Accountability has become a central aspect of the quality of governance debate, since the rise of new actors and new institutions has necessitated a reconfiguration of existing democratic mechanisms.150 Traditional ‘vertical’ systems of national democratic accountability (elected representatives hold public officials accountable through centralised budgeting and parliamentary oversight) have been supplemented by ‘horizontal’ accountability. In this model, the external accountability of decision-makers is to the public at large, and is linked to what appears as a subsidiary attribute, transparency, expressed in terms of public access to information and decision making procedures.151 Transparency plays a role both in the participation of interests from the inception of a governance system or policy process (ex ante) and in the public scrutiny of decision making (ex post).152 It is effectively a precondition for effective accountability, since it is impossible to hold an institution to account if its regulatory operations are not open to public view.153 In the absence of a global constitution and formal hierarchies, the strategic interactions that arise among entities within institutions of global governance are frequently not regarded as legitimate by those affected by the rules such institutions make.154 Civil society actors have played an essential role in opening up global governance, and have forced various institutions to increase their visibility by publishing information, and have also pushed for the development and implementation of mechanisms for monitoring and controlling
agency activities, which are essential in view of the fact that conventional methods are seen as insufficient for the contemporary situation.155
Accountability is also seen as being both an internal and external requirement of good governance. Rosenau points to two accountability problems for groups operating in globalised space. Externally, whilst some international (i.e. intergovernmental) organisations are accountable to the states they represent (if not the general public directly), NGOs are not, even by minimal standards of democratic governance. Internally, the decision making processes of many NGOs are not exposed to members, procedures for electing their leaders are absent, or they may not even have members.156 This concern is echoed elsewhere. Whilst international (governmental) organisations are internally accountable to the states they represent, NGOs are not, nor are they always transparent.157 Legitimacy problems consequently arise, for example, regarding the accountability of northern NGOs towards their southern counterparts, as well as the real extent to which NGOs as a sector are accountable to their own members.158 Nevertheless, despite their shortcomings, NGOs should be acknowledged for their contribution to holding governments and intergovernmental institutions accountable to the public. The UN has gone so far as to claim they represent an approximation of direct popular participation, at least within intergovernmental machinery. An approximation is no substitute for the real thing, however, and NGOs should expand their activities towards genuine popular participation, rather than supplant it.159 Nor should NGOs be singled out for special criticism. Some scholars point to a fundamental accountability deficit arising within self-governing networks, due to the differences between participating institutions. Such a deficit is experienced
at two levels: within individual parts of the network, and on account of the self- interested -- rather than public-spirited -- nature of their members.160
As a result of these perceived limitations, there have been calls for properly adapted principles of accountability to satisfy normative democratic criteria, but world politics generally lack universally accepted values and institutions.161 However, it is recognised by advocates of greater global governance, that national models, including a reliance on accountability via electorates is not feasible. There is a need for a better meshing together of internal and external accountability measures, posing a number of unresolved normative questions.162 Others see the answer as straightforward, calling for increased openness of global institutions. The application of freedom of information laws and generally freer access to information would account for the remoteness of global processes from democratic accountability.163 Alternatively, the standards-based approach of some institutions of global governance is presented as a solution to demonstrating accountability.164
Scholars of the EU in particular have associated an institution’s legitimacy with its accountability mechanisms. How an institution views these aspects of governance impacts on its quality; shortcomings in the EU system are partly attributable to the different considerations given within institutions to the role of such elements as accountability, a problem exacerbated by the variety of institutional types.165 Other scholars are also concerned with the accountability of contemporary governance. They identify a clear discrepancy between the tenets of accountability within representative government versus the nature of participation within governance networks, which may be open and transparent, but need not be formally accountable.166 Some see a tension between the new approaches of
steering and coordination inherent in modern governance and traditional approaches to delivering political accountability within democratic theory. Since accountability now also rests with non-accountable actors, and relationships between the public and private sectors have become complex, it is difficult for citizens to understand how accountability functions.167
Rhodes presents the classic accountability dilemma arising from the ‘hollowed- out state’ identified in ‘new’ governance theory. Firstly, institutional complexity obscures who is accountable, and for what. Secondly, while the state equates transparency and responsiveness with accountability, the public does not actually have a clear government agency to hold to account. Further, if it is not clear who should be held accountable from the beginning, the problem is likely to be exacerbated after the event, and will reinforce lack of responsibility beforehand.168 This makes democratic accountability within networks a serious challenge in an environment of governing without government.169 This is particularly relevant as non-elected stakeholders are not directly accountable to the voting public, and the extent of traditional accountability safeguards such as freedom of information, declarations of interest, and ethics of office generally are not clear. Whilst a broader range of interests may participate in decision making, they can easily absolve themselves of responsibility and increased numbers of stakeholders may dilute transparency and blur the lines of accountability, making identification of responsibility difficult.170 Responsibility can also be expressed institutionally by a lack of responsiveness to stakeholders’ concerns, and might explain increased calls for participative democracy as a consequence of the sense of estrangement that has arisen in the way people view political institutions.171
Some scholars see that defining what constitutes a robust accountability system is a major problem facing advocates of new governance, and have problems envisaging any serious contenders to the state as a source of democratic accountability.172 The differentiated polity implicit in global governance requires accountability to be made explicit and manifested in many forms and in many forums, proper discourse should be based on openness of, and access to, information to sustain proper discourse.173 Governance structures therefore need to be sufficiently sophisticated to address accountability at the multiple levels of contemporary governance.174 Formal structures and clearly defined rules are required for each level, otherwise transparency can be lost, and policy making predetermined.175 This may require procedural frameworks such as judicial processes, or ombudsmen, to ensure transparency and thus deliver accountability.176 In short, how the responsibility of participating actors should be addressed in non-state, non-elected structures continues to be the subject of some debate.177