Assessing Accountability: Three Perspectives

In the latter part of his article, Bovens introduces three distinct perspectives for assessing
accountability, each serving a unique purpose. The democratic perspective, rooted in the
principle of popular control, focuses on accountability as a means for citizens to monitor those
in public office. It empowers the electorate to evaluate the conduct of their representatives. The
constitutional perspective emphasizes the prevention of abuse of power, ensuring that there are
checks and balances to prevent any entity from becoming overbearing or corrupt. The learning
perspective views accountability as a tool for enhancing the effectiveness of public
organizations. By creating feedback mechanisms and incentives, accountability drives
organizations to be more efficient and reflective in their policies and practices. These three
perspectives can sometimes conflict with each other, leading to complex debates about the true
purpose of accountability in specific contexts. The most important goal of accountability for
public organizations can vary depending on their nature, objectives, and the expectations of the
society they serve.

Debating Accountability

Debates surrounding accountability often revolve around two main aspects: deficits and
overloads. In international relations, accountability relations can become blurred, challenging
the transparency and oversight of actions in the global context. In governance networks, a
"breached or weakened chain of command" can lead to a lack of direct political control, creating
accountability deficits. Overloads, on the other hand, can occur due to the rise of the "audit
society," putting excessive accountability pressure on organizations. This overload can
discourage innovation and lead to what Bovens terms "multiple accountabilities disorder,"
where the abundance of accountability mechanisms can paralyze agents.

Actor-Strategies in Dealing with Accountability Pressures

The tension between defined accountability and perceived accountability is a common challenge
for actors. They may grapple with expectations that go beyond what is formally required or
intended. The "Blame Game" represents strategies employed by actors in response to
accountability pressures. These strategies include the allocation of blame, denial, admission
while blaming others, or accepting partial responsibility. Actors may also reframe incidents as
technical or incidental occurrences to mitigate accountability. The allocation of time, money,
and context can be leveraged to shape accountability narratives in ways that suit the interests of
the actors involved.

In conclusion, accountability is a multifaceted and dynamic concept that transcends disciplinary

boundaries. Mark Bovens' conceptual framework for understanding accountability provides
valuable insights into its diverse interpretations, definitions, mechanisms, and assessment
perspectives. Accountability is essential in promoting transparency, preventing abuse of power,
and enhancing the effectiveness of public organizations. However, debates surrounding
accountability often highlight deficits and overloads, emphasizing the need for a balanced and
context-specific approach to accountability. Actors in governance structures navigate a complex
landscape of defined and perceived accountability, employing various strategies to manage
accountability pressures. Understanding these aspects of accountability is crucial for effective
governance and responsible decision-making.

Questions Bovens Article – Accountability

1. What is Bovens’ definition of (narrow) accountability? And how does this differ from broad accountability and from
transparency?
Bovens' definition of narrow accountability centers on a specific social relationship between an
actor (individual or organization) and a forum (individual or institution). In this context, the
actor bears the responsibility of explaining and justifying their actions to the forum, which, in
turn, possesses the authority to question, evaluate the provided information, and render
judgment on the actor's behavior. Crucially, this accountability process carries the potential for
consequences or sanctions against the actor, whether formal or informal. This definition stands
in contrast to broad accountability, which includes a wider array of concepts and is used more
broadly to assess overall performance or behavior, often including proactive elements such as
responsiveness and participation. Additionally, narrow accountability is fundamentally
retrospective, concerned with past actions, while broad accountability may involve a broader
range of dimensions, such as transparency and equity, and may not necessarily involve explicit
consequences. Transparency differs in that it primarily involves the disclosure of information
regarding processes and decisions. Transparency serves as a vital foundation for narrow
accountability by providing the necessary information for forums to scrutinize an actor's actions,
yet it lacks the specific obligations and potential consequences inherent in accountability.

2. In the second part of the article, Bovens discusses four ways to classify accountability (see box 2 on page 461 for a
list of these ways). How can you connect these classifications with the definition from question 1? Why are these all
separate classifications according to Bovens?

The classification of accountability based on the natureof the forum emphasizes different
contexts of responsibility. Each type represents a particular entity or forum that individuals or
organizations must answer to. Political accountability, for example, involves answering to
political authorities, whereas professional accountability involves compliance with industry
standards.

The second point to consider is that classifications based on the nature of the actor (whether
they are corporate, hierarchical, collective, or individually accountable) demonstrate the varied
accountable entities. These groupings serve to clarify the differences in accountability relations
based on whether they involve individuals, organizations, or collective entities, resulting in
unique dynamics.

The third point to consider is the categorization of conduct, which is based on the nature of the
action. This emphasizes the importance of accountability for different types of behavior,
including financial, procedural, and product accountability. Each type of behavior may require
distinct methods for clarification, validation, and assessment.

The categorizations of accountability are distinct in order to recognize the multifarious nature of
this concept, thereby enabling a comprehensive comprehension of its diverse expressions in
different settings. Although accountability is fundamental to all these types, they acknowledge
that the circumstances, actors, dynamics, and arenas can differ greatly. Bovens' method of
understanding accountability acknowledges that it is versatile and exhibits unique forms and
features depending on the particular situation.
3. In the last part of the article, Bovens shows three perspectives on, or goals of, accountability. How can these goals
contradict each other? Which of these goals should, according to you, be the most important one for public
organisations?

According to Bovens, there are three fundamental perspectives on accountability: popular

control, preventing corruption and abuse of power, and improving government effectiveness.
While all three are paramount, they can sometimes come into conflict. Popular control
prioritizes openness and citizen participation, but can also hinder efficiency due to excessive
scrutiny. Preventing corruption is crucial for maintaining public trust but may impede
innovation with stringent measures. Enhancing government effectiveness fosters learning and
adaptability but may downplay transparency. The most significant objective for public
organizations should be to strike a balance among these three goals. By doing so, democratic
principles can be upheld while simultaneously promoting efficiency, integrity, and continuous
improvement in governance. Achieving this balance is crucial for responsible and effective
delivery of public services.
4. Many public organisations see most forms of accountability mainly as a nuisance or even a problem. How can that
be? And what are possibilities to remedy this?

Accountability can be seen as a burdensome task for public organizations, primarily because of
bureaucratic complexities, resource constraints, and concerns about political interference or
public scrutiny. However, there are several ways to alleviate these challenges. Streamlining
reporting and compliance, providing training, and fostering stakeholder engagement can be
helpful. Organizations can also shift towards performance-based accountability and emphasize
long-term planning to insulate themselves from short-term political pressures. To build trust and
motivate accountability efforts, transparency, incentives, legal protections, and public education
are essential. Creating a culture of continuous improvement within organizations can turn
accountability into a catalyst for enhanced performance rather than a hindrance. Ultimately, this
can lead to better public service delivery and strengthened public confidence.