Accountability

Definitions

Depending on the chosen approach and perspective, there are several possible definitions of accountability as well as a variety of dimensions and characteristics one can take into account. Helmut Anheier and Amber Hawkes refer to accountability from the actor's perspective simply as answering for one's behavior. Similarly, One World Trust, a leading U.K.-based think tank, which publishes the Global Accountability Report, considers it to be a process through which an organization makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision-making processes and activities and delivers against this commitment. In other words, accountability is seen as a responsibility taken on proactively by the actor or organization.

By contrast, in one of the more commonly used definitions, Jonathan A. Fox and L. David Brown see it more as a process—coming from outside—of holding actors responsible for their actions. Similarly, Anne Marie Goetz and Rob Jenkins think of accountability as the capacity held by the actor affected by an action to demand that someone provide reasons to justify his or her behavior or to impose a penalty for poor performance. Along these lines, Valerie Sperling considers the accountability relationship to be a power relationship that consists of two core components: answerability and enforcement. Building on the concept of a power relationship, Richard Mulgan identifies a set of key features, including the existence of an external authority to which the “account” is given, social interaction between those seeking answers and those providing the answers, and the assertion of a right of authority or superiority of those demanding the account over those who are being held accountable.

Researchers have identified various dimensions of accountability. Some, including O. P. Dwivedi and Joseph G. Jabbra, have distinguished administrative, legal, political, professional, and moral dimensions. Another perspective separates internal from external accountability. Internal accountability refers to responsibility for one's own actions, whereas external accountability refers to answering to others and encompasses the various dimensions listed earlier. Finally, some identify dimensions that enable an organization to be accountable. One World Trust lists four such dimensions—transparency, participation, evaluation, and complaint and response mechanisms—all of which must be integrated to ensure accountability.

Alnoor Ebrahim and Edward Weisband note that most discussions about the concept pose two further questions: Accountability to whom and accountability for what? The “to whom” question refers ideally to the multiple actors affected by the decisions or actions of the person or organization to be held accountable, that is, stakeholders. For governments, they could include taxpayers, voters, service recipients, and other nations; for private corporations, the shareholders, customers, members of the community in which they operate, and even employees; for nonprofit organizations, funders, members, service recipients, and government regulators; and for international organizations, member nations, funders, and so forth. The answer to the “for what” question ranges from finance (i.e., responsible use of resources), to governance (i.e., decision-making processes), to performance (i.e., the effectiveness and quality of the service or product provided), all the way—especially for nonprofit organizations—to mission (i.e., the extent to which the actions lead to mission fulfillment). The most comprehensive approach to accountability has been provided by Jonathan Koppell (2005), which separates several dimensions that may involve different actors and levels, making it especially useful for analyzing global

...