Accountability as a Model within Ethics and Governance - Essay Example

Running Head: ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability Name Institution Date Accountability Introduction Accountability is a model within ethics and governance with numerous meanings. Bois (2003) argues that it is regularly used synonymously with models like responsibility, liability, culpability and other expressions related to the prospect of account giving. Accountability as a feature of governance has been the main discussions associated with difficulties within the public field, non profit and corporate organizations. On the other hand, in leadership duties, accountability is the acceptance and assumption of conscientiousness for actions, decisions, products and polices which consist of management, governance, and implementation in the scope of the duty or employment position and covering the commitment to report, give explanation and being answerable for the resulting outcomes. Mulgan (2000) notes that as a term associated with governance, accountability has been hard to define. Accountability is often explained as an account giving relationship between people, for instance, Y is accountable to X when Y is obligated to inform X regarding its past as well as the future activities and decisions, to justify such activities and to get a penalty if there is an event of misconduct eventually. According to Melvin (1998), there are several types of accountabilities which include moral, organizational, political, administrative, market, legal, electorate and population relation, and professional accountability. Political accountability For instance, politically, accountability refers to the accountability of the government, those working for the government as well as the politicians to the citizens. It also refers to accountability of legislative organizations like congress and parliament. Jabbra (2005) argues that in some instances, recall elections can be utilized to invalidate the office of elected officer (Jabbra, 2005). Basically, nevertheless, voter do not have any direct method of ensuring that the elected representatives do account for everything throughout the term they have been elected. Moreover, some officers and legislators can be appointed instead of being elected. Constitution or statute has the ability of empowering a legislative organization to hold their own members, the government, and the governmental bodies to account. This can be accomplished by holding an internal or self-governing inquiry. Enquiries are normally held to address and tackle the allegations of misdemeanors or corruption. The powers, processes, and sanctions differ fro one nationality to another. Jabbra(2005) notes that the legislature can have authority to impeach the person, remove such people or suspend them from office for a specified time period. The individual who has been accused can also decide to resign before ha or she is tried. According to Gary (2005), in parliamentary structures, the government depends on the support of parliament, which offers the parliament the authority to hold the government into account. For instance, the parliament has the ability of passing a vote of no confidence within the government (Gary, 2005). Ethical accountability Ethical accountability can be referred to as the practice of generally enhancing individual and organizational performance through development and promotion of responsible appliances and professional proficiency and through advocating for an effectual enabling atmosphere for individuals and organizations to grip a culture of sustainability improvement. Bois (2003) observes that ethical consideration can consist of the personal in addition to small and large businesses, non-profit organizations, research organizations and the government. It has been suggested that it is not ethical to plan an activity for social change devoid of excavating the knowledge and wisdom of the individuals who are accountable for the implementation of the plans of action and the individual whose lives have been affected. Administrative accountability Walzer (2004) notes that internal regulations and customs in addition to some independent commission are some of the systems in holding the civil servants in the government administration accountable. Within sector or ministry, foremost, behavior is governed by regulations and laws, after this, the civil servants are the assistants within a hierarchy and hence they are accountable to their superiors. On the other hand, the civil servants are also the “watchdog” elements utilized for the scrutiny and holding of the departments accountable; legality of these commissions is developed upon their sovereignty, as it steers clear of conflicts of interest. With the exception of the internal checks, there are also some other “watchdog” elements that accepts complaints from the populace, linking government as well as the society to hold the civil servants accountable to the citizens, but not just governmental sectors. Market accountability Because of the devolution and government privatization, services that are offered currently are more “consumer-driven” and are supposed to aim at offering convenience and various alternatives to the citizens: with this perception, there are evaluations and rivalry between public and private services and this, superlatively, enhances and leads to notable improvements in the quality of services. The standard evaluation for accountability is hence the responsiveness of those providing the services, to a body of independent clients and as a result quality services are delivered. Outsourcing of the services is also another method of adopting accountability within the market. Government can select among the short listed companies for the outsourced service. Mulgan (2000) argues that during the period of the contract between the outsourced company and the government, the government can be in a position to hold the company accountable: through rewriting the contracts or through selecting another company for outsourcing. Constituency relations In the perspective of constituency relations, a certain organization or the government is accountable in case voices from organizations, groups or bodies, which is not within the public region and standing for the interests of the citizens within a certain constituency or area, are heard. Furthermore, the government has the obligation of empowering the members of the organizations having political rights to run for the elections and get elected. Still, the government has the obligation of empowering such organizations with the political rights to appoint them within the public sector a method of holding government accountable and making sure that voices from each and every constituency are included with the process of making the policies (Plattner, 2001). Public/private overlap With time, the provision of services by the private bodies has increased. Some organizations as well as individual have proposed the augmentation in accountability methods to be affected to the entities that are not political. Davies (2002), for example suggests that the line between public organizations and private organizations like firms has become smeared in some areas of public service provision and this has the ability of compromising political accountability in these areas. The author further explains that there are administration law reforms that should be implemented to tackle the accountability gap. In regard to private and public overlap, there has been public concern regarding the government contracting services, which includes the military, which has led to a rise in the accountability gap. Contemporary evolution Jabbra (2005) says that accountability comprises either the anticipation or assumption of account giving actions. There has been evaluation of strategic utilization of excuses, explanations, apologies and other types of account giving actions by people and organization. The evaluations investigate how people behave when faced with various settings and circumstances that demand accountability. Of late, accountability has been a vital topic within the discussion regarding legitimacy of international organizations. Since there is no international democratically elected firm to which organizations should be accountable, international organizations from all sectors have been viewed as having big accountability gaps. Amanda (2005) proposes that there should be cross sector codes of accountability within organizations that affect citizens, independent of their legal category. One exemplary difficulty within the international context is that organizations like World Bank who are established and supported by the rich nations and offer aid, in form of grants and loans, to the poor countries. Are these organizations supposed to be accountable to their establishers and financiers or to the people and the countries they assist? Cosmopolitans propose bigger accountability to the ignored interests of conventionally marginalized people and the poor countries. Contrary, the nationalists suggest that those who benefit from the international development projects do not have any substantive right to call global organizations to be accountable of their activities. According to Hunt 2006, accountability can be referred to as the effort to measure the ability of international bodies to be accountable to their stakeholders. Accountability in education In regard to accountability within education, students are supposed to account for their actions, in conflict practically all schools currently deny this. The denial suggests, students do not allow students to select their actions entirely, they do not allow student to embark on the course, once selected and finally they do not allow student to bear the consequences of the course, once chosen. Choice of freedom, action freedom and freedom to suffer the consequences of their activities; these are the great freedom that represent personal accountability. Amanda (2005) also suggests in education, the appropriate element for acquiring values and for moral behavior is the personal accountability. Schools should teach morals after becoming societies of individuals who entirely respect everyone’s right to make decisions and thus schools will be able to be important sources of ethical values is if they offer students and adults with life experiences that bear moral import. It this case, students are provided with accountability for their own education and thus the school is operated by a direct democracy whereby the student and administrators are equals. Responsibility This is the duty or requirement to adequately finish a task (allotted by someone else or which exists as a result of one’s own promise or situation) that one should fulfill and which one has a consequential penalty incase he or she fails. For instance, the leader is required to communicate in a manner that make individuals feel what they are supposed to do. Thus the leader has the responsibility of communicating to people directly and with legitimacy. Andreas, R. (1999) argues that responsibility centers more on what someone can do and is supposed to do, more on a person’s personal reliability in regard to a particular task. This means that if someone is responsible for an activity or a certain action, then the individual has a defined duty to carry out the activity as well as take care of the activity. Being responsible for some activity implies to have both vast teleological concerns for the result of that action and also that the person has a definite duty to do the action or making the action to succeed. Whereas in being responsible, someone minds other individuals, the main focus is on the person’s effort and duty in addition to obligation. On the other hand, accountability centers on what other people expect from the individual who is responsible. Accountability consist of a judgment and the level of judgment if someone fails or succeeds to do, finish or protect what the individual is held accountable. Accountability presumes an earlier responsibility since people always lay out what is expected before laying the consequences if someone does not fulfill the expectations. Responsibility is about how a person is supposed to perceive that for which he/she is responsible in regard to initiative and integrity. It is possible to tell a responsible individual after judging the motives, intentions and carefulness in regard the task. According to Roberts (2002), accountability is the way a person will be judged and hence the person is either penalized or rewarded. It is only possible to tell if an individual is accountable when the results are there in regard to how well the person completed the task and the reward and the penalty to be meted Therefore, a person is responsibly without essentially being accountable. However, if one is accountable, there is a presumed responsibility of the person to fulfill the demands of superior authority that the person will be providing an accounting. Responsiveness if the aspect of being responsive, reacting fast, focusing on the quality, it is about responding with feeling to individuals and activities or incidents. This means that if a leader or a person is responsive, he or she will respond fast and efficiently to the mandate or duty obligated to them or to a certain activity. Therefore, such a person is able to accomplish the task assigned to him or her. From this, responsiveness is an important element of accountability Roberts (2002). Notes that if an individual is not responsive, this means he/she will not be able to respond to the task or obligation given. Still, such person is not able to complete the assigned task on time and hence affecting the accountability of the person. In a nutshell, responsibility and responsiveness are important elements of accountability. It is not possible to be accountable without being responsible and responsive. References Amanda, Z. (2005). "The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses". Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (2/3).  Andreas, R. (1999). "Conceptualizing Accountability". Andreas Schedler: Sydney. Pg 45-51. Bois, P. (2003). Public Sector Ethics: Finding And Implementing Values. Leichhardt, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press. Pg 8-11 Gary, I. (2005). "The Origins of Accountability: Everything I Know About the Sovereign's Immunity, I Learned from King Henry III". St. Louis University Law Journal 49 (2).  Hunt, G. (2002). Whistle blowing in the Social Services: Public Accountability & Professional Practice, New York: Arnold. Pg 36-42. Jabbra, J. (2005). Public Service Accountability. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Pg 71-2.  Plattner, M. (2001). The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pg. 92-5  Melvin, D. (1998). Clarifying Accountability: An Ethical Theory Framework. London: Sampford. Mulgan, R. (2000). "'Accountability': An Ever-Expanding Concept?” Public Administration 78 (3).  Roberts, T. (2002). Accountability in Athenian Government. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Pg 19-23 Walzer, M. (2004). "The Legal Codes in Organizations". in Ian Shapiro. New York: New York University Press.121-9 Read More