Search results

The purpose of this paper is to deepen and advance the understanding of the construction of accountability within the relationship between government funders and development non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The paper presents a case study examining the process through which an influential Dutch development NGO, Oxfam Novib, constructed its own accountability while simultaneously seeking to influence shifts in government funder accountability requirements. It enrols a combination of comprehensive archival data on the Dutch government’s financing scheme for NGOs from 1965 to 2012 and in-depth interviews with Oxfam Novib managers and Dutch government officials. The co-evolution in accountability within Oxfam Novib and the government funding scheme is conceptualised using the notions of imposed, felt and adaptive accountability

The case unveils the dynamics through which accountability within a major government funding scheme for NGOs was co-constructed by Oxfam Novib and the Dutch government’s development aid department. In particular, it reveals how this process was influenced by an internal evolution in Oxfam Novib’s organisational approach to accountability and an institutional context characterised by consensus-based economic and social policy making. The case also unveils the process through which Oxfam Novib’s influence declined as more demanding, narrowly focused government accountability requirements emerged in a setting that was increasingly critical of NGOs.

The paper presents a rare example of a context where development NGOs have proactively sought and secured influence over the accountability demands of a key donor. It is unique in combining consideration of the internal evolution of accountability within an individual NGO (conceptualised as an evolution from felt to adaptive accountability) with a progression in the form of accountability required by governmental funders. The paper unveils the conditions under which NGO-preferred conceptions of accountability may gain (and lose) influence among key funders.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate disaster accountability process, and it seeks to advocate for involvement of victims as salient stakeholders in the accountability process.

The authors adopt a case study of the 3rd June, 2015 flood disaster and fire that occurred in Accra, Ghana and draw mainly on interviews, as well as observations and a review of publicly available documents.

Several actors are involved in disaster management in Ghana. These actors play several roles as part of the disaster management process. Coordination is observed among some governmental actors. However, there is a little collaboration among these actors. There are, therefore, no clear accountability relationships between the actors. Moreover, the forms of accountability process are largely upward and internal. So, although we find the victims as salient stakeholders, their perspectives are not prioritised as part of the accountability process.

As a result of less engagement with victims in the accountability process, a central accountability concern, outcomes, namely, benefits for victims in terms of changes in their knowledge, status, attitudes, values, skills, behaviours or conditions were not promoted. Downward accountability should be encouraged to promote better outcomes.

Although some studies on accounting for disasters have been undertaken, there is none in our local context, and also this study has been able to uncover under-representation of victims in the accountability process using adaptive accountability lens.

This study explores the professional work of managers in professional service firms (PSFs) by focusing on the relational position of managers as they interface between diverse groups of actors and navigate a multiplicity of accountabilities.

Drawing on an ethnographic study of managers in a Brazilian PSF, this study demonstrates through observations, interviews and shadowing how PSF managers address multiple accountabilities in the conduct of professional work.

To navigate multiple accountabilities, PSF managers perform several forms of boundary work, which the authors conceptualize as “revamping” and “remolding” operations and “translating” and “transforming” understandings. The form of boundary work performed depends on the configuration of two elements of accountability demands: knowledge orientation and extent of exposure. Although analytically distinct, these elements intertwine, suggesting the need for a dynamic perspective on accountability. The analysis shows that professional work extends beyond fixed or passive views of hierarchical and intrinsic accountability to emphasize that managers exude accountability of an adaptive nature.

This study illustrates and theorizes the role of boundary work in PSFs, develops its link to accountability, and identifies its scholarly and practical affordances and limitations for understanding managers’ professional work when navigating multiple accountabilities.

The findings reveal perspectives and behaviors of managers embedded in PSFs, illustrating their unstructured and agentic experiences of accountability and boundary work in practice. The insights can be extended to other contexts where managers face multiple accountabilities in conducting professional work.

Online ratings and reviews have recently emerged as mechanisms to facilitate accountability and transparency in the provision of goods and services. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature and outcome of the accountability that online ratings and reviews create in the sharing economy.

The study draws on 30 face-to-face and Skype interviews with Airbnb guests and hosts as well as on secondary materials, including content from Airbnb data analytic reports.

The authors demonstrate that face-saving practices widely condition user ratings and comments. Face saving occurs when individuals attempt to preserve their own identity and the identity of others during a social interaction. At Airbnb, the authors find that reviewers adopt three distinct face-saving strategies: the use of private reviewing channels, the creation of tactful reviews and refraining from reviewing entirely. The authors also find that users are sceptical of rating metrics and public comments and draw upon a wide range of alternative sources, such as private messaging and other publicly available resources, in their decision making.

This paper highlights the overwhelmingly positive character of Airbnb ratings and reviews. It proposes the concept of crowdbased accountability as a limited, partial form of assurance for sharing economy users. Guests and hosts alike prioritise face-saving practices over reviewer responsibilities to provide authentic, reliable accounts to the public. Consequently, reviewers effectively remove the risk of sanctions for those in the network who underperform.

The main objective of this article is to explore the discourses on social inequality in the annual reports of Bangladeshi NGOs.

To fulfil this objective, a discourse analysis was conducted on the latest annual reports of ten renowned NGOs in Bangladesh. The findings were interpreted from the impression management perspective.

It was found that the NGOs of Bangladesh are highlighting several social inequality issues such as poverty, gender inequality, inequality related to getting healthcare, legal and education facilities, etc. in their annual reports. Several impression management tactics were applied in the narratives of the annual reports. The NGOs portrayed themselves as “problem solvers” who are the saviors of distressed people.

This study will facilitate improving the understanding of NGO communication. Policymakers will be able to understand the disclosures of NGOs and consider the necessity to provide guidance that may lead to better information dissemination through reports.

This study will contribute to the limited literature on NGO disclosures from the context of developing economies. In the context of NGO, this research is methodologically novel as it applies discourse analysis and interprets the findings through the lens of impression management.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain how upward accountability processes can be enabling in, or constraining to, the effective deployment of development aid funding.

The paper derives its primary insights from in-depth interviews and focus groups with non-governmental organization (NGO) fieldworkers working and delivering development aid in Northern Ghana. It analyses inductively the perspectives of fieldworkers to explain their experiences of upward accountability.

The fieldworkers’ perception of upward accountability was mainly one of external control, in response to which they enacted a skilful form of compliance accountability. This perception of control failed to stifle their initiative and intrinsic commitment to beneficiaries. The fieldworkers craved “conversations for accountability”, in which they had a voice in the development of upward accountability metrics, thereby enabling them to fulfil their sense of felt responsibility to beneficiaries. While aspects of “conversations for accountability” were emerging in fieldworker-funder interactions, it was unclear to what extent funders were committed to further advancing them. Overall, the analysis unveils how felt responsibility mediates for, and partly diminishes, the perceived negative impacts on aid effectiveness of upward accountability processes informed by a focus on control.

The authors examine the potential of upward accountability processes using in-depth analyses of the actual experiences of those involved in delivering NGO services at the grassroots level. The authors contribute to emerging work in this vein by enriching the authors’ understanding of local constituencies’ experiences of accountability processes more generally, especially the impact these mechanisms have on NGO operational activities. The authors also unveil the mediating role fieldworkers’ “felt responsibility” to beneficiaries’ plays in moderating the perceived negative impacts on aid effectiveness of upward accountability processes.

Community-based social enterprises (CBSEs), a spatially defined subset of social enterprise, are independent, not-for-profit organisations managed by community members and committed to delivering long-term benefits to local people. CBSEs respond to austerity and policy reforms by providing services, jobs and other amenities for residents in deprived communities, thus contributing to neighbourhood regeneration. This paper aims to develop a better understanding of how CBSEs perceive accountability, how they apply it in the management and representation of their business and why.

Nine case studies of CBSEs across three European countries (England, the Netherlands and Sweden) are analysed, using data from semi-structured interviews with initiators, board members and volunteers in CBSEs.

CBSEs shape accountability and representation in response to the needs of local communities and in the wake of day-to-day challenges and opportunities. Apart from financial reporting, CBSEs apply informal strategies of accountability which are highly embedded in their way of working and contingent upon their limited resources.

Although research has shown the complex governance position of CBSEs, their application of accountability to target communities and other stakeholders is unclear. The paper coins the term “adaptive accountability,” reflecting a relational, dialectic approach in which formal, costly accountability methods are only applied to legally required forms of accounting, and informal practices are accepted by funding agencies and governments as valid forms of accountability, assessing CBSEs’ societal value in more open terms.

This study offers a critical inquiry into accountability vis-à-vis organizational identity formation. It investigates how accountability evolves in the transformation of an NGO operating in the field of migration management from an informal grassroots group into a fully-fledged organization.

The paper is the outcome of a participatory action research project on Welcome Refugees (WR), a UK-based NGO. The project involved documentary analysis, focus group and semi-structured interviews, field notes, and participant observation. The analysis draws from poststructuralist theorization to explain the interplay between organizational identity and different forms of NGO accountability over time.

The study shows how different forms of accountability became salient over time and were experienced differently by organizational members, thus leading to competing collective identity narratives. Organizational members felt accountable to beneficiaries in different ways, and this was reflected in their identification with the organization. Some advocated a rights-based approach that partially resonated with the accountability demands of external donors, while others aimed at enacting their feelings of accountability by preserving their closeness with beneficiaries and using a need-based approach. These differences led to an identity struggle that was ultimately solved through the silencing of marginalized narratives and the adoption of an adaptive regime of accountability.

The findings of the case are of practical relevance to quasi-organizations that struggle to form and maintain organizational identity in their first years of operation. Their survival depends not only on their ability to accommodate and/or resist a multiplicity of accountability demands but also on their ability to develop a shared and common understanding of identity accountability.

The paper problematizes rather than takes for granted the process through which organizations acquire a viable identity and the role of accountability within them.

To explore the shifting contours of politico-economic governmental responsibility and accountability from the consensually driven Keynesian welfare state model through to the market focused neo-liberal new public management (NPM) approach and beyond. In particular the chapter addresses the post-2008 crisis and austerity environment. It questions why the apparent failure of the market privileged neo-liberal model resulting in financial crisis and the prolonged aftermath has not led to an alternative recognizably coherent or consensually based approach to government and state responsibility for politico-economic management, and the implications of this for the accountability of public services.

The chapter draws on extensive literature across economic, social policy, public management and other fields as well as government and key institutional documents and reports. This enables a comparative perspective on governmental approaches to politico-economic management and management of public services, addressing key areas of consensus, responsibility and accountability.

The chapter traces the trajectory of governmental accountability and responsibility from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism and NPM, conceptually grounding these policy shifts and punctuations. It suggests that the key issue – why the dramatic failure of the neo-liberal model from 2008 has not led to a new emerging paradigm – may be answered not simply by reference to the continuation of neo-liberal approaches, but by appreciating that a number of countries have in fact implemented adaptive and resilient systems which have accommodated many of the neo-liberal NPM prescriptions. The findings conclude with some speculation on the future of government and public sector accountabilities and responsibilities.

The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused significant disruptions to the non-profit sector, highlighting the issues that the narrowly focused, traditional conception of governance fails to address. The purpose of this paper is to propose a contingency-based framework with its theoretical underpinnings in the existing literature, in order to support future empirical research on non-profit governance and accountability practices.

From a theoretical perspective, this paper synthesizes relevant existing literature and proposes a contingency-based accountability and governance framework in the non-profit sector. This paper draws on Ostrower and Stone’s (2010) contingency-based framework on boards and Hyndman and McDonnell’s (2009) conception of governance systems. This paper engages with the New Zealand and Australia context while reviewing relevant literature and relevant regulations.

The global pandemic has caused severe worldwide disruptions both socially and economically. There have been dramatic changes to the ways in which non-profit organisations (NPOs) operate. There is an urgent need to understand how such changes in the external environment impact on NPOs’ governance and accountability practices. In this context, the contingency-based accountability and governance framework proposed in this paper has important implications for non-profit research, while opening up an avenue for future research in this field.

This paper does not involve empirical analysis.

This paper contributes by facilitating better understanding on how external contingencies like the COVID-19 global pandemic affect the external and internal environment of an NPO, how they impact on stakeholders and their interplay with an NPO’s governance and accountability systems. It also suggests that regulators of the non-profit sector, umbrella support organisations, and funders proactively encourage and guide NPOs to embrace a wider scope of governance and strengthen the level of governance in the sector.

This paper contributes to the literature by proposing a contingency-based accountability and governance framework in the non-profit sector to support future research in this field. It also sheds light on competing theoretical debates relating to the conceptualisation and operationalization of accountability and governance.