No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
At its root, accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a sociological act was first explicitly articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman, <ref>Scott MB, Lyman SM. Accounts. Am Sociol Rev. 1968 Feb;33(1):46-62.</ref> although it can be traced as well to [[J.L. Austin]]'s 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses," <ref>Austin, J.L. 1956-7. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. |
At its root, accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a sociological act was first explicitly articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman, <ref>Scott MB, Lyman SM. Accounts. Am Sociol Rev. 1968 Feb;33(1):46-62.</ref> although it can be traced as well to [[J.L. Austin]]'s 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses," <ref>Austin, J.L. 1956-7. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. |
||
| − | Reprinted in J.O. Urmson & G.J. Warnock, eds., 1979, J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 175-204.</ref> in which he used excuse-making as an example of [[speech act]]s |
+ | Reprinted in J.O. Urmson & G.J. Warnock, eds., 1979, J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 175-204.</ref> in which he used excuse-making as an example of [[speech act]]s. |
| + | Communications scholars have extended this work through the examination of strategic uses of [[excuses]], [[justifications]], [[rationalizations]], [[apologies]] and other forms of account giving behavior by individuals and corporations, and Philip Tetlock and his colleagues have applied experimental design techniques to explore how individuals behave under various scenarios and situations that demand accountability. |
||
| − | In [[politics]], and particularly in [[representative democracy|representative democracies]], accountability is an important factor in securing [[good governance]] and, thus, the [[legitimacy]] of public power. Accountability differs from [[transparency (humanities)|transparency]] in that it only enables [[negative feedback]] ''after'' a decision or action, while transparency also enables [[negative feedback]] ''before'' or ''during'' a decision or action. Accountability constrains the extent to which elected representatives and other office-holders can willfully deviate from their theoretical responsibilities, thus reducing [[Political corruption|corruption]]. The relationship of the concept of accountability to related concepts like the [[rule of law]] or [[democracy]], however, still awaits further elucidation. |
||
In Britain, accountability has been formally identified by Government since 1995 as one of the ''Seven Principles of Public Life''<ref>Standards in Public Life: First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (1995) Cm2850 page 14 text accessed at [http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm28/2850/285002.pdf] June 12, 2006</ref>: "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." The goal of accountability is at times in tension with the goal of leadership. A constituency may have short-term desires which are at odds with long-term interests. It has also been argued that accountability provides in certain situations an escape route for ministers to avoid the consequences of [[ministerial responsibility]], which would require resignation.<ref>Public service Committee, Second report, ''Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility'', Session 1995-6, HC 313.</ref> |
In Britain, accountability has been formally identified by Government since 1995 as one of the ''Seven Principles of Public Life''<ref>Standards in Public Life: First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (1995) Cm2850 page 14 text accessed at [http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm28/2850/285002.pdf] June 12, 2006</ref>: "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." The goal of accountability is at times in tension with the goal of leadership. A constituency may have short-term desires which are at odds with long-term interests. It has also been argued that accountability provides in certain situations an escape route for ministers to avoid the consequences of [[ministerial responsibility]], which would require resignation.<ref>Public service Committee, Second report, ''Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility'', Session 1995-6, HC 313.</ref> |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| + | *[[Blame]] |
||
| − | *[[Campaign finance reform]] |
||
| + | *[[Competence]] |
||
| − | *[[Government Accountability Office]] |
||
| + | *[[Consumer protection]] |
||
| − | *[[Committee on Standards in Public Life]] |
||
| + | *[[Criminal responsibility |
||
| + | *[[Duty to warn]] |
||
| + | *[[Management]] |
||
| + | *[[Professional liability]] |
||
| + | *[[Professional standards]] |
||
| + | *[[Quality control]] |
||
| + | *[[Quality of care]] |
||
==References & Bibliography== |
==References & Bibliography== |
||
| − | |||
| − | {{wikify}} |
||
| − | |||
<references/> |
<references/> |
||
| Line 28: | Line 32: | ||
[[Category:Core issues in ethics]] |
[[Category:Core issues in ethics]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Evaluation]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Political corruption]] |
||
[[Category:Social philosophy]] |
[[Category:Social philosophy]] |
||
| − | [[Category: |
+ | [[Category:Interpersonal relationships]] |
| + | |||
| + | {{enWP|Accountability}} |
||
Revision as of 08:26, 2 July 2007
Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language |
Individual differences |
Personality |
Philosophy |
Social |
Methods |
Statistics |
Clinical |
Educational |
Industrial |
Professional items |
World psychology |
Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics · Consciousness · Philosophy of Language · Philosophy of Mind · Philosophy of Science · Social and Political philosophy · Philosophies · Philosophers · List of lists
Accountability is a concept in ethics with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as answerability, responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in both the public and private (corporation) worlds.
At its root, accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a sociological act was first explicitly articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman, [1] although it can be traced as well to J.L. Austin's 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses," [2] in which he used excuse-making as an example of speech acts.
Communications scholars have extended this work through the examination of strategic uses of excuses, justifications, rationalizations, apologies and other forms of account giving behavior by individuals and corporations, and Philip Tetlock and his colleagues have applied experimental design techniques to explore how individuals behave under various scenarios and situations that demand accountability.
In Britain, accountability has been formally identified by Government since 1995 as one of the Seven Principles of Public Life[3]: "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." The goal of accountability is at times in tension with the goal of leadership. A constituency may have short-term desires which are at odds with long-term interests. It has also been argued that accountability provides in certain situations an escape route for ministers to avoid the consequences of ministerial responsibility, which would require resignation.[4]
In other states, in particular outside the Anglo-American world, the concept of accountability is less familiar. Recently, accountability has become an important topos in the discussion about the legitimacy of international institutions.[5]
In another view, accountability is a simple word that, at its root, means: "the willingness to stand up and be counted -- as part of a process, activity or game." In this sense, then, accountability is less something I'm held to, or something done to me; rather, it is a word reflecting personal choice and willingness to contribute to an expressed or implied outcome.
See also
- Blame
- Competence
- Consumer protection
- [[Criminal responsibility
- Duty to warn
- Management
- Professional liability
- Professional standards
- Quality control
- Quality of care
References & Bibliography
- ↑ Scott MB, Lyman SM. Accounts. Am Sociol Rev. 1968 Feb;33(1):46-62.
- ↑ Austin, J.L. 1956-7. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Reprinted in J.O. Urmson & G.J. Warnock, eds., 1979, J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 175-204.
- ↑ Standards in Public Life: First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (1995) Cm2850 page 14 text accessed at [1] June 12, 2006
- ↑ Public service Committee, Second report, Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility, Session 1995-6, HC 313.
- ↑ R.W. Grant and R.O. Keohane, Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics, 99 American Political Science Review (2005) 29-43.
| This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors). |