Responsabilidad constitucional del Vicepresidente de la República

A definition of accountability is ‘a relationship in which an individual or an agency is held to answer for performance that involves some delegation of authority to act’ (Romzek and Dubnick, 1998). This has the advantage of

recognising that either a person or an organisation may be involved, and that devolution of responsibilities brings requirements to be answerable. The elements in a definition of accountability might include a function or role, a capability to implement some discretion and an obligation to account.

Another approach to clarifying accountability is to consider accountability within the concept of responsibility. Several decades ago, ‘responsibility’ appears to have been the significant term. Somewhere between the early 1970s and the 1990s, the operative term became ‘accountability’ rather than ‘responsibility’ (see various R.N. Spann volumes, such as 1979), and along with a widening of the definition came a series of additions to the range of accountability instruments.

The relationship between the two concepts remains close. There are several senses of accountability—complex meanings around the broader concept of ‘responsibility’:

■ Task sense: Are public servants performing the jobs they are supposed to be doing?

■ Appropriate sense:Are they acting responsibly and in a responsive manner? ■ Cause sense: Are they subject to controls which hold them accountable for their performance of task and appropriateness? (Thynne and Goldring, 1987).

The APS has also been giving careful attention to the place of accountability in reform design during this period of great change. The result has been that official definitions have become more explicit. The definition developed by the Management Advisory Board’s (1993) review (the second definition in Exhibit 15.1), has now been replaced by DoFA’s (1998) formulation, with its more precise focus on financial information (the first definition of accountability in Exhibit 15.1).

Although these basic concepts appear to be straightforward, the current practice in the APS is far from simple and several dimensions of accountability need to be explored further.

Overview of accountability

Accountability has become a complex area, and that very complexity, and its enigmatic and ambiguous nature, has prompted lively debate. The language

Point for reflection

One way of thinking through accountability is to pose three basic questions about your position, or that of someone you are familiar with in a position of authority:

■ Accountability—for what?

■ Accountability—to whom?

of observers who refer to accountability as a ‘problem’ or ‘muddle’ is one indication of this. Much of the reason is that it has been a rapidly evolving field, with a trend towards more dimensions or forms of accountability, thereby creating multiple accountabilities. Each form of accountability serves a purpose, but the limitations of both traditional and newer concepts are also apparent. In order to clarify some of these questions, the environments of account- ability are considered. The broader environmental context covers elements that are either not part of the government system or not subject to direct government influence. The next section looks at the narrower environment of the public service and government, and at how accountability has changed over time.

One approach to clarifying public service accountability issues is by classifying the various accountability mechanisms in a two-dimensional tax- onomy according to whether the mechanism is internal or external to the department or agency concerned, and whether or not the mechanism is part of the formal system of government (Exhibit 15.2). Internal/formal account- ability is the most immediate environment of the public service. Accountability here is political and managerial and decidedly hierarchical in character. There are usually also informal elements present (for example, almost one-third of the senior executives in central agencies thought that their primary account- ability was to their profession: Campbell and Halligan, 1992).

External/formal accountability covers other agencies and institutions of the system of governance that have some independent capacity to operate outside the government of the day, such as the Australian National Audit Office, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The fourth category, external/informal, contains the more ad hoc pressures and activities. (For example, the news media’s role in accountability may arise through its focus on individual ministers or issues, but it lacks a formalised constitutional role.)

Responsibility

An obligation and authority to act or make decisions.

Accountability

1 The duty to supply information to enable users of that information to make informed judgments about performance, financial position, financing and investing, and compliance of the agency or authority.

2 Accountability is defined as existing ‘where there is a direct authority relation- ship within which one party accounts to a person or body for the performance of tasks or functions conferred, or able to be conferred, by that person or body’. This includes accountability for setting planned outcomes, specifying outputs, achieving and reporting outcomes, and the consequences of getting things right or wrong.

Source: DoFA, 1998.

EXHIBIT 15.1

Official definitions of accountability

It is important to note that the relative importance of accountability mechanisms can vary over time. Thus, central agencies (for example, the former Public Service Board) were, not so long ago, primary mechanisms, but their role in many Australian jurisdictions, such as the APS, has declined greatly as their responsibilities have shifted to decentralised agencies.

An alternative approach to clarifying public sector accountability issues is to distinguish between different classes of accountability:

■ political accountability to politicians (but note the different categories within this class—ministers, Parliament);

■ public accountability to the public (but note the different publics—for example, consumers and clients);

■ legal accountability to the courts;

■ professional accountability to the norms and practices of a profession; and

■ administrative accountability to non-political bodies (for example, arising from the new administrative law—see Exhibit 15.3).

Several of these classes of accountability are based on different accountability relationships, and it may be necessary to manage several accountabilities.

Internal External

Formal Ministers and Cabinet Central agencies Code of conduct

Auditor-General

Parliament and parliamentary committees

Ombudsman Clients Informal Professional

Peers

Personal values, conscience and loyalties

Political parties and party committees

Media Interest groups General public

Sources: Adapted from Smith, 1991; Thynne and Goldring, 1987.

EXHIBIT 15.2

Mechanisms of accountability

Agency Example of impact

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Commonwealth)

Review and possible overturn of administrative decision

Ombudsman—Commonwealth, states Investigation of complaints regarding actions of an agency or official

EXHIBIT 15.3

Examples of administrative law and the public servant

Point for reflection

Evolution and increasing complexity of accountability

The environment of the APS has changed in quite distinctive ways in the last three decades, with major implications for accountability. It has changed first from the traditional focus on inputs and process, to a management environ- ment emphasising outputs and results, and then to a market environment emphasising competitive elements (for example, contestability), outsourcing and contracts (Exhibit 15.4).

Associated with each major change in the environment has been an extension of accountability responsibilities from the traditional core (that is, minister and the departmental hierarchy) that featured ministerial responsibility, to cover the new administrative law, accountability management and, most recently, accountability through the market.

New administrative law (1970s)

One response to the limitations of the traditional system was the ‘new administrative law’ consisting of several elements for handling grievances and scrutiny of government action in specific cases (for example, administrative appeals, freedom of information and the Ombudsman).

Managerial accountability (1980s)

An important dimension to what the Department of Finance conceived as the framework for resource management was a ‘comprehensive package of financial management improvements’ comprising of two complementary strands:

■ measures to ‘let the managers manage’ by facilitating managerial initiatives

that were about the devolution of management control; and

■ measures to ‘require the managers to manage’, which were primarily

concerned with effectiveness and accountability (DoF, 1987, pp. 13–14).

Environment

Character of

accountability Type of accountability

1970s Traditional public administration

Accountability as process Ministerial responsibility Accountability for inputs New administrative law Administrative/legal

1980s Management Decentralisation of responsibility

Accountability management 1990s External/client focus Accountability in terms

of the customer:

Customer/client accountability

■ choice of providers; and

■ quality assurance (for

example, charters) Market Purchaser provider,

contestability, contracting Contract management EXHIBIT 15.4 Changed APS environments and resulting types of accountability

The key elements of this framework were devolution, accountability man- agement and increased management reporting.

Despite this departure from the traditional system, it still became necessary subsequently to clarify and reaffirm its central feature, hierarchy. The Management Advisory Board’s review of accountability (1991–93) produced a conception that depicted a chain of command for accountability relations (Exhibit 15.5).

Market accountability (mid/late 1990s)

The third stage in the APS environment accords centrality to market principles. There is as a consequence an even greater emphasis on outputs and outcomes

Source: MAB, 1993. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN TO: ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS EXTERNAL REVIEW BODIES DIRECT APPEALS ELECTORATE PARLIAMENT CABINET/MINISTER SECRETARY TEAM LEADERS SERVICE DELIVERER CLIENT PROGRAM MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER elect members of Parliament

delegate authority and responsibility to govern

delegate authority and responsibility to manage a department

delegate authority and responsibility to manage programs or regional operations

delegate authority and responsibility to administer programs and ensure compliance and due process delegate authority and responsibility to provide quality service

provide quality service

accountable for responsible government accountability mechanisms incl. elections

accountable for management of portfolio

accountability mechanisms incl. budget documents accountable for policy advice and management of department accountability mechanisms incl. annual reports

accountable for overall program performance or regional operations accountability mechanisms incl. performance appraisal and corporate management accountable for quality service delivery

accountability mechanisms incl. program management cycle

accountable for duty of care accountability mechanisms incl. direct authority relationship The public service responsibility and accountability framework EXHIBIT 15.5 Lines of accountability

(see the definition in Exhibit 15.1), but important new elements make an appearance, such as accrual accounting and contract management.

It is apparent from Exhibit 15.4 that new types of accountability have been added during recent decades, thereby adding to the overall complexity of accountability. In this process, old elements have not been discarded but continue to play a role (for example, ministerial responsibility discussed below) even if they are less prominent.