Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Accountability 253
and greater accountability is potentially able to improve the lot of the individual’s
dealings with it. In theory, the citizenry of democratic countries have an
enviable system of accountability or responsibility, one which people in other
countries aspire to emulate. In practice, the theory may not work as well as usually
assumed. However, in this sense there seems to be no diminution of
accountability in the public management model compared to the traditional
model. If the citizen was relatively powerless under the old model, it remains
to be seen if he or she is worse off now.
A final problem is that while the traditional accountability mechanisms have
been displaced there is no adequate replacement. Pollitt and Bouckaert argue
that, ‘in the UK, but also in other Westminster-influenced systems, the additional
pressures which NPM reforms have put on traditional concepts of public
accountability have not been met with any clear and coherent new doctrine
to cope with the new circumstances’ (2000, pp. 138–9). There is something in
this claim. A new model may not have been articulated by politicians, but the
idea of accountable management is promising. There does need to be a clearer
exposition of the true state of accountability, which is that managers are themselves
accountable, as are politicians. Accountable management is likely to be
less fair, in the same way as the private sector, in that managers will be sacked
for things they did not do, or take the blame for a specific problem that is only
a small part of a systemic problem that was out of their control. Perhaps fairness,
however, is a concept that is itself unrealistic when the bureaucracy is
seen as part of the political system.
The problems of accountability that have been discussed thus far are more
potential than actual. Concerns are expressed that the reforms will make
accountability worse, but with little evidence. As an OECD report argues
(1998, p. 54):
Some people are concerned that changes in our systems of governance risk the downgrading
of key elements which are fundamental to preserving democratic society. Their
argument is that the drive for results and efficiency might diminish the traditional concern
in the public sector for due process, and specifically lead to a downgrading of the
system of checks and balances and accountability obligations which has been imposed
ostensibly to reinforce that concern for due process. Although it is arguable that the public
management reforms have strengthened democratic accountability by providing much
more information on the effectiveness of programmes and the performance of governments,
these concerns do need to be taken seriously.
There is some cause for concern with accountability, but there is also a need to
balance that with enhanced performance. Accountability needs to be compared.
It is not the case that a perfectly accountable system is being replaced by one
that is not. As Romzek argues, ‘de-emphasizing inputs and processes and
emphasizing outcomes and outputs does not necessarily mean more or less
accountability from government administrators’. It means, rather that ‘different
kinds of accountability relationships should be emphasized, ones that encourage