The existing accountability research in public administration either provides conceptual analyses and definitions of forms of accountability or case studies on accountability. They focus on the structure of responsibility or responding behavior. This article is different in that it tests actors’ perceptions of the three commonly cited forms of accountability identified in the literature—vertical, horizontal, and hybrid. We test accountability on a national survey sample of city managers across the United States. Our structural equation model indicates that there is both vertical and horizontal accountability present in city governments in the United States supporting a hybrid model. The results of this study add to the literature because most of the existing research on accountability does not test this important relationship nor examine actors’ perceptions.
AbneyG.LauthT. P. (1985). Interest group influence in city policy making: The views of administrators. The Western Political Quarterly, 38(1), 148–161.
AucoinP.HeintzmanR. (2000). The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 45–55.
4.
BardachE.LesserC. (1996). Accountability in human services collaboratives—For what? And to whom?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 197–224.
5.
BovensM. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119
6.
BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (2014). The Oxford handbook public accountability. Oxford University Press.
BrandsmaG. J.SchillemansT. (2012). The accountability cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 953–975.
9.
CendonA. B. (2000). Accountability and public administration: Concepts, dimensions, developments. In KelleM. (Ed.), Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 22–61). Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe.
10.
CheungG. W.LauR. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325.
11.
De GraafG. (2010). The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 285–306.
12.
DemirT.NyhanR. C. (2008). The politics-administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 81–96.
13.
DubnickM. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.
14.
DunnD. D.LeggeJ. S.Jr. (2001). U.S. local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003495
15.
EbdonC. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(2), 273–294.
16.
FanX.ThompsonB.WangL. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56–83.
17.
FinerH. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/972907
18.
FrohnenB. P. (2016). Waivers, federalism, and the rule of law. Perspectives on Political Science, 45(1), 59–67.
19.
GreilingD.HalachmiA. (2013). Accountability and organizational learning in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 3(36), 380–406.
20.
GoetzA. M.JenkinsR. (2001). Hybrid forms of accountability: Citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, 3(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670110051957
21.
HaqueM. S. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), 599–617.
22.
HerringE. (1936). Public administration and the public interest. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
23.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
24.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
25.
JacksonM. (2009). Responsibility versus accountability in the Friedrich-Finer debate. Journal of Management History, 15(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511340910921790
26.
JacobsenM.JensenR. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.
27.
JohnstonJ. M.RomzekB. S. (1999). Contracting and accountability in state Medicaid reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 383–399.
28.
Kathleen DeutscherM.WalkerK. D.PhillipsP. W. (2019). Conscience in public administration: More than just a chirping cricket?Canadian Public Administration, 62(2), 181–201.
29.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling:. Guilford Press.
30.
KluversR. (2003). Accountability for performance in local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 57–69.
31.
KluversR.TippettJ. (2010). Mechanisms of accountability in local government: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(7), 46–53.
32.
KoehlerC. T. (1973). Policy development and legislative oversight in council-manager cities: An information and communication analysis. Public Administration Review, 33(5), 433–441.
33.
KoppellJ. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder.”Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
34.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
35.
MacKinnonD. P.DwyerJ. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17(2), 144–158.
36.
MartinJ.KlootL. (2001). Local government accountability: Explaining differences. Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 7(1), 51–72.
37.
McGarveyN. (2001). Accountability in public administration: A multi-perspective framework of analysis. Public Policy and Administration, 16(2) 17–29.
38.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 426–456.
39.
MichelsA.MeijerA. (2008). Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government. Public Management Review, 10(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030801928490
NelsonK. L.SvaraJ. H. (2015). The roles of local government managers in theory and practice. A centennial perspective. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 49–61.
42.
O’LoughlinM. G. (1990). What is bureaucratic accountability and how can we measure it?Administration & Society, 22(3), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979002200301
43.
RomzekB. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300661004
44.
RomzekB. S.DubnickM. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/975901
45.
SalminenA.LehtoK. (2012). Accountable to whom? Exploring the challenge of multiple accountabilities in Finnish Public Administration. Halduskultuur, 13(2), 147–162.
46.
SeldenS. C.BrewerG. A.BrudneyJ. L. (1999). The role of city managers: Are they principals, agents, or both?The American Review of Public Administration, 29(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750749922064319
47.
SørensenE. (2012). Measuring the accountability of collaborative innovation. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–4.
48.
SpicerM. W. (2005). Public administration and the state: A postmodern perspective:. University of Alabama Press.
49.
StreibG. (1992). Professional skills and support for democratic principles: The case of local government department heads in Northern Illinois. Administration & Society, 24(1), 22–40.
50.
SvaraJ. H. (1990). Official leadership in the city: Patterns of conflict and cooperation:. Oxford University Press on Demand.
51.
SvaraJ. H. (1999). The shifting boundary between elected officials and city managers in large council-manager cities. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 44–53.
52.
SvaraJ. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183.
53.
UhrJ. (1993). Redesigning accountability: From muddles to maps. The Australian Quarterly, 65(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/20635716
54.
WangX. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074002032003005
