Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In the standard works, accountability is defined as the legal obligation to respect the legitimate interests of others affected by decisions, programs, and interventions. This has usually meant that agencies obey those in the line of authority above them. However, the simplicity of this doctrine is often contradicted by the demands of contracting‐out and output‐based performance. Using interviews and surveys ( n =1164) of front‐line officials in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, this study examines accountability as different forms of responsiveness, obligation, and willingness to communicate with others. It compares traditional vertical accountability with new forms of horizontal recognition. The research shows that there is a high degree of regime consistency across these two dimensions. Horizontal accountability is mostly a problem when it is accompanied by competition between public and private agencies in the same policy fields.
Mark Considine (Tue,) studied this question.