The perils of accountability after crisis: ambiguity, policy legacies, and value trade-offs

Nadia Hilliard,Iosif Kovras,Neophytos Loizides

doi:10.1080/09557571.2019.1710827

Nadia Hilliard, Iosif Kovras + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1710827

Copy DOI

Abstract

This article interrogates a tension at the heart of the principle of accountability: accountability as a principle of non-impunity of public officials versus accountability as a form of bureaucratic organisation and control. Although these dimensions are distinguishable in the abstract, their ambiguity has led to an expectations gap among both citizens and elites. The historical legacies of previous policies can exacerbate this expectations gap, leading to a variety of value trade-offs, with the potential to undermine other political values, such as political learning, consensus-building, and citizens' rights. We present examples of the trade-offs resulting from this expectations gap, focusing on moments of crisis in which such trade-offs can be seen most acutely, and highlight its role as a vehicle of global populism.

Highlights

Introduction ‘There is little doubt,’ claims Matthew Flinders, ‘that the concept of accountability appears to be emerging as the u€ber-concept of the twenty-first century’ (Flinders 2014)
We argue that while there is an important analytical distinction to be made between accountability as a virtuous principle of non-impunity and as a set of bureaucratic systems of instruments, in practice, these discrete elements overlap
Rather than creating a new typology to add to the many existing ones, we focus on one fundamental tension at the heart of the concept as it is used in comparative governance: the distinction between accountability as the principle of the non-impunity of high office and accountability as a mode of bureaucratic organisation and control

Summary

Introduction

Introduction ‘There is little doubt,’ claims Matthew Flinders, ‘that the concept of accountability appears to be emerging as the u€ber-concept of the twenty-first century’ (Flinders 2014). Because tensions are most acute in times of emergency, we offer examples of efforts to pursue accountability following moments of crisis (economic, political and human rights). Public accountability is maintained through a vast array of mechanisms beyond elections and structural arrangements, including standards and auditing practices in bureaucratic settings and prosecutions and truth commissions in times of crisis.

Results

Conclusion