Suchergebnisse

Analysis of public accountability tends to concentrate on public sector institutions. However, increasing use of the private sector in the provision of public services suggests the need to compare accountability in the two sectors. While private sector (for‐profit) companies are more accountable in terms of their 'bottom line', accountability requirements in the public sector are generally more stringent, particularly with regard to process and general policy.

The scope & meaning of "accountability" have been extended well beyond its core sense of being called to account for one's actions. It has been applied to internal aspects of official behavior, to institutions that control official behavior, to means of making officials responsive to public wishes, & to democratic dialogue between citizens. In each case, the extension is readily intelligible because it is into an area of activity closely relevant to the practice of core accountability. However, in each case the extension of meaning may be challenged as weakening the importance of external scrutiny. 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

The vexed question of politicisation and patronage in the Australian Public Service is explored in this article. Recent dismissals and appointments of department secretaries have raised concerns about political convenience, trends towards partisanship and the erosion of 'frank and fearless' advice. Alternatively, governments have come to insist on 'partnership' arrangements between ministers and secretaries, to enhance 'political accountability' and install new management teams to better implement government policy. But do such forms of politicisation risk drifting toward a new 'spoils system' most would want to avoid?

This, the first Annual Stout Research Centre Lecture, was given in the Hunter Council Chamber of Victoria University of Wellington on 30 September 1998.