Accountability perception of Thai Government: to whom and what counts

Abstract

Purpose Public sector entities face conflicting demands from stakeholders. The literature suggests identifying and prioritizing stakeholders can improve accountability. Thailand, an emerging economy, and currently under military rule, provides an interesting context to investigate stakeholder tensions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why the Thai Government bureaucrats prioritize their stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach The study draws on the managerial branch of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory to examine the importance of various stakeholders and of the stakeholders’ salient attributes perceived by the Thai Government bureaucrats in discharging its accountability. The study uses a survey questionnaire mailed out to the central government departments in Thailand. Findings The study finds that single most important stakeholder is the Office of the Auditor-General. The public is perceived as the second. This is dissimilar to the western-centric accountability focus on the public, and challenges claims by the Thai military coup that it will bring democratic rule. “Legal power” supporting the stakeholders’ claims for government accountability is the most influential attribute in determining stakeholder importance and prioritizing attention for government bureaucrat’s discharge of its accountability. Originality/value Such findings increase understanding of the applicability of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory in the context of military rule in emerging economy countries such as Thailand. This paper also provides suggestions of how stakeholders may shape their salience in order to gain priority. This also provides an immediate suggestion for reforms of the Thai regulatory frameworks in prioritizing stakeholders and promoting the government’s greater accountability.

From professional bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy – redefining universities’ organization principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for being

“…Universities in Western countries are operating in the crossfire of numerous pressures. They are faced with increasing international competition for funding, status, students and staff (de Boer et al , 2007; Välimaa, 2012) and pressures to increase their efficiency and accountability (Hood, 1995; van Gestel and Teelken, 2006; Upping and Oliver, 2012; Akbar et al , 2015; Komutputipong and Keerasuntonpong, 2019). Because of these pressures, various managerial methods and models aimed at making organizations more accountable, transparent and manageable have been brought to universities, thus constituting a trend labeled in academia as “audit culture” or even “tyranny of numbers” (Brenneis et al , 2005).…”

Isomorphism, Human Resource Capability and Its Role in Performance Measurement and Accountability

“…28/1999, so all of the local governments must apply the principle of accountability (Hardiningsih, Udin, Masdjojo, & Srimindarti, 2020). As a concept, accountability has high complexities and many aspects and the government prioritizes stakeholders differently due to competing demands conditions for accountability from various stakeholders (Komutputipong & Keerasuntonpong, 2019). Thus, it is essential for considering it by specifying who is responsible (accountable), to whom, why, and through what ways (Patton, 1992).…”

Budgeting under public scrutiny: tracing the justification work of stakeholder groups in the controversy of an Olympic candidature

“…Due to the inglorious financial history of megaprojects, their sheer complexity and their long planning horizons, budgeting usually imposes major challenges for project managers in mediating their own interests with their internal and external stakeholders, while also maintaining the semblance of legitimacy toward the public (see also Karlsson and Kurkkio, 2018; Komutputipong and Keerasuntonpong, 2019). After all, it appears that the approvals of megaprojects are usually based on underestimated costs, overestimated revenues, misreporting of environmental impact and overvalued economic benefits, while taxpayers tend to end up paying the bill (see also Irimia-Diéguez et al , 2014; Lenfe and Loch, 2017).…”