Mapping Accountability: Origins, Contexts and Implications for Development

         This summary is a summary of the book published at   https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3930/Wp168.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

         This paper provides an overview of the political uses and implications of the term accountability in contemporary discourses and practices of development. The first part reflects on the historical origins of competing narratives of accountability and what it means for actors, and the processes in which they are embedded, to be accountable. The second section looks at tools, strategies and processes of accountability in formal and informal arenas, assessing the role of law, protest and a variety of managerial approaches in the creation of mechanisms of accountability. The third section looks at how the narratives of accountability, manifested in these diverse practices of accountability, apply to key development actors, traditionally the nation-state, but increasingly also public authority and the private and NGOs sectors. The argument developed here is, firstly, that the function of accountability is to ensure that those that wield power on behalf of others are answerable for their conduct. Secondly, these power relations are in a state of flux, reflecting the contested basis of relations between the state, civil society and market actors. In so far as an enquiry into the practice of accountability in development is de facto an enquiry into how to control the exercise of power. Political thinkers have worried about how to restrain power, prevent abuses, and keep it in line with established rules. During the last decade, the language of accountability has gained increasing prominence in development debates. Constructing accountability requires, therefore, a definition of the relationship between actors, effectively delineating respective positions of power. To apply accountability principles is to define who has power to call for an account and who is obligated to give an explanation for their actions. The construction of accountability, the definition of the rights and duties that flow from relations of accountability, is of course a political process driven by broader political agenda. The challenge of ensuring accountability is multiplied when political authority is shared, as it increasingly is, across a number of levels from the local to the national to the global. The term multi-level governance describes the layers of overlapping authority that characterise decision-making in the current system. Mechanisms of accountability can take a diverse range of forms from formal top-down processes of elections, hearings and consultations to bottom-up strategies such as popular protests or participatory budgeting.  Traditional notions of political accountability are derived from the responsibilities of delegated individuals in public office to carry out specific tasks on behalf of citizensIt is this understanding of accountability, in which rulers explain and justify actions to the ruled, which traditionally distinguished a democratic society from a tyrannical one. Thus, democratic accountability is characterised not only by elections to determine who runs the affairs of society, but also by the obligation of these officials to explain and justify their conduct in public. Contemporary discussions of accountability have focused on issues of transparency and openness, linking scrutiny with access to information. Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mechanisms amount to self-imposed accountability within the state machinery. Vertical accountability, on the other hand, is that which is demanded from below by citizens and civil society groups. To be effective, horizontal accountability should be buttressed by strong vertical accountability, in which citizens, mass media and civil association are in a position to scrutinise public officials and government practice. Answerability and the dual pursuit of information and justification help to promote enforcement of government commitments. Different forms of accountability rely on different enforcement mechanimsms. In politics, for example, removal from office is punishment. Yet accountability is only as effective as the mechanisms it employs, and 'inconsequential accountability' is not accountability at all. To deliver answerability effectively, sanctions are key. This paper shows that while the concept of accountability is an increasingly crucial reference point in development debates, its use in diverse discourse remains loose and under-specific as a result of the essentially contested nature of the term and the political agendas that it is used to advance. This, indeed, is what makes it important and interesting for our enquiry into the relationship between citizenship, participation and accountability. Citizenship is in many ways the concept that brings accountability and participation together. Who has the right to hold to account? and who should be held to account? The answers to these questions will tell us something about the different uses of the term citizenship. Power define accountability, and power to create and enforce the mechanisms of accountability. It is this power that constructs citizenship and the web of obligations and duties that flow between citizens. Ensuring that the power is exercised in the interests of all, is where participation comes in. Creating spaces where the rights and obligations of governments and corporations can be contested, negotiated and continually evaluated is crucial. This is important for responsive governance and it is key for the maintenance of checks and balances on those who exercise power. We have seen throughout the discussion how that power operates at different levels, reinforcing itself through discourse, process and actions.