forum metaphor emphasizes accountability as a relational, judgment-based process.
Limitations of the Forum Model
- The model narrows accountability to actor-forum relationships, excluding broader social factors.
- Its metaphorical focus may constrain development of more comprehensive theories of relational accountability.
Broader Perspectives on Accountability
- Accountability is viewed through mechanisms, functions, values, behaviors, and relationships.
- Relational accountability, rooted in moral and ethical foundations, emphasizes mutual recognition and second-personal engagement.
The Bovens Accountability Framework
- Central idea: accountability occurs within a forum where actors explain, justify, and face judgment.
- The process involves informing, questioning, and potential sanctions, with the forum acting as a juridical space.
Critique of the Forum Metaphor
- While useful analytically, the forum metaphor risks limiting theoretical development.
- It may oversimplify complex social and organizational dynamics by focusing on specific relational stages.
Alternative Accountability Spaces
- “Agora” as a foundational space for social interaction and emergence of publics.
- “Bazaar” as a space of mutual exchange that thickens social ties and pursues objectives.
Relational vs. Principal-Agent Models
- The forum is interpretative and negotiated, contrasting with power-based principal-agent relationships.
- The forum emphasizes understanding past actions through dialogue, while principal-agent models focus on sanctions and compliance.
Distinction Between Forum and Principal-Agent Perspectives
- The forum is a subset of multiple accountability spaces influencing daily life and work.
- Bovens’s forum metaphor moves away from mechanistic views but underplays social and negotiated aspects, relying on pre-existing actor sympathy rather than force.
Ground-Level Accountability and Social Dynamics
- Accountability involves diverse, conflicting expectations shaped through normative reflections, social relationships, and practical compromises.
- These spaces are integral to everyday administrative work, akin to examining a heartbeat or city traffic, emphasizing the whole system over isolated elements.
The Agora as a Foundational Social Space
- The agora is a fluid, contingent space where social situations and relationships generate reasons, norms, and purposes.
- Human sociality and reciprocal sympathy underpin motives for action, with collective purpose emerging from thick social interactions rooted in fairness and internal procedures.
Relational Power and Moral Foundations
- Accountability is rooted in social relationships and legitimacy, not just formal processes, with actors’ authority negotiated through broader social expectations.
- Purpose and legitimacy evolve through social spaces, with accountability seen as a matrix of standpoints rather than hierarchical control.
Role of Moral Theory in Accountability
- Moral theories serve as maps, helping interpret the terrain of justice and good work, rooted in everyday moral experiences.
- Adam Smith’s focus on sympathy and Darwall’s second-person norms highlight the social, intersubjective basis of moral reasoning and accountability.
The Forum’s Relational Power and Negotiation
- The forum’s authority depends on social legitimacy and broader expectations, not solely hierarchical power.
- Accountability claims are negotiated, contingent, and embedded within multiple commitments, not simply imposed from above.
Broader Accountability Spaces Beyond the Forum
- Accountability extends into diverse spaces like the ‘bazaar,’ where fleeting exchanges and relationships develop mutual interests.
- These exchanges are fundamental to productivity and trust, often operating outside formal scrutiny but crucial for organizational functioning.
The Bazaar as an Element of Human Interaction
- The bazaar involves informal, reciprocal exchanges rooted in self-interest but also in prudence and social bonding.
- Such exchanges are ubiquitous, necessary for cooperation, and can lead to more stable relationships over time through repeated interactions.
Productivity and Self-Directed Action
- Ground-level exchanges underpin organizational productivity, especially in incomplete work processes requiring trust and reliability.
- Repeated interactions in the bazaar can thicken relationships, fostering trustworthiness and emergent accountability spaces.
Hostility Toward Bazaar in Formal Accountability
- Concerns about corruption and illegibility drive hostility toward bazaar exchanges in formal accountability frameworks.
- These informal exchanges are often seen as black boxes or potential sources of unethical behavior, despite their social and productive importance.
Accountability as Power and Political Tool
- Assertions of unaccountability often reflect power struggles and attempts to impose hierarchical control.
- Formal accountability mechanisms tend to reinforce control, but their success depends on ground-level social dynamics and negotiated relationships.
Limitations of the Bovens Model
- Bovens emphasizes process and hierarchy but underestimates the negotiated, relational, and emergent nature of accountability.
- Effective accountability involves multiple expectations and spaces, not just formal forums, with power being a contingent, negotiated outcome.
The Role of Exchange and Morality
- Exchange, rooted in self-interest, is a fundamental human trait involving normative commitments and mutual respect.
- Such exchanges are necessary, often informal, and can be exploited or used for trust-building, depending on context.
The Ubiquity and Productivity of Bazaar Exchanges
- Bazaar exchanges are pervasive and essential for organizational productivity, especially in incomplete or complex work.
- Repeated interactions can develop trust and reliability, leading to more stable accountability relationships over time.
Critique of Market-Driven Accountability
- New Public Management’s focus on market mechanisms and performance metrics creates vulnerabilities and narrow accountability.
- Market-like competition in public services often displaces informal exchanges, which remain vital for effective governance.
The Normative and Political Nature of Accountability
- Accountability is inherently political, involving power, legitimacy, and the contest over organizational purposes.
- Claims of unaccountability often serve polemical purposes, reflecting struggles over authority rather than mere performance failures.