Advertisement

New Standards of Accountability

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

Abstract

The third element of the new accountability agenda is the emergence of a new set of standards against which power-holders are judged. A shift in standards is to some degree implicit in the trends reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5. When actors in accountability relationships assume new roles, when they reach across old accountability jurisdictions or create new ones, when they use new methods to either demand answers of power-holders or trigger enforcement processes — under such circumstances the criteria used to assess the performance of accountability targets are bound to shift.

Keywords

Child Labour Female Genital Mutilation Procedural Fairness Accountability System Truth Commission 
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. 2.
    Walter Kirn, ‘Acceptance’, New York Times, 25 August 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Alex de Waal, ‘The African State and Global Governance’, in Phoebe Griffith (ed.), Unbinding Africa: Making Globalisation Work for Good Governance (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2004).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton, Global Tranformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Cambridge: Polity, 1999), p. 444 (from the subsection on ‘New Limits to Politics? Civilizing and Democratizing Globalization’).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz, Africa Works: Disorder as Political Instrument (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Shiv Visvanathan and Harsh Sethi, Foul Play: Chronicles of Corruption, 1947–97 (New Delhi: Banyan Books, 1998), p. 5.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Jonathan Parry, ‘The “Crisis of Corruption” and “The Idea of India”: A Worm’s Eye View’, in Italo Pardo (ed.), Morals of Legitimacy: Between Agency and System (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000), p. 45.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Michael Herzfeld, The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy (New York: Berg, 1992), p. 47.Google Scholar
  8. Akhil Gupta, ‘Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics, and the Imagined State’, American Ethnologist, vol. 22, no. 2 (1995), p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christopher Clapham, ‘Governmentality in Africa’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4 (1996), p. 823.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Gupta, ‘Blurred Boundaries …’, pp. 388–9; and Cynthia Werner, ‘Gifts, Bribes, and Development in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan’, Human Organisation, vol. 59, no. 1 (2000), pp. 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 13.
    See Timothy Garton Ash, ‘The Truth about Dictatorship’, New York Review of Books, 19 February 1998, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  12. Priscilla B. Hayner, ‘Fifteen Truth Commissions — 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 16 (1994), pp. 597–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Richard Wilson, ‘Challenging Restorative Justice’, Human Rights Dialogue, vol. 2, no. 7 (2002), p. 16.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Brandon Hamber and Richard A. Wilson, ‘Trauma, Liminality and Symbolic Closure: The Legacy of Political Violence in South Africa’, in Edward Cairns (ed.), Memory in Conflict: Social Memory in Post-Conflict Situations (London: Palgrave, 2002).Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Nesiah, Vasuki and Paul van Zyl, ‘Vasuki Nesiah and Paul van Zyl Respond to Richard Wilson: Challenging Restorative Justice’, Human Rights Dialogue, vol. 2, no. 7 (2002).Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Rhadika Coomaraswamy, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences’, Commission on Human Rights, 54th session, E/CN.4/1998/54, 26 (January 1998), p. 60.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Andrew Osborn, ‘British Oil Firms Accused of Burma Abuses’, The Guardian, 12 October 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org, referring to Jean Ziegler, Third Annual Report to the United Nations General Assembly by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (New York: United Nations, 5 August 2003).Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    For a range of critiques of the World Bank and the IMF — concerning uneven representation of poor countries, narrow and insular policy-making and uneven risks associated with policy advice — see UNDP, Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 112–17.Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    D.S. Grant, ‘Allowing Citizen Participation in Environmental Regulation: An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Right-to-Sue and Right-to-Know Provisions on Industry’s Toxic Emissions’, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78, no. 4 (1997), pp. 859–73.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    Charles Sabel, Archon Fung, and Bradley Karkkainen, Beyond Backyard Environmentalism: A New Democracy Forum (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  22. 34.
    This policy was put in place after expenditure-tracking surveys revealed that almost 90 per cent of funds budgeted for schools ‘leaked’ out of the system before reaching the school building. See Jan Dehn, Ritva Reinikka and Jakob Svensson, ‘Survey Tools for Assessing Service Delivery’ (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004).Google Scholar
  23. 36.
    Anu Joshi and Mick Moore, ‘Enabling Environments: Do Anti-Poverty Programs Mobilize the Poor?’, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 37, no. 1 (2000), pp. 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. The neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh used a similar demand-based model for its Education Guarantee Scheme, reportedly with great success: the scheme has already been credited with improving test scores and student attendance rates, partly because it has galvanized parental engagement in both selecting and monitoring local primary school teachers. See Elena Glinskaya and Jyotsna Jalan, ‘Improving Primary School Education in India: An Impact Assessment of DPEP — Phase I’ (New Delhi: World Bank, mimeo, 2003).Google Scholar
  25. 38.
    Robert E. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modem GATT Legal System (Salem, NH: Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1993), p. 353.Google Scholar
  26. 39.
    Peter Holmes, Jim Rollo and Alasdair R. Young, ‘Emerging Trends in WTO Dispute Settlement: Back to the GATT?’, Policy Research Working Paper 3133 (Washington, DC: World Bank, September 2003).Google Scholar
  27. 40.
    G.P. Sampson, ‘WTO Rules and Climate Change: The Need for Policy Coherence’, in W.B. Chambers (ed.), Inter-linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2001), pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
  28. 41.
    This has been analysed in G.C. Umbricht, ‘An “Amicus Curiae Brief” on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO’, The Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 4, no. 4 (2001), pp. 773–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 42.
    Sara Marsden, ‘Dispute Resolution at the World Trade Organization and the Action and Influence of Transnational Advocacy Actors: A Case Study of WTO Dispute DS/135 Asbestos, EC vs Canada’, dissertation submitted for the MSc Programme in Global Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London, September 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    South Centre, Issues Regarding the Review of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, T.R.A.D.E. Working Papers (Geneva, February 1999).Google Scholar
  31. 45.
    World Trade Organization, Contribution of Ecuador to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO, TN/DS/W/9, 8 July 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 46.
    World Trade Organization, Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding, TN/DS/W/19, 9 October 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    J. Hilwitz, ‘Social Labelling to Combat Child Labour: Some Considerations’, International Labour Review, vol. 136, no. 2 (1997).Google Scholar
  34. UNICEF, State of the World’s Children 1997 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  35. M. Sharma, ‘Marked for Life’, New Internationalist, no. 292 (July 1997), p. 29.Google Scholar
  36. 49.
    Commonwealth of Australia Party on Labor Standards, Report on Labor Standards in the Asia-Pacific Region (Canberra, 1996); CUTS, ‘Eradicating child-labour while saving the child — who will pay the costs?’, CUTS Briefing Paper No.5 (Jaipur, India: CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment, 1999).Google Scholar
  37. 50.
    ILO, IPEC Action Against Child Labour: Achievements, Lessons Learned and Indications for the Future (Geneva: ILO, 1999).Google Scholar
  38. 51.
    Sources for this account of child labour in Bangladesh include: R. Rothstein, ‘The Starbucks Solution: Can Voluntary Codes Raise Global Living Standards?’, The American Prospect, vol. 7 no. 27 (1996); CUTS, ‘Eradicating Child Labor …’; ILO, ‘Action Against Child Labor …’; and Commonwealth of Australia Party on Labor Standards, ‘Report on Labour Standards …’Google Scholar
  39. 52.
    Khalid Nadvi and Frank Waltrung, ‘Making Sense of Global Standards’, IDS Working Paper (Brighton, UK, 2001).Google Scholar
  40. 54.
    Khalid Nadvi (ed.), ‘The Cost of Compliance: Global Standards for Small-Scale Firms and Workers’, IDS Policy Briefing, Issue 18, Institute of Development Studies/Overseas Development Group, May 2003, p. 3.Google Scholar
  41. 57.
    OECD, OECD Observer Policy Brief: The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Paris (June 2001), http://www.oecd.org.Google Scholar
  42. 58.
    OECD, ‘Summary Report of the Chair of the Meeting on the Activities of National Contact Points’, Paris (21 September 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