‘Accountability’: An Ever‐Expanding Concept?
Abstract
The scope and meaning of ‘accountability’ has been extended in a number of directions well beyond its core sense of being called to account for one’s actions. It has been applied to internal aspects of official behaviour, beyond the external focus implied by being called to account; to institutions that control official behaviour other than through calling officials to account; to means of making officials responsive to public wishes other than through calling them to account; and to democratic dialogue between citizens where no one is being called to account. In each case the extension is readily intelligible because it is into an area of activity closely relevant to the practice of core accountability. However, in each case the extension of meaning may be challenged as weakening the importance of external scrutiny
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For meaningful accountability to have taken place, and to the extent that failings have been identified, there should be a possibility to extract consequences.
“For meaningful accountability to have taken place—and to the extent that failings have been identified—there should be a possibility to extract consequences.”
From Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account (2021) · cites this paper as Mulgan 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework <sup>1</sup>
Bovens, M. (2007) · European Law Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x · Cited by 2,667 · see citing works
Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes
Black, J. (2008) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00034.x · Cited by 1,215 · see citing works
Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account
Busuioc, M. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13293 · Cited by 652 · see citing works
“Negative judgment can result in the imposition of sanctions and the need for actors to undertake remedial actions (or rectification) to address failures and afford redress to those adversely affected (Bovens 2007; Mulgan 2000).”
BackgroundAccountability and health systems: toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance
Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2004) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czh052 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works
Novelli, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01635-y · Cited by 495 · see citing works
“Accountability has many definitions but, at its core, is an obligation to inform about, and justify one’s conduct to an authority (Bovens 2007; Lindberg 2013; Mulgan 2000; Thynne and Goldring 1987).”
Mapping accountability: core concept and subtypes
Lindberg, S. I. (2013) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852313477761 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships
Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2012) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.12.006 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
The Institutional Basis of Democratic Accountability
Olsen, J. P. (2013) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2012.753704 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
O'Sullivan, N., & O'Dwyer, B. (2009) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570910955443 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters
Fredriksson, M., & Tritter, J. Q. (2017) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12483 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Good Governance: Concept and Context
Addink, H. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841159.001.0001 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Naudé Fourie, A. (2015) · Erasmus Law Review · doi:10.5553/elr.000045 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Petrakaki, D. (2018) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-02-2017-0043 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
The Concept of Accountability in AI Ethics and Governance
Lechterman, T. M. (2022) · The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.10 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Hillo, J., Vento, I., & Erkkilä, T. (2026) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70028 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Although algorithmic transparency has been criticized for not necessarily ensuring genuine accountability (Mulgan 2000)—particularly without an expert audience to interpret complex algorithms (Ananny and Crawford 2018; Kemper and Kolkman 2019)—it features prominently in ethical frameworks (Jobin et…”
AI and the transformation of accountability and discretion in urban governance
Goldsmith, S., & Yang, J. (2026) · Urban Governance · doi:10.1016/j.ugj.2026.02.005 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“It emphasizes an agent’s obligations to explain and justify their actions to another entity, which could be a person, an organization, or the public in general, holding the power to question and evaluate the agent’s actions ( Bovens, 1998 , 2007 , 2010 ; Mulgan, 2000 ; Mulgan, 2003 ).”
Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences
Anderson, C. (2023) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.12687 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Kouroutakis, A. E. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4569189 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systems
Kroll, J. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445937 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mulgan, R.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Mulgan, Richard
- ORCID
- Mulgan, Richard
- Venue
- Public Administration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 555-573
- ISSN
- 0033-3298 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9299
- OpenAlex
- W1968042795
- Cited by
- 1,609
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 107 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 24.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Keywords
- accountability, concept extension, external scrutiny, institutional control, public responsiveness, democratic dialogue, citizen participation, public governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
