Rethinking Democratic Accountability

Elected officials and the public alike are demanding more accountability and better performance (results) from the public sector. The problem is that simultaneously enhancing accountability and performance are not necessarily compatible. So argues Robert Behn in Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Traditional efforts to tighten accountability by imposing more rules hinders performance; efforts to enhance performance by giving greater discretion to public managers jeopardizes democratic accountability. Behn examines this performance-accountability trade-off in a thoughtful and innovative analysis. The context for the examination of accountability is "new public management," a set of reforms intended to enhance public sector performance. This conflict between accountability and performance, while it exists in traditional public administration, is brought into sharp focus by the reforms promoted in new public management-defined by Behn "as the entire collection of tactics and strategies that seek to enhance the performance of the public sector" (p. 26). In the new public management, procedural rules of traditional accountability (often interpreted as red tape) are minimized to make way for enhanced performance. Leaders and managers are exhorted to take initiative, to exercise discretion, to behave in entrepreneurial ways rather than simply follow directives and rules. Organizations are encouraged to set goals, then turn managers loose to achieve those goals using their own judgment about means. "Hold managers accountable for performance, not process," say reform advocates. The grant of discretion advocated in new public management raises traditional fears about the abuse of governmental authority. Turning public managers loose to exercise initiative and discretion will enable them to abuse the public trust. Hence the dilemma: a hardcharging, creative manager is likely to step over the line; a manager who worries too much about where the line is drawn will be too timid to accomplish much. In Behn's analysis, accountability refers to three things: finances, fairness , and performance. Accountability for finances and accountability for fairness have a great deal in common. We establish rules , procedures, and standards, require an organization to keep records of what it does, and then audit to determine whether the organization's actions were in compliance with the rules, procedures, and standards. If not, some p'unishment is meted out. Accountability for finances and fairness are essentially process oriented-first set rules and then take steps to make sure the rules have been followed. Thus accountability for finances and fairness is about "how" things are done. It is implemented through a compliance (or process) model. Performance, on the other hand, is results oriented-it is about "what" government does-and is qualitatively different from accountability for finances and fairness . It is necessary to specify the goals to be achieved and hold the agency responsible for those results.