Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Administrative Accountability


Published on

Dm 212 Strategic Planning
PSU Urdaneta City

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

Administrative Accountability

  1. 1. AdministrativeAccountabilityA Review of the Evolution, Meaning and Operationalization of a key Concept in Public Administration By: Ledivina V. Cariño Presented by: Jo B. Bitonio
  2. 2. Constitution of the Philippines1973, 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.
  3. 3. This study is an attempt to realize thepartnership not only on publicadministration and auditing but also ofpublic administration and democratictheory where people have selfgoverning principles. If indeed people are the masters of the society, their means of maintaining that supremacy must be scrutinized and sharpened .
  4. 4. This means are embodied in theforms and standards of accountabilitywhich, have not remained static overtime rather they have undergone anevolution so that one can contrast“traditional” accountability with newvariants.
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. IntroductionAccountability  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.
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. Types of AccountabilityFour standard questions are centralto 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?
  9. 9. 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)
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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;
  13. 13. Types of AccountabilityManagerial 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
  14. 14. The main values are economy and efficiency.Leo Herbest 1982 as cited by Carino:2003provide a useful definition of and differentiationbetween two standards:oEconomical Efficient operations include o holding the costs constant whileoperation is the increasing the benefitselimination or oholding the benefits constantreduction of while decreasing the costsneedless costs. o Increasing the costs at a lower rate than benefits and o decreasing costs at a lower rate than benefits
  15. 15. Types of AccountabilityProgram 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.
  16. 16. Types of AccountabilityProgram 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.
  17. 17. Types of AccountabilityProgram 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).
  18. 18. Types of AccountabilitySocial 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
  19. 19. Types of AccountabilityProcess 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.
  20. 20. Types of AccountabilityProcess 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 too 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).
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. Comparison ofDifferent Kinds of Administrative Accountability
  23. 23. Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability Traditional Managerial Program Process Accountability Accountability Accountability AccountabilityWho isAccountable? Employees and Administrator Administrator Administrator officials Same asTo whom is he People through Column 1 Same as Column 1 Same as Column 1accountable? legislature, Others: Others as in President, professional Column 3 Direct Constitutional standards and accountability to bodies, hierarchy individual people thru their conscience participation in negotiationTo whatstandards of 3 Es plusvalues ishe Regularity, legality Economy and Economy, decentralizationaccountable? and compliance efficiency efficiency and and participation effectiveness (3 Es)
  24. 24. Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability Traditional Managerial Program Process Accountability Accountability Accountability AccountabilityBy what means is hemade Line-item Management Comprehensive Negotiationsaccountable? budgeting, audit, systems audit, program, traditional improvements evaluation, accounting, productivity standard operating measurement procedures.
  25. 25. Administrative Accountability Standard Standards & Values Regularity and complianceTraditionalAccountability Rules and LawsManagerial EconomyAccountability EfficiencyProcess EffectivenessAccountabilityProgram 3 EsAccountability
  26. 26. The notion of administrativeaccountability has clearly changed. Muchmore is expected of the accountableofficial since his responsibility is not forindividual activities but for related sets asthese are divided into programs andprojects at the same time the means to beused for insuring his proper behaviorhave become less rigid, and morenegotiable.
  27. 27. The Varieties of PublicAdministration
  28. 28. The discipline of PA has changedovertime both as response to changingcurrents of thought within the social sciencecommunity as well as the events in thecountry and the world which press on bothour understanding of the discipline and on itspractice.
  29. 29. Each of the four varieties of PA offers adistinct emphasis and relates to the people andthe society in a different way. They maybeidentified 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”
  30. 30. 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.
  31. 31. 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).
  32. 32. 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.
  33. 33. 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.
  34. 34. 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.
  35. 35. Accountability andPublic Administration
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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).
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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.
  42. 42. PA AccountabilityTraditional PA Accountability ofRegularityTraditional PA and DA Managerial AccountabilityNPA Program AccountabilityDevelopment PA Process Accountability
  43. 43. The Process ofRegulating Behavior
  44. 44. Four Major Processes of Regulating Behaviour  Control  Supervision  Influence  Management
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. Processes Regulating Bureaucratic Behavior Control Supervision Influence Management       External to Both externalSource of Power External to the the Internalized by and regulated regulated regulated internalized DirectKinds of rules Commands General Moral, ethical Process rules and other programmed, Guidelines extra- decisions bureaucratic standardsAssumedpredictability High Low High Lowof results ofdecisions
  50. 50. 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
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. 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
  54. 54. Discretion andAccountability
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. 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
  57. 57. 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.
  58. 58. Towards increasing Accountability
  59. 59. Towards Increasing AccountabilityQuestions 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?
  60. 60. Discuss and explain possibleanswers towards increasingaccountability? Bureaucrats Clientele Society
  61. 61. Reference: Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader 2003 NCPAG University of the Philippines Diliman ,Quezon City