Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Public Administration Accountability: A Fundamental Approach

Quinn Guilds PA 8050

Quinn Guilds

on 26 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Public Administration Accountability: A Fundamental Approach

Accountability Legal
Accountability Professional
Accountability Conclusion External and Formalized mechanisms

Police Injustices
Internal Affairs Commissions
Warren Commission
Rogers Commission All encompassing mixture of accountability mechanisms

Whitehall Model (1) Seldom, if ever does it exist where a group/individual fails to achieve an accountability structure.

(2) Holding public administrators accountable increases citizen’s satisfaction in turn helping to increase their trust in government

(3) Decentralization, deregulation, and downsizing has helped the field of public administration become more responsive and more effective, in turn developing newer mechanism of accountability

(4) Accountability is forever evolving in administration; just as it has changed in the past it will change again in the future. Public Administration Accountability:
A Fundamental Approach Political
Accountability Accountability
Overview Particular and General

Internal and External

Formal and Informal

“Having the responsibility to uphold a certain level of performance based on a set of expectations outlined by another party” (Martin and Frahm, 2010, 138). Implications for
Public Administration Which accountability typology (i.e., hierarchal, political, professional and legal)
is most effective at holding public administrators in account for their actions today? I believe that no single accountability typology is any more successful than the others at holding public administrators accountable today Challenger Tragedy Freidrich and Finer
Richard Mulgan Legal Action vs.
Societal Reaction Formal and Informal mechanisms

Government Performance and Results Acts Performance reviews
Time sheets
Organizational directives Policy outcomes
Program mandates
Federal and State laws Head civil servants
Senior secretaries
Chief administrators “It’s not necessarily the hierarchy, it’s the peer group you account to it’s how you’re seen in the eyes of your colleagues it’s actually how you’re viewed by your colleagues is the thing that would drive me” External and Formalized mechanisms Responsiveness is key “The essential point is that the accountable official anticipates and responds to someone else’s agenda or expectations – ones that are beyond the scope of supervisor-subordinate obligations or professional expertise.” No two situations is public administration are ever exactly alike and thus each accountability typology and the mechanisms within are effective in their own right.

Although specific differences can be drawn between each of the four typologies, there is still an ample amount of common ground that they share with each other. I have determined that no single accountability mechanism is greater than the others at holding public administrators in account for their actions Legal > Hierarchal?

Political = Professional?
Full transcript