Administration & Society

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Loughlin, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Administration & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, 275-302 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/009539979002200301

What is Bureaucratic Accountability and How can We Measure it?

Michael G. O'Loughlin

Salisbury State University

This article addresses both the theoretical question of defining accountability relationships in the bureaucratic context and the methodological question of how to describe and measure those relationships. More specifically, a model of accountability is offered, which defines such relationships as influence relationships involving three essential dimensions: (a) effective communication systems through which bureaucratic explanation and justification of actions and decisions to outside actors occurs; (b) outside actor influence over bureaucratic decision making; and (c) the existence of a distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spheres of decision making. The article then identifies and describes a measurement strategy and social indicators to assess the substance and strength of accountability between bureaucratic agencies and outside public actors. The use of the model and measurement strategy is applied to a case study involving the accountability relationship between an employment and training agency and the chief political officials of a large urban city during the implementation of the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and its reauthorization in 1978.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
M. Acar, Chao Guo, and Kaifeng Yang
Accountability When Hierarchical Authority Is Absent: Views From Public-Private Partnership Practitioners
The American Review of Public Administration, March 1, 2008; 38(1): 3 - 23.
[Abstract] [PDF]