Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda - The ICHRP

human rights, resources and accountability 36 and the way rights address the
claims of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. We look below at different forms
of accountability before discussing these issues in more detail.
Box 8. Definition of Accountability: The Anti-Corruption Perspective
The concept of accountability is that individuals and organisations (public, private and
civil society) are held responsible for executing their powers properly. In theory, there
are diagonal, horizontal and vertical forms of accountability. The following examples
apply to the public sector.
Diagonal accountability occurs when citizens use government institutions to elicit
better oversight of the state’s actions, and in the process engage in policy-making,
budgeting, expenditure tracking and other activities.
Horizontal accountability subjects public officials to restraint and oversight, or
“checks and balances” by other government agencies (courts, ombudsman’s offices,
auditing agencies, central banks) that can call into question, and eventually punish,
an official for improper conduct.
Vertical accountability holds a public official accountable to the electorate or citizenry
through elections, a free press, an active civil society and other similar channels.
The concepts of horizontal and vertical accountability were originally established
by O’Donnell, 1999.
Source: Transparency International, The Anti-Corruption Plain Language Guide, 2009.
Horizontal Accountability Systems: Necessary But Not Sufficient
When anti-corruption advocates speak of horizontal accountability, they are
mainly referring to a state’s internal controls. When they speak of vertical
accountability, they are mainly referring to a state’s internal controls, whereas
vertical accountability usually refers to elections and the many forms of
influence on government that independent social actors exert (e.g., citizens,
civil society associations, the media). Horizontal accountability is implemented
by institutions within the state that control each other by establishing checks and
balances. In most countries, the system of checks and balances is complex.
In the anti-corruption and good governance fields, a series of specialised anticorruption
institutions (notably anti-corruption offices, special anti-corruption
prosecutors and General Auditor’s offices) have been created. From a human
rights perspective too, all these institutions can be considered accountability
mechanisms because they safeguard, deliver or restore people’s rights.
36 We use the concept “resources” broadly, to refer to all the social services, goods
and natural resources a person needs to lead a dignified life without sacrificing
capacities. This section analyses the theory and practice of social accountability,
adapting a framework developed by Newell and Wheeler, 2006.
Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities 27