While recent research on policy making and implementation has shifted analytical attention from formal to informal or voluntary accountability processes, there remains a lack of systematic attention to the individual-level dynamics of accountability. Similarly, existing research has largely overlooked the intra-institutional dynamics of the accountability ‘forum’ and the diverse and often politicised ways that accountability processes are deployed. Responding to these gaps, this article brings together hitherto separate strands of literature regarding political performance, democratic representation and accountability discourses to examine how politicians enact their accountabilities and the factors that shape their performance, particularly under conditions of heightened politicisation. Empirical evidence is provided by an analysis of legislative committees, specifically the select committees of the UK’s national parliament; and it presents the findings of original research that draws on a unique data set of 2,815 questions posed to expert witnesses by select committees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite concerns about the prevalence of populist pressures during heightened politicisation, we show that politicians rarely engaged in politicised blame games or partisan grandstanding, offering a positive rejoinder to concerns about the denigration of experts. Instead, we suggest that politicians regard experts as valuable actors in accountability processes, engaging with their expertise and evidence in relevant ways, even when under political pressure. By understanding the act of accountability as part of the political performance, and expression of what it means to be a political representative, this research offers a fresh analytical perspective on the dynamics of the accountability of experts in policy making.
Matthews et al. (Fri,) studied this question.