Accountability
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” (Thomas Paine)
The concept of accountability was developed in the context of analysing national governance. It refers to the oversight over fulfilment of responsibilities of public sector officials and the checks and balances on the exercise of political power.
Dimensions
Accountability in national governance has three interrelated dimensions:
- Answerability is the obligation of public officials to inform, explain and justify their decisions and actions. This assumes a relation between accountable and accounting actors and the public debates in which they engage. It is closely tied to transparency and may involve formal mechanisms of monitoring and oversight.
- Enforceability is the capacity of accounting agencies to impose sanctions on public sector officials who violate their duties. This implies that officials are subject to the rule of law and the threat of sanctions if they violate it. It is exercised both through classical means of mutual control among the branches of power, but also by independent agencies specialized in overseeing the public sector.
- A clear delimitation of responsibility is the requirement that all positions of authority should have clearly defined duties and performance standards, which would enable their behaviour to be assessed transparently and objectively. This can be seen as a prerequisite for the other two dimensions.
Forms
Accountability takes several different forms:.
Vertical accountability can be understood as a principal-agent relationship. e.g. elections, where the voters (principals) hold the governments (agents) to account.
Horizontal accountability is exercised through a network of institutions, including both traditional mutual control among different branches of power and independent institutions (Supreme Audit Institutions, ombudsmen, attorney generals, and comptrollers). Forms of horizontal accountability at the international level are peer reviews, peer pressure and advice and pressure by independent Secretariats of international organizations. Mutual accountability also belongs to the family of mechanisms of horizontal, cross-border accountability, underpinning the relationship between providers and beneficiaries of development cooperation. To function effectively, these forms of accountability depend on symmetry and balance in the relationship of all involved actors.
Social accountability refers to the control exercised by multiple civil society organizations and independent media on public sector officials. This type has the capacity to “name and shame”, creating public pressure and social stigma. It can be important in itself; however it also depends on its capacity to influence the other two forms of accountability.
Application to international development cooperation
Accountability at international level has significantly more limitations than in national governance. The dimension of answerability and social accountability are increasingly operational, but progress has to be made to implement responsibility at international level. The best forms of horizontal accountability are peer reviews, peer pressure and advice and pressure by Secretariats.
Most development cooperation commitments are of a voluntary nature and thus the enforceability dimension is absent. Clear delimitation of responsibility among the actors is an essential ingredient for effective accountability for wider development results.
Source: “Accountability for Development Cooperation” by José Antonio Ocampo and Natalie Gómez Arteaga