IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v41y2023is1ne12687.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Anderson

Abstract

Motivation Attempting to increase authorities' accountability for their actions has become a mainstay of development practice in recent decades. Yet commentators suggest that these efforts have reached an impasse, in part because of conceptual fuzziness regarding the core ideas of public accountability. Purpose This article explores what we can learn about accountability processes and practices from recent multi‐country research into citizen–state relations. I explore three concepts that emerge as important from this material and which might also be useful in broader thinking and development practice: obligations, scrutiny, and consequences. Methods and approach The empirical material analysed comes from the five‐year Action for Empowerment and Accountability (A4EA) research programme, which focused on Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Pakistan, and explored a range of experiences of people interacting with public authorities, and the efforts of international donors and activists to improve these interactions. Findings The analysis suggests the advantage of paying more attention to (1) the range of obligations from which accountability emerges; (2) what enables citizens to engage in active scrutiny of authorities; and (3) a broad set of consequences of accountability claims. Within this framing, the A4EA material highlights the relative importance of felt obligations and the social contract over formalized entitlements, development of capacities and spaces for informed citizens to actively question authorities, and of outcomes where authorities accept responsibility for their actions or the status quo as well as experience direct sanctions. Policy implications Efforts for greater public accountability might be sharpened by identifying what would represent effective scrutiny against felt accountability obligations, and what spaces, capacities, and opportunities are required for that. Incorporating a better understanding of the consequences that come about from accountability claims could help create better measures and understandings of success, and what generates it.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Anderson, 2023. "Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:s1:n:e12687
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12687
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12687?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anuradha Joshi & Peter P. Houtzager, 2012. "Widgets or Watchdogs?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 145-162, February.
    2. Tsai, Lily L., 2007. "Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 355-372, May.
    3. Anuradha Joshi, 2014. "Reading the Local Context: A Causal Chain Approach to Social Accountability," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(5), pages 23-35, September.
    4. Sam Hickey & Sophie King, 2016. "Understanding Social Accountability: Politics, Power and Building New Social Contracts," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(8), pages 1225-1240, August.
    5. Anuradha Joshi, 2013. "Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives in Service Delivery," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 31, pages 29-48, July.
    6. Batley, Richard & Mcloughlin, Claire, 2015. "The Politics of Public Services: A Service Characteristics Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 275-285.
    7. Anuradha Joshi, 2023. "What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Gaventa & Anuradha Joshi & Colin Anderson, 2023. "Citizen action for accountability in challenging contexts: What have we learned?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    2. Colin Anderson & Anuradha Joshi & Katrina Barnes & Affaf Ahmed & Muddabir Ali & Egidio Chaimite & Salvador Forquilha & Danyal Khan & Rizwan Khan & Miguel Loureiro & Myanmar Research Team & Lucio Posse, 2023. "Everyday governance in areas of contested power: Insights from Mozambique, Myanmar, and Pakistan," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    3. Anuradha Joshi, 2023. "What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fox, Jonathan A., 2015. "Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 346-361.
    2. Abu Elias Sarker & Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu & Farhana Razzaque, 2022. "An Integrative Dynamic Framework of Social Accountability: Determinants, Initiatives, and Outcomes," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 117-133, March.
    3. Joshi, Anuradha, 2017. "Legal Empowerment and Social Accountability: Complementary Strategies Toward Rights-based Development in Health?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 160-172.
    4. Danielle Resnick, 2022. "Does Accountability Undermine Service Delivery? The Impact of Devolving Agriculture in Ghana," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(2), pages 1003-1029, April.
    5. World Bank Group, 2014. "Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 21113.
    6. Ruppen, Désirée & Brugger, Fritz, 2022. "“I will sample until things get better – or until I die.” Potential and limits of citizen science to promote social accountability for environmental pollution," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Alawattage, Chandana & Azure, John De-Clerk, 2021. "Behind the World Bank’s ringing declarations of “social accountability”: Ghana’s public financial management reform," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. John Gaventa & Anuradha Joshi & Colin Anderson, 2023. "Citizen action for accountability in challenging contexts: What have we learned?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    9. Hernández, Alison & Ruano, Ana Lorena & Hurtig, Anna-Karin & Goicolea, Isabel & San Sebastián, Miguel & Flores, Walter, 2019. "Pathways to accountability in rural Guatemala: A qualitative comparative analysis of citizen-led initiatives for the right to health of indigenous populations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 392-401.
    10. Nimesh Dhungana, 2020. "Doing Civil Society-Driven Social Accountability in a Disaster Context: Evidence from Post-Earthquake Nepal," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 395-406.
    11. Kyando, Doreen Nico, 2022. "Social accountability initiatives in the delivery of public services in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic literature review," IOB Discussion Papers 2022.03, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    12. Sophie King, 2014. "The political economy of social accountability in rural Uganda," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 19514, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    13. Adam S. Harris & Brigitte Seim & Rachel Sigman, 2020. "Information, accountability and perceptions of public sector programme success: A conjoint experiment among bureaucrats in Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(5), pages 594-612, September.
    14. Davison Muchadenyika, 2017. "Civil society, social accountability and service delivery in Zimbabwe," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35, pages 178-195, October.
    15. Dewachter, Sara & Holvoet, Nathalie & Kuppens, Miet & Molenaers, Nadia, 2018. "Beyond the Short versus Long Accountability Route Dichotomy: Using Multi-track Accountability Pathways to Study Performance of Rural Water Services in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 158-169.
    16. Joanna Buckley & Neil McCulloch & Nick Travis, 2017. "Donor-supported approaches to improving extractives governance: Lessons from Nigeria and Ghana," WIDER Working Paper Series 033, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Thapa,Dikshya & Farid,Muhammad Noor & Prevost,Christophe, 2021. "Governance Drivers of Rural Water Sustainability : Collaboration in Frontline Service Delivery," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9798, The World Bank.
    18. Taisu Zhang & Xiaoxue Zhao, 2014. "Do Kinship Networks Strengthen Private Property? Evidence from Rural China," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 505-540, September.
    19. Lai, Weizheng, 2024. "The effect of education on voter turnout in China's rural elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 230-247.
    20. He, Quqiong & Pan, Ying & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Lineage-based heterogeneity and cooperative behavior in rural China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 248-269.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:s1:n:e12687. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.