Administration & Society

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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
Right arrow Citation Map
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weber, E. P.
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. 31, No. 4, 451-494 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00953999922019201

The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective

From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosystem Management

Edward P. Weber

Washington State University

Grassroots ecosystem management (GREM), and the reinventing government movement, more generally, suggest that the American polity is on the verge of redefining a broadly acceptable system of democratic accountability. The problem is: What does an effective system of accountability look like in a world of decentralized governance, shared power, collaborative decision processes, results-oriented management, and broad civic participation? This article examines how the theory of accountability has been reconfigured to fit the new paradigm for governance and places accountability in historical context to gain perspective for contemporary discussions of bureaucracy in a democracy. It finds that the conceptualization of democratic accountability varies dramatically over time. The Jacksonian, Progressives/New Deal, public-interest-egalitarian, neoconservative efficiency, and GREM models are all distinct conceptualizations of accountability. Each emphasizes different institutions and locates the authority for accountability in differing combinations and types of sectors (public, private, intermediary), processes, decision rules, knowledge, and values.


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]


Home page
Organization EnvironmentHome page
B. K. Marshall and W. S. Goldstein
Managing the Environmental Legitimation Crisis
Organization Environment, June 1, 2006; 19(2): 214 - 232.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Administration & SocietyHome page
N. J. Manring
The Politics of Accountability in National Forest Planning
Administration Society, March 1, 2005; 37(1): 57 - 88.
[Abstract] [PDF]