O’Kelly, Ciarán, and Melvin J. Dubnick, “Rendición de Cuentas y Sus Metáforas: Del Foro al Ágora y Bazar,” Rc Rendición De Cuentas, vol. 1, no. 1, 2023, pp. 97–134.
Author’s Note:
This is a translation of 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.
[“Una versión revisada de este artículo apareció en: O’Kelly, C., y Dubnick, M. J. (2020). «Dissecting the Semantics of Accountability and Its Misuse», en Quality of Governance: Values and Violations,ed. Paanakker, H., Masters, A., y Huberts, L. Cham, Suiza: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 45-79.”]
Abstract:
Resumen.En este documento tratamos de desarrollar una perspectiva «relacional» de la rendición de cuentas y de la llamada «no rendición de cuentas». Nos centramos en el uso que hace Mark Bo-vens de la metáfora del foro en su modelo de rendición de cuentas, argumentando que su perspec-tiva relacional es demasiado estrecha. En cambio, defendemos un compromiso mucho más amplio y fundamental con la idea de la rendición de cuentas. Ampliando las metáforas, señalamos otros dos espacios de rendición de cuentas: el «ágora», un espacio primordial, y el «bazar», un espacio emergente de rendición de cuentas que se basa en el intercambio entre diferentes actores. Las afir-maciones sobre la «falta de rendición de cuentas», argumentamos, reflejan a menudo una falta de apreciación de la naturaleza fundamentalmente relacional de la rendición de cuentas: quienes uti-lizan tales afirmaciones como base para la acción dirigida a hacer que las situaciones, los procesos o las personas sean «más responsables», en realidad buscan afirmar o imponer una determinada forma de relación —que es la jerárquica y monopólica— y reflejan, por lo tanto, un impulso de poder y dominación
AI-Generate Summary (via scite):
Summary of the paper corresponding to ID 10.32870/rc.v1i1.27
Scope and central aim
- The paper engages with theories of accountability, specifically analyzing how Mark Bovens’ forum-based metaphor for accountability fits within broader conceptualizations. It argues that Bovens’ relational/“forum” model is too narrow and proposes a more expansive, historically and philosophically informed understanding of accountability that moves beyond a single metaphor (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Core argument and theoretical framing
- The authors advocate a relationally expansive view of accountability that encompasses multiple spaces of accountability, not only the forum. They introduce and develop three metaphorical spaces: the forum, the agora, and the bazaar, to illustrate different dimensions and modes through which accountability operates in political and governance contexts. The agora is presented as a primordial space of accountability, while the bazaar represents an emergent, market-like space of accountability. Together with the forum, these spaces are used to articulate a more comprehensive account of how accountability functions in practice and thought (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Critique of Bovens’ model
- The work critiques Bovens’ influential framework, which situates accountability primarily within a relational, forum-centric model. It highlights that such a model is “too narrow” to capture the varied and evolving practices of accountability in governance. The paper suggests that maintaining a strictly forum-based notion may lead to gaps in explaining how accountability pressures arise, transform, and influence outcomes in different political cultures and institutions (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Historical and conceptual context
- The authors situate accountability within a broader lineage of governance theory, referencing the conceptual distinctions between passive and active forms of accountability and drawing on broader political-theory debates about virtue, responsibility, and responsiveness. They discuss how different scholars (e.g., Bovens, Vincent, and H.L.A. Hart’s lineage) have contributed to a taxonomy of accountability, while asserting the need to synthesize these into a more expansive, culturally responsive framework. This situates the authors’ contribution within ongoing debates about how accountability should be defined and operationalized in governance research (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Implications for governance and research practice
- By proposing the agora and bazaar as complementary spaces of accountability, the paper implies that accountability mechanisms should be analyzed not only in formal forums (e.g.,public hearings, committees) but also in more informal, participatory, and emergent arenas where actors seek transparency, answerability, and responsiveness. This broadened lens has practical implications for governance evaluation, policy design, and comparative political analysis, encouraging researchers and practitioners to attend to a wider array of accountability pressures and practices across different institutional and cultural settings (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Contextualization with related typologies
- The article references established typologies of accountability, such as Bovens’ four types (caring, responsibility, capacity to respond, and one other) and Vincent’s six-type elaboration, to demonstrate how the proposed expansive framework integrates and extends these accounts. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing tension between conceptual clarity and the lived, plural forms of accountability observed in political life, arguing for an emergent, pluralistic vocabulary that retains analytical rigor while reflecting practice variability (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Limitations and scope
- The authors acknowledge tensions inherent in expanding the accountability concept, including potential challenges in conceptual coherence and in operationalizing multiple spaces within research and policy analyses. They argue for a cautious, nuanced adoption of the agora and bazaar metaphors, ensuring that their integration with the forum model is theoretically informed and methodologically tractable (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
Overall takeaway
- The paper makes a substantive case for an “always expansive” notion of accountability that transcends a single metaphor. By broadening the analytic repertoire to include the agora and bazaar alongside the forum, it offers a more robust framework for understanding accountability in governance, one that better captures the diversity of spaces, practices, and expectations through which accountability pressures are generated and experienced (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
References to support claims
- The synthesis above draws on the authors’ critical engagement with Bovens’ forum-based model and their argument for a broader, more relational and expansive conceptualization of accountability, as described in the discussed article (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023). It also situates this contribution in relation to broader typologies of accountability discussed by Bovens and Vincent, as cited in the same work (́Kelly & Dubnick, 2023).
References:
́Kelly, C. O., & Dubnick, M. J. (2023). Rendición de cuentas y sus metáforas: del foro al ágora y bazar. Rc, 1(1), 97–134. https://doi.org/10.32870/rc.v1i1.27