Enacting Accountability Under Populist Pressures: Theorizing the Relationship Between Anti-Elite Rhetoric and Public Accountability

Matthew Wood,Sjors Overman,Thomas Schillemans,Felicity Matthews

doi:10.1177/00953997211019387

Matthew Wood, Sjors Overman + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211019387

Copy DOI

Abstract

While populism challenges the pluralism and technocratic expertise on which public bureaucracies are based, extant scholarship has overlooked its effects on accountability processes. In particular, it neglects the impact of anti-elite rhetoric, characterized by what can be regarded as “emotionalized blame attribution,” on the thinking and behavior of accountability actors. Responding to this gap, this article examines the impact of this distinctive form of populist rhetoric on accountability relationships within the bureaucratic state. It identifies three “stages” whereby these populist pressures challenge accountability relationships, threaten the reputation of accountability actors, and result in alternative accountability practices. In doing so, the article provides a roadmap for assessing the impact of anti-elite rhetoric on accountability actions.

Highlights

While populism challenges the pluralism and technocratic expertise on which public bureaucracies are based, extant scholarship has overlooked its effects on accountability processes
In contrast to the wealth of research that has examined the electoral success of populist parties (e.g., Albertazzi & Mueller, 2013; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2012) and the impact of populism on specific policy areas (e.g., Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2015), extant scholarship has largely overlooked the effects of populist pressures on public bureaucracies, and in particular on those public servants whose expert authority is publicly attacked in a climate of populist hostility
Drawing on state-of-the-art research that has demonstrated the significance of informal or internal dimensions of “felt accountability” (e.g.; Hall et al, 2017; Overman et al, 2021; Romzek et al, 2012), and the importance attached to “reputation” by accountability actors (e.g., Busuioc & Lodge, 2016; Gilad et al, 2013; Schillemans & Busuioc, 2015), the article argues that anti-elite rhetorical attacks are likely to create bad faith in accountability processes, which manifests in how both principals and agents feel threatened when considering their reputation and when exercising their respective account-holding and account-giving roles

Summary

Introduction

While populism challenges the pluralism and technocratic expertise on which public bureaucracies are based, extant scholarship has overlooked its effects on accountability processes. These studies suggest that the emotionalized blame attribution of anti-elite rhetoric risks undermining the “good faith” compact that underpins the public service bargain by destabilizing the established ground rules of accountability and informal understandings of “reputation.” Yet, as the introduction made clear, extant scholarship has largely overlooked the effects of this specific manifestation of populist pressure on public bureaucracies, and in particular on those public servants whose expert authority is challenged in a climate of populist hostility.

Results

Conclusion