Accountability and Responsiveness: Approaches and Tools

1. Accountability and Responsiveness: Approaches and Tools -Anil Kumar Gupta

2. Objectives • Explain three reasons why accountability is important • Analyze three approaches of accountability • Create linkage between accountability and public service delivery • Explain how accountability enhances responsiveness and trust of public sector • Identify and apply ranges of social accountability tools and practices

4. Accountability Enclosing the Issue • Accountability in Nepali Bureaucracy is one of the major concerns • Bases of public sector governance • Instrument for ensuring good governance • Answerable of performances, actions and decisions • Being and holding accountable • Actor have the compulsion to inform/report, justify • Capacity of the forum to ask interrogations and impose sanctions (Bovens, 2007)

5. Accountability What Does Research/Evidence Says ? • Invested ample attentions, time and money • Formed numerous reform commissions, constitutional bodies, policies • Blamed for being • Inefficient, dysfunctional, buck-passing, delay, self-seeking behavior • Unaccountable, corrupt, non-transparent, irresponsible • Delayed in decision-making and adhering rigidly rules and regulations (Bajpai, 2014; Shakya, 2009; Gautam, 2008; Dangal, 2005) • Public perception: No official work can be done without paying bribe (Bhattarai, 2017) • Unable to create a positive impression among the citizens (Shakya, 2009) • Citizens feel and quite often criticize for being irresponsive and unaccountable

6. AccountabilityContd.. Source: CIAA Annual Reports These challenges can be addressed through effective practice and exercise of accountability In this regard, accountability plays a greater role to ensure efficient, effective, competent, prompt, responsive, transparent, and trustworthy bureaucracy.

7. AccountabilityAwareness of and participation in accountability mechanisms • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

8. AccountabilityPoliticalparties are accountable to people • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

9. AccountabilityAssessment of honesty of public institutions & officials • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

10. AccountabilityPerceptions of the government’s efforts to control corruption • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

11. AccountabilityPrevalence of bribing among those who accessed a public service Percentages of those who were asked for and/or paid a bribe, or who have a family member who was asked for and/or paid a bribe, in the last 12 months among those who accessed a public service • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

12. AccountabilityPeople’s perception on service providers • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

13. AccountabilityPeople’s perception on service providers • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

14. Accountability People’s perception on service providers • Source: NNGS, 2017/18

15. Approaches of Accountability Accountability: what, whom, who and How

16. Accountability in Nepal

17. Typologies of Accountability Transparency Disclosure: Pro-active or reactive Access, Timely, Reliable, Clear, complete Liability Consequences: Reward and punishment Transparency Controllability Internal: Hierarchy, inspection [Directing, regulating, supervising, advising, inspecting and evaluating] External: Legislature and Judiciary, Media scrutiny, Public comment Liability Accountability Controllability Responsibility Responsiveness Responsibility Compliance Obligations/Compulsions Adapted from Koppell (2005), Lourenço, Moura, Jorge & Pataro (2013), Joshi (2010),Bugaric(2004), Buijze(2013), Ihmstrong(2005),Dergisi (2014), Kabir, (2011), Smith (1991), Bovens(1999, 2007, 2010), Bivins (2006), Jenkins (2007), NASC (2014), Glaser (2007), Peters (2007) Responsiveness Informing, Hearing, Responding

18. Exploring Accountability Group Activity: case studies Work in four groups, on different levels. • Groups 1: Work on the case study “Fatima” • Draw a picture on flip chart to show characteristics of “absent accountability” - using examples from the case study. • Discuss - What are the obligations of the service providers? • Groups 2: Work on the case study “District Education Officer Panchthar”. • Draw a picture on flip chart to show characteristics of “present accountability” - using examples from the case study. • Discuss: What are the obligations of the service providers? You have 20 minutes for group work & 20 minutes (5 minute each group) for plenary.

19. Analyzing the Responsiveness Group Activity: Case Study Work in groups • Groups 3: “Food Shortage” (Sunita), and discuss: • How was Sunita treated in terms of – Listening, Responding and Informing? • Groups 4: “Sincere Efforts” (Gopal), and discuss: • What strategies did Gopal develop to improve the public image of the health post in terms of - Listening, Responding and Informing?

20. Key Learning Points • Citizens are entitled to receive public services and have rights to hold civil servants accountable • Civil servants need to be proactive even if people are unable to hold them accountable • The human cost of unaccountable governance is manifolds higher (especially to WPEs) than the economic cost • A single person can make the difference if he/she holds him/herself accountable • An accountable civil servant can create favorable environment to promote accountability

21. Key Learning Points • The poor and disadvantaged tend to have less ability to influence the quality of services • The quality of services depends not only on supply (by providers) but also on the ability of citizens to demand services • Proactive role of state is essential for ensuring the access of WPEs on public services

22. Interlink Accountability Responsiveness Trust

23. Social Accountability: Demand & Supply

24. Key learning Points • Citizens always may not be in position to demand strongly for public services • In the situation of citizen being weak to hold the state accountable, the intermediaries‘ role may shadow the citizen-state accountability relationship • Gap between demand and supply needs to be bridged by strengthening the state mechanism, regulating the role of intermediaries and enhancing capacity of citizens • The accountability mechanism can be strengthened through empowerment of citizen to hold the state be accountable

25. Demand and Supply of public services - A framework Intermediary CBOs Media Private sector I/NGOs Political parties Civil society Supply side State (Central and Local) Demand Side Citizen NASC BAT IG 2015

26. Demand and Supply of public services - A framework Intermediary CBOs Media Private sector I/NGOs Political parties Civil society Supply side State (Central and Local) Demand Side Citizen NASC BAT IG 2015

27. Bridging the Gaps • How do we bridge the gap between demand and supply? • Social accountability mechanisms and tools - constructive engagement • Build civil service capacity • Revisit and restructure institutional arranges that hinder effective and efficient service delivery • Empower and promote awareness among people for creating demands

28. Social Accountability Tools Information Tools • Citizen Charter • Check List of Entitlements • Budgets of Local Bodies (VDC, DDC & Municipality) • Right to Information • Check list of Relevant Laws, Policies, Regulations that affect a Citizen's Life

29. Social Accountability Tools Accountability & Integrity Tools • Civic Education • Public Expenditure Tracking • Check list of Standards & Indicators • Community Score Card • Citizen Report Card • Public Hearing • Public Audit • Public Revenue Monitoring • Citizen Complaint Structures

30. Social Accountability Tools Participatory Development Tools • Multi-stakeholder Groups • Participatory Planning • Participatory Budgeting • Community Led Procurement • Declaration of Assets • Understanding Conflict of Interest • Integrity Pact

31. Video

32. Social accountability Tools Enables to • Promote citizen's engagement • Build trust towards public service providers • Increase transparency & access to information • Grievance redress • Standardization of public service delivery • Enhancing accountability and citizen oversight

33. Mechanisms of Accountability Constitutions, transparency, public hearing or meeting, performance evaluation, feedback systems, reward or punish systems, codes of conduct, chain of hierarchical command, public or social audit, surveillance, empowering beneficiaries, media scrutiny, complaints processes, peer reviews, rules, norms, regulations, procedures, inspections, monitoring, investigations, ombudsmen and so on.

34. Conclusion • Maintaining good governance in the delivery system • Encourages bureaucrats to take account of their action and performance • Obligation of state and public servants towards society and people (Principle-agent framework) • Absence of accountability breaks the social contract • Accountability is meaningful when combined with responsiveness and integrity

35. References and Readings • Bhattarai, P. C. (2017). Reform in public service delivery in Nepal: Demand or supply driven?. OCED Global Anti-corruption and Integrity Forum. • Bovens, M. (2005). The concept of public accountability. In The Oxford handbook of public management, 182. • Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x • Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. T. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225-242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00716.x • Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946-967. doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119. • Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook public accountability. London, UK: Oxford University Press. • Bajpai, A. (2014). Public value' as a normative framework: A comparative evaluation and recasting of administrative culture in India and Nepal. Submitted to 23rd Congress of International Political Science Association (IPSA).

36. References and Readings • Dangal, R. (2005). Administrative culture in Nepal: Does it reflect the dominant socio-cultural values of Nepal? (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). University of Bergen, Norway. • Demirel, D. (2014). Accountability and the changing function of the control/HesapVerebilirlikveDenetiminDegisenIslevi. ÇanakkaleOnsekiz Mart ÜniversitesiYönetimBilimleriDergisi, 12(24), 75-86. • Ghimire, B., & Ashraf, M. (2016). Beleaguered administration: A study of administrative reforms in Nepal. International Journal of Development Research, 6(5), 7966-7972. • Government of Nepal. (GoN) (1993). Civil service act and regulation 1993. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (1993). Financial procedure act 1999. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (1999). Local self-governance act 1999. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2002). The prevention of corruption act 2002. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2007). The interim constitution of Nepal 2007. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2007). Public procurement and regulation 2007. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2007). Right to information act 2007. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2008). Good governance act 2008. Kathmandu: Author. • GoN. (2015). The constitution of Nepal 2015. Kathmandu: Author.

37. References and Readings • Gupta, A. K., Adhikari, S.H. & Shrestha, G. L. (2018). Corruption in Nepal: Level, pattern, and trend Analysis. Journal of Management and Development Studies, 28, 36-52. • Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434. • Nepal Administrative Staff College [NASC]. (2018). Nepal national governance survey 2017/18. Lalitpur: Nepal Administrative Staff College. • Romzek, B. S., &Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 227-238. doi: 10.2307/975901 • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1998). Accountability. In J. M. Shafriz (Ed.), International encyclopedia of public policy and administration. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. • Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21-44. doi: 10.1177/0020852300661004 • Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240-253. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00084

38. References and Readings • Shakya, U. R. (2009). Ethics in Nepalese civil services sector: How does it matter? Administration and Management Review, 21(2), 88-107. • Siddiquee, N. A. (1999). Bureaucratic accountability in Bangladesh: Challenges and limitations. Asian Journal of Political Science, 7(2), 88-104. doi:10.1080/02185379908434149 • Smith, T. B. (1991). The comparative analysis of bureaucratic accountability. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 13(1), 93-104. doi: 10.1080/02598272.1991.10800244 • Verschuere, B., Verhoest, K., Meyers, F., & Peters, B. G. (2006). Accountability and accountability arrangements in public agencies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Wang, X. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 350-370. doi: 10.1177/0275074002032003005 • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York, NY: Bedminster. • World Bank (2004). Social accountability: An Introduction to the concept and emerging practice. Washington DC: The World Bank.