This article presents the results of a national survey on accountability practices in U.S. municipal administrations. It also examines possible causes and effects of accountability. It finds that city administrations use a variety of political and legal accountability tools. They reveal more financial information than performance information to their stakeholders. Accountability appears to be enhanced through eliminating government workers’concerns about exposing their performances. Responsiveness, public consensus, and stakeholder trust are strengthened in accountable administrations. However, stakeholder fiscal commitments and administrative service capacities are not associated with accountability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barzelay, M.
(1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Berman, E. M.
(1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 105-112.
3.
Bowsher, C. A.
(1992). Performance measurement: An important tool in managing for results. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
4.
Browder, L. H.
(1971). Introduction: Emerging patterns of administrative accountability—A point of view. In L. H. Browder Jr. (Ed.), Emerging patterns of administrative accountability (pp. 1-25). Berkeley, CA: McCuthchan.
5.
Center for Accountability and Performance
. (1998). Performance measurement: Concepts and techniques. Washington, DC: American Society of Public Administration.
6.
Creighton, J. L.
(1981). The public involvement manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt.
7.
Denhardt, R. B.
, & Gray, J. E. (1998). Targeting community development in Orange County, Florida. National Civic Review, 87(3), 227-235.
8.
Frederickson, H. G.
(1971). Toward a new public administration. In F. B. Marini (Ed.), Toward a new public administration (pp. 309-331). London: Chandler.
9.
General Accounting Office
. (1999). Managing for results: Opportunities for continued improvements in agencies’performance plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215). Washington, DC: Author.
10.
Gore, A.
(1993). Creating a government that works better and costs less: Reports of the national performance review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
11.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
. (1999). Statement No. 34 of GASB: Basic financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis—for state and local governments. Norwalk, CT: Author.
12.
Government Finance Officers Association
. (1993). Distinguished budget presentation awards program: Awards criteria. Chicago: Author.
13.
Government Finance Officers Association.
(1998). Recommended budget practices: A framework for improved state and local government budgeting. Chicago: Author.
14.
Gray, J. E.
, & Chapin, L. W. (1998). Targeted community initiative: Putting citizens first. In C. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Hatry, H. P.
(1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
16.
Herring, E. P.
(1936). Public administration and the public interest. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Hildreth, W. B.
(1997). Financial management: The centrality of the fiscal in local government and politics. In J. J. Gargan (Ed.), Handbook of local government administration (pp. 159-190). New York: Marcel Dekker.
18.
International City/County Management Association
. (1998). The municipal year book. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
International City/County Management Association
. (1999). The municipal year book. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Jereski, L.
(1996). How a rescue mission failed, just barely, in Orange County. In R. Stillman II (Ed.), Public administration concepts and cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
Kaufman, H.
(1969). Administrative decentralization and political power. Public Administration Review, 29(1), 3-15.
22.
King, C. S.
, Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
23.
King, C. S.
, & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Krislov, S.
(1974). Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
Krislov, S.
, & Rosenbloom, D. (1981). Representative bureaucracy and the American political system. New York: Praeger.
26.
Langton, S.
(1978a). Citizen participation in America: Current reflections on the state of arts. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America (pp. 1-12) Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
27.
Langton, S.
(1978b). What is citizen participation? In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America (pp. 13-24). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
28.
Levine, C. H.
(Ed.). (1981). Managing fiscal stress (p. 12). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
29.
Melkers, J.
, & Willoughby, K. (1998). The state of states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-73.
30.
Merton, R. K.
(1997). Bureaucratic structure and personality. In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration (4th ed., pp. 100-108). New York: Harcourt Brace.
31.
Meyer, M. W.
(1985). The concept of rational administration. In J. S. Ott, A. Hyde, & J. Shafritz (Eds.), Public management: The essential readings (pp. 174-188). Chicago: Lyceum Books/Nelson-Hall Publishers.
32.
Osborne, D.
, & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. New York: Addison-Wesley.
33.
Osborne, D.
, & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
34.
O’Toole, D. E.
, & Marshall, J. (1988). Citizen participation through budgeting. The Bureaucrat, 17(2), 51-55.
35.
Pateman, C.
(1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Press.
36.
Poister, T.
, & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325-335.
37.
Romzek, B. S.
, & Dubnick, M. (1994). Issues of accountability in flexible personnel system. In P. W. Ingraham & B. S. Romzek (Eds.), New paradigms for government: Issues for the changing public service (pp. 263-294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Romzek, B. S.
, & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiatives, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240-253.
39.
Rubin, I.
(1996). Budgeting for accountability: Municipal budgeting for the 1990s. Public Budgeting and Finance, 16(2), 112-132.
40.
Shafritz, J. M.
, & Hyde, A. C. (1997). Classics of public administration (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
41.
Sheldon, D. R.
(1996). Achieving accountability in business and government: Managing for efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. Westport, CT: Quorum.
42.
Valente, M. G.
(1994). Evaluating financial condition: A handbook for local government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
