Constructing a performance‐based accountability system for the Chinese government

Abstract

Purpose: This study constructs a valid performance-based system to monitor accountability within the Chinese government. Design/methodology/approach: First, a normative analysis model was constructed to include four factors, which form a complete accountability system: accountability to whom, accountability for what, how to demand accountability, and its effectiveness. This normative model was then used to explore existing practices of Chinese government performance evaluation and accountability. Findings: Our study revealed the need to accelerate 'two integrations' in order to develop performance-based accountability. This would involve accelerating the integration of government performance assessment and accountability and accelerating the integration of external control and internal control. Research Implications: This study is a preliminary study that points out the direction of performance-based accountability system reform in Chinese government. It will further promote the transformation of government functions and change the way administration is carried out, promote to achieve the goal of the responsible government, and service-oriented government. Establishing an effective performance-based accountability system in China may yet require further research and policy recommendations. Originality/value: This article is original in its attempt to construct an accountability index for the Chinese government. Its specific focus on China increases its originality as no known study has attempted to construct such an index.

Surviving local government policy intervention: the case of embedded markets within a historical cultural cluster

“…An increasing body of literature on the absence of citizen engagement in PPP decision‐making indicates that the costs ultimately accrue to the citizens (Bloomfield, ; Chen et al ., ). In China, there is evidence that, in regional internationally‐focused activities such as the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, the government relied on the general public to build up the local image; however, in regional economic development projects, the level of transparency and public involvement is still quite low, matching the findings from the Jingdezhen data (P. Wang, & Tan, ). Multiple factors contingent on the local cultural setting affect the nature and extent of direct public engagement in the local government framework (Nabatchi & Amsler, ).…”

Risk Management Practices to Strengthen Public Sector Accountability

“…Several studies (Abdali et al, 2013;Bakar et al, 2011;Bolton, 2003;Cunningham & Harris, 2005;Kloot, 2009;Saliterer & Korac, 2013;Tan, 2014) have demonstrated the PMS as an important tool for discharging accountability in the public sector. However, Woods (2008) suggested that further research is needed to observe the relationship between strategic control and risk management.…”

“…Poor accountability is attributed to the lack of proper disclosure and transparency (Bakar & Saleh, 2015). Existing accountability literature (Abdali, Hourani, Abuerrub, & Shambour, 2013;Bolton, 2003;Halachmi, 2002;Hoque, 2008;Kloot, 2009;Saliterer & Korac, 2013;Tan, 2014) noted that PMS is an important factor which affects public sector accountability. At the same time, Said, Abidin and Nassir (2014) also argued that mission based management practices are necessary to demonstrate high levels of accountability.…”

Organizational control rationales in knowledge‐intensive organizations: An integrative review of emerging trends

“…The purpose of this article has been to contribute to research on OCC in KIOs. The article illustrates the complexity and dynamics of control in KIOs, which is of special interest to public affairs (McGrath et al, ; Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, ), public management (Martin‐Rios, ; Tan, ), and management theory at large (Birkinshaw, ). It is hoped that this paper will prove useful to further empirical research in the field of public affairs by suggesting a theoretical framework for OCC.…”

“…One missing aspect in the KIOs literature is the relationship between these differing formal and informal control rationales (Martin‐Rios, ). This is critical for public affairs (McGrath, Moss, & Harris, ), public policy and governance (Tan, ), and new public management (Martin‐Rios, ) because when the various OCC or rationales in an organization are not balanced and integrated, they can be a source of dissatisfaction, conflict, and stress for their members and related negative economic consequences for the organization (Cardinal et al, ).…”