introduction

Private sector is a profitable company that are more accountable in terms of their

'bottom line', accountability requirements in the public sector are generally more

stringent, particularly with regard to process and general policy.

Although accountability is widely believed to be a good thing, the

concept is highly abstract and it is often used in a very general way

according to Hulme and Sanderatne, (2008). A typical definition is

that accountability concerns the processes by which those who

exercise power whether as governments, as elected representatives

or as appointed officials, must be able to show that they have

exercised their powers and discharged their duties properly

Fox Meyer (1995) defines accountability as the responsibility of

government and its agents towards the public to achieve previously

set objectives and to account for them in public It is also regarded

as a commitment required from public officials individually and

collectively to accept public responsibility for their own action and

inaction. In this case, the burden of accountability rests on each

public functionary to act in the public interest and according to

his/her conscience, with solutions for every matter based on

professionalism and participation.

Accountability in the public sector is broader than in the private

sector (according to Ole Ingstrup and Crookall, 1998). In the private

sector, everyone in the company is accountable to its board. The

public sector is also accountable to a board of sorts: the minister,

cabinet and legislature. But the public sector has additional

accountability to its employees and to its customers, the citizens

who use the services as well as to its noncustomers, the citizens

who dont use the service. It is a different kind of accountability,

more subtle and indirect. Therefore, in general accountability for

performance and the obligation that public functionaries (elected

and appointed officials) have to give a satisfactory explanation over

the exercise of power, authority and resources entrusted in them on

behalf of the public (tax payer). Subsumed with this definition is a

myriad of legal, oral and ethical obligations that come with the

occupancy of any public office (Sarji, 1995).

In short, it is the obligation to carry out assigned activities in a

responsible and responsive manner, and being held answerable for

success or failure. As such when we talk about accountability in

the public service, we cannot but consider the question of

bureaucratic responsibility. Internal accountability means that at

each level in the hierarchical organization, private officials are

accountable to those who supervise and control their work. On the

other hand, external accountability means answerability for action

carried out and performance achieved to other relevant and

concerned authorities outside his/her department or organization.

Accountability is therefore an ethical virtue, since ethics concern

principles and rules that govern the moral value of peoples

behaviour. Improving ethics is crucial to enhancing accountability

and vice-versa.

Community Participation in Service Delivery and Accountability

Summary

How can citizens affect service delivery and accountability? This paper, from the
University of Los Angeles, provides an overview of issues and experiences with
diverse forms of community participation in the provision of services. Service
provision arrangements linked to various forms of community participation may
improve MDG-related outcomes. Community participation also affects public
sector accountability at local, regional and national levels.

Widespread evidence shows that services are failing poor people in a large number
of countries with negative impacts on human development outcomes. One key
point is that the failure of services is not just technical, it is the result of the lack of
accountability of public, private and non-profit organisations to poor people.
Through understanding the importance of the connections between participation,
accountability and service delivery, as well as different aspects of context,
experiences in community participation, is necessary.

There are important connections between community participation and the

key goals of allocative efficiency, technical efficiency, and improved
mechanisms of accountability.
Effective forms of community participation can create opportunities for
more downward accountability and thus reduce the accountability gap
between citizens and policymakers.
Donors and international NGOs often substitute various short route
mechanisms instead of investing in public systems or the sustainability of
services in situations of weak governments, or humanitarian crises.
Too great an emphasis on community participation may idealise the
internal coherence and solidarity in communities and miss the essential tasks
of supporting effective public institutions.
Social capital is a useful concept but it is often applied uncritically with
inadequate understanding of cultural and political context and vested
interests in the status quo.

While there is no one right path to how services should be delivered or ways in
which community participation can be strengthened, lessons from experience can
guide policymakers and civic organizations:

Context matters and must be understood including the relative

heterogeneity of the population, the type of service and the spatial context.
Moving to scale is likely to require an enabling public sector.
Promotion of community participation strengthens the enabling environment
and removes disabling factors.
Promotion of processes of decentralisation takes many forms, and the
resulting forms of participation will vary accordingly.
Development of participatory processes is never separate from wider social,
political contexts some efforts by donors have foundered due to the
attempt to ring fence participatory mechanisms for power and politics.
Increased transparency of community involvement with public sector
agencies is required to improve accountability.