Rising to Ostrom’s challenge:An invitation to walk on the bright side of public governance and public service

In this programmatic essay, we argue that public governance scholarship would benefit from developing a self-conscious and cohesive strand of "positive" scholarship, akin to social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and positive evaluation. We call for a program of research devoted to uncovering the factors and mechanisms that enable high performing public policies and public service delivery mechanisms; procedurally and distributively fair processes of tackling societal conflicts; and robust and resilient ways of coping with threats and risks. The core question driving positive public administration scholarship should be: Why is it that particular public policies, programs, organizations, networks, or partnerships manage do much better than others to produce widely valued societal outcomes, and how might knowledge of this be used to advance institutional learning from positives

Conflictual accountability: behavioral responses to conflictual accountability of agencies

In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims. Drawing upon a survey of CEO’s of agencies in seven countries, we explore whether and how conflictual accountability regimes relate to strategic behaviors by agency-CEO’s and their political principals. The presence of conflictual accountability is experienced as a major challenge and is associated with important behavioral responses by those CEO’s. This article demonstrates empirically how conflictual accountability is related to (a) controlling behaviors by principals, (b) constituency building behaviors by agencies, and (c) a general pattern of intensified contacts and information processing by both parties

Challenges to representative democracy domestic origins: Non-majoritarian Institutions and Representation

Many public policies are delivered by non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs) in which sometimes powerful policy actors may take major decisions, decoupled from traditional democratic procedures of representation, scrutiny, and accountability. NMIs have to strike a balance between independence and democratic accountability. This chapter traces the evolution of NMIs in our time, discusses their ‘counter-majoritarian difficulties’, and various ensuing strategies to enhance their representational nature. From the perspective of democratic governance, many scholars have been concerned about the democratic deficits relating to NMIs. However, NMIs fit much better in more liberal, monitory notions of democracy. They can provide a series of checks and balances that prevent corruption, abuse of power, and protect the rights of minorities. In that sense, NMIs are often seen as challenges to democracy while they, simultaneously, may help to safeguard democracies and to sanitize the behaviours of elected officials

Crisiskabinet Rutte-III en de stille terugtocht naar het oude normaal

Ondanks de inzet op een strategie van depolitisering, ontkomt het crisiskabinet niet aan het politieke. De C-19-crisis verlangt een mate van bestuurlijke daadkracht en nieuwe sociale verbeelding die feilloos het politiek-ideologische verschil blootlegt. Wie ‘terug naar normaal’ wil en de politieke koers strategisch ambigu houdt, pleit tegen gerichte transformatie, juist op een moment dat instituties en beleidskaders vloeibaar ogen

Aligning accountability arrangements for ambiguous goals: the case of museums

In a simple model of accountability, the core of the interaction consists of the supply and demand of performance information. Alignment of information supply and demand is crucial for an effective accountability relationship, but alignment is difficult in a situation with ambiguous or contested goals. This study analyzes the alignment between local governments and museums. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, including survey data, formal documents, and qualitative interviews with museum directors to analyse the accountability alignment. Demand and supply are not always well-aligned, leading to accountability mismatches. The implications of accountability mismatches for museums and other public organizations are discussed

Accountable for What? The Effect of Accountability Standard Specification on Decision-Making Behavior in the Public Sector

This study investigates how civil servants’ decision-making behavior is affected by what they are held accountable for. We look into the effects of specification of the accountability standard, and analyze the behavioral changes that might arise by holding civil servants accountable for the implementation of specific rules, as opposed to more loosely defined standards, or no predefined standards at all. Drawing on existing debates in public administration, as well as on theoretical accounts from social psychology, we develop two hypotheses outlining advantages and drawbacks of moving to either side of the accountability standard specification continuum. Specifically, we hypothesize a tradeoff between decision-making effort and decision impartiality. We perform our investigation using an online vignette and a classroom experiment. The results from the investigation do not offer clear support for our expectations. The hypothesis suggesting that accountability for general standards has positive effects on decision processes in terms of effort receives some tentative support, while the one linking specific standards to decision impartiality does not. We discuss possible reasons for this outcome, and draw recommendations for further research aiming to integrate psychological insights into public accountability research