Accountability and its Metaphors: From Forum to Agora and Bazaar

In this paper we seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on so-called ‘unaccountability.’. We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between different actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reflect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship – one that is hierarchical and monopolistic – and reflect therefore a drive to power and domination.

Getting Away With It:Corruption, Moral Indignation and the Limits of Legal Accountability

In this paper we address the idea of ‘legal but corrupt’ through a discussion of two cases: abuse scandals in the Irish Catholic Church and the financial services industry in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. We identify two important dynamics that generated the scandals: that they were driven by strong and stable groups existing within a peculiar kind of ‘accountability space’ that we describe as ‘monastic’ and that those groups persisted with tacit or explicit support from the state. ‘Legal but corrupt’ is, we argue, a matter of insider incomprehension sustained by the ceding of sovereignty over some aspect of social or economic life.

The Corruption of Accountability

Our discussion focuses on the state’s ceding administrative power to special claimants for the state’s inattention. Legal corruption, by our lights, is less about explicit or implicit exchange relationships, and more about law being employed to carve out spaces where the state actively cedes spaces to private ‘sovereigns’ – sovereigns within the space, after it has been carved out – where they can regulate themselves as they see fit and where they can project their power over others without the state stepping in.

Holding parties responsible at election time: Multi-level, multi-party government and electoral accountability

This paper highlights the crucial role played by party-specific responsibility attributions in performance-based voting. Three models of electoral accountability, which make distinct assumptions regarding citizens' ability to attribute responsibility to distinct governing parties, are tested in the challenging Northern Ireland context - an exemplar case of multi-level multi-party government in which expectations of performance based voting are low. The paper demonstrates the operation of party-attribution based electoral accountability, using data from the 2011 Northern Ireland Assembly Election Study. However, the findings are asymmetric: accountability operates in the Protestant/unionist bloc but not in the Catholic/nationalist bloc. This asymmetry may be explained by the absence of clear ethno-national ideological distinctions between the unionist parties (hence providing political space for performance based accountability to operate) but the continued relevance in the nationalist bloc of ethno-national difference (which limits the scope for performance politics). The implications of the findings for our understanding of the role of party-specific responsibility attribution in performance based models of voting, and for our evaluation of the quality of democracy in post-conflict consociational polities, are discussed. 

Context, institution, or accountability? Exploring the factors that shape the performance of national human rights and equality bodies

The past two decades witnessed a global proliferation of national human rights and equality bodies. Yet the research literature remains critical of their performance, positing a series of explanations for the gap between the expectations of civil society and the contribution they make. Through a comparative analysis of six statutory human rights and equality bodies in the United Kingdom and Ireland, this article explores the range of factors that shape their performance.

Engendering Hope: A person-centred reflection on technology and gender

This paper examines instances of recent musical and artistic works and asks to what extent it makes sense to regard certain practices and technologies as gendered. It looks at a number of strategies for making, suggesting that male gender stereotypes are as prevalent and unhelpful (to practitioners) as female ones. It looks at aspects of the working environments of practitioners to determine whether changes in such conditions might alleviate the gender mismatch in enrolment in higher education courses featuring ubiquitous technologies. The paper identifies historical precedents for technology gendering in which readings of such gendering have shifted radically, suggesting they offer scope for optimism in our longer-term reading of the gendered-ness of current practices. The paper also touches on the extent to which a ‘research’ ethos––the foregrounding of the essential human attributes of inquisitiveness and empathy––may contribute to our capacity to tell better, less binary stories of otherness in all its forms.

Intersectional Discrimination in EU Law - a critical reflection

This chapter introduces the concept of intersectionality in its relevance for anti-discrimination law. It illustrates the use (or non-use) of this concept by the Court of Justice, and provides examples of case law ignoring intersectional inequalities. Finally, it proposes to re-frame and re-focus EU anti-discrimination law around nodes of inequalities as a way to better address intersectional inequalities.

Enabling and constraining features of donor accountability and its relationship to beneficiary accountability

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to theorise and empirically examine the views of various NGO stakeholders on the role of donors in facilitating beneficiary accountability.

Method: The paper adopts a case study design and draws primarily on semi-structured interviews with the officials of a large development NGO, donor representatives and regulators.

Findings: We find that donor accountability contains both enabling and constraining features in relation to beneficiary accountability. Our evidence shows that while legitimising their own actions, donors’ accountability requirements embed some enabling provisions of beneficiary accountability, such as participation, monitoring, evaluation and lessons learning, which facilitate beneficiary accountability (Ebrahim, 2003b). We argue that exerting the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency donors are in a position to realise their accountability claims (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) and can hold funded NGOs to account. In the absence of beneficiaries’ power and the unwillingness of regulators to hold NGOs to account, donors’ accountability can play a complementary role in making an NGO accountable to its beneficiaries. Finally, we capture and illustrate some constraining features of donor accountability which limits the promotion of beneficiary accountability.

Research limitations/implications: The findings have significant implications for the policy makers and donors in the context of the current phenomenon of NGOs drive for self-sustainability via commercial activities which are actively encouraged by the donors.

Originality: This paper provides an alternative theorisation of donor accountability in a development NGO context. It draws on rare qualitative empirical data which incorporate the views of multiple groups (including donors which is hitherto rare in the NGO accountability literature) who are directly and/or indirectly involved in setting and negotiating NGO-donors accountability relationship. It enhances our understanding in terms providing a more nuanced portrayal of donor accountability.