What is Bureaucratic Accountability and How can We Measure it?

This article addresses both the theoretical question of defining accountability relationships in the bureaucratic context and the methodological question of how to describe and measure those relationships. More specifically, a model of accountability is offered, which defines such relationships as i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Administration & society 1990-11, Vol.22 (3), p.275-302
Main Author: O'Loughlin, Michael G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accountability
Bureaucracy
Measurement
Methodological Problems
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, NONEXECUTIVE
POLITICAL POLICY
POLITICAL SCIENCE
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
RELATIONS BETWEEN OR AMONG BRANCHES OR DEPARTMENTS OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT
Theoretical Problems
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article addresses both the theoretical question of defining accountability relationships in the bureaucratic context and the methodological question of how to describe and measure those relationships. More specifically, a model of accountability is offered, which defines such relationships as influence relationships involving three essential dimensions: (a) effective communication systems through which bureaucratic explanation and justification of actions and decisions to outside actors occurs; (b) outside actor influence over bureaucratic decision making; and (c) the existence of a distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spheres of decision making. The article then identifies and describes a measurement strategy and social indicators to assess the substance and strength of accountability between bureaucratic agencies and outside public actors. The use of the model and measurement strategy is applied to a case study involving the accountability relationship between an employment and training agency and the chief political officials of a large urban city during the implementation of the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and its reauthorization in 1978.
ISSN:0095-3997
1552-3039
DOI:10.1177/009539979002200301