Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MEASUREMENT: OPERATIONALIZING
DEMOCRACY THROUGH BETTER
ACCOUNTABILITY
ARIE HALACHMI
Sun Yat Sen University (China) and
Linz University Distinguished Fulbright Professor(2010-
2011)
MARC HLZER
Rutgers University - Newark
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
asking for it. For the very same reasons, there is a great
willingness to exaggerate achievements since highlighting
them enhances the image of both parties. To be sure, the
one giving the account is rewarded, at least in terms of
public image, while becoming beholden to the party that is
recognizing the achievement.
Citizen participation in the design and utilization of
performance measurement can facilitate a better
understanding of these two notions of accountability both
within and outside the bureaucracy. Inside the bureaucracy,
due to inquiries by the non-expert citizens about the
process, the position holders and the units that are involved
in carrying out each phase or part of a given program
represent who is responsible for what. Outside the
bureaucracy, citizen participation results in articulated
expectations for a performance report and prompt action to
correct, punish, or reward the responsible actors. As such,
citizen participation reduces the discretion of those who are
supposed to ask for an account, forcing them to do so even
when the expected news is not going to be good and
restraining them from exaggerating trivial gains.
Fuchs(1986), for example, suggested that public
accountability is the condition of being susceptible to, or
the act of giving, public accountthat is, accessible to, or
shared by, all members ofthe community.
It is easy to see why the only effective type of
accountability implies: first, regular, honest, and clear
sharing of performance-related data, and secondly, that
anyone involved in decision-makingabove or below, on
the inside or on the outside-should have an open door to
any relevant information. Allowing information to circulate
freely will help transparency while stimulating new
problem-solving energies and ideas. Such fact-based
examinations can:
Influence the choice of instmments or metrics for
measuring performance at various levels of
392 PAQ FALL 2010
CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES
Aghion, P., Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., and Shleifer, A., (July 3,
2008). Regulation and Distrust
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/
files/NBER_Regulation%20and%20Distrust.pdf
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., (1962) Two faces of power.
The American Political Science Review The
American Political Science Review, 56(4) 947-952
Bouckaert, G. &Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing
measures of citizen tmst and user satisfaction as
indicators of 'good govemance': Difficulties in
linking tmst and satisfaction indicators.
International Review of Administrative Sciences,
69(3) 329-344.
Carter, L., Blanger, F., (2005) Information Systems
Journal. Volume 15(1), 5 - 25.
interscience.wiley.com
Carter, N., Klein, R. and Day, P. (1992/ How
Organizations Measure Success: The Use of
Performance Indicators in Govemment, Routledge,
London.
Clinton, B., and Gore, A., (1992). Putting People First.
New York: Times Books.
Dye, K.M., (December 1988). Well Performing
Organizations : Report of the Auditor General of
Canada, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, cat. no. FM.
Epstein, P.D. (1988). Using Performance Measurement in
Local Govemment: A Guide to Improving
Decisions, Performance, and Accountability,
National Civic League Press, New York
Exemplary State and Local Awards Program (EXSL):
National Center for Public Performance, School of
Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers
University-Newark. www.ncpp.us Accessed
Febmary22, 2010
396 PAQ FALL 2010