Accountability and Public Governance in New Zealand

Abstract

This paper provides an insight into an already very substantial, but increasing, body of literature relating to accountability and public governance. Given the size and diversity of that literature what follows is a summary of the main themes or challenges that are currently emerging.\nWithin the literature there are numerous attempts to provide a definition of the concept of accountability. The dominant, economically framed, discourse is reflected in Bovens (2007) frequently cited definition as:\n… a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement and the actor may face consequences. (p. 450)\nThus New Public Management models of public governance emphasise hierarchical arrangements of contractual, or quasi-contractual, relationships between a principal and an agent. However, in the twenty-first century new models are emerging that seek to respond to the challenges of heterarchical, networked organisational arrangements. Central to these challenges is “the problem of many eyes” as actors are confronted with multiple forums with different objectives and expectations and differing levels of power. Accountability is not then simply vertical, but is also horizontal and diagonal.\nTo the extent that public governance moves beyond accountability for inputs and outputs, to accountability for outcomes (or results) further challenges of measurement and attribution arise. Again, the literature on performance measurement in the context of the public sector, particularly on the difficulties of defining and measuring performance, is very extensive. But whilst for some functions of government it may be possible to pre-define and subsequently measure both the work and desired results involved, for many functions that is not the case (Wilson, 1989). The practical result has been a continued focus on, management of, and accountability for inputs.\nEven when able to be measured, the results that governments seek to achieve are seldom the consequence of the activities of a single agency and will seldom be realised in the context of a single budgetary horizon, electoral cycle, or even a generation. As Lowe (2013) has suggested:\nThe key conceptual flaw of this approach is that it is based on the idea that outcomes are the result of a linear process from problem, through intervention to positive outcome. (p.214)\nTo the extent that cause and effect is multi-systemic involving the contributions of a number of, government and non-government, organisations, models accommodating joint accountability are required. Given the plausibly inequitable nature of a model in which individual contributions can not be identified, understanding the distinct but inter-related nature of accountability and responsibility becomes important.\nA further challenge to the dominant conception of accountability lies in its utilitarian conception of the natural world as a series of resources able to be owned (by individuals) and utilised to provide services and benefits to humans. However, alternative cultural perspectives, including that of te Ao Māori, imbue elements of the environment with a life force, enduring identity and rights. As such they are also due accountability.\nSuch conceptions also inform an increasingly important broadening of the, normally economically framed and financially defined, judgements of organisational (and governmental) performance. They also involve a less transactional and longer-term perspective that encompasses the stewardship role of government to pass on to future generations a strong economy, well-functioning society and a healthy environment. A focus on societal and environmental, as well as economic, criteria is not new but has been given more currency by the United Nations Development Goals, the Global Reporting Initiative and the International Integrated Reporting Council. Broader conceptions of wellbeing and thus a broader framework\nby which governments should be held accountable, have been discussed by Sen (as basic freedoms) and Nussbaum (as capitals). They have also informed the development of the New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. Although, arguably the operational and accountability impacts of that framework have, as yet, been limited, recent announcements by the new Government suggest that may change.\nFinally, the challenges to accountability in an increasingly dynamic digital environment include:\n•\topportunities to use different forms of information, including narrative and pictures, delivered in a range of different ways;\n•\trather than the passive provision of information, opportunities for public agencies to engage in participatory process that support a well functioning democracy;\n•\tthe ability to both broaden the scope and accelerate the speed of those processes; and\n•\tthe potential to facilitate distributed governance across government agencies and between those agencies and service providers in the community and private sectors.\nAs noted, this paper provides an overview of the key challenges currently emerging from the substantial literature on accountability and public governance. It does not propose any solutions for those challenges but will hopefully support a constructive debate on how systems of public accountability might be designed differently in the future.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.