Two types of intelligence community accountability: turf wars and identity narratives

Abstract

Most academic writing on accountability in intelligence organizations presents a bureaucratic politics model which describes investigations and hearings as turf wars between competing organizations and interests. However, within public administration, a second model of organizational accountability exists. In this model, hearings and investigations are not wars over resources, but rather attempts to clarify the organization’s mission and identity. In analyzing transcripts from the 1975 Church Committee Hearings, we can find evidence that the investigation in fact included both types of accountability exercises. Hearings sought both to discipline wayward agencies and to help all parties understand the events which occurred and what these events meant for the identities of the agencies involved, within the context of a democratic society.