Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for improving the interaction between horizontal and social accountability mechanisms for enhanced accountability outcomes.

This is a conceptual paper drawing on six published anti-corruption cases in the Asian region and in theory to develop a framework for understanding and improving the interaction between horizontal and social accountability mechanisms.

The paper proposes that to have more improved interactions between horizontal and social accountability mechanisms, any or all of the following eight conditions must be met. These include, independence and capacity of horizontal accountability agencies; legal backing for horizontal and social accountability interaction; vibrant and independent media; strong partnership of civil society with the media for information dissemination; organisation of civil society into groups; credibility of horizontal and social accountability mechanisms; capacity of civil society (including human and financial capacity); horizontal accountability mechanisms to support and motivate social mechanism to “blow the alarm”.

The conceptual framework developed in this paper makes a significant contribution to the accountability literature. In terms of policy, this framework can serve as a tool for governments, especially in Asia, seeking good governance through enhanced accountability outcomes.

This study examines unexplored horizontal accountability types between public, private and third sector actors within a hybrid organization. The case organization was applying a novel alliance model to generate service paths for heterogeneous clientele consuming cultural, educational, health and social services. It was first to do so in Finland.

This research is on a case study that used documents and interviews to examine the design of the horizontal accountability. The descriptive analysis focused on identifying what type of formal accountability system was designed (i.e. who is the account holder, and who is accountable and for what and why).

An imbalanced accountability system was identified because accountability obligations were unevenly distributed between public, private and third sector actors. The private sector was the most accountable for performance, and the third sector (i.e. voluntary sector) was the least accountable. As account holders, the public, private and third sector actors were judging their conduct as account providers. This created a biased horizontal accountability system. The hybrid's accountability system was dynamic because the contracts made to establish the hybrid included opportunities to change horizontal accountability if future changes to the external environment affect too drastically the potential to achieve the hybrid's goals.

Three new concepts are proposed for studying dysfunctional accountability systems: dynamic, biased and horizontally imbalanced accountability.

This paper aims to fill gap in the literature and explore policy options for resolving the problems of accountability by framing three research questions. The research questions are (i) whether certain elements of Scott’s (2014) institutional pillars attenuate (accentuate) corporate and public accountability; (ii) whether the presence of ruling party-affiliated enterprises (RPAEs) create an increase (decrease) in the degree of corporate (public) accountability; and (iii) whether there is a particular form of ownership change that transforms RPAEs into public investment companies.

Using a qualitative research methodology that involves term frequency and thematic analysis of publicly available textual information, the paper examines Mechkova et al.’s (2019 forms of government accountability. The paper analyzes the gaps between the de jure and de facto accountability using the institutional pillars framework.

The findings of the paper are three. First, there are gaps between de jure and de facto in all three (vertical, horizontal and diagonal) forms of government (public) accountability. Second, the study finds that more than three fourth of the parties that contested the June 2021 election did have regional focus. They did not advocate for accountability. Third, Ethiopia’s RPAEs are unique. They have regional focus and are characterized by severe forms of agency and information asymmetry problems.

The main limitation of the paper is its exploratory nature. Extending this research by using cross-country data could provide a more complete picture of the link between corporate (public) accountability and a country’s institutional pillars.

Academic research documents that instilling modern corporate (public) governance standards in the Sub Sahara Africa (SSA) region has shown mixed results. The analysis made in this paper is likely to inform researchers and policymakers about the type of change that leads to better corporate (and public) accountability outcomes.

The institutional change proposed in the paper is likely to advance the public interest by mitigating agency and information asymmetry problems and enhancing government accountability. The changes make the enterprises investable, save scarce jobs, enhance diversity and put the assets in RPAEs to better use.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that uses the institutional pillars analytical framework to examine an SSA country's corporate (public) accountability problem. It demonstrates that accountability is a domestic and a (novel) traveling theory. The paper identifies the complexity of resolving the interlock between political institutions and business enterprises. It theorizes that it is impossible to instill modern corporate (public) accountability standards without changing regulatory, normative and cultural cognitive pillars of institutions. The paper contributes to the change management and public interest literature.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how accounts of collaboration practice were made and used to construct accountability in the empirical context of coordination associations, a Swedish form of collaboration between four authorities in health and social care. They feature pooled budgets, joint leadership and joint reporting systems, intended to facilitate both collaboration and (shared) accountability.

Empirical data were collected in field observations in local, regional and national settings. In addition, the study is based on analysis of local association documents such as evaluations and annual reports, and analysis of national agency reports.

Accountability is constructed hierarchically with a narrow focus on performance, and horizontal (shared) accountability as well as outcomes are de-emphasised. Through this narrow construction of accountability the coordination associations are re-created as hierarchical and accountability is delegated rather than shared.

Features such as pooled budgets, joint leadership and joint reporting systems can support collaboration but do not necessarily translate into shared accountability if accountability is interpreted and constructed hierarchically.

When practice conforms to what is counted and accounted for, using the hierarchical and narrow construction of accountability, the result may be that the associations become an additional authority. That would increase rather than decrease fragmentation in the field.

This research derives from first-hand observations of actor-to-actor episodes complemented with the analysis of documents and reports. It provides critical analysis of the construction and evaluation of accounts and accountability related to practice and performance in collaboration. The main contribution is the finding that despite the conditions intended to facilitate inter-organisational collaboration and horizontal accountability, the hierarchical accountability persisted.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of e-government for horizontal/social accountability (to citizens) by looking into its shifting location. Its main purpose is to show how the introduction of information and communication technology in the public sector changes how public sector work is organised, shifting the traditional sources of accountability and to discuss the implications of those changes.

The study comes from desk-based research that brings together the literature on electronic government and accountability studies and situates them in the context of a bureaucratic public sector.

It shows that e-government entails digitalization of public sector work by restructuring work, re-organising public information and knowledge and re-orientating officials-citizens relation. It argues that in the e-government era accountability is inscribed in the technology and its embodied standards; is a horizontal technological relation that renders officials accountable to the handling of digital interfaces; and renders citizens co- producers of digital information responsible for bringing the public to account. The paper shows that these changes do not necessarily bring better or worse accountability results but change the sources of accountability bringing shifts in its locations, thereby rendering it more precarious. The paper ends by discussing the implications of digital accountability for good public administration.

With the unprecedented level of attention currently being paid to “digital government” at the moment, this is a timely paper that seeks to address the accountability implications of these shifts. The study offers a practice-based, relational definition of accountability and a Weberian account of bureaucratic government, followed by an exploration of ways in which this is being challenged or replaced with a new informatisation enabled/supported by new “technologies of accountability”.

The paper illustrates how accountability of collaborative governance was constituted in the context of disaster managerial work carried out by the Government, local authorities, and Maori community organisations, after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand.

A case study detailing the communitarian approach to disaster recovery management by a nationalised Maori earthquake response network is contrasted with the formal emergency management infrastructure's response to the Canterbury earthquakes.

Critical analysis of the effectiveness and failures of these approaches highlights the institutional and cultural political issues that hinder the institutionalization of collaborative and accountable governance in the fields of disaster risk reduction and emergency management.

The paper contributes to the accountability research and practice in general and disaster accountability in particular by addressing a more multifaceted model of ‘accountability combined with collaborative governance’ as a way to build on and critique some of the seemingly more narrow views of accountability.

The study presents rare insights on the interactions between formal and community level accountability and collaborative governance in the context of New Public Governance (NPG).

The purpose of this research is to use an accountability framework to explain the emerging tensions in accountability and how an intended bottom‐up approach became progressively supplanted. This paper is set within an emerging Zambian microfinance organisation moving into crisis.

A series of semi‐structured interviews were conducted with key local microfinance specialists, managers and accountants, clients and past and current loan officers. Live observation of the client‐loan officer interface and internal meetings provided triangulation on accountability relationships in the midst of crisis. Data were analysed using NVIVO, a qualitative computer software package.

The findings show that tensions between vertical and horizontal accountability in practice can be directly translated into heightened pressure and stresses on both the non‐governmental organisation (NGO) and its loan officers, which constrain overall accountabilities to other stakeholders and disguise other potential dysfunctions.

This study focussed on accountability at the grassroots in microfinance NGOs with a social mission. It reveals potential for further personal, community and socially constituted accounting research within microfinance in particular.

The paper adds to the literature on NGO accountability. It will be of value to researchers and practitioners seeking to gain a better understanding of not‐for‐profit organisations whose goals are not primarily wealth creation. It also gives details on under‐researched areas in accounting, namely NGOs and poverty reduction, and practices in Sub‐Saharan Africa.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how public sector accounting has changed and is changing due to public governance development.

This paper conducts a traditional literature review based on selected studies in the fields of accounting, public administration and management. The aim of the review is to explain how diverse forms of public governance influence the fate of public sector accounting, including accountability, performance measurement, budgeting and reporting practices.

Public governance is developing into more inclusive but also complex forms, resulting in network, collaborative and digital governance. Consequently, the focus and practices of public sector accounting have changed, as reflected in new types of accountability, performance measurement, budgeting and reporting practices.

Drawing upon literature from different fields enables a deeper understanding of the changes in public sector accounting. Nevertheless, the intention is not to execute a systematic literature review but to provide an overview and resolve the scattered body of knowledge generated by previous contributions. The areas of risk management and auditing were not included and deserve further attention.

This paper discusses the need to continually redefine and reassess public sector accounting practices, by recognising the interdependencies between different actors, citizens and digital technologies.

This paper examines the link between the failure of public accountability and stakeholder disengagement brought about by a New Public Management (NPM) style “smart solution” introduced to reduce public urination in Dhaka city. It shows how New Public Governance (NPG), Islamic and dialogic approaches can improve decision-making and solutions.

Drawing on the concepts of public accountability, NPM, NPG and dialogic accountability, this study highlights how narrow conceptions of accountability and poor stakeholder engagement impacted the effectiveness of the “smart solution” based on data collected through observation and unstructured in-depth interviews.

Evidence suggests that narrow conceptions of accountability driven by monologic NPM perspectives led to poor stakeholder engagement, which impacted the effectiveness of the “smart solution”. The solution that consists of changing anti-urination signage from Bengali to Arabic script has not solved Dhaka's public urination problem. In many instances, the solution has disenchanted certain stakeholders who view it as an offence against Islam and a confusing de-privileging of the Bengali language which has significant national and cultural value in Bangladesh.

The findings of the study contribute to policymaking discussions on how to effectively engage with stakeholders and extend the literature on accountability within the context of conflicting public versus private demands related to a public nuisance. The study outlines important issues related to stakeholder engagement and introduces a framework that conceptualises how to increase the effectiveness of public policy decisions using NPG, Islamic and dialogic accountability approaches, especially on matters that require significant public/external stakeholder support. It also provides a conceptual integration of these various approaches, including nuanced insights into accountability challenges within “non-Western” contexts.

This study aims to present an effort to construct a measurement instrument to capture Islamic accountability from “accountability for what” aspect. These measurement instruments are developed by considering both social and economic natures in Islamic organisations.

This study defined the concept of Islamic accountability from the perspective of “accountability for what”. It is decomposed into specific items that suit an Islamic social enterprise (ISE). Next, these items are operationalised into scale items and re-composed empirically through factor analysis on data obtained from ISE stakeholders in Malaysia.

This study successfully developed an Islamic accountability measurement instruments from the “accountability for what” perspective for ISE. A total of 25 items are recognised and validated under four accountability dimensions, namely, accountability for input, accountability for output, accountability for procedural and accountability for Islamic principles and values.

Not all measurement instruments are fit for every Islamic organisation type because of the different characteristics of Islamic organisations.

Developed items can be used as part of Islamic accountability index, especially by ISE and other similar organisations to measure their accountability practices. Besides, these developed items can also be adopted for reporting purposes. In the case of Malaysia, respective government agencies, such as the Companies Commission of Malaysia , the Registry of Society, the Ministry of Entrepreneur Development as well as the Malaysia Institute of Accountant, should have a look at the developed items to be considered into their respective guidelines or standards.

This study is believed to be a pioneering study in developing measurement instruments of Islamic accountability specific for ISE. It proposes measurement instruments of Islamic accountability that can be re-used for future research and is among the few studies of ISE.