The Fourfold Typology of Accountability: A Reexamination of Theoretical Connotations, Values, and Limits

This article reexamines Barbara S. Romzek and Melvin J. Dubnick’s fourfold ty-pology of accountability, which distinguishes hierarchical, legal, professional, and political forms. The study aims to clarify the theoretical connotations, prac-tical values, and inherent limitations of this framework in contemporary public administration. Methodologically, the paper conducts a systematic literature review combined with a critical theoretical analysis from a “values–action” perspective. The results show that the typology effectively expands the analyti-cal boundaries of administrative responsibility by introducing a multidimen-sional and context-sensitive approach, thereby offering a flexible tool for under-standing accountability in complex governance environments. However, its application in practice reveals persistent dilemmas, including conflicts among accountability types, blurred responsibility boundaries, and institutional path dependence, which may lead to accountability failure or buck-passing. The con-clusion emphasizes that while the fourfold typology enriches the theoretical foundation of accountability studies, its practical implementation requires con-tinuous adaptation to institutional contexts, task characteristics, and manageri-al strategies. For China, the framework provides significant insights into im-proving administrative accountability, particularly under the conditions of dig-ital governance, globalization, and decentralization.