The concept of accountability is defined based on a technical apparatus of rules. The prevailing conception, as described by Dubnick and Frederickson, focuses on control and consequence. They divide the concept into pre factum and post factum arenas, the former encompassing rules of control and the latter, consequences for the violation of rules. This two-dimensional view of accountability neglects the moment of decision and action, which might be referred to as the per factum dimension. Introducing this added dimension to accountability highlights the political quality of the concept by drawing attention to practices and opportunities for contestation.
AdamsG. B.BalfourD. L. (2009). Unmasking administrative evil (3rd ed.). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
2.
ArendtH. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. London, England: Viking Press.
3.
ArendtH. (2005a). Personal responsibility under a dictatorship responsibility and judgment. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
4.
ArendtH. (2005b). Responsibility and judgment. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
5.
ArendtH. (2009). Introduction into politics. In The promise of politics (pp. 93-200). KohnJ., (Ed.) New York, NY: Schocken Books.
6.
BovensM. (2005). Public accountability. In FerlieE.LynneL.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 182-208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
BovensM. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33, 946-967.
8.
BovensM.SchillemansT.t’HartP. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86, 225-242.
DubnickM. J. (1998). Clarifying accountability: An ethical theory framework. In SampfordC.PrestonN. (Eds.), Public sector ethics (pp. 68-81). London, England: Routledge.
11.
DubnickM. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6, 405-441.
12.
DubnickM. J. (2011). Move over Daniel: We need some accountability space. Administration & Society, 43, 704-716.
13.
DubnickM. J. (2014). The ontological challenge. In BovensM.SchillemansT.GoodinR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 649-654). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
DubnickM. J.FredericksonH. G. (2010). Introduction: The promises of accountability research. In DubnickM. J.FredericksonH. G. (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. xi-xxx). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
15.
DubnickM. J.FredericksonH. G. (Eds.). (2011a). Accountable governance: Problems and promises. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
16.
DubnickM. J.FredericksonH. G. (2011b). Public accountability: Performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. Washington, D.C: Kettering Foundation & National Academy of Public Administration.
17.
DubnickM. J.JusticeJ. (2006). Accountability and the evil of administrative ethics. Administration & Society, 38(2), 236-267.
18.
EbrahimA. (2009). Placing the normative logics of accountability in “thick” perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 885-904.
19.
FinerH. (1936). Better government personnel. Political Science Quarterly, 51, 569-599.
20.
FinerH. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic governance. Public Administration Review, 1, 335-350.
21.
FlindersM. (2011). Daring to be a Daniel: The pathology of politicized accountability in a monitory democracy. Administration & Society, 43, 595-619.
22.
FriedrichC. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy, 1(1), 1-20.
23.
GailmardS. (2014). Accountability and principal-agent theory. In BovensM.SchillemansT.GoodinR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90-105). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
GoodnowF. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. New York, NY: Macmillan.
25.
GrantR. (2012). Strings attached: Untangling the ethics of incentives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
GuttmanA.ThompsonD. (2004). Why deliberative democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
HajerM. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175-195.
28.
HarmonM. M. (1995). Responsibility as paradox: A critique of rational discourse on government. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
HayneC.SalterioS. E. (2014). Accounting and auditing. In BovensM.SchillemansT.GoodinR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 421-440). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
JacobsenD. I. (2012). Local authority bureaucracies: Responsible, representative, or divergent? Evidence from small political systems in Norway. Public Administration, 90, 1067-1087.
32.
KrawiecK. D. (2013). Don’t “screw Joe the plummer”: The sausage-making of financial reform. Arizona Law Review, 55, 53-103.
33.
LovettF. (2001). Domination: A preliminary analysis. The Monist, 84, 98-112.
34.
LovettF. (2010). A general theory of domination and justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
MouffeC. (1993). The return of the political. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
38.
MouffeC. (2005). The democratic paradox. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
39.
MouffeC. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
40.
MulganR. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept?Public Administration, 78, 555-573.
41.
MulganR. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
O’NeillO. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PatemanC. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 7-19.
45.
PettitP. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
PettitP. (1999). Republican freedom and contestatory democratization. In ShapiroI.Hacker-CordonC. (Eds.), Democracy’s value (pp. 163-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PettitP. (2005). Rules, reasons, and norms: Selected essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
PhilpM. (2009). Delimiting democratic accountability. Political Studies, 57, 28-53.
49.
PosnerE.VermeuleA. (2010). The executive unbound. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
RobertsN. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62, 658-669.
51.
RomzekB. S.DubnickM. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227-238.
ScottJ. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
SeidmanG. I. (2004). The origins of accountability: Everything I know about the Sovereigns’ immunity, I learned from King Henry III. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 49(2). Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=592053 .
55.
TetlockP. E. (2011). Vying for rhetorical high ground in accountability debates: It is easy to look down on those who look soft on. Administration & Society, 43, 693-703.
56.
WagenaarH. (2004). “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64, 643-655.
57.
WaldronJ. (2013). Political political theory: An inaugural lecture. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21, 1-23.
