Questions of Measurement: Striking an Accountability Balance
- Publisher:
- Hart Publishing
- Publication Type:
- Chapter
- Citation:
- Questions of Accountability: Prerogatives, Power and Politics, 2023, pp. 39-60
- Issue Date:
- 2023-07-03
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9781509964253.ch-003.pdf | Published version | 811.32 kB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
The previous chapter looked at a number of ‘questions of accountability’ by comparing and contrasting two very different perspectives. One drew upon the insights of behavioural psychology, focusing on individual behaviour and rationality; the second explored the field of public administration and the complexities of contextual factors. In many ways Thomas Schillemans’ chapter sought to strike an epistemological and methodological balance that blended and bound the advantages of both perspectives together, while still recognising the existence of inevitable limitations. This chapter continues this focus on balance and blend but from a very different analytical direction. Instead of focusing on disciplinary perspectives, this chapter focuses on the very different – and yet at the same time closely connected – issue of measurement. The basic rationale for this approach is that ‘questions of accountability’ are very often framed (as chapter one illustrated) as relating to issues of ‘too much’ or ‘too little’. Too little accountability (an accountability deficit) is a perception that existing accountability mechanisms are insufficient to deliver on expected accountability outcomes; too much accountability (an accountability overload) arises where the number or operation of accountability mechanisms produces unintended negative consequences.
The existence of these two poles is itself, however, founded on the highly questionable assumption that it is possible to measure accountability with a view to defining an ideal amount between these two extremes, which could presumably stand as a reference point to recalibrate or re-engineer the system towards some form of optimal ‘sweet spot’ (Figure 1.1 in chapter one). This chapter draws out this implicit assumption, highlighting the inherent difficulty of striking a proportionate balance that avoids the problems of imposing the ‘wrong’ amount of accountability. More specifically, this chapter focuses on three questions that are each in their own way relevant to a focus on measurement:
1.
What does it mean to quantify accountability?
2.
Can we ever successfully define an ‘ideal amount’ of accountability?
3.
What difficulties must we resolve in striking a balance between accountability extremes that addresses deficits without producing overloads?
The central argument of this chapter is that if the practice of politics and public administration is ever to get beyond fairly broad and crude interpretations of deficits and overloads then there is a need to be far clearer about the end goals and ultimate role of accountable governance. This sets the debate far beyond ‘hot rhetoric’ and ‘cool theory’, or ‘mechanisms and virtues’, and opens fresh intellectual and empirical terrain in relation to fundamental objectives and institutional trajectories. In order to develop this argument this chapter is split into three main sections. The first section explores the existing debate on deficits and overloads in more detail, identifying the need to have some form of gauge, measuring tool or ‘normative yardstick’ if progress beyond ‘hot rhetoric’ and towards ‘cool measurement’ is ever to occur. The second section then explores how such a ‘yardstick’ might be crafted. More specifically, it seeks to illustrate how such a yardstick could (in theory) be developed around each of the main goals of accountability (ie, transparency, control, restoration, punishment and reform). The reason for setting out these goals is less about producing some formula for an optimal accountability equilibrium but, if anything, to underline the complexity of the challenge given the existence of numerous and often contradictory goals. Having explored the inner dimensions of the measurement challenge, the third and final section returns to the twin themes of tensions and balance.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: