Accountability And Control In Public Administration Pdf
File Name: accountability and control in public administration .zip
To browse Academia. Skip to main content.
Read this article to learn about the definition, nature and forms of accountability in public administration. The general sense of accountability is required or expected to justify actions or decisions.
Democratic Accountability and Control over Public Administration
Read this article to learn about the definition, nature and forms of accountability in public administration. The general sense of accountability is required or expected to justify actions or decisions. This is the dictionary meaning of accountability. But in governmental affairs particularly in public administration it has special implications and the concept is regarded as an important part.
It implies that the representatives elected by the people must give explanations of the electorate for all these policies and actions. This is a very common cause that a person by whom he is elected is accountable to him or them. This is not only a common sense affair but the very foundation of democracy. It may be explained in another way.
When a person is entrusted with a job or duty he is supposed to do it to the best of his ability, experience, honesty and efficiency. But if he fails to satisfy his employer, the latter can claim explanation, or the latter can ask him the cause of failure. This is called accountability.
Hence accountability means one is bound to give explanation for the policy or work done by someone. In Greek city-states the citizens assembled in open places and took decisions on legislative and administrative affairs.
But the citizens appointed some persons to do the job on their behalf and, in that system, there was some sort of accountability.
In other words, the citizens could demand explanation from the officers. The contractualist Rousseau did not directly deal with the concept of accountability. But in his analysis of body politic and structure of government there was a concept of sovereignty which was general will and all were accountable to the general will because it was formed by all the able-bodied adult citizens.
Everyone was legally bound by the principles of general will. It implies that the citizens are accountable to the general will. None could violate the general will because he was also the part of the general will.
With the progress of democracy and rapid progress of representative type of government the accountability has earned added importance. It is chiefly due to the fact that there is no scope of direct participation by the people in the administration. But while people elect someone or some number of people for transaction of some job, it is a general expectation that he or they will do the job satisfactorily.
Any failure will call for an explanation. This is accountability. The key idea of accountability is to ensure a balance in the administrative system. Here the word balance is used in a special sense. It means that someone is entrusted with a job and he is supposed to do it. But if his performance fails to satisfy then he Is required to be called for an explanation of his failure.
Here lies the balance and it constitutes the very foundation of democracy. The idea of accountability has another meaning-it is control. Whenever one is asked to do a job, there must lie the system of controlling the process. Bureaucrats are not elected by people and naturally, like ministers and members of legislature, they are not accountable to the general public.
Naturally, they are not bound to give any explanation for their policy or work and this has posed serious question as to the concept of balance. One is empowered to rule but to what extent that satisfies the people that poses an important question. The greatest shortcoming of Weberian model of bureaucracy is it remains outside the scrutiny of the general public and ethics of public administration demands that control or scrutiny is indispensable.
For that reason there arises the idea of the control of bureaucracy. In all forms of government-particularly in liberal democracies-need for controlling bureaucracy has been strongly felt.
In such systems there are two types of executives-one is permanent executive-bureaucrat and the other is temporary executive-that is minister. The ministers perform executive functions for a fixed period of time. Normally the tenure of ministers is tied with the tenure of the legislature. But the bureaucrats enter the job and continue up to retirement.
For some misdemeanour or wrongdoing they may be removed from service. The ministers are doubly accountable. They are accountable to the legislature-and again, to the people. If bureaucracy is the stamina of public administration it must be accountable to somebody. At the beginning of the twentieth century Weber invented his model and he thought that administration without bureaucracy is simply an impossibility.
If so, it is essential to control it through the process of ensuring accountability. Some people have suggested that the civil servants must be inculcated that they are servants of the people or society and their rudimentary duty is to help the amelioration of society through their services.
They are selected, trained, appointed and paid for their service to the society. Any failure is an up-pardonable misconduct. This inculcation, through various ways, will make them accountable. In other words, the bureaucrats must be made conscious of their responsibility to society.
It is the duty of the state to do the job. The common people must be made conscious of their rights and duties to the society. This type of alertness will make civil servants conscious of their responsibility to the society. But any form of callousness on their part will make the bureaucrats forgetful of their duty to society. This is possible through socialisation and spread of education among the people.
It has been suggested that internal control is sometimes more effective than external control. Internal control suggests that in the entire bureaucratic structure self-regulatory mechanism is to required be introduced. The administrative structure is to be so arranged that no one shall get the opportunity to be powerful and unmindful of this responsibility or accountability to society. A statutory body is to be constituted to ensure the accountability.
It is said that people shall have freedom and opportunity to lodge their grievances to this body without any fear or hurdle.
This system will make the bureaucrats accountable. They will be conscious of their responsibility to society. After the Second World War a large number of countries of Asia and Africa got their political freedom. For the purpose of economic development the most important and powerful machinery is administration.
But the work requires to be assessed and here lies the question of accountability. So both bureaucracy and its accountability to society are of primary importance. But in the developing states there is a brain-storming problem. The people are not politically educated and conscious and because of this the activities of bureaucracy remain beyond scrutiny of the general public.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that the politicians in general and ministers in particular are corrupt and the top bureaucrats exploit this situation in their favour-they do not hesitate to follow corrupt practices for the gratification of their personal gains and desires This has eroded the sphere of accountability of civil servants to the society The ordinary people are helpless.
Rather, it may be treated as the central part of bureaucratic administration. When the question of accountability arises we generally mean the accountability of bureaucrats to the general-public or society. But the experts of public administration have made a research about its several forms or aspects and we want to throw light on them. It is said that first of all a civil servant is accountable to the administrative system It is because he is a member of civil service or bureaucracy.
It has certain rules and norms. Every member of bureaucracy must show respect to these rules that is, they scrupulously obey the rules. None can violate the rules of the organisation. In a democracy-particularly in parliamentary system-the ministers-that is political personalities-became the head of each ministry and beginning from top bureaucrat to an ordinary officer-all work under the authority of the minister and the decision of the minister is final.
Of course the departmental head or secretary of the department can give suggestions to the minister and he can even warn the minister of the possible consequences of the policy which, the minister is going to announce.
But if the minister refuses to comply with his secretary the latter must submit to the minister. This is called political accountability. There is another form of accountability and it is legal accountability. This is of course, not new. Legislature enacts laws, judges give verdict on different cases. The decisions of judges are treated as law.
Specially a civil servant has no scope to show disrespect to the law of the legislature. In a developing or transitional society there are customs, traditions, or old habits which are as valuable as laws of legislature or decisions of the judges. A civil servant cannot disobey such traditions, old systems.
They are also accountable to the tradition or the traditional laws. Old customs and habits are also parts of social system. The planning of administration and development is to be made in this background. There is an accountability to ethics or morality which is called bureaucratic morality or, what some public administrationists call, bureaucratic ethics.
Simply stated it means that a bureaucrat must be sincere, honest, and efficient. He should remember that public money is to be properly spent.
He should do his duty efficiently and honestly. It is his duty to discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and efficiency. The accountability to morality may also be explained in terms of accountability to consciences.
Public Administration by
Reconciling the permanence and expertise of the public bureaucracy with political control is a persistent problem in democracies. Accountability is an increasingly complex and difficult concept for public administration, and also becomes more difficult to ensure in an era of government reform. In addition to traditional hierarchical instruments of accountability, newer instruments of accountability build on mutuality, competition and contrived randomness Hood et al. Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. Please subscribe or login to access full text content.
Thank you for the support and your valuable feedback is much appreciated. Thank you May I borrow the contents for my class room report tomorow. Not like this?
Lehn M. The nine articles address three central accountability questions: Who is accountable to whom? For what?
Автобус тронулся, а Беккер бежал за ним в черном облаке окиси углерода. - Espera! - крикнул он ему вдогонку. Его туфли кордовской кожи стучали по асфальту, но его обычная реакция теннисиста ему изменила: он чувствовал, что теряет равновесие. Мозг как бы не поспевал за ногами. Беккер в очередной раз послал бармену проклятие за коктейль, выбивший его из колеи.
Внезапно она вспомнила, зачем искала Стратмора, и повернулась к. - Коммандер. Северная Дакота - это Грег Хейл.