Public accountability and the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool: an assessment

Abstract

Since 2005, the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool has been widely used in developing countries and emerging economies to evaluate the performance of public financial management systems. In this article, we assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability instrument tool for evaluating public financial accountability. We examine the theoretical literature on public accountability in order to derive a suitable normative framework to assess the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool. However, given that this literature is based on experiences in developed countries, we must extend it to also take into account the political cultures and practices in developing countries. Using this extended framework, we assess the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators related to, in particular, parliamentary committees for financial oversight and Supreme Audit Institutions. We conclude that the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool could devote more attention to the independence of Supreme Audit Institutions, the nature of accountability debates, democratic inclusion and horizontal accountability mechanisms

Points for practitioners

The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool has been applied in more than 116 countries and its reports offer valuable information for practitioners and researchers around the world. It is the only publicly available data set that measures the performance of financial committees of parliament and Supreme Audit Institutions. The strengths and weaknesses revealed in this article should be taken into account when using the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability tool for research or for evaluating the quality of financial accountability systems in particular countries. The international financial institutions and donor agencies governing the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Secretariat can use the recommendations of this article to further improve the framework.

Keywords

accountability public administration democracy developing countries public finance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aucoin

Heintzman

(2000) The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66: 45–55.

Beekers

Van Gool

(2012) From Patronage to Neopatrimonialism – Postcolonial Governance in Sub-Sahara Africa and Beyond. ASC Working Paper 101/2012, Leiden: African Studies Centre.

Biela

Papadopoulos

(2014) The empirical assessment of agency accountability: A regime approach and an application to the German Bundesnetzagentur. International Review of Administrative Sciences 80: 362–381.

Bovens M (ed.) (2005) Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bovens

(2010) Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics 33(5): 946–967.

Bovens

Schillemans

‘t Hart

(2008) Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration 86: 225–242.

Braithwaite

(1999) Accountability and governance under the New Regulatory State. Australian Journal of Public Administration 58: 90–94.

Bratton

Van de Walle

(1997) Democratic Experiments in Africa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chabal

Daloz

(1999) Africa Works: Disorder as a Political Instrument, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

10.

De Renzio

Andrews

Mills

(2011) Does Donor Support to Public Financial Management Reforms in Developing Countries Work? An Analytical Study of Quantitative Cross-Country Evidence, London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

11.

Erdmann

Engel

(2006) Neopatrimonialism Revisited: Beyond a Catch-all Concept. GIGA Working Paper Series No. 16, Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.

12.

Erdmann

Engel

(2007) Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: Critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 45: 95–119.

13.

European Commission (2003) Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward, Brussels: European Commission on Corporate Governance.

14.

Flinders

(2001) The Politics of Accountability in the Modern State, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

15.

Goetz

Jenkins

(2005) Reinventing Accountability: Making Democracy Work for Human Development, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

16.

INTOSAI (International Association of Supreme Audit Institutes) (1998 [1977]) The Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts (new edn of the Lima Declaration). http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/befa05/LimaDeclaration.pdf.

17.

Khan

(2005) Review of DFID’s Governance Target Strategy Paper, London: SOASAvailable at: http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/9955/1/Review_of_Dfid_Governance_TSP.pdf.

18.

Leenstra M (2012) Beyond the façade. Instrumentalisation of the Zambian health sector. PhD thesis, African Studies Centre, Leiden.

19.

Lindberg

(2013) Mapping accountability: Core concept and subtypes. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79: 202–226.

20.

Mashaw

(2006) Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In: Dowdle

(ed.) Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–156.

21.

O’Donnell

(1998) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy 9: 112–126.

22.

PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) Secretariat (2006) Public Financial Management Performance Measurement Framework, Washington, DC: PEFA Secretariat.

23.

PEFA Secretariat (2010) Survey of PEFA Partners, Use of PEFA Assessments for Internal Processes, Washington, DC: PEFA Secretariat.

24.

PEFA Secretariat (2011) Overview on the Status on Applications of PEFA Performance Measurement Framework, Washington, DC: PEFA Secretariat.

25.

Philp

(2009) Delimiting democratic accountability. Political Studies 57: 28–53.

26.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Pollitt C and Talbot C (eds) (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London: Routledge.

28.

Pollitt

Talbot

Caulfield

et al. (2004) Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-autonomous Organizations, Basingstoke and London: Palgrave MacMillan.

29.

Rodrik D (2008) Second-best institutions. Article linked to Weblog of 8 January 2008.

30.

Romzek

Dubnick

(1987) Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review 47: 227–238.

31.

Schillemans

(2008) Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review 8: 175–194.

32.

Smullen A (2007) Translating agency reform: Rhetoric and culture in comparative perspective. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at: http://repub.eur.nl/pub/10428.

33.

Unsworth S (ed.) (2010) An Upside Down View of Governance. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

34.

Veselý

(2013) Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: Concept and reality. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79: 310–330.

35.

Warren ME (2006) Political corruption as duplicitous exclusion. Political Science and Politics 37: 803–807.

36.

Weber M (1978) Economy and society. In: G Roth and C Wittich (eds) An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

37.

Wehner

(2002) Best Practices of Public Accounts Committees, Cape Town: IDASA.