accountability within governance networks christopher koliba university of vermont
Post on 18-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Accountability may be understood in terms of:
• Accountability to whom…– Vertical and horizontal relations
• Explicit Standards
• Implicit Standards
Accountability Considerations
The traditional accountability frameworks ascribed to governments are not sufficient to account for inter-organizational governance networks (Scott, 2006).
Individual network actors will possess their own accountability structures that are characterized by a certain combination of explicit and implicit standards (Kearns, 1996) and constituencies.
The accountability structures of individual network actors comingle, compete or complement one another within governance networks, and to an extent, “hybrid accountability regimes” (Mashaw, 2006) form.
Accuntability
Traditional Accountability Frameworks in Public Administration
Romzek and Dubnick’s Accountability Structures (1987)
Degree of Control
Source of Control
Internal External
High Bureaucratic LegalLow Professional Political
The “Democratic Anchorage” of Governance Networks:
• Controlled by democratically elected politicians;
• represents the membership basis of the participating groups and organizations;
• is accountable to the territorially defined citizenry; and
• follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct.” (Sorensen and Torfing, 2005, P.201)
In a Governance Network:
DemocraticAnchorage Controlled by democratically
elected politicians;Represents the membership basis
of the participating groups and organizations;
Accountable to the territorially defined citizenry; and
Follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct.” (Sorensen and Torfing, 2005, P.201)
Political Accountability
Public at largeElected officials
Laws and Statutes
Policy Goals
Controlled by democratically elected politicians:
Direct control:Elected officials serve as actors (or their offices)
within a governance networkCan direct involvement ever be construed as
“partnership?”• Indirect control:Network design– who participates?Network framing – policy goalsElected officials control over public funds that (at
least in part) support a governance network
Represents the membership basis of the participating groups and organizations:
Two stage considerations:1.) What interests are represented within the
governance network? Who is left out? Who decides to not participate?
2.) For those actors involved in a governance network, how representative of a collective interest are they?
Accountable to the territorially defined citizenry:
• How and to what extent can “public contestation” of governance network activities (decisions and actions) take place?– Transparency– Public dialogue– Responsiveness
Follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct:
• How inclusive of relevant and affected actors is the governance network?
• How and to what extent is “democratic deliberation” undertaken?– Respect for people’s opinions– Commitment to achieving “rough consensus”– Transparent and reasonable decision making
• To what extent do nonprofit organization bring a measure of democratic anchorage to a governance network?
Case: Gates Foundation & the Green Revolution in Africa
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12wwln-shah-t.html
• “Do boards see themselves as solely responsible for doing what is best for their organizations or do they see themselves as charged with a responsibility to a wider public, and how do they define that public?”
• “What we know virtually nothing about, however, is whether and how nonprofit board members think about their relationship to the broader public interest as well as their own organization” (Stone and Ostrower 2007, p.428).
• Do boards understand the structure of policy fields, including differences among funding streams and regulations (federal, state, and local) as well as the normative expectations attached to each?
• How do they take this information into account when formulating strategic direction or evaluating organizational performance?
• Do boards see themselves as willing and able to influence specific policy expectations as well as policy formulation?” (Stone and Ostrower 2007 p.431).
Democratic Frame
Representative
Elected representatives
Laws
Representation of interests
Citizen / Interest Group
Citizens / Interest Groups
Max. Feasible ParticipationSunshine laws
Deliberative processes
Legal
Courts
Laws Contracts
Due process
Market Frame
Shareholder/Owner
Share holder/owner
Written policiesProfit
Efficiency; competition
Consumer
Consumer/customers
Consumer law
Customer satisfaction
Corporation Social Responsibility (CSR)• Business Ethics – Business actions addressing the CSR concern of business ethics involve values
such as fairness, honesty, trust and compliance, internal rules and legal requirements…• Corporate Governance – Business actions addressing the CSR concern of corporate governance
involve the broad range of policies and practices that boards of directors use to manage themselves and fulfill their responsibilities to investors and other stakeholders…
• Community Development - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of community development involves business policies and practices intended to benefit the business and the community economically, particularly for low-income and underserved communities...
• Environmental Protection - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of the environment involve company policies and procedures to ensure the environmental soundness of its operations, products, and facilities...
• Preservation of Human Rights - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of human rights involve assuring basic standards of treatment to all people, regardless of nationality, gender, race, economic status, or religion...
• Workplace Equity- Business actions addressing CSR workplace concerns generally involve human resource policies that directly impact employees, such as compensation and benefits, career development, and health and wellness issues.”
• Marketplace – Business actions addressing CSR marketplace concerns involve business relationships with its customers and such issues as product manufacturing and integrity; product disclosures and labeling; and marketing, advertising, and distribution practices… (GAO, 2005, p. 9-10)
Administrative Frame
Bureaucratic
Principal Supervisor / Boss
Written policies/rules Performance measures
Deference; discretion
Professional
Profession
Licensure; credentials; code of ethics/conduct
Expertise
Collaborative
PeerPartner
Written agreements
Norms of reciprocity, trust and durability
Response and Recovery Needs in a Catastrophic Disaster
• Continuity of essential government operations• Emergency telecommunications• Damage and needs assessment• Logistics• Evacuation• Search and rescue• Mass care• Volunteer management and donations• Restoration of lifelines• Economic assistance and services
Source: (GAO, 2006a, p.16-19)
Public Non-Profit
Private Special Interest
AllOrganizations
N % N % N % N % N %
International 11 2.1 3 0.6 6 1.1 0 0.0 20 3.7
Federal/National
69 12.9 23 4.3 75 14.0 1 0.2 168 31.4
Regional 1 0.2 7 1.3 25 4.7 0 0.0 33 6.2
State 78 14.6 7 1.3 4 0.7 2 0.4 91 17.0
Subregional 11 2.1 12 2.2 10 1.9 0 0.0 33 6.2
Parish/County 69 12.9 3 0.6 1 0.2 0 0.0 73 13.6
City 66 12.3 29 5.4 22 4.1 0 0.0 117 21.9
Total 305 57.0 84 15.7 143 26.7 3 0.6 535 100.0
Table 2.Frequency Distribution of Organizational Response System by Sector and Distribution,
Hurricane Katrina, August 26-September 19, 2005Source: Comfort 2007, extracted from the Times-Picayune (New Orleans), August 26-September 19,
2005
• Studies of the response and recovery efforts have tended to single out FEMA as the “lead organization” within and across these overlapping networks (GAO, 2006a; Ink, 2006).
Problems Identified in Response to Hurricane Katrina:
• Lack of coordination between organizations across all layers and sectors• Communication failures in faulty equipment, poor system designs,
untrained operators, unmet budget requests, lack of planning, poor management…
• Information gaps across departments and between jurisdictions• Inadequate training, particularly joint training between groups• Delays in medical care due to “deployment confusion, uncertainty about
mission assignments, and red tape…”• Underutilization of the private sector especially with respect to
evacuation needs• Lack of emergency and temporary shelter• Failure of initiative “at all levels [of government] to take a proactive
approach to the crisis”(Ink, 2006, p. 801-802, as reported by the House
Select Committee)
Accountability Successes and Failures
• Levee Maintenance• Contra-Flow Evacuation Plan• Buses• DHS Screening of Volunteers and
Supplies
The Case of Coordination between FEMA and Red Cross
• Lack of coordination between organizations across all layers and sectors
• Communication failures in faulty equipment, poor system designs, untrained operators, unmet budget requests, lack of planning, poor management…
• Information gaps across departments and between jurisdictions
GAO Report on Request for Assistance Network
• Failure to clarify roles and responsibilities. • Failure to have a standard process for
requesting assistance. • Rotation of Red Cross personnel leads to lack of
continuity. • Failure to involve Red Cross officials in
important policy meetings. • Failure to have pre-determined contractual
arrangements with providers of emergency goods and services. (GAO, 2006b)
top related