The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective

Abstract

Grassroots ecosystem management (GREM), and the reinventing government movement, more generally, suggest that the American polity is on the verge of redefining a broadly acceptable system of democratic accountability. The problem is: What does an effective system of accountability look like in a world of decentralized governance, shared power, collaborative decision processes, results-oriented management, and broad civic participation? This article examines how the theory of accountability has been reconfigured to fit the new paradigm for governance and places accountability in historical context to gain perspective for contemporary discussions of bureaucracy in a democracy. It finds that the conceptualization of democratic accountability varies dramatically over time. The Jacksonian, Progressives/New Deal, public-interest-egalitarian, neoconservative efficiency, and GREM models are all distinct conceptualizations of accountability. Each emphasizes different institutions and locates the authority for accountability in differing combinations and types of sectors (public, private, intermediary), processes, decision rules, knowledge, and values.