Administrative

Accountability

A Review of the Evolution, Meaning and

Operationalization of a key Concept in
Public Administration
By: Ledivina V. Cariño

Presented by: Jo B. Bitonio

Constitution of the Philippines
1973, Article XIII, Section 1

An office is a public trust. Public officers

and employees shall serve with the
highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall
remain accountable to the people.
This study is an attempt to realize the
partnership not only on public
administration and auditing but also of
public administration and democratic
theory where people have self
governing principles.
If indeed people are the masters
of the society, their means of
maintaining that supremacy must be
scrutinized and sharpened .
 This means are embodied in the
forms and standards of accountability
which, have not remained static over
time rather they have undergone an
evolution so that one can contrast
“traditional” accountability with new
variants.
o The changes are responsive to the social and
political forces that vary with a country’s
development.

o As Foster (1981) states: as the public becomes

better educated, they also become more aware
more demanding, less understanding, and less
willing to accept average performance
Introduction
Accountability
 is a central problem for governments which
are or claim to be democratic. The activities
of civil servants and public agencies must
follow the will of the people to whom they
are ultimately responsible. The publicness of
their employment and goals thus prescribes
their behavior and circumscribes their
choices.
 Three Phases of Classical Cycle of Public
Administration
 Planning
received disproportionate attention in traditional
public administration

 Implementation
came into its own much later.
 Evaluation
 - is more of under thought sometimes taught along with
survey methods and rarely transferring from the realm
of methodology into substance.
 Types of Accountability

Four standard questions are central

to accountability
o who is considered accountable?
oto whom he is considered accountable?
oto what standard or values is he
accountable?
oby what means is he made
accountable?
 Types of Accountability

 Traditional Accountability
 focuses on the regularity of fiscal
transactions and the faithful compliance
to legal requirements and administrative
policies (Mckinney1981:144 as cited by
Cariño 2003: 808)
 Types of Accountability
 Traditional
– - Accountability
The standards by which one is judged are those of
legality and regularity set by controllers external to the
person responsible
odetermining if an act is within the provisions of laws
and regulations governing the agency;
oif the person/s who performed it have the authority to
do so;
oeach agency set up procedures for each transactions
and following the Weberian rule, expects these
procedures to be followed fairly and equitably without
regard to individual characteristics of the clients
interested in the transactions.
 Types of Accountability
– -

Traditional
. Accountability
 In having to account for detailed use of inputs,
official sometimes protect themselves by
making they commit no violation, thus little
encouragement of initiative and innovative
performance
 Types of Accountability
 concerns with efficiency and economy in the use of
public funds, property and manpower (Tantuico
1982:8 as cited by Cariño 2003:808);
 As its name implies, the administrator is
responsible to his superiors, and external
controllers which provides the resources for the
operation of the agency;
 It recognizes that government officials are
responsible for more than just compliance but the
need for the constant concern to avoid waste and
unnecessary expenditures and to promote the
judicious use of public resources
 this promoted by programs which cut the “red
tape” of government procedures;
 Types of Accountability

Managerial Accountability
 These programs range from attempt at work
simplification and revision of forms all the way to
systems improvements and agency reorganization;
 Operational audits had long been done by agencies
concerned with management under such names as
management analysis, methods (O and M) studies and
systems improvements;
 All calling attentions to how government agencies
can reduce waste and effect savings in their operation
The main values are economy and efficiency.
Leo Herbest 1982 as cited by Carino:2003
provide a useful definition of and differentiation
between two standards:

oEconomical Efficient operations include

o holding the costs constant while
operation is the increasing the benefits
elimination or oholding the benefits constant
reduction of while decreasing the costs
needless costs. o Increasing the costs at a lower
rate than benefits and
o decreasing costs at a lower rate
than benefits
 Types of Accountability
Program Accountability
 is concerned with the results of government
operations.
 Accountability is the property of units as well
as the individual bureaucrats whose activities
together make the effectiveness of a program
 To secure its attainment, a comprehensive
performance audit on the financial and
operational performance using the standard
3Es.
 Types of Accountability
Program Accountability
A complete performance audits involves inquiry
into the following:
o Whether the government unit is carrying out only
authorized activities or programs in the manner
contemplated and whether they are accomplishing
their objectives.

o Whether the programs and activities are

conducted and expenditures are made in an
effective, efficient and economical manner and in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
 Types of Accountability

Program Accountability
o Whether resources are being adequately controlled
and used effectively, efficiently and economically
o Whether all revenues and receipts from the
operations under examinations are being collected
and properly accounted for
o Whether the entity’s accounting system complies
with applicable accounting principles, standards and
related requirements ; and
o the entity’s financial statements and operating
reports properly disclose the information required
(Tantuico 1982:12 as cited by Cariño 2003:810).
 Types of Accountability

Social Accountability
 the main inquiry is whether the administrative
activities inspire general confidence and secure
what are widely regarded as desirable social ends
(Normanton 1981:34 and cited by Cariño
2003:911)
 Recently the program manager’s arsenal has been
augmented by such tools as human recourse
accounting, social accounting, and the analysis of
economic and social impact of programs
 Types of Accountability

Process Accountability.
 It implies emphasizes on procedures and methods of
operation and focuses on the black box inside systems
which transforms inputs (the concern of traditional and
managerial accountability).
 This type of accountability recognizes that some goals
may not be measurable directly and surrogates,
representing how goal directed activity may be
performed, are used instead.
 Types of Accountability
Process Accountability
 There is a danger that indirect measurement my degenerate into a
number games\ where an evaluator simply counts inoculations and
consultations. To avoid this, the concept may be enhanced by using
Mckinney’s adaptation of process accountability into specifically
democratic and political settings. His suggestion is to
o Both providers and recipients have met together to agree in advance
regarding the actions, processes or steps that will be followed prior to
delivery of the quality, quantity, time, manner and place of the proposed
goods and services.
o Those responsible for providing the service are expected to perform
according to agreed upon terms with stipulated use of resources based on
specific performance standards.
o Likewise, recipients (participants) must agree to accept in advance specific
rewards or sots based on an evaluation of the approximation of planned
ends to attained outcomes (McKinney:1981:145 as cited by Cariño 2003:
811).
 Types of Accountability

Process Accountability
Accountability can then be asked to both provider
and recipient and standards of judgment are
themselves products of the mutual agreement.
Each side may with hold its part of the bargain
when the other fails the accountability test.

Program accountability adds the 3rd E which

means effectiveness.
 Comparison of
Different Kinds of
Administrative
Accountability
 Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability

Traditional Managerial Program Process

Accountability Accountability Accountability Accountability
Who is
Accountable? Employees and Administrator Administrator Administrator
officials
Same as
To whom is he People through Column 1 Same as Column 1 Same as Column 1
accountable? legislature, Others: Others as in
President, professional Column 3
Direct
Constitutional standards and accountability to
bodies, hierarchy individual people thru their
conscience participation in
negotiation
To what
standards of 3 Es plus
values is
he Regularity, legality Economy and Economy, decentralization
accountable? and compliance efficiency efficiency and and participation
effectiveness (3 Es)
 Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability

Traditional Managerial Program Process

Accountability Accountability Accountability Accountability
By what means is he
made Line-item Management Comprehensive Negotiations
accountable? budgeting, audit, systems audit, program,
traditional improvements evaluation,
accounting, productivity
standard
operating measurement
procedures.
 Administrative
Accountability Standard
Standards & Values

Regularity and compliance

Traditional
Accountability Rules and Laws

Managerial Economy
Accountability Efficiency

Process Effectiveness
Accountability
Program 3 Es
Accountability
 The notion of administrative
accountability has clearly changed. Much
more is expected of the accountable
official since his responsibility is not for
individual activities but for related sets as
these are divided into programs and
projects at the same time the means to be
used for insuring his proper behavior
have become less rigid, and more
negotiable.
The Varieties of
Public
Administration
 The discipline of PA has changed
overtime both as response to changing
currents of thought within the social science
community as well as the events in the
country and the world which press on both
our understanding of the discipline and on its
practice.
 Each of the four varieties of PA offers a
distinct emphasis and relates to the people and
the society in a different way. They maybe
identified as:

1. Traditional Public Administration

2. Development Administration
3. New Public Administration and
4. Development Public Administration. The
last variety has been called by various
authors as “Social Science
Administration”, Social Development
Management”, “ Development
Administration for Equity”
 Main Varieties of Accountability
and Public Administration

 Traditional Public Administration

 Traditional accountability practically demands doctrine of
politics administration dichotomy, where decisions are made
elsewhere by policy makers who were not in the bureaucracy

 Teaching in traditional PA centered on the inputs to the system.

Thus, the main resources became the major focus of subfields
– personnel administration, fiscal administration, and
organization and management (O & M).
 As a discipline, traditional PA constituted the main doctrine
until the late fifties. As an actual activity, many of its main
features persist to this day.
 Main Varieties of Accountability
and Public Administration
 Development Public Administration
 The variety that gained currency when colonies called the ThIrd
World got political independence and set their sights on the
development of the economy following the examples of the west-
 With the western experience as the model, DA became involved
in looking for tools that can improve the planning process and
the performance of staff functions.
 The main task of DA is the search for theories that can describe
and explain the management of economic growth.
Behavioralism, logical positivism, structural-functionalism and
quantification entered the discipline through the influence of
the social sciences especially sociology and economics
 The Bell Mission ushered DA in the Philippines for use in its
own development effort . This included management tools like
Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS).
 Main Varieties of Accountability
and Public Administration
 New Public Administration
 NPA was born in the 70’s in United States where
restive scholars found traditional PA largely irrelevant
to a turbulent technological society crying for equity
and social justice.
 NPA advocated project management and the modular
organization in lieu of the bureaucracy It either
moved away from economic to philosophy, or sought a
blending of both. Just prior to the birth of NPA, PA
scholars discovered implementation and service
delivery as just as worthy of attention as planning and
the merit system. These blended to make
responsiveness and effectiveness of programs as the
main foci of concern.
 Main Varieties of Accountability
and Public Administration
 Development Public Administration (DPA)
 The product of the 1980’s with emphasis on the goals of
social justice, equity and the centrality of the human
person and its focus on the problems of the third world.
NPA was born in the 70’s in United States where restive
scholars found traditional PA largely irrelevant to a
turbulent technological society crying for equity and
social justice.
 DPA locates its bureaucracy not only within its own
society but also in context of a global system, not against
bureaucracy or the toppling of large scale hierarchical
structures but their modification through bureaucratic
reorientation.
 Main Varieties of Accountability
and Public Administration

 Development Public Administration (DPA)

 DPA searches for smaller possibly ad hoc
organization of trying out new approaches for
coordinating the activities of similar agencies and
for involving those outside of the organization in
planning, implementation, and evaluation.
 Particularly in the Philippines, an important aspect
of DA is decentralization, a value reemphasized by
DPA as it seeks harmony between central direction
and responsiveness to particular needs.
 Accountability and
Public Administration
Traditional PA and Accountability of Regularity
 Traditionalaccountability demands the
doctrine of the politics –administration
dichotomy where decisions are made
outside the bureaucracy and compliance is
compelled all through the hierarchy but has
its ultimate arbiter in bodies external to the
bureaucracy like the legislature and the
court. Rules and procedures are set
elsewhere and are rigid, thus receiving the
checks on performance on a line-by-line and
strict pesos-and-centavos accounting
Traditional PA, Development Administration and
Managerial Accountability
 The first variety of PA has encouraged the
start of managerial accountability through its
emphasis on the economy and efficiency of
organizations.
 A number of management tools developed in
the United States under the DA period still
tended to focus on inputs and the staff
functions. Their applicability to a third world
country at the first stages of development
was hardly addressed. The techniques were
regarded as capable of being useful
regardless of social conditions
 NPA and Program Accountability
 The shift of development goals from simple economic
growth to more humanly appropriate objectives.
 A better suited technique is program evaluation. A better
suited technique can also fulfil the NPA need for equity
to the extent that social impact especially on income
distribution and poverty alleviation is made part of the
framework.
 The project checks out its program accountability at the
evaluation stage of its life.
 Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it embraces a
learning process rather than a blue print approach
(Korten 1980:450-511 as cited by Cariño 2003: 819).
NPA and Program Accountability
 Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it embraces a
learning process rather than a blue print approach
(Korten 1980:450-511 as cited by (Cariño 2003: 819.
 Unfortunately, few managers have regarded these works
from the perspective of accountability and have not
used them for the purpose of pinpointing responsibility
for bottlenecks or failures and for improving program
attainment. The shortcoming maybe blamed on both
sides : on the evaluator or researcher for his inability to
disseminate his findings to the appropriate administrator
and to write actionable recommendations based on the
findings and on the administrator for his tendency to shy
away from critiques of his agency and not pass up
learning points from the criticisms
Development PA and Process Accountability

 Process accountability has practically the same

building blocks a lot in common with DPA where the
features are reacceptance of the necessity of
bureaucracy as long as it is oriented to include the
participation of client and recipients in the process of
administration and the decentralization of decision
making to local areas.
 Example ate the LGUs an experiment to classify them
according to their administrative capability and
which will be the basis for providing funds and
technical assistance
Development PA and Process Accountability
 Process accountability is not a new concept since it
is not a radical departure from previous
procedures. What is new is the participation and
negotiation by units and the provision of resources
based on need, capability and promise, the last
backed up by recipient individuals.
 The requirement for each local area would differ
according to the results of the process and
therefore what one will ask from each would be
attainable. Each negotiating party can be held
responsible for the results and beneficiaries may
even participate in the evaluation of performance
of the officials.
 PA Accountability

Traditional PA Accountability of
Regularity
Traditional PA and DA Managerial Accountability

NPA Program Accountability

Development PA Process Accountability

 The Process of
Regulating Behavior
Four Major Processes of Regulating Behaviour

 Control
 Supervision
 Influence
 Management
 Control

 May be external to or internalized by the

regulated.
 External sources may be laws or bureaucratic
rules which are imposed as standards of conduct
of subordinates. Disobedience to these rules may
result in sanctions by the controllers.
 Kernagham (1973:581-584) defines control as
the authority to command and direct
Influence

 When A is molded by and conforms to the behavior

of B without the issuance of a command
 The implicit source of influence seems to lie outside
the bureaucracy and may be rooted in one’s
profession, ethical commitments and organizational
affiliations
 The influence is predicated not so much on his
commands and orders as on the congruence of the
commitments of his subordinates and himself which
is exerted through moral and other extra
bureaucratic modes
Supervision

 is more open minded allowing officials greater

latitude of their actions
 Its both regulatory and assistory dimensions

 The concept can be applied to any pair of

agencies where one sets the guidelines within
which the other formulates its rules of action
Sosmeña :1982:9
 Management

 The regulator take action as a hypothesis with

certainty ruled out and allow the regulated some
discretion in his approach to the program.
 This would mean an accountability that would face up
errors and even embrace them as learning points for
later growth
 Processes Regulating Bureaucratic
Behavior
Control Supervision Influence Management
     
External to Both external
Source of Power External to the the Internalized by and
regulated regulated regulated internalized
Direct
Kinds of rules Commands General Moral, ethical Process rules
and other
programmed, Guidelines extra-
decisions bureaucratic
standards
Assumed
predictability High Low High Low
of results of
decisions
 Management

 The regulator take action as a hypothesis with

certainty ruled out and allow the regulated some
discretion in his approach to the program.
 This would mean an accountability that would face up
errors and even embrace them as learning points for
later growth
 Management

 The regulator take action as a hypothesis with

certainty ruled out and allow the regulated some
discretion in his approach to the program.
 This would mean an accountability that would face up
errors and even embrace them as learning points for
later growth
 Management

 The regulator take action as a hypothesis with

certainty ruled out and allow the regulated some
discretion in his approach to the program.
 This would mean an accountability that would face up
errors and even embrace them as learning points for
later growth
Accountability and Types of Bureaucratic Power

Control
Traditional accountability
“command and
“Regularity & Compliance”
direct “

Managerial Accountability
“Avoiding waste and Control and
increasing efficiency Supervision

Results with minimum

Program Accountability compliance with
control measures

Process Supervision and

Accountability management
Discretion and
Accountability
Bureaucratic Norms versus Professional Norms
 In the computer age, year of the blog, routine cases are machine
programmed, the computer being uninfluenced by specific character
traits of a client which the rules do not recognize as material and
relevant..
 The treatment of exceptional circumstances can not be programmed
since the rules wood generally provide for the exercise of a
discretionary rather than a ministerial function

 When bureaucratic rules are deficient , the

bureaucrat may be forced to choose between the
criteria of his agency or those of his profession
 Ex of bureaucratic rules on punctuality, eight hours
days as well as targets, and persons to be served
per week. While professional norms as well as
individual conscience as appropriate judges of a
person or agency’s performance
 Legal and Moral Decisions
 In an effort to be more regular and legal bureaucrats may instead
become more legalistic, stressing formal compliance with the letter
of the law. That in turn may lead to displacement where rules
become the master while bureaucrats are reduced to timidry,
conservatism, and technicism (Metro et al: 1952). Too much
legalism may even become a major factor inhibiting the move
towards development (Pye 1966)

 Moral decisions are value-based decisions that

content and context specific (Foster 1981:31).

Situation: Loose gun control guns illegally circulating or

stricter gun control Colorado Movie theater massacre
Extrabureaucratic Standards and Irresponsible Behavior

There are several answers to this question

 Nature of the human being – when a person wants to please a
person not qualified to receive a service, he may disregard
these rules or go around them in order to suit this person
(accommodation).
 The complexity of the society - its no longer a homogenous
mass. The demands and pressures on government can not be
easily transformed to SOPs which brook no exceptions.
 Inefficiency of the legalistic Approach – A third answer leads to
the empirical record: the enactment of one of the strictest sets
of laws on record has not been able to hold down the incidents
of graft and corruption. The inefficiency stems from a) the
systemic nature of corruption, b) the formation in the laws (a
society has formalistic laws they are not expected to be fully
implemented, and c) lack of political will to implement law
vigorously and fairly.
Towards increasing
Accountability
 Towards Increasing Accountability
Questions on Accountability
 If officials are no longer expected to comply with direct orders,
how can they be regulated?
 Do you think too much discretion result in even more inefficiency
and corruption?
 How can the people be followed if bureaucrats are allowed to “do
their own thing?
Discuss and explain possible
answers towards increasing
accountability?

Bureaucrats
Clientele
Society
Reference:
Introduction to Public Administration in the
Philippines: A Reader 2003
NCPAG
University of the Philippines
Diliman ,Quezon City