Administrative

Accountability

Debbie Nell G. Geronimo

Constitution of the Philippines 1973, Article

XIII, Section 1An office is a public trust. Public

officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain accountable to the people.

This study is an attempt to realize the partnership not only on public administration and auditing but also of public administration and democratic theory where people have self governing principles. If indeed people are the masters of the society, their means of maintaining that supremacy must be scrutinized and sharpened.

This means are embodied in the forms and standards of accountability which, have not remained static over time rather they have undergone an evolution so that one can contrast “traditional” accountability with new variants.

The changes are responsive to the social and political forces that vary with a country’s development.

As Foster (1981) states: as the public becomes better educated, they also become more aware, more demanding, less understanding, and less willing to accept average performance

ACCOUNTABILITYis a central problem for

governments which are or claim to be democratic. The activities of civil servants and public agencies must follow the will of the people to whom they are ultimately responsible. The publicness of their employment and goals thus prescribes their behaviour and circumscribes their choices.

Three Phases of Classical Cycle of Public Administration

1. Planning received disproportionate

attention in traditional public administration

2. Implementation came into its own much later.

3. Evaluationis more of under thought sometimes

taught along with survey methods and rarely transferring from the realm of methodology into substance.

4 Standard questions are central to accountability

1. Who is considered accountable?2. To whom is he accountable?

3. To what standards or values is he accountable?

4. By what means he is made accountable?

TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Traditional Accountability• Focuses in the regularity of fiscal transactions and the faithful compliance as well as adherence to legal requirements and administrative policies.• Concerns with efficiency and economy in the use of public funds, property and manpower (Tantuico 1982:8 as cited by Cariño 2003:808);

• As its name implies, the administrator is responsible to his superiors, and external controllers which provides the resources for the operation of the agency;• It recognizes that government officials are responsible for more than just compliance but the need for the constant concern to avoid waste and unnecessary expenditures and to promote the judicious use of public resources• This promoted by programs which cut the “red tape” of government procedures;

2. Managerial Accountability• These programs range from attempt at work simplification and revision of forms all the way to systems improvements and agency reorganization;• Operational audits had long been done by agencies concerned with management under such names as management analysis, methods (O and M) studies and systems improvements;

• All calling attentions to how government agencies can reduce waste and effect savings in their operation• The main values are economy and efficiency. Leo Herbest 1982 as cited by Carino:2003 provide a useful definition of and differentiation between two standards:

2 Standards:1. Economical operation

is the elimination or reduction of needless costs.2. Efficient operations include• holding the costs constant while increasing the benefits

• holding the benefits constant while decreasing the costs

• Increasing the costs at a lower rate than benefits and

• decreasing costs at a lower rate than benefits

3. Program Accountability• is concerned with the results of government operations.

• Accountability is the property of units as well as the individual bureaucrats whose activities together make the effectiveness of a program

• To secure its attainment, a comprehensive performance audit on the financial and operational performance using the standard 3Es.

• A complete performance audits involves inquiry into the following: 1. Whether the government unit is carrying

out only authorized activities or programs in the manner contemplated and whether they are accomplishing their objectives.

2. Whether the programs and activities are conducted and expenditures are made in an effective, efficient and economical manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

3. Whether resources are being adequately controlled and used effectively, efficiently and economically

4. Whether all revenues and receipts from the operations under examinations are being collected and properly accounted for

5. Whether the entity’s accounting system complies with applicable accounting principles, standards and related requirements ; and the entity’s financial statements and operating reports properly disclose the information required (Tantuico 1982:12 as cited by Cariño 2003:810).

4. Social Accountability• the main inquiry is whether the administrative activities inspire general confidence and secure what are widely regarded as desirable social ends (Normanton 1981:34 and cited by Cariño 2003:911)• Recently the program manager’s arsenal has been augmented by such tools as human recourse accounting, social accounting, and the analysis of economic and social impact of programs

5. Process Accountability• It implies emphasizes on procedures and methods of operation and focuses on the black box inside systems which transforms inputs (the concern of traditional and managerial accountability).• This type of accountability recognizes that some goals may not be measurable directly and surrogates, representing how goal directed activity may be performed, are used instead.

• Accountability can then be asked to both provider and recipient and standards of judgment are themselves products of the mutual agreement. Each side may with hold its part of the bargain when the other fails the accountability test.

• Program accountability adds the 3rd E which means effectiveness.

Comparison of Different Kinds of

Administrative Accountability

The Varieties of Public Administration

&

Alex B. Hermogeno

The notion of administrative accountability has clearly changed. Much more is expected of the accountable official since his responsibilities is not for individual activities but for related sets as these are divided into programs and projects at the same time the means to be used for insuring his proper behavior have become less rigid, and more negotiable.

THE VARIETIES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The discipline of PA has changed overtime both as response to changing currents of thought within the social science community as well as the events in the country and the world which press on both our understanding of the discipline and on its practice.

Each of the four varieties of Public Administration offers a distinct emphasis and relates to the people and the society in a different way. They may be identified as:

1. Traditional Accountability

Traditional accountability practically demands doctrine of politics administration dichotomy, where decisions are made elsewhere by policy makers who were not in the bureaucracy

2. Development AccountabilityThe variety that gained currency

when colonies called the Third World got political independence and set their sights on the development of the economy following the examples of the west. With the western experience as the model, DA became involved in looking for tools that can improve the planning process and the performance of staff functions.

3. New Public AdministrationNPA was born in the 70’s in United States

where restive scholars found traditional PA largely irrelevant to a turbulent technological society crying for equity and social justice.

NPA advocated project management and the modular organization in lieu of the bureaucracy It either moved away from economic to philosophy, or sought a blending of both. Just prior to the birth of NPA, PA scholars discovered implementation and service delivery as just as worthy of attention as planning and the merit system. These blended to make responsiveness and effectiveness of programs as the main foci of concern.

4. Development Public AdministrationThe product of the 1980’s with

emphasis on the goals of social justice, equity and the centrality of the human person and its focus on the problems of the third world. NPA was born in the 70’s in United States where restive scholars found traditional PA largely irrelevant to a turbulent technological society crying for equity and social justice

Accountability &

Public Administration

Cherry Andrea G. Lucero

1. Traditional PA and Accountability of RegularityTraditional accountability demands

the doctrine of the politics –administration dichotomy where decisions are made outside the bureaucracy and compliance is compelled all through the hierarchy but has its ultimate arbiter in bodies external to the bureaucracy like the legislature and the court. Rules and procedures are set elsewhere and are rigid, thus receiving the checks on performance on a line-by-line and strict pesos-and-centavos accounting

2. Traditional Public Administration, Development Administration and Managerial

Accountability The first variety of PA has encouraged the

start of managerial accountability through its emphasis on the economy and efficiency of organizations.A number of management tools developed in the United States under the DA period still tended to focus on inputs and the staff functions. Their applicability to a third world country at the first stages of development was hardly addressed. The techniques were regarded as capable of being useful regardless of social conditions

3. New Public Administration and Program Accountability

The shift of development goals from simple economic growth to more humanly appropriate objectives.

A better suited technique is program evaluation. A better suited technique can also fulfil the NPA need for equity to the extent that social impact especially on income distribution and poverty alleviation is made part of the framework.

The project checks out its program accountability at the evaluation stage of its life.

Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it embraces a learning process rather than a blue print approach (Korten 1980:450-511 as cited by Cariño 2003: 819).Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it embraces a learning process rather than a blue print approach (Korten 1980:450-511 as cited by (Cariño 2003: 819.

Unfortunately, few managers have regarded these works from the perspective of accountability and have not used them for the purpose of pinpointing responsibility for bottlenecks or failures and for improving program attainment. The shortcoming maybe blamed on both sides: on the evaluator or researcher for his inability to disseminate his findings to the appropriate administrator and to write actionable recommendations based on the findings and on the administrator for his tendency to shy away from critiques of his agency and not pass up learning points from the criticisms

4. Development PA and Process Accountability

Process accountability has practically the same building blocks a lot in common with DPA where the features are reacceptance of the necessity of bureaucracy as long as it is oriented to include the participation of client and recipients in the process of administration and the decentralization of decision making to local areas.

Example ate the LGUs an experiment to classify them according to their administrative capability and which will be the basis for providing funds and technical assistance

Process accountability is not a new concept since it is not a radical departure from previous procedures. What is new is the participation and negotiation by units and the provision of resources based on need, capability and promise, the last backed up by recipient individuals.

The requirement for each local area would differ according to the results of the process and therefore what one will ask from each would be attainable. Each negotiating party can be held responsible for the results and beneficiaries may even participate in the evaluation of performance of the officials.

The Process ofRegulating Behavior

#1 & #2

Junior Hilario

1. SOURCE OF POWERThe source of power may be

external to or internalized by the regulated. External sources may be laws or bureaucratic rules which are imposed as standards of conduct of subordinates. Disobedience to these rules may result in sanctions by the controllers.Control and influence are often contrasted in relation to the source of power.

2. KINDS OF RULES PROMULGATED BY REGULATOR

A regulator may make the actual command whish should be complied with, or provide the regulated with options for action, through the issuance of general guidelines on what action is expected or how a particular result may be generated.

Four Major Processes of Regulating Behavior

1. ControlMay be external to or

internalized by the regulated. External sources may be laws

or bureaucratic rules which are imposed as standards of conduct of subordinates. Disobedience to these rules may result in sanctions by the controllers.

Kernagham (1973:581-584) defines control as the authority to command and direct

2. Supervisionis more open minded allowing

officials greater latitude of their actions

Its both regulatory and assistory dimensions

The concept can be applied to any pair of agencies where one sets the guidelines within which the other formulates its rules of action Sosmeña :1982:9

3. Influence

When A is molded by and conforms to the behavior of B without the issuance of a command

The implicit source of influence seems to lie outside the bureaucracy and may be rooted in one’s profession, ethical commitments and organizational affiliations

The influence is predicated not so much on his commands and orders as on the congruence of the commitments of his subordinates and himself which is exerted through moral and other extra bureaucratic modes

4. Management

The regulator take action as a hypothesis with certainty ruled out and allow the regulated some discretion in his approach to the program.

This would mean an accountability that would face up errors and even embrace them as learning points for later growth

THE PROCESS OFREGULATING BEHAVIOR

ACCOUNTABILITY AND TYPES OF BURAUCRATIC POWER

The Process ofRegulating Behavior

#3 & #4

Nacer Ferreras

3. BUREAUCRATIC VERSUS PROFESSIONAL NORMS

In the computer age, year of the blog, routine cases are machine programmed, the computer being uninfluenced by specific character traits of a client which the rules do not recognize as material and relevant.

The treatment of exceptional circumstances can not be programmed since the rules wood generally provide for the exercise of a discretionary rather than a ministerial function

When bureaucratic rules are deficient , the bureaucrat may be forced to choose between the criteria of his agency or those of his profession.

Ex of bureaucratic rules on punctuality, eight hours days as well as targets, and persons to be served per week. While professional norms as well as individual conscience as appropriate judges of a person or agency’s performance

LEGAL AND MORAL DECISIONS

Moral Decisions

Legal Decisions

are value-based decisions that are content- and context-specific;

are just the opposite; procedure-based decisions that are dependent upon historical precedent.

4. EXTRABUREAUCRATIC STANDARDS AND IRRESPONSIBLE

BEHAVIOR

There would be fewer problems if the entrance of extra-buraucratic values into agency decision making were always an unmixed blessing. In many cases however, this result does not obtain. Cultural values such as pakikisama (getting along), utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and regionalism may also lead to decisions which are grossly unfair to people who are not beneficiaries of the particularistic allocations.

However, with all these problems and the possibility of value conflict which the bureaucrat may find difficult to resolve, why then should I continue to press for more discretion by the bureaucrats? There are several answers to this question

1. Nature of the human being when a person wants to please a

person not qualified to receive a service, he may disregard these rules or go around them in order to suit this person (accommodation).

2. The complexity of the society its no longer a homogenous mass.

The demands and pressures on government can not be easily transformed to SOPs which brook no exceptions.

3. Inefficiency of the legalistic Approach A third answer leads to the

empirical record: the enactment of one of the strictest sets of laws on record has not been able to hold down the incidents of graft and corruption. The inefficiency stems from

a) the systemic nature of corruption, b) the formation in the laws (a society

has formalistic laws they are not expected to be fully implemented, and

c) lack of political will to implement law vigorously and fairly.

Thank youfor

listening!

Alex B. Hermogeno

Administrative Accountability & Types of Accountability

Administrative Accountability

Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability & The Varieties Of Public

Administration

Debbie Nell G. Geronimo

Accountability and Public Administration

Cherry Andrea G. Lucero

The Process of Regulating Behavior # 1 & 2(Source Power & Kinds of Rules Promulgated by Regulator)

Junior HilarioThe Process of Regulating Behavior # 3 & 4(Bureaucratic versus Professional Norms &

Extrabureaucratic Standards and Irresponsible Behavior)

Nacer FerrerasMPA 1A - Camarin