Why do “teeth” need “voice”? The case of anti‐corruption agencies in three Australian states

Abstract

Interactions between horizontal accountability agencies (e.g., anti‐corruption agencies [ACAs]) and social accountability actors (e.g., journalists, civil society activists, and complainants/whistleblowers) are recognized as important to horizontal agencies’ performance, but the reason(s) is not clear. This study therefore explores why horizontal accountability agencies need social accountability actors in performing their functions. The study analyses data from 30 key stakeholders in Australia, including ACAs staff members, social accountability actors, and other observers to report on the specific support roles social actors play to ACAs’ activities and operations. Through the conceptual lens of social accountability, evidence show that social actors play four key types of support roles to ACAs’ activities and operations: activate ACAs’ investigations; “amplify” ACAs’ operations; guard ACAs’ activities and operations; and defend ACAs’ independence and powers. These findings support the need for interactions and, also, affirm the potential for research into how these support roles can better be provided for effective anti‐corruption outcomes. The research is of value to public accountability agencies in Australia, and internationally.

Social Accountability Between Consensus and Confrontation: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Societal Accountability Relationships of Public Sector Organizations

“…Social accountability could generate “spilling out” effects to traditional forms of accountability and such increasing its indirect but substantial influence over public sector actions and behaviors (Neu et al, 2020, p. 474). Social accountability could function as a “trigger” for forms of accountability, such as parliamentary questioning (political accountability) and inspections (judicial accountability; see, for example, Ankamah, 2019; Ojala et al, 2019; Reichersdorfer et al, 2013). Whether social accountability occurs in a consensual or confrontational nature might have consequences for formal and vertical accountability.…”

“…Furthermore, the “weak” mechanisms of social accountability could result into formal sanctions, as these accountability mechanisms are often connected with traditional accountability arrangements toward hierarchical powers (Schillemans, 2008, p. 191). For example, Ankamah (2019) shows that societal stakeholders have a strong supportive role for the effective performance of accountability functions by anti-corruption agencies in three Australian states. Based upon a multiple case study of accountability in immigration administration in three European countries, Reichersdorfer et al (2013, pp.…”

The Civil Society Organizations effect: A mixed-methods analysis of bottom-up accountability in Brazilian public policy

“…The disappointing results have cast doubts on the effectiveness of the bottom-up accountability strategy for improving the delivery of public services, reducing corruption, and enhancing government efficiency. Some authors (Fox 2015;Ankamah 2019) have suggested that social accountability without "teeth," defined as the government's capacity to respond to citizens' voices, has limited impact.…”