Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability

Open access
Busuioc, E. Madalina, Lodge, Martin·2016·Governance
DOI 10.1111/gove.12161
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article proposes a reputation‐based approach to account for two core puzzles of accountability. The first is the misfit between behavioral predictions of the hegemonic political science framework for talking about accountability, namely, principal–agent, and empirical findings. The second puzzle is the unrivaled popularity of accountability, given evidence that supposedly accountability‐enhancing measures often lead to opposite effects. A “reputation‐informed” theoretical approach to public accountability suggests that accountability is not about reducing informational asymmetries, containing “drift,” or ensuring that agents stay committed to the terms of their mandate. Accountability—in terms of both holding and giving—is about managing and cultivating one's reputation vis‐à‐vis different audiences. It is about being seen as a reputable actor in the eyes of one's audience(s), conveying the impression of competently performing one's (accountability) roles, thereby generating reputational benefits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gove.12161

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1057/9781137319647 · doi:10.1057/9781137319647
  2. Carpenter Daniel P., 2001, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy
  3. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1994.tb01009.x · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1994.tb01009.x
  4. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01779.x · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01779.x
  5. 10.1057/9781137010261_9 · doi:10.1057/9781137010261_9
  6. 10.1111/padm.12155 · doi:10.1111/padm.12155
  7. Gilad Sharon, 2012, Oxford Handbook of Corporate Regulation
  8. Hogwood Brian, 2000, Transforming British Government
  9. Hood Christopher, 2010, The Political Pay‐Off from Performance Target‐Systems, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 491
  10. Jones Brian, 2005, The Politics of Attention
  11. Maor Moshe, 2015, the Public Sector
  12. Reiss Dorit R., 2011, Account Me in: Agencies in Quest of Accountability, Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 611
  13. 10.1057/9780230277274 · doi:10.1057/9780230277274

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M.
Venue
Governance
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-09-21
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
247-263
ISSN
  • 0952-1895 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0491
DOI
10.1111/gove.12161
OpenAlex
W1936979584
Cited by
306
References
71
FWCI
41.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gove.12161
The paper
Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2016). The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12161

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.