Local gov't accountability isn't a number, it's a way of operating
André Carlos Busanelli Aquino argues in Taylor & Francis online that local government reform--by definition--is ground zero in the movement for democratic accountability globally. But it goes beyond simple success metrics: bots, fake news, and digitalization make it such that accountability needs to be fully baked into everything that happens in city and county government.
Accountability is a familiar concept, taken for granted most of the time. This article underscores the need to bring accountability to the centre of empirical analysis in local government studies. As local governments are a key dimension for local-level democratic governance worldwide, it is crucial to invigorate research on accountability and bring it to the forefront of our research agenda connected to the digitalisation of society, political distrust, and non-financial drivers of society (humanitarian and environmental agendas).
Accountability, a fundamental aspect of local politics and public administration, has evolved significantly over the past half-century. The concept gained prominence in the context of the reorganisation of local governments in the 1970s in the UK, driven by the need to enhance efficiency and reduce public expenditure locally. Since then, accountability-related issues have been consistently discussed, often associated with scrutiny and transparency. As contemporary society started to face deep digitalisation, political distrust, and calls for developing non-financial parameters of public sector performance (e.g., sustainability criteria for public procurement), the discussion of accountability was expanded to answer such aspects.
Accountability can be observed as a process to give accounts to citizens or to entities exercising scrutiny (e.g., audit courts, ministries at central government, judicial courts, international courts or commissions, and non-governmental organisations), a value to be preserved or enhanced (a government being perceived as open, transparent and accountable); or an outcome daily created by governmental routines, as how compliant to the law, transparent, and legitimised are the budgeting, procurement, and service provision. Alternatively, it is a critical dialogic process in which governments interact with various interested constituencies looking for public support, for instance, in social media.
It is difficult to argue that accountability will leave its central role to democracies. Academics, public authorities, civil servants, think tanks and consultancy firms are still being challenged to design and build capacity to reinforce trust in democratic institutions and drive politicians’ decisions and behaviour for the public interest.
With the advance of digitalisation of society, of fake news or ‘alternative facts’ and the increased power of global platform firms like X (former Twitter) (compared to national governments), we should reconsider how to approach accountability in contemporary society. Accountability potentially will play a different role and dynamics in digital society, being called to frame grand challenges and wicked problems, and eventually being more oriented to the future (beyond the calendar-based cycles in the past, as annual reports).
As Local Government Studies is a reference for local governments’ governance and their role in regional stability and democracy, developing a research stream on accountability for/at local governments would be valuable. The empirical literature on central governments and non-governmental organisations does not necessarily apply to local governments. Public governance at the local level faces specific boundaries regarding central governments, for instance, hierarchical relations with the central government, reduced financial autonomy, struggling to implement top-down administrative reforms, and reacting directly to crises in the territory.
I start by moving accountability ‘as a process’ to the core of the analysis, not as an outcome or a boundary condition to another phenomenon, as suggested by Schillemans. Therefore, the typical research questions on what drives accountability (as an output) should be changed to how accountability works (as a process).
Accountability as a process implies exploring how such a process emerges and is managed by local governments (engaging, manipulating, or eventually avoiding it). In this regard, the analysis would explore the process of preparing, sharing information, and justifying performance, behaviour, and impact in society.
It highlights also how different actors play a role, and the barriers and enablers for the process to improve the expected performance. It includes exploring whether the audit or scrutiny practices in place frame the accountability process, shaping expectations, strategies, and justifications by local politicians and public managers. It is especially urgent to go beyond financial performance and observe the processes of bringing governments accountable for climate-related issues (e.g., climate accountability), biodiversity loss, and other non-financial performance.
Secondly, we should pay special attention to other emerging forms of social accountability and their effects on the interactions between local public managers, audit authorities, NGOs, and citizens. In a post-NPM era, networks, collaborative initiatives, and other horizontal forms of governance (enacted in digital platforms or not) are central to understanding how local governments will interact in such arrangements to manage the grand challenges, as climate emergency or the erosion of democracy.
Some questions will arise, for instance, how we should consider transparency and publicness with reality being shaped by ‘alternative facts’ reposted by bots and, at the same time, vulnerable populations under digital exclusion worldwide. How will local public managers solve the paradoxes and justify public policies when facing contested issues, such as human rights and immigration or tax collection and carbon footprint? Would they justify the priority for one demand – fiscal rigidity – neglecting the other – carbon emission reduction? Are they prepared to mitigate the effects of political ideology as they engage with civil society and professional networks to solve the paradoxes? How do the gaps in the awareness of social media audiences enable justifications for the lack of compliance or failures? Which strategies can NGOs and climate advocacy associations launch to improve the audience’s awareness?
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.