CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social Accountability Between Consensus and Confrontation: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Societal Accountability Relationships of Public Sector Organizations

Brummel, Lars·2021·Administration & Society
DOI 10.1177/0095399720988529
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Numerous politicians and scholars have argued that accountability of public authorities to citizens, clients, and societal actors is needed in the current age of governance. Academic debates about social accountability are however scattered with incompatible conceptualizations, high normative expectations, and sobering findings. This article develops an in-depth framework that provides a comprehensive definition and typology of social accountability. It discusses major empirical challenges to social accountability and multiple behavioral styles within social accountability. By distinguishing consensual and confrontational styles of account-holding and account-giving, this article shows that social accountability could serve multiple purposes that go beyond rosy ideals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0095399720988529

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. Aleksovska M., Schillemans T., Grimmelikhuijsen S. (2019). Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.22.66 · DOI
  2. Ali M. U., Pirog M. (2019). Social accountability and institutional change: The case of citizen oversight of police. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13055 · DOI
  3. Alon-Barkat S., Gilad S. (2016). Political control or legitimacy deficit? Bureaucracies’ symbolic responses to bottom-up public pressures. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14443003393944 · DOI
  4. Ankamah S. S. (2019). Why do “teeth” need “voice”? The case of anti-corruption agencies in three Australian states. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(4), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12374 · DOI
  5. Arras S., Braun C. (2018). Stakeholders wanted! Why and how European Union agencies involve non-state stakeholders. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(9), 1257–1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1307438 · DOI
  6. Bekkers V., Edwards A., Moody R., Beunders H. (2011). Caught by surprise? Micro-mobilization, new media and the management of strategic surprises. Public Management Review, 13(7), 1003–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589615 · DOI
  7. Biela J., Papadopoulos Y. (2014). The empirical assessment of agency accountability: A regime approach and an application to the German Bundesnetzagentur. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313514526 · DOI
  8. Boelen C., 1995, Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools
  9. Boelen C., Woollard B. (2009). Social accountability and accreditation: A new frontier for educational institutions. Medical Education, 43(9), 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03413.x · DOI
  10. Bovens M., 2005, The Oxford handbook of public management, 182
  11. Bovens M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0012 · DOI
  13. Brandsen T., 2008, International workshop on social audit, social accounting and accountability
  14. Busuioc M., Lodge M. (2017). Reputation and accountability relationships: Managing accountability expectations through reputation. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12612 · DOI
  15. Byrkjeflot H., Christensen T., Lægreid P. (2014). The many faces of accountability: Comparing reforms in welfare, hospitals and migration. Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12019 · DOI
  16. Christensen T., Lodge M. (2018). Reputation management in societal security: A comparative study. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016670030 · DOI
  17. Curtin D., Meijer A. J. (2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity, 11(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2006-0091 · DOI
  18. Damgaard B., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 258
  19. Day P., 1987, Accountabilities: Five public services
  20. Deacon D., Monk W. (2002). News management and new managerialism. Journal of Political Marketing, 1(2–3), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J199v01n02_03 · DOI
  21. Djerf-Pierre M., Ekström M., Håkansson N., Johansson B. (2014). The mediatization of political accountability: Politics, the news media logic and industrial crises in the 1980s and 2000s. Journalism Studies, 15(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.889473 · DOI
  22. Djerf-Pierre M., Pierre J. (2016). Mediatised local government: Social media activity and media strategies among local government officials 1989–2010. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14434624683411 · DOI
  23. Flinders M., 2001, The politics of accountability in the modern state
  24. Flinders M. (2011). Daring to be a Daniel: The pathology of politicized accountability in a monitory democracy. Administration & Society, 43(5), 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711403899 · DOI
  25. Flinders M., Moon D. S. (2011). The problem of letting go: The “Big Society,” accountable governance and “the curse of the decentralizing minister.” Local Economy, 26(8), 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094211422187 · DOI
  26. Fox J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · DOI
  27. Gailmard S., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 90
  28. Gebreiter F., Hidayah N. N. (2019). Individual responses to competing accountability pressures in hybrid organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32, 727–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2017-3098 · DOI
  29. Greiling D., Grüb B. (2015). Towards citizen accountability of local public enterprises. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12098 · DOI
  30. Greiling D., Halachmi A. (2014). Accountability and organizational learning in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360301 · DOI
  31. Greiling D., Spraul K. (2010). Accountability and the challenges of information disclosure. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 338–377. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41288352
  32. Halachmi A., Holzer M. (2010). Citizen participation and performance management: Operationalizing democracy through better accountability. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 378–399. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41288353
  33. Hall A. T., Ferris G. R. (2011). Accountability and extra-role behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9148-9 · DOI
  34. Hall A. T., Frink D. D., Buckley M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hupe P., Hill M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x · DOI
  36. Jacobs S., Schillemans T. (2016). Media and public accountability: Typology and exploration. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1332/030557315X14431855320366 · DOI
  37. Klenk T. (2015). Accountability in practice: Organizational responses to public accountability claims. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(13–14), 983–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1069841 · DOI
  38. Kohler-Koch B. (2010). How to put matters right? Assessing the role of civil society in EU accountability. West European Politics, 33(5), 1117–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486141 · DOI
  39. Koop C. (2014). Theorizing and explaining voluntary accountability. Public Administration, 92(3), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12058 · DOI
  40. Koppell J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1057/9780230625006_8 · DOI
  42. Lægreid P., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 324
  43. Lerner J. S., Tetlock P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Lindén T. S. (2015). Social accountability in immigration regulation: The inclusion of social actors in the asylum appeals process. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(13–14), 1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1069843 · DOI
  45. Lindquist E. A., Huse I. (2017). Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital-era governance. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 627–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12243 · DOI
  46. Maggetti M. (2012). The media accountability of independent regulatory agencies. European Political Science Review, 4(3), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000208 · DOI
  47. Malena C., 2004, Social accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice
  48. Mansbridge J., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 55
  49. Mattei P., Christensen T., Pilaar J. (2015). Conflicting accountabilities in the 2012 health care reforms in England. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(7), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.949741 · DOI
  50. Mattei P., Mitra M., Feiler T. (2018). The politics of “social accountability” in England and Germany: Democratic control and moral imperatives. Public Organization Review, 18(3), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0343-5 · DOI
  51. McCandless H. E., 2001, A citizen’s guide to public accountability: Changing the relationship between citizens and authorities
  52. Meijer A. (2007). Publishing public performance results on the Internet: Do stakeholders use the Internet to hold Dutch public service organizations to account? Government Information Quarterly, 24(1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.014 · DOI
  53. Meijer A., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 507
  54. Meijer A., 2009, Public Administration and Management, 14, 254
  55. Michels A., Meijer A. (2008). Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government. Public Management Review, 10(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030801928490 · DOI
  56. Mizrahi S., Minchuk Y. (2019). Accountability and performance management: Citizens’ willingness to monitor public officials. Public Management Review, 21(3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473478 · DOI
  57. Moore M. H., 2014, Oxford handbook of public accountability, 632
  58. 10.1017/CBO9781139152365 · DOI
  59. 10.1057/9781403943835 · DOI
  60. Mulgan R., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 545
  61. Neby S., Lægreid P., Mattei P., Feiler T. (2015). Bending the rules to play the game: Accountability, DRG and waiting list scandals in Norway and Germany. European Policy Analysis, 1(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.18278/epa.1.1.9 · DOI
  62. Neu D., Saxton G., Everett J., Shiraz A. R. (2020). Speaking truth to power: Twitter reactions to the Panama Papers. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3997-9 · DOI
  63. Norris P., 2014, The Oxford handbook of public accountability, 525
  64. Ojala M., Pantti M., Laaksonen S.M. (2019). Networked publics as agents of accountability: Online interactions between citizens, the media and immigration officials during the European refugee crisis. New Media & Society, 21(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818794592 · DOI
  65. Overman S., Schillemans T., Grimmelikhuijsen S. (2020). A validated measurement for felt relational accountability in the public sector: Gauging the account holder’s legitimacy and expertise. Public Management Review, 2020, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254 · DOI
  66. Page S. (2006). The web of managerial accountability: The impact of reinventing government. Administration & Society, 38(2), 166–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705285990 · DOI
  67. 10.2307/j.ctt9qh5t1 · DOI
  68. Pierre J. (2009). Reinventing governance, reinventing democracy? Policy & Politics, 37(4), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557309X477208 · DOI
  69. Pollitt C., Hupe P. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.532963 · DOI
  70. Reddick C. G., Demir T., Perlman B. (2020). Horizontal, vertical, and hybrid: An empirical look at the forms of accountability. Administration & Society, 52, 1410–1438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720912553 · DOI
  71. Reichersdorfer J., Christensen T., Vrangbæk K. (2013). Accountability of immigration administration: Comparing crises in Norway, Denmark and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313478251 · DOI
  72. Romzek B. S., Dubnick M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/975901 · DOI
  73. Rubenstein J. (2007). Accountability in an unequal world. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00563.x · DOI
  74. Schillemans T., 2007, Verantwoording in de schaduw van de macht. Horizontale verantwoording bij zelfstandige uitvoeringsorganisaties [Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: Horizontal accountability of independent administrative bodies]
  75. Schillemans T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-008-0053-8 · DOI
  76. Schillemans T. (2011). Does horizontal accountability work? Evaluating potential remedies for the accountability deficit of agencies. Administration & Society, 43(4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711412931 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Schillemans T., Van Twist M., Vanhommerig I. (2013). Innovations in accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 407–435. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360302 · DOI
  78. Sinclair A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y · DOI
  79. Strøm K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007064803327 · DOI
  80. Thatcher M., Sweet A. S. (2002). Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/713601583 · DOI
  81. Van Eijk C., Steen T. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841458 · DOI
  82. Vanhommerig I., Karré P. M. (2014). Public accountability in the Internet age: Changing roles for governments and citizens. International Review of Public Administration, 19(2), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2014.928477 · DOI
  83. Van Thiel S., Leeuw F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2002.11643661 · DOI
  84. 10.4337/9781781956229.00019 · DOI
  85. Willems T., Van Dooren W. (2012). Coming to terms with accountability: Combining multiple forums and functions. Public Management Review, 14(7), 1011–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662446 · DOI
  86. Wood M. (2016). Politicisation, depoliticisation and anti-politics: Towards a multilevel research agenda. Political Studies Review, 14(4), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12074 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Brummel, L.
Affiliations
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
ORCID
Brummel, Lars
Venue
Administration & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-01-19
Volume
53
Issue
7
Pages
1046-1077
ISSN
  • 0095-3997
  • 1552-3039
DOI
10.1177/0095399720988529
Cited by
40
References
2
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452-14-008)

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: Social Accountability Between Consensus and Confrontation: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Societal Accountability Relationships of Public Sector Organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0095399720988529
The paper
Brummel, L. (2021). Social Accountability Between Consensus and Confrontation: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Societal Accountability Relationships of Public Sector Organizations. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720988529