Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building Accountability Amidst Ambiguity: A Contemporary Challenge for Public Servants

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant

  • 204 Accesses

Abstract

New forms of collaborative governance have disrupted traditional lines of accountability, and there is a lack of consensus on how political integrity and accountability might be assured and enhanced in a collaborative environment. In this chapter, we review attempts by the Welsh Government to introduce a new collaborative form of accountability designed to embed principles of integrity and bridge a perceived democratic deficit. Our findings reveal that efforts to implement a “joined-up” model of accountability are impeded by ambiguities within the system. We conclude by proposing a series of recommended actions that could support effective political accountability, embed a culture of integrity, and reduce the dysfunctional effects on the public servants charged with its delivery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acar, M., C. Guo, and K. Yang. 2006. Accountability when hierarchical authority is absent: Views from public-private partnership practitioners. American Review of Public Administration 38 (1): 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. 1993. Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and their struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies 30 (6): 997–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, R. and Snape, S. 2004 An Overview of Scrutiny: A Triumph of Context over Structure. Local Government Studies 30 (4): 538–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, R., S. Snape, and S. Aulakh. 2007. Plugging the accountability gap? Evaluating the effectiveness of regional scrutiny. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 (2): 194–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, R.E., A.M. McDermott, and G. Currie. 2018. Theorizing from qualitative research in public administration: Plurality through a combination of rigor and richness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29 (2): 318–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrand, K. 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment 16: 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E., and C. Lesser. 1996. Accountability in human services collaborative – For what and to whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (2): 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. 2010. Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics 33 (5): 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M.M. Stone. 2006. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review 66: 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 647–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepiku, D. 2017. Collaborative governance. In The Routledge handbook of global public policy and administration, Routledge international handbooks. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M., and L. Cotterill. 2005. UK health action zones: Political accountability and political marketing – Perspectives from the South West. Urban Studies 42 (3): 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, A., and C. Glendinning. 2004. Local authority scrutiny of health: Making the views of the community count? Health Expectations 7 (1): 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Considine, M. 2002. The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships and joined-up services. Governance 15 (1): 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, J.V., and R.B. Denhardt. 2015. The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 664–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downe, J., and R. Ashworth. 2012. Evaluation of the scrutiny development Fund in Wales. Welsh Government: Cardiff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Developing a culture of collaborative scrutiny: An evaluation of practice and potential. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downe, J., R. Cowell, and K. Morgan. 2016. What determines ethical behavior in public organizations: Is it rules or leadership? Public Administration Review 76 (6): 898–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (1): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, T. 2010. Collaboration. In Public service improvement: Theories and evidence, 162–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, T., and S. Martin. 2005. From competition to collaboration in public service delivery: A new agenda for research. Public Administration 83 (1): 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, J., Miller K. Johnston, and D. McTavish. 2012. Co-governance or meta-bureaucracy? Perspectives of local governance ‘partnership’ in England and Scotland. Policy and Politics 40 (3): 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fimreite, A.L., and P. Laegreid. 2009. Reorganizing the welfare state administration: Partnership, networks and accountability. Public Management Review 11 (3): 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrer, J., J.E. Kee, and K.E. Newcomer. 2010. Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review 70: 475–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, J.J., and M.P. Murphy. 1996. Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review. The International Journal of Public Management 9 (5/6): 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarneros-Meza, V., J. Downe, and S. Martin. 2018. Defining, achieving, and evaluating collaborative outcomes: A theory of change approach. Public Management Review 20 (10): 1562–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, G.A., and C. Greve. 2007. Public–private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review 67 (3): 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., S. Vangen, C. Huxham, and C. Eden. 2000. The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory 2 (3): 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.B. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organisational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., M.P. Mandell, K. Brown, and G. Woolcock. 2004. Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review 64 (3): 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P. 2014. Accountability and new public management. In The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 324–338. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, L., and D. Stirbu. 2007. Developing devolution’s scrutiny potential: A comparative evaluation of the National Assembly for Wales’s Subject Committees. Policy & Politics 35 (2): 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. 2006. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review 66: 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. 2000. ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration 78 (3): 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. 2004. Constructing accountability: Network governance and managerial agency. Public Policy and Administration 19 (4): 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., M. Barnes, H. Sullivan, and A. Knops. 2004. Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy 33 (2): 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L.J., Jr. 1997. Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review 57: 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Networks and networking: The public administrative agendas. Public Administration Review 75 (3): 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. 2004. Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review 64 (5): 591–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy? West European Politics 33 (5): 1030–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. 2009. Reinventing governance, reinventing democracy. Policy and Politics 37 (4): 591–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, B.A., and B.S. Romzek. 1996. Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The national rural development partnership. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 26 (2): 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, J.R., R.J. House, and S.I. Lirtzman. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 15: 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. 2000. Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66 (1): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B., K. LeRoux, J. Johnston, R.J. Kempf, and J.S. Piatak. 2014. Informal accountability in multisector service delivery collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (4): 813–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, C., and P. Walsh. 2004. Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management 17 (7): 621–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C.K., N. Mathur, and M. Smith. 2005. The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration 83 (3): 573–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.E. 1957. The effects of clear and unclear role expectations on group productivity and defensiveness. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 (2): 213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. 2005. The democratic problems and potentials of network governance. European Political Science 4 (3): 348–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, H. 2003. New forms of accountability: Coming to terms with ‘many hands’. Policy and Politics 31 (3): 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. 2002. Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeting, D., and C. Copus. 2012. Whatever happened to local democracy? Policy and Politics 40 (1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, A.M., and J.L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review 66: 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turrini, A., D. Cristofoli, F. Frosini, and G. Nasi. 2010. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration 88 (2): 528–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.E. 2009. Citizen participation and democratic deficits: Considerations from the perspective of democratic theory. In Activating the citizen, 17–40. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Assembly Government. 2006. Beyond boundaries: Citizen centred local services for Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Setting the direction: Primary and community strategic delivery programme. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Government. 2012. Patient’s voice for Wales: Proposals following the review of community health councils – Consultation document. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Draft Local Government (Wales) Bill. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, T., and W. Van Dooren. 2011. Lost in diffusion: How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77 (3): 505–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Rachel Ashworth & James Downe

Authors
  1. Rachel Ashworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Downe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Ashworth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

  2. UNSW Australia, Campbell, ACT, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

  3. College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Hayley Henderson

Section Editor information

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Ashworth, R., Downe, J. (2020). Building Accountability Amidst Ambiguity: A Contemporary Challenge for Public Servants. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_66-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_66-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation