Accountability in the Privatized State

Abstract

As well as better efficiency and improved services, privatization has also often promised improved accountability. But how does the empirical evidence on this look and what are the lessons here? This article looks at the notion of accountability and the degree to which privatizing public sector activities might improve or worsen such mechanisms. It then looks specifically at the different systems of accountability existing following three privatization activities in Victoria and compares these against that existing previously under public operation. The sale of electricity sector enterprises, the operation of urban rail service franchises, and the implementation of a public-private partnership project to supply transport infrastructure are adopted as case studies. For each case study, accountability systems are articulated and the operation of these systems is discussed. Overall, the article analyses the effectiveness of accountability systems now operating in the privatized state from the perspective of stakeholders. Importantly, the degree to which trade-offs may have been made under new accountability arrangements is also discussed. Finally, the article draws together some general lessons on accountability for future privatization activities and proposes a conceptual model for a pyramid of accountability.

External auditing and accountability in the Tanzanian local government authorities

“…In conclusion, prior studies have established mixed results about whether external auditing enhances the accountability of public sector organisations (Curtin and Meijer, 2006;Hodge and Coghill, 2007;Pallot, 2003;Roberts and Pollitt, 1994). Findings from this study show that external auditing had marginally contributed to the enhancement of accountability.…”

Public Contracts as Accountability Mechanisms: Assuring quality in public health care in England and Wales

“…Contracts were a key feature of the internal market introduced into the English and Welsh National Health Services (NHS) in the early 1990s, entailing the splitting of responsibilities for the purchasing and provision of health care (DH 1989). As well as serving as instruments of control and regulation (Vincent-Jones 2006), contracts may also be regarded as mechanisms for increasing the accountability of those delivering the services to funders and users (Hodge and Coghill 2007;Bovens 2006;Maybin et al 2011;Scott 2000;Craig 1994). Whereas accountability in the NHS was traditionally based on a professional agency model, in which self-regulating experts were trusted to make decisions on behalf of patients and the public, this has increasingly been displaced by a contractual model involving bureaucratic scrutiny and challenge (Tuohy 2003, 199).…”

The many outcomes from contracting out: The voice of public managers

“…A few studies have studied and discussed problems with the quality of privately produced services more independently through the concept of 'accountability' (e.g. Hodge and Coghill, 2007;Lamothe and Lamothe, 2010;Mulgan, 2006). In the predominant economic perspective, however, other outcomes are often discussed as moderating effects or externalities rather than unique outcomes of inherent interest and value.…”

“…However, the predominant approach to the study of contracting outcomes emerges as somewhat 'narrow' when contrasted with a) the broader range of approaches and criteria of potential relevance identified in the general literature on public management and performance (Andersen et al, 2016;Boyne, 2002;Hansen, 2017;Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011;Walker and Andrews, 2015); b) the few studies that have approached contracting outcomes from alternative perspectives, such as citizens' perceptions (Andrews and Van de Welle, 2013), consequences for staff (Vrangbaek et al, 2015), accountability issues (Hodge and Coghill, 2007;Mulgan, 2006), challenges for management (Kettl, 2010;Lindholst and Bogetoft, 2011) and the distribution of power (Hansen, 2010a); c) studies emphasising the multidimensional and composite characteristics of contracting outcomes (Amirkhanyan et al, 2010;Fernandez, 2009;Lindholst, 2017); qualitative studies enabling broader narrative accounts (Jones, 2000;Romzek and Johnston, 2002).…”