Accountability within Governance Networks

Christopher KolibaUniversity of Vermont

Accountability may be understood in terms of:

• Accountability to whom…– Vertical and horizontal relations

• Explicit Standards

• Implicit Standards

Accountability Considerations

The traditional accountability frameworks ascribed to governments are not sufficient to account for inter-organizational governance networks (Scott, 2006).

Individual network actors will possess their own accountability structures that are characterized by a certain combination of explicit and implicit standards (Kearns, 1996) and constituencies.

The accountability structures of individual network actors comingle, compete or complement one another within governance networks, and to an extent, “hybrid accountability regimes” (Mashaw, 2006) form.

Accuntability

Traditional Accountability Frameworks in Public Administration

Romzek and Dubnick’s Accountability Structures (1987)

Degree of Control

Source of Control

Internal External

High Bureaucratic LegalLow Professional Political

The “Democratic Anchorage” of Governance Networks:

• Controlled by democratically elected politicians;

• represents the membership basis of the participating groups and organizations;

• is accountable to the territorially defined citizenry; and

• follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct.” (Sorensen and Torfing, 2005, P.201)

In a Governance Network:

DemocraticAnchorage Controlled by democratically

elected politicians;Represents the membership basis

of the participating groups and organizations;

Accountable to the territorially defined citizenry; and

Follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct.” (Sorensen and Torfing, 2005, P.201)

Political Accountability

Public at largeElected officials

Laws and Statutes

Policy Goals

Controlled by democratically elected politicians:

Direct control:Elected officials serve as actors (or their offices)

within a governance networkCan direct involvement ever be construed as

“partnership?”• Indirect control:Network design– who participates?Network framing – policy goalsElected officials control over public funds that (at

least in part) support a governance network

Represents the membership basis of the participating groups and organizations:

Two stage considerations:1.) What interests are represented within the

governance network? Who is left out? Who decides to not participate?

2.) For those actors involved in a governance network, how representative of a collective interest are they?

Accountable to the territorially defined citizenry:

• How and to what extent can “public contestation” of governance network activities (decisions and actions) take place?– Transparency– Public dialogue– Responsiveness

Follows the democratic rules specified by a particular grammar of conduct:

• How inclusive of relevant and affected actors is the governance network?

• How and to what extent is “democratic deliberation” undertaken?– Respect for people’s opinions– Commitment to achieving “rough consensus”– Transparent and reasonable decision making

• To what extent do nonprofit organization bring a measure of democratic anchorage to a governance network?

Case: Gates Foundation & the Green Revolution in Africa

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12wwln-shah-t.html

• “Do boards see themselves as solely responsible for doing what is best for their organizations or do they see themselves as charged with a responsibility to a wider public, and how do they define that public?”

• “What we know virtually nothing about, however, is whether and how nonprofit board members think about their relationship to the broader public interest as well as their own organization” (Stone and Ostrower 2007, p.428).

• Do boards understand the structure of policy fields, including differences among funding streams and regulations (federal, state, and local) as well as the normative expectations attached to each?

• How do they take this information into account when formulating strategic direction or evaluating organizational performance?

• Do boards see themselves as willing and able to influence specific policy expectations as well as policy formulation?” (Stone and Ostrower 2007 p.431).

Democratic Frame

Representative

Elected representatives

Laws

Representation of interests

Citizen / Interest Group

Citizens / Interest Groups

Max. Feasible ParticipationSunshine laws

Deliberative processes

Legal

Courts

Laws Contracts

Due process

Market Frame

Shareholder/Owner

Share holder/owner

Written policiesProfit

Efficiency; competition

Consumer

Consumer/customers

Consumer law

Customer satisfaction

http://www.bsr.org/

Corporation Social Responsibility (CSR)• Business Ethics – Business actions addressing the CSR concern of business ethics involve values

such as fairness, honesty, trust and compliance, internal rules and legal requirements…• Corporate Governance – Business actions addressing the CSR concern of corporate governance

involve the broad range of policies and practices that boards of directors use to manage themselves and fulfill their responsibilities to investors and other stakeholders…

• Community Development - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of community development involves business policies and practices intended to benefit the business and the community economically, particularly for low-income and underserved communities...

• Environmental Protection - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of the environment involve company policies and procedures to ensure the environmental soundness of its operations, products, and facilities...

• Preservation of Human Rights - Business actions addressing the CSR concern of human rights involve assuring basic standards of treatment to all people, regardless of nationality, gender, race, economic status, or religion...

• Workplace Equity- Business actions addressing CSR workplace concerns generally involve human resource policies that directly impact employees, such as compensation and benefits, career development, and health and wellness issues.”

• Marketplace – Business actions addressing CSR marketplace concerns involve business relationships with its customers and such issues as product manufacturing and integrity; product disclosures and labeling; and marketing, advertising, and distribution practices… (GAO, 2005, p. 9-10)

Administrative Frame

Bureaucratic

Principal Supervisor / Boss

Written policies/rules Performance measures

Deference; discretion

Professional

Profession

Licensure; credentials; code of ethics/conduct

Expertise

Collaborative

PeerPartner

Written agreements

Norms of reciprocity, trust and durability

Accountability and Hurricane Katrina

Response and Recovery Needs in a Catastrophic Disaster

• Continuity of essential government operations• Emergency telecommunications• Damage and needs assessment• Logistics• Evacuation• Search and rescue• Mass care• Volunteer management and donations• Restoration of lifelines• Economic assistance and services

Source: (GAO, 2006a, p.16-19)

Public Non-Profit

Private Special Interest

AllOrganizations

N % N % N % N % N %

International 11 2.1 3 0.6 6 1.1 0 0.0 20 3.7

Federal/National

69 12.9 23 4.3 75 14.0 1 0.2 168 31.4

Regional 1 0.2 7 1.3 25 4.7 0 0.0 33 6.2

State 78 14.6 7 1.3 4 0.7 2 0.4 91 17.0

Subregional 11 2.1 12 2.2 10 1.9 0 0.0 33 6.2

Parish/County 69 12.9 3 0.6 1 0.2 0 0.0 73 13.6

City 66 12.3 29 5.4 22 4.1 0 0.0 117 21.9

Total 305 57.0 84 15.7 143 26.7 3 0.6 535 100.0

Table 2.Frequency Distribution of Organizational Response System by Sector and Distribution,

Hurricane Katrina, August 26-September 19, 2005Source: Comfort 2007, extracted from the Times-Picayune (New Orleans), August 26-September 19,

2005

Source: Milward and Provan, 2007, 62 adapted from: Provan and Kenis, 2005)

• Studies of the response and recovery efforts have tended to single out FEMA as the “lead organization” within and across these overlapping networks (GAO, 2006a; Ink, 2006).

Problems Identified in Response to Hurricane Katrina:

• Lack of coordination between organizations across all layers and sectors• Communication failures in faulty equipment, poor system designs,

untrained operators, unmet budget requests, lack of planning, poor management…

• Information gaps across departments and between jurisdictions• Inadequate training, particularly joint training between groups• Delays in medical care due to “deployment confusion, uncertainty about

mission assignments, and red tape…”• Underutilization of the private sector especially with respect to

evacuation needs• Lack of emergency and temporary shelter• Failure of initiative “at all levels [of government] to take a proactive

approach to the crisis”(Ink, 2006, p. 801-802, as reported by the House

Select Committee)

Accountability Successes and Failures

• Levee Maintenance• Contra-Flow Evacuation Plan• Buses• DHS Screening of Volunteers and

Supplies

Source: GAO, 2006b, p. 11

The Case of Coordination between FEMA and Red Cross

• Lack of coordination between organizations across all layers and sectors

• Communication failures in faulty equipment, poor system designs, untrained operators, unmet budget requests, lack of planning, poor management…

• Information gaps across departments and between jurisdictions

GAO Report on Request for Assistance Network

• Failure to clarify roles and responsibilities. • Failure to have a standard process for

requesting assistance. • Rotation of Red Cross personnel leads to lack of

continuity. • Failure to involve Red Cross officials in

important policy meetings. • Failure to have pre-determined contractual

arrangements with providers of emergency goods and services. (GAO, 2006b)