Content uploaded by Wouter Van Dooren
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wouter Van Dooren on Jul 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Lost in Diffusion? How Collaborative Arrangements Lead to an Accountability Paradox
Abstract and Figures
Several authors have documented a shift from traditional bureaucracies to collaborative arrangements with joint public and private involvement. This article studies the impact of this shift on accountability. We conclude from our explorative case analysis of Public— Private Partnership (PPP) policy in Flanders (Belgium) that there is an accountability paradox. Many prominent players in the policy arena point to serious shortcomings in the accountability of complex PPPs. Yet, with the introduction of PPPs, the number of accountability mechanisms did increase rather than decrease. This remarkable inconsistency between accountability as a tool and as a result is the main focus of this article. How can we avoid that accountability gets lost in the diffusion of public and private responsibilities?
Points for practitioners
Most research concludes that there is something wrong with accountability in PPPs. Our empirical analysis confirms in general this negative interpretation. The respondents share important concerns about how accountability works nowadays in practice. We therefore state that: the shift towards PPPs erodes the traditional notion of accountability; it entails new tools of accountability with a strong emphasis on performance; these tools, however, do not counterbalance the eroded traditional notion of accountability. Yet, they also share a remarkable optimism about the accountability potential of PPPs. With the necessary modifications (minor or major) a balance between the democratic, constitutional and performance functions of accountability can be found.
Figures - uploaded by Wouter Van Dooren
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Wouter Van Dooren
Content may be subject to copyright.
... However, with the development of hybrid phenomena (Billis, 2010;Karré, 2020), accountability becomes problematic when only relying on traditional accounting tools (Grossi et al., 2020). Early accountability studies in hybrid organisations suggest that hybridity might lead to the erosion of accountability (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011), or even its absence (André, 2010). Some contemporary research echoes a similar claim, suggesting that the mix of private-sector practices with public-sector values can lead to accountability gaps (Thomasson, 2020). ...
... In our study, we adopt the instrumental accountability typology in which "accounting" plays a central role, thus symbolic of a market logic, and relational accountability in which a sense of "community and others" plays a central role, thus symbolic of a public logic (Rana & Hoque, 2020). Constructing accountability is assumed to be fraught with challenges, particularly in the case of multiple accountability structures (André, 2010;Grossi & Thomasson, 2015;Rana & Hoque, 2020;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). In taking an interpretive approach, we aim to build on these recent studies to understand how actors in the board of directors and management team of a hybrid organisation, such as SMCs, construct accountability. ...
... First, given that a single longitudinal case study constrains generalisability, our findings should be treated with caution and considered as the initial development of theory. However, the emerging patterns resonate with recent advances in research on accountability in hybrid organisations (e.g., Rajala & Kokko, 2021;Rana & Hoque, 2020), highlighting the complexity of the accountability processes and the challenges associated with multiple logics in hybrid organisations (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). In addition, given that our study is partly based on observational data, we cannot rule out observer bias (Choi & Nisbett, 1998) ascribable to the researchers observing and the participants being observed. ...
Coping with accountability challenges is an essential part of how actors in hybrid organisations make sense of their responsibility to distinctive groups of stakeholders. Drawing on institutional theory and a logics perspective, we explore how the strategic apex in a Swedish municipal housing corporation constructs accountability in relation to the tensions that arise therein. Our case study highlights that the strategic apex deals with the challenges associated with multiple accountability logics via the process of evoking the principals. Given the invisibility of the legal owner, the strategic apex evokes the principal(s) through the additional processes of negotiating resource allocation, compromising and interest alignment, and creating team structures. Our findings contribute to the emergent literature on how hybrid organisations construct accountability and manage related challenges. Furthermore, our analysis of how individual actors and teams deal with the tension between individual and collective actions in the accountability domain advances current knowledge of the processes through which these actors cope with accountability challenges in hybrid organisations.
... Accountability is a 'foundational social force' that regulates individual behaviour (Brees & Martinko, 2015, p. 63) and requires individuals to provide reason and justification for their behaviour or conduct in some form of social exhange as suggested by Messner (2009). It is also considered a complex, nebulous and ever-expanding concept, with multiple definitions (Goodman et al., 2021;Mansouri & Rowney, 2014;McKernan, 2012;Romzek, 2015;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Therefore, it is important to define it more tightly to improve its efficacy. ...
... An over-reliance on hierarchical controls may hinder efforts to improve accountability because they could be 'inflexible' and 'formulaic'. In contrast, informal peer accountability means that the parties are not being restricted to a hierarchical structure (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). This allows at-risk behaviours to be addressed informally when they occur in the field prior to their causing an injury (Ranney et al., 2018, p. 510;Royle, 2017). ...
... Accountability to peers develops through a pattern of reciprocal relationships. It focuses on more subtle influences and could be motivated by an individual's reputational concerns (Busuioc & Lodge, 2017;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Royle and Hall (2012) found that an individual's need for power, affiliation and achievement not only promoted individual accountability but also facilitated accountability to others. ...
Purpose: In heavy industries like mining, where safety is paramount, organisations need a well-functioning system of accountability. Yet to whom employees perceive they are accountable differs at varying hierarchical levels. This article reports on the findings from a study that investigated sources of accountability at different organisational levels in a certain mining operation and the mechanisms used to manage such accountability.Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory, qualitative research methodology was used in the study, underpinned by in-depth interviews with participants from three organisational levels: blue-collar workers, supervisors and managers. The data collected were analysed using thematic content analysis.Findings/results: Blue-collar workers and supervisors considered self-accountability and accountability to line managers to be the primary sources of accountability. However, managers stressed the importance of accountability to regulatory bodies and the legal implications of non-adherence to prescribed standards. All participants perceived their reputations to be heavily dependent on their accountability relationships. Mechanisms used in the organisation to promote accountability included clarifying roles and responsibilities, building open and honest interpersonal relationships, implementing standardised policies and procedures, and offering financial incentives.Practical implications: The findings from the study informed the development of a conceptual accountability model, which should help mining executives in other organisations to manage the accountability process and promote responsible and safe behaviour at all organisational levels.Originality/value: There is limited empirical research on sources of accountability in organisations. This study provides useful insights that help to fill this gap.
... Accountability is a 'foundational social force' that regulates individual behaviour (Brees & Martinko, 2015, p. 63) and requires individuals to provide reason and justification for their behaviour or conduct in some form of social exhange as suggested by Messner (2009). It is also considered a complex, nebulous and ever-expanding concept, with multiple definitions (Goodman et al., 2021;Mansouri & Rowney, 2014;McKernan, 2012;Romzek, 2015;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Therefore, it is important to define it more tightly to improve its efficacy. ...
... An over-reliance on hierarchical controls may hinder efforts to improve accountability because they could be 'inflexible' and 'formulaic'. In contrast, informal peer accountability means that the parties are not being restricted to a hierarchical structure (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). This allows at-risk behaviours to be addressed informally when they occur in the field prior to their causing an injury (Ranney et al., 2018, p. 510;Royle, 2017). ...
... Accountability to peers develops through a pattern of reciprocal relationships. It focuses on more subtle influences and could be motivated by an individual's reputational concerns (Busuioc & Lodge, 2017;Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Royle and Hall (2012) found that an individual's need for power, affiliation and achievement not only promoted individual accountability but also facilitated accountability to others. ...
Purpose: In heavy industries like mining, where safety is paramount, organisations need a well-functioning system of accountability. Yet to whom employees perceive they are accountable differs at varying hierarchical levels. This article reports on the findings from a study that investigated sources of accountability at different organisational levels in a certain mining operation and the mechanisms used to manage such accountability. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory, qualitative research methodology was used in the study, underpinned by in-depth interviews with participants from three organisational levels: blue-collar workers, supervisors and managers. The data collected were analysed using thematic content analysis. Findings/results: Blue-collar workers and supervisors considered self-accountability and accountability to line managers to be the primary sources of accountability. However, managers stressed the importance of accountability to regulatory bodies and the legal implications of non-adherence to prescribed standards. All participants perceived their reputations to be heavily dependent on their accountability relationships. Mechanisms used in the organisation to promote accountability included clarifying roles and responsibilities, building open and honest interpersonal relationships, implementing standardised policies and procedures, and offering financial incentives. Practical implications: The findings from the study informed the development of a conceptual accountability model, which should help mining executives in other organisations to manage the accountability process and promote responsible and safe behaviour at all organisational levels. Originality/value: There is limited empirical research on sources of accountability in organisations. This study provides useful insights that help to fill this gap.
... In public administration, accountability plays various roles (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). It ensures that public authorities comply with rules and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse of power, provides opportunities for the public to control the public authorities, and contributes to improving the performance of public administration (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). ...
... In public administration, accountability plays various roles (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). It ensures that public authorities comply with rules and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse of power, provides opportunities for the public to control the public authorities, and contributes to improving the performance of public administration (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Bovens (2007) identifies three types of accountability from the perspective of what public administration is accountable for: financial accountability for the financial status of the government, procedural accountability for the appropriateness of administration procedures, and product accountability for the achievement of outputs and outcomes of government activities. 1 We referred to this classification when discussing the target of accountability pressure. ...
... Besides its functions (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011), accountability also has dysfunctions. Excessive pressure for accountability degrades the efficiency of public administration. ...
Public accountability may involve dysfunction. However, few empirical studies explain when and how external accountability pressure and subsequent intraorganizational dynamics cause dysfunctions. To bridge this gap, using a case study method, we examined Japan’s public procurement after a series of scandals, focusing on the procurers’ cognition and behavior. First, we found that an administrative unit in a ministry leverages external pressure to enhance its power within the organization. Second, we identified bias toward procedural accountability rather than product accountability. Third, we noted the paradox that the excessive pursuit of procedural accountability undermines not only product accountability, but also procedural accountability.
... However, more transparency would have allowed us to assess the impact of these business activities on society. That said, it is worth acknowledging that transparency can be hampered by commercial confidentiality and the need to protect sensitive data (De la Roche, 2011;Willems and Van Dooren, 2011;Economic and Security Committee -Bockel, 2018;Rajala and Kokko, 2021). However, providing information for external accountability does not necessarily mean that sensitive information needs to be divulged (Chrysaki, 2020). ...
... Since accounting information can be tailored to either meet or refute the trust-based demands of stakeholders, accounting could play a mediating role in trust-building (La Torre et al., 2020). This way, accounting rules and regulations could create trustful relationships between power holders and account holders while preventing unfairness and abuses of power (Seal and Vincent-Jones, 1997;Willems and Van Dooren, 2011). ...
Purpose
New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.
Findings
The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.
Originality/value
This paper responds to the AAAJ 's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.
... Accountability within the public sector may involve a broad range of mechanisms, for example elections, legislative scrutiny, and external audit. Scholars have argued that nowadays public services have to manage combinations of multiple, different, changing, and often conflicting expectations from a variety of audiences (de Boer, 2022), within and outside their organizations in a highly politicized context (Willems & Van Dooren, 2011). Some argue that public organizations trying to face conflicting expectations within a web of overlapping accountability relationships are more likely to be dysfunctional (Koppell, 2005). ...
ENG
Public organizations are increasingly held accountable by multiple institutions and standards. This study explores how key actors perceive accountability changes in Fire and Rescue Services in England. However, few studies have examined perceptions of accountability where long-established governance arrangements are changing. The UK's Policing and Crime Act 2017 provided for a new model of governance in the form of a single directly elected commissioner to replace the traditional indirectly elected fire authority. This study uses a comparative multiple case study design to understand the impact of the governance arrangements on individuals' perceptions of accountability within each service. It adds to the wider understanding of the influences of institutional structures on individuals' perceptions and actions, and it demonstrates that accountability perceptions change depending on the way public services are governed.
PL
Organizacje administracji publicznej są w coraz większym stopniu pociągane do odpowiedzialności przez wiele instytucji. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie jak straż pożarna w Anglii postrzega zmiany w zakresie swojej odpowiedzialności. Do tej pory niewiele badań naukowych przeanalizowało postrzeganie odpowiedzialności w przypadku zmiany istniejących od wielu lat modeli zarządzania. Ustawa Policing and Crime Act 2017 w Wielkiej Brytanii wprowadziła alternatywny model zarządzania strażą pożarną w postaci komisarza wybieranego bezpośrednio, zamiast tradycyjnego organu nadzorujacego wybieranego pośrednio. W tym badaniu wykorzystano porównawczą metodę wielokrotnego studium przypadku, aby zrozumieć wpływ dwóch odmiennych modeli zarzadzania na postrzeganie odpowiedzialności. Niniejszy artykuł wyjaśnia jaki wpływ mają zmiany w strukturach organizacji administracji publicznej na postrzeganie i działania jednostek, oraz dowodzi, że postrzeganie odpowiedzialności zmienia się w zależności od funkcjonujących modeli zarzadzania.
This paper explores how social movement and civic actors enact and contribute to place leadership. It does so by examining how social movement organizations in South Africa use social audits to investigate and challenge government accountability and service delivery failures. The paper describes the meaning-making practices evident in social audit reports, and detail how social audit actors construct issues and positions through three framings – rights, regulations and lived realities. In this process, they leverage rights discourses and governance arrangements to legitimize their place leadership, and draw on multiple aspects and experiences of place to expose failures of governance and in the realization of rights. Through the dynamic interplay between legitimizing and exposing, they translate embodied realities and relations in and of place into a sense of purpose and direction for mobilizing a wider network of governance actors. On this basis, the paper contributes a social accountability perspective to place leadership studies.
MAD statement
This paper aims to Make a Difference (MAD) by exploring how social movement actors contribute to collective place leadership through constructing and contesting the meanings of local governance issues and relationships. The paper highlights how social movement actors illuminate place as the objective and measurable built environment, and as subjectively experienced and constituted as places of heritage and community but also dislocation and trauma. That they use social audits to interrogate governance failures and legitimize communities’ situated knowledge suggests such social accountability initiatives offer a space for place leadership outside of but also interacting with broader governance networks.
Rising and changing citizen expectations, dire fiscal constraints, unfulfilled political aspirations, high professional ambitions, and a growing number of stubborn societal problems have generated an increasing demand for innovation of public policies and services. Drawing on the latest research, this book examines how current systems of public governance can be transformed in order to enhance public innovation. It scrutinizes the need for new roles and public sector reforms, and analyzes how the gradual transition towards New Public Governance can stimulate the exploration and exploitation of new and bold ideas in the public sector. It argues that the key to public innovation lies in combining and balancing elements from Classic Public Administration, New Public Management and New Public Governance, and theorizes how it can be enhanced by multi-actor collaboration for the benefit of public officials, private stakeholders, citizens, and society at large.
The study examined how different countries are now cooperating when adopting
PPPs in the era of COVID-19. The main objective of the study was to establish
whether the use of PPPs can promote intergovernmental corporation during the
COVID-19 period. Data collected through review of scholarly literature and
document review was analysed using narratives. The Study findings revealed that
the use of PPPs provides a basis for promoting intergovernmental corporation
among different countries in the era of COVID-19. It was concluded that the
adoption of PPPs provides a basis for fostering intergovernmental corporation
globally during COVID-19. The study recommended that different countries
need to always use PPPs to bolster intergovernmental corporation, if they are to
effectively address a number of issues pertaining to COVID-19.
Despite the complexities involved around the accountability mechanisms of collaborative governance, little is known about how to assess accountability at the network level and disentangle possible accountability deficits. This study first explicates the nature of collaborative governance accountability in contrast to accountability in traditional public administration and market-based governance. The analysis shows how collaborative governance accountability is distinctive: (a) accountability relationships shift from bilateral to multilateral; (b) horizontal as well as vertical accountability relationships are involved; (c) not only formal standards but also informal norms are used; and (d) accountability challenges move from control/audit issues to trust-building and paradox management issues. We then propose a framework for accountability in collaborative governance, drawing its dimensions from the process-based accountability research. Our framework builds on three dimensions of collaborative accountability—information, discussion, and consequences—and elaborates on their components and indicators. Based on the framework, questions to guide future research are provided, focusing on tensions and paradoxes that can arise in each process dimension as primary accountability challenges in collaborative contexts.
Collaboration between governments, business, the voluntary and community sectors is now central to the way public policy is made, managed and delivered. This book provides the first comprehensive and authoritative account of the theory, policy and practice of collaboration. Written by two leading authorities in the field the book explores the experience of collaboration in regeneration, health and other policy sectors, and assesses the consequences of the emergence of public-private partnerships contrasting the UK experience to that elsewhere in the world.
List of Tables Foreword Notes of Contributors List of Abbreviations PART I: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMOCRACY Introduction: Partnerships, Democracy and Governance M.Bexell & U.Morth Partnerships, Boundary Blurring and Accountable Actorhood K.Svedberg Helgesson Public-Private Partnerships and the Democratic Deficit: Is Performance-Based Legitimacy the Answer? J.Pierre & G.Peters Partnership Accountability Need not be Democratic Accountability J.Steets & L.Blattner PART II: PARTNERSHIPS AND DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE Public Markets and Private Democracy? The Renegotiation of Public and Private in Global Politics K.Dingwerth & T.Hanrieder From Business Unusual to Business as Usual: The Future Legitimacy of PPPs with Multilateral Organizations B.Bull & D.McNeill Transnational Standard-Setting Partnerships in the Field of Social Rights: The Interplay of Legitimacy, Institutional Design and Process Management M.Beisheim & C.Kaan From Rhetoric to Practice: The Legitimacy of Global Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development K.Backstrand Coordinating Actors in the Fight against HIV/AIDS: From 'Lead Agency' to Public-Private Partnerships C.Jonsson UNDP, Business Partnerships and the (UN)democratic Governance of Development C.Gregoratti PART III: CONCLUSIONS Conclusions and Directions M.Bexell & U.Morth Index
There is a paradox surrounding the development over the past couple of decades of public management and the rearticulation of market values and norms in public governance. Liberal democratic theory is based on a separation of the political system from its environment, or, slightly differently phrased, between governors and the governed. This separation serves to protect both the governing elite and their institutions from societal encroachment and also to place rather distinct boundaries on the exercise of political power. It is believed to be in the interest of both state and society that this border is upheld. Yet we have seen an unprecedented wave of market values, norms, and ideals from the private sector successfully penetrate the state. Thus, the market — the sector that liberal democratic theory sought to protect by constraining the powers of the state — has made significant inroads to the very locus of the powers from which it was to be protected.
When politicians, UN officials, nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives, or political scientists want to make an uncontroversial statement about global governance, demanding more accountability in the international system is a safe bet. Accountability is a political buzzword that has gained popularity especially in the context of new forms of governance such as public-private partnerships. Partnerships are voluntary, formalized arrangements involving public, private, and/or civil society organizations which have common, nonhierarchical decision-making procedures and address public policy issues.
'One of the first collections of empirical studies on the international experience with public-private partnerships (PPPs), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships raises several crucial issues that challenge the effectiveness of PPPs. It does a good job of organizing scattered research on a complicated topic, examining partnerships in historical, political, and economic contexts, and pointing out major defects in previous studies. The editors have assembled an all-star cast of contributors to accomplish three major goals relating to PPPs: to reexamine the huge range of definitions, to review the international experience and learn from the outcomes, and to call for more careful balanced assessment.'