Dynamics of Public Sector Accountability in an Era of Reform

Abstract

Reform Administrative reform has enjoyed significant support in Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand during the past decade (Campbell and Peters, 1988; Christoph, 1992; Stone, 1993; Campbell and Wilson, 1995; Kettl and DiIulio, 1995); it has also ‘permeated Latin America, entered Asia, and most recently penetrated Africa’ (Kearney and Hays, 1998). In contrast to this widespread support at the nation-state level, the adoption of reforms at lower levels of government is more uneven (Brudney et al., 1999). These reforms have been manifested in various ways and under numerous labels, depending upon the national context. In western democracies these reform efforts have gone under the labels of reinventing government, new public management, and managerialism, with the avowed intent of increasing efficiency, responsiveness and accountability of public managers (Barzelay, 1992; Christoph, 1992; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Gore, 1993; Mascarenhas, 1993; Dunn, 1997; State Services Commission, 1997; Hood, 1998). Most of these reforms have intended to change the culture and context within which public managers conduct their duties to increase government’s efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. Strategies adopted have included decentralizing government, downsizing government, cutting red tape, increasing administrative discretion, empowering workers, encouraging entrepreneurial behavior, managing for results, and increased attention to performance measurement to make accountability more transparent (Campbell, 1993; Gore, 1995; US General Accounting Office, 1995; Peters and Savoie, 1996). While being in favor of efficiency, responsiveness and accountability is a popular rhetorical stance, the reality of public sector reform represents substantial challenges, not the least of which is how reforms impact the accountability of public administrators. These reforms have implications for the accountability relationships of government agencies and public managers; Olsen (1988) notes that the patchwork of administrative reform can result in administrative apparatus that are more complex and render accountability more obscure. The long-term