Advertisement

Where Accountability Meets Governance: Globalization, Participation and Corruption

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

Having outlined the book’s main arguments and introduced the conceptual distinctions that must inform any analysis of accountability, we now situate accountability within three key debates in the study of governance in developing countries. This chapter’s main purpose is to advance further the set of theoretical propositions set forth in Chapter 1. These concern three relationships: (1) between globalization and the upsurge in accountability-seeking; (2) between accountability processes and participation (or ‘voice’), including the implications for conceptions of human development; and (3) between different types of accountability failure.

Keywords

European Union Civil Society Ordinary People Political Freedom Network Governance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Michael Johnston, ‘Cross-Border Corruption: Points of Vulnerability and Challenges for Reform’, in Corruption and Integrity Improvement Initiatives in Developing Countries (New York: United Nations Development Program/Transparency International, 1998), p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘Is Electoral and Institutional Reform the Answer?’, Seminar 506 (’Reforming Politics: A Symposium on Rethinking Democratic Institutions and Practice’), October 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin (eds), Democracy, Accountability and Representation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Taylor-Gooby, C. Hastie and C. Bromley, ‘Querulous Citizens: Welfare Knowledge and the Limits to Welfare Reform’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 37, no. 1 (2003), pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    This point finds confirmation in a study of the Czech parliament, which highlights the difficulties of furnishing vertical accountability in an emerging democracy. The study found that who legislators feel accountable to (the ‘principal’ for whom they are acting as ‘agent’) is determined by a number of complex factors, many of which shift with changing circumstances. Using longitudinal data, the study found that voters are becoming more likely over time to anticipate an increasing velocity of contextual change in shaping the behaviour of politicians. L. Brokl, Z. Mansfeldová, and A. Seidlová, ‘Vztah Poslancu Ceského Parlamentu k Volicum Jako Problém Vertikální Odpovednosti’ (’The Relationship of Members of the Czech Parliament to Voters as a Matter of Vertical Accountability’), Sociologick ý Casopis (Czech Republic), vol. 37, no. 3 (2001), pp. 297–312.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Jane Mansbridge, ‘The Many Faces of Representation’, Politics Research Group Working Paper 98–17 (Cambridge, Mass: John F. Kennedy School of Government, 1998), p. 5.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    For an explanation of why this is the case, using the example of the United States Agency for International Development, see Rob Jenkins, ‘Mistaking “Governance” for “Politics”: Foreign Aid, Democracy and the Construction of Civil Society’, in Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani (eds), Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 250–68.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    A. Beard-Liikala, ‘Grassroots Civil Groups: The Potential and Limits of Democratic Change in Argentina’s Interior Provinces’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 15, no. 3 (2002), pp. 515–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    See Sue Unsworth, ‘Understanding Pro-Poor Change: A Discussion Paper’ (London: Department for International Development, 2001).Google Scholar
  10. Sue Unsworth, ‘The Significance of Understanding Political Capacity for Reducing Poverty’ (London: Department for International Development, 2002).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Neera Chandhoke, ‘Governance and the Pluralisation of the State: Implications for Democratic Citizenship’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 July 2003, pp. 2957–68.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    See Atul Kohli, Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    See Christophe Jaffrelot, India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (London: Hurst, 2003).Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    See Rob Jenkins, ‘The Continued Democratization of Indian Democracy: Regionalization, Social Change, and the 1996 General Election’, Democratization, vol. 4, no. 1 (1996), pp. 57–72.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Hirst and Thompson refer to proponents of this view as ‘extreme globalisation theorists’. See Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, Globalization in Question, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999).Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    Elke Krahmann, ‘Private Actors and the New Security Governance: Understanding the Emergence, Problems and Options for the Privatization of Security in North America and Europe’, paper prepared for the CPOGG Workshop at Schloss Amerang, 1–3 November 2002, p. 19.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    This is also a theme discussed in Peter Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    George Monbiot, ‘Poisoned Chalice’, The Guardian, 19 August 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    Samuel P. Huntington, Democracy’s Third Wave (London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  21. 28.
    Simon Chesterman, ‘The United Nations as Government: Accountability Mechanisms for Territories Under UN Administration’, paper delivered at the conference ‘Fighting Corruption in Kosovo: Lessons From the Region’, Pristina, Kosovo, 4–5 March 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 29.
    Kenneth Good, ‘Accountable to Themselves: Predominance in Southern Africa’, Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 35, no. 4 (1997), pp. 547–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 34.
    Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’, in Joseph Weiler, Iain Begg and John Peterson (eds), Integration in an Expanding European Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals (London: Blackwell, 2003).Google Scholar
  24. 36.
    Ayesha Jalal, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 37.
    Daniel Kauffman, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi, ‘Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996–2002’, World Bank Institute (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002)http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/. The ‘voice and accountability’ index measures levels of state repression of citizens, orderly transfers of power, human rights observance, levels of trust in government, civil liberties, transparency of decision-making and public information flows. Other World Bank governance indicators include: political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption.Google Scholar
  26. 39.
    Ariel Fiszbein, ‘The Emergence of Local Capacity: Lessons from Colombia’, World Development, vol. 25, no. 7 (1997), pp. 1029–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 40.
    For instance, the World Bank’s ‘Voices of the Poor’ exercise in the late 1990s, in which tens of thousands of poor people participated in discussions about their experience of poverty. Deepa Narayan, Raj Patel, Kai Schafft, Anne Rademacher, and Sarah Koch-Schult. Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 41.
    See Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny? (London: Zed Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  29. 42.
    Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    Amartya Sen, ‘Democracy as a Universal Value’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, no. 3 (1999), p. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 44.
    Rajeev Bhargava, ‘Poverty and Political Freedom’, Open Democracy (2003), http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1431.jsp.Google Scholar
  32. 46.
    Upendra Baxi, ‘The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in The Geographies of [In] justice’, in S.K. Verma and Kusum (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 157–58, emphasis in original.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    On Goa, see Rob Jenkins and Anne Marie Goetz, ‘Constraints on Civil Society’s Capacity to Curb Corruption’, IDS Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4 (1999), pp. 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 49.
    Jonathan Caseley, ‘Bringing Citizens Back In: Public Sector Reform, Service Delivery Performance, and Accountability’, unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 50.
    Kathleen Staudt, ‘Agricultural Productivity Gaps: A Case Study of Male Preference in Government Policy Implementation’, Development and Change, vol. 9, no. 3 (1978), pp. 439–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 51.
    Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Globalization and the Logic of Collective Action’, in Deepak Nayyar (ed.), Governing Globalization: Issues and Institutions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 249.Google Scholar
  37. 52.
    This case was reported in Deepak Verma, ‘A Dalit’s Caste: Between Law and Society’, Economic and Political Weekly, 21 June 2003, p. 2474.Google Scholar
  38. 53.
    Niraja Gopal Jayal, ‘Social Inequality and Institutional Remedies: A Study of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Network on South Asian Politics and Political Economy Bangalore, 30 June–2 July 2003, p. 4.Google Scholar
  39. 57.
    Naila Kabeer, ‘Citizenship and the Boundaries of the Acknowledged Community: Identity, Affiliation and Exclusion’, IDS Working Paper 171 (Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, October 2002).Google Scholar
  40. 58.
    For an insightful discussion of the uneven transitions from ‘acknowledged’ communities of the family, tribe and religious group, to the ‘imagined’ community of the state, see Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon, ‘Civil Citizenship Against Social Citizenship? On the Ideology of Charity’, in B.V. Steenbergen (ed.), The Condition of Citizenship (London: Sage, 1994), pp. 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 59.
    Mahmood Mamdani, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Colonialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 50.Google Scholar
  42. 60.
    Ronald Bullis, Sacred Calling, Secular Accountability: Law and Ethics in Complementary and Spiritual Counselling (New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anne Marie Goetz and Rob Jenkins 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations