Suchergebnisse

In the standard works, accountability is defined as the legal obligation to respect the legitimate interests of others affected by decisions, programs, & interventions. This has usually meant that agencies obey those in the line of authority above them. However, the simplicity of this doctrine is often contradicted by the demands of contracting-out & output-based performance. Using interviews & surveys (n = 1164) of front-line officials in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, & the UK, this study examines accountability as different forms of responsiveness, obligation, & willingness to communicate with others. It compares traditional vertical accountability with new forms of horizontal recognition. The research shows that there is a high degree of regime consistency across these two dimensions. Horizontal accountability is mostly a problem when it is accompanied by competition between public & private agencies in the same policy fields. 5 Tables, 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

In the standard works, accountability is defined as the legal obligation to respect the legitimate interests of others affected by decisions, programs, and interventions. This has usually meant that agencies obey those in the line of authority above them. However, the simplicity of this doctrine is often contradicted by the demands of contracting‐out and output‐based performance.Using interviews and surveys (n=1164) of front‐line officials in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, this study examines accountability as different forms of responsiveness, obligation, and willingness to communicate with others. It compares traditional vertical accountability with new forms of horizontal recognition. The research shows that there is a high degree of regime consistency across these two dimensions. Horizontal accountability is mostly a problem when it is accompanied by competition between public and private agencies in the same policy fields.

Contemporary debates concerning the nature of "new governance" typically focus upon the shifting roles played by bureaucracies, networks & markets in the provision of public services (Kooiman 1993; Ormsby 1988). At the core of these recent changes we find a strong interest in having private agents deliver public services. Sometimes this is expressed as privatization & in other cases a "mixed economy" of public & private participation may be devised (Williamson 1975; Moe 1984). In this study, a number of central elements of neoliberal public management are brought together in a single focus on the "contract regime" to examine the extent to which single initiatives might combine to produce a recognizable system of governance. Such an institutional form may then be more carefully specified & its impact compared in different governmental systems. Using a four-country comparison of employment service reform, the study shows that distinctions based on degree of privatization do not adequately explain regime types, whereas distinctions based on "compliance-centered" or "client-centered" forms of contracting are more powerful. The type of reflexive interaction between different elements or levels of contracting also explains country differences. 1 Table, 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

Theories of democratic government traditionally have relied on a model of organization in which officials act impartially, accept clear lines of accountability and supervision, and define their day–to–day activities through rules, procedures, and confined discretion. In the past 10 years, however, a serious challenge to this ideal has been mounted by critics and reformers who favor market, network, or "mixed–economy" models. We assess the extent to which these new models have influenced the work orientations of frontline staff using three alternative service types—corporate, market, and network—to that proposed by the traditional, procedural model of public bureaucracy. Using surveys of frontline officials in four countries where the revolution in ideas has been accompanied by a revolution in methods for organizing government services, we measure the degree to which the new models are operating as service–delivery norms. A new corporate–market hybrid (called "enterprise governance") and a new network type have become significant models for the organization of frontline work in public programs.

Networks arise when actors become engaged in ongoing interaction. Networks describe the architecture of this interactivity & networking defines the style & intensity of actor-to-actor engagement. Applied to public policy, networking arises from the ongoing interactions of officials in different agencies who use professional contacts to resolve problems, trade information, get resources, & help clients. We hypothesized that national differences in patterns of networking would reflect one of three "regimes" -- the market type, the managed partnership type, & the standard bureaucratic type. Using structured interviews & questionnaires we examined the level & intensity of engagement between officials, & identified three distinct networking types -- basic, public, & civic. These reflect different patterns of engagement among government, for-profit & nonprofit agencies occupying the same policy field, producing the same type of public service. The different repertoires help to explain the different forms of networking in the three countries, but there are also important differences between agency types within countries. 5 Tables, 31 References. Adapted from the source document.