Accountability and Transparency Issues Raised by Hyden - Literature review Example

11. Discuss the following quotation with reference to accountability and transparency issues raised by Hyden et al (2004). How relevant are these ideas for developing nations? Accountability and Transparency Accountability and Transparency The transparency and accountability is not a new concept. In fact, the idea has been in existence for a long time both academic and political discourse, meaning in a generic way being answerable and open in running of a business, government or other institution which affects the public (Carlitz, 2011). Various literatures written recently claim that the transparency and accountability concept has been in the limelight lately owing to its significance in both the public and private sector. Fox (2007a, p.12) claimed that the news in various media has shown worrying stories an increase of lack of transparency and accountability among companies and countries particularly developing countries. Many people are languishing in poverty as a result of bad governance attributed by the lack of transparency and accountability. The worst is that most citizens do care about their role in eliminating bad governance and contribution towards transparency and accountability, which is a good path to the better life (DFID, 2010). As a solution, researchers like Hyden, Court and Mease have argued that as social beings, everyone must take responsibility and cooperate to foster transparency and accountability in the society. Based on the reference, this essay will argue how the ideas raised by these researchers are relevant to developing nations. Transparency is defined as a way of doing things openly. It can be described as a case where governance or business transactions are conducted in an open manner with no secrets in order that citizens can trust what people in governance do as honest and fair (Tisné 2010, p. 25). In business or governance is about giving information of various transactions on how one has arrived at a decision. For instance, when a cashier is providing a record of products purchased after the transaction, it can be considered that the cashier is demonstrating transparency. In contrast, Goetz and Jenkins (2005, p.5) stated that accountability defined as the state of being answerable and blameless in account giving. In broad, accountability is regarded as the taking of responsibility and acknowledgment for actions, policies, decisions which encompasses the governance, administration and implementation of various projects within one’s position and ranks. Batley, Mccourt & Mcloughlin (2012, p.135) contended that transparency and accountability are core factor of good governance both in public or private sectors. In countries which are thriving today, a culture of transparency and accountability has been set and embraced by nearly every citizen. In a nutshell, everybody understands their role in fighting corruption and misappropriation of public funds. It is in this context that Hyden et al (2004, p.122) claimed that “individuals are not merely separate entities who are competing within a market but are a community and social beings”. Hyden et al (2004, p.145) maintained that people must develop moral power, personal responsibility and cooperate during problems to bring solutions which can help the society. This idea is vital for developing countries which are languishing behind in development and poverty as a result of bad governance. The scholars have encouraged citizens within the developing countries to assume great sense responsibility and evaluate how the governments are operating and performing, and whether promises are kept and information is provided transparently to the citizens. Some of the ideas of Hyden et al (2004) include participation and partnership, civic education and monitoring. Participation in improving transparency and accountability can be attributed to the good will of the citizens (Fox, 2007b, p.665). Such form of transparency and accountability is referred to as social transparency and accountability. Platforms of the social accountability may be established and supported by both the government and the citizens. In fact, in most developed countries, governments encourage citizens to question the policies set by the people in governance and matters pertaining transparency and accountability (Joshi, 2011). However, in most developing countries, governments rarely ask citizens to check them and how they use the state resources. Therefore, educated citizens or the activist assume the roles of checking the government. McNeil & Malena (2010, p.11) argued that the increasing mistrust of the government by the public has pressed the calls for autonomous oversight agencies or independent people to safeguard the citizen interest in various fields. Citizens must strive to create a good relationship between people in power, work with them to enhance accountability in order to renew public assurance on government (McIntyre-Mills, 2010b, p.53). Citizens must participate in the improving transparency and accountability. It is right and responsibility for them to actualize the kind of life and development they would want to see. In many instances, citizens in the developing world have been treated to believe that governance belongs to the people in authority. The truth is that participation towards the governance start with taking part in electing people in power. This process must be free and fair according to participant’s perspective. In other words, they should not allow themselves to be coerced with the money of promise of a job to vote (Fox, 2007a, p.56). This form of involvement is referred to as ‘political participation’ and can be regarded as ‘political accountability’, in which elected individuals has to demonstrate their openness to public voters since they are held responsible for their conduct by means of the electoral process. Bringing to mind the public participation history in the managerial age the major validation for public participation was the transparency and accountability, which was aimed at making sure that state agencies were working within the interest of the public (Foresti, Sharma, O’Neil & Evans, 2007, p. 117). In the recent past, Singh & Vutukuru (2010) posited that the accountability policy of citizen participation has changed from making sure that state operate in the interest of the public to facilitate direct setting up a culture of public interest kin public policy development. The ‘direct accountability’ concept and its focus on the citizen’s right to take part and influence the decision makings, also takes in the spirit of transparency and accountability role operated by means of citizen participation processes. Some developing countries have improved citizen’s participation in accountability in the recent years in a bid to be at par with the developed countries (Grindle, 2010, p.35). For instance, India’s need to take part in public policies, decision-making is becoming stronger in the recent years with the aim of competing with their former colony Britain. Despite descending electoral rates of participation, Indians still place political rights almost as one of the indicators of life (Grindle, 2011, p.105). Grindle (2011, p.41) went ahead this process points out that the Indians are seeking for different and news means of participating in the political processes of their nation as well as calls for the strong voice in debates entailing public policies, besides of applying their democratic right during the elections. Hyden, Court& Mease (2004, p.147) stated that the public must note that when a leader finds his way to the position through corruption he or she will not fight it but significantly increase the vice. The leader will embezzle money meant for public service delivery and inflate the budget to cover up. Participation also involves taking part in budget preparation and discussion, particularly country’s budget. A wide ranging of public-led budget transparency and accountability has emerged with regard to different phases of participation (Benito & Bastida, 2009, p.407). The process of participation in budget making starts at the revenue stage, to planning and implementation, audit and the post oversight stage. The process can be referred to as participatory budgeting. Carlitz (2011, p.14) argued that it can take place in a form of industry-specific budgeting, public expenses monitoring by means of social audits, tracking surveys, participatory audits and support for the budget transparency just too similar to International Budget Partnership. Large international company networks like the Revenue Watch Institute and IBP have come up to create capacity, advocate and test for new strategies, and share some learning initiative between several budget groups created in developing countries (Benito & Bastida, 2009, p.408). Many of such programs concentrate on how public finance is used. Social participation also extends beyond giving ideas, but also chipping for the good cause of public service delivery. Citizens must be ready to pay tax so that their tax can be used to fund a sound budget which can adequately improve the service delivery. Olken (2007, p.202) asserted that paying tax and monitoring its use means one can expect good hospitals, clean and adequate water, good public schools, good roads and general good governance. When citizens also pay taxes as required and monitor its use, the administrators with the responsibility of allocating funds to various projects will be under pressure to use as required and not divert it to personal expenditures (Unsworth, 2010, p.17). The officers in positions of governance will have good and transparent salary without fear of financial security which sometimes leads to corruption. The citizens themselves must also create a culture of paying. When the culture is set people will have the personal drive to pay tax. It is just like of a culture of giving and serving, which in as much the taxpayer will benefit in the long run, he or she also pays tax to help other members of the society to benefit. Tax can be used to build hospital which offers free service to both the rich and the poor (Joshi, 2011). Similarly, in paying tax the children of the poor can also go to school to acquire knowledge for the betterment of the society. Such action reflects accountability, which actually means being responsible. Furthermore, accountability also extends to exposing acts of corruption whenever a citizen detects and has evidence about one (Hyden, Court & Mease, 2004, p.143). Such arrangement can be termed civil society. Here, public become conscious of and raises concerns for the public authorities’ attention. Over the years, developing countries suffer from high level of corruption in which people in positions of governance divert public funds to personal banks accounts at the expense of public development. Singh & Vutukuru (2010, p.47) opined that the situation denies citizens public amenities such as schools, water, electricity, roads and hospitals. Governance and administration experts argue that even though exposing corruption may put the life of an individual to risk, it is an act towards good governance. It also extends to exposing tax havens. Various countries have emerged as tax havens and foreign banks where corrupt individuals hide their ill acquired money and wealth to escape questioning and paying tax (Glennerster & Shin, 2008). Exposing such banks and individuals can enable anti-corruption officers to trace the money and bring it back home. When information about tax, and also corruption is not pursued by the people charged with such responsibility, the sometime the public should boycott or be reluctant in paying tax until their concerns is addressed and assured that public resources will be properly managed (Tisné, 2010). When experts argue that individuals are not mere separate entities in competition with the market, part are part of community hence must help in making decisions. It also means the citizens must ready to allocate themselves a responsibility in the equation of accountability, which entails not just getting others to take responsibility through corrective measures and sections, but vigorously participating in decisions. Citizen participation is not merely the input to the outcomes of a strong transparency and accountability, but a method of transparency and accountability in their own way (Hyden, Court & Mease, 2004, p. 138). Transparency alone cannot rekindle the trust of the public, but require to be practiced carefully and forms of the information needed be stated, as well as purpose. This is because general information can be used to hide corruption and financial embezzlement. Social accountability has been proved in developed to results to positive impacts in the countries. Normally, developing countries have rich and under tapped resources. For instance, most developing countries from Africa have rich minerals which, if extracted can be manufactured and sold within and abroad (Grindle, 2011, p.47). In return, the funds from these minerals can be used to support developments such as building of roads, schools and hospitals. All these amenities are a source of jobs to the citizens. Olken (2007, p.213) argued that the resources which are there are enjoyed by a few individuals taking advantage of either because of low education or dictatorship leadership. However, for the developments, the citizens should take it upon themselves to vote the right people who are pro-development and have no integrity issues in the past. Voting exercise also needs civic education and vetting of people aspiring to lead to know their track and view about accountability. Today, the US, the UK, Denmark, Singapore and Australia are leading in transparency because of their citizens’ efforts towards achieving the same (Bradley & Parker, 2006, p. 93). Candidates of elective posts are called a debate where they are vigorously vetted against each other to find the most suitable one. Hyden, Court & Mease (2004, p. 23) argues that social transparency and accountability enhances the quality and effectiveness of governance. The opportunity is given to few accountable and transparent people and a political party to represent a large population in important issues because not everyone can lead. This arrangement is called political society (Hyden, Court & Mease, 2004, p.78). Public obsession with democratic governance, accountability and transparency goes further than just protest and electoral voting towards engaging politicians and bureaucrats in an organised, informed systematic and constructive manner’, thus raising the opportunities of influencing positive change (Bradley & Parker, 2006, p.91). Rising concerns about the resources as a governance and development problem has become a new mechanism for setting up transparency and accountability in the industries. Transparency and accountability leads to improved development effectiveness since there is always inability, unwillingness or difficulty of states to provide necessary services to the public particular the poorest one (Singh & Vutukuru, 2010). The enhanced accountability facilitates great realization of public demand and service delivery effectiveness. The output is called ‘developmental outcomes’. Transparency and accountability initiatives results to empowerment. McNeil & Malena (2010) stated that by offering vital information on entitlements and rights and imploring logical feedback from the poor individual’s social accountability platforms offers a way to aggregate and increase the view of the vulnerable groups. The process is called ‘empowerment case’. Given the previous scandals in companies and countries, the public are asking their governments to operate public companies in the same manner as the private ones. Through involvement in major policies the public thinks that a culture within the private sector promotes transparency of accountability (Bradley & Parker, 2006, p.93). A critical attribute in the success and effectiveness of public firms is to build of a culture which promotes effectiveness and efficiency just as that of private sector. In private sector, adequate are sourced by the managers to ensure floe of work. When resources are transparently are acquired as stated in the budget, every staff work efficiently without breaking because of adequate availability of the required resources to perform. As result, efficiency is achieved. Batley, Mccourt & Mcloughlin (2012) contended that transparency and accountability in public companies is concerned with quality, cost effectiveness and excellence of the outcomes and effects of the successful sector’s actions as determined by the transparency and accountability priorities and objectives set by the leaders. In any public company or institution, the public accountability practice endeavours to improve the internal actions of institutions both at individual and group setting that can be replicated in the organizational performance. Whilst transparency and accountability must come from the inner-self and drive by both citizens and those in power, it needs to be incorporated in law and ethics created by the code of ethics and country’s constitution (Singh & Vutukuru, 2010). Therefore, people and employees who defy the transparency and accountability laws could face arrests and charge with the economic crimes. Joshi (2011) claimed that different governments have established various independent oversight agencies like the Public Accounts, Committees in Parliament and Ombudsmen among other to assist the public in monitoring the transparency and accountability or lack of it in both public and private sectors. However, such agencies need the institutional enforcements like effective written laws and judiciary to execute their work. Unfortunately, most developing countries have corruptible judiciary, effective laws and understaffed institutions rendering them weak to work effectively (Singh & Vutukuru, 2010). With effective laws, developing countries are assured of entrenching control, cost effectiveness and efficiency. Similarly, information resources in the company and institutions are another effective way of improving transparency and accountability in the both public and private sectors (Hyden, Court & Mease, 2004, p.146). Information system like computer and platform like ERP can be used to identify illegal payments made by the administrators. Such practices can form a foundation for transparency and accountability. Risk management practices is another way recommended by experts in ensuring public officers maintain their integrity and public confidence. Joshi (2011, p.214) affirmed that internal controls and risk assessment can reveal and eliminate the system weaknesses which can lead to discrepancies in payments. Investing adequate funds in the advanced technology is proven practice which can minimize frauds and improve monitoring and efficiency (Fox, 2007a, p.73). Another important practice citizen can use to improve transparency and accountability is external auditing and monitoring. In the present business settings, external auditing role is rated a key element in making effective management (Batley, Mccourt & Mcloughlin, 2012, p.135). The auditing roles works as away to detect and appraise internal controls, check fraud and monitoring uniformity of accounting practices within the government institution. Experts recommend external auditing practice in large companies than smaller ones. Bradley & Parker (2006) argued that large organizations are normally typified with several levels and needs transparency and accountability to allow flow of resources, information, operation and reporting. For the reason, the public must use the information from internal auditors and compare it with an external auditor report and annual report to find consistency or inconsistencies. This information works as evidence in practising transparency and accountability. The companies and administrators can be motivated through rewards while less competent and less corrupt can be taken through judicial process (Singh & Vutukuru, 2010). In conclusion, transparency and accountability are crucial components of good governance in the developed countries. Experts believe that developing countries too can be at par with their counterparts. However, for the developing countries to compete their developed counterparts, they must move from government driven transparency and accountability and embrace citizen-driven one. Citizens must take the initiative with zeal and understand that it is within the law and their right to question the actions of the people in power. In addition, citizens must pay tax to give them more power to question how their finances are used. Nevertheless, this paper concludes that governments in developing countries must also create a climate of participation and partnership to enable citizens also offer ideas which can help their countries compete with others in the developed world. Read More