This article provides the reader with a literature review with the aim of finding out about the origin and meaning of accountability, and, based on a synthesis of the ideas of different scholars, developing a theoretical framework for ensuring police accountability. This theoretical framework will subsequently be used to facilitate an in-depth discussion of the conception and operation of police accountability in Hong Kong, research that will be conducted beyond the context of this article.1 It is hoped that the article will help to identify some important conceptual considerations that ought to be taken into account by any professsional and responsible police force seeking to embrace accountability in its policing procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AucoinP.HeintzmanR. (2000) ‘The Dialectics of Accountability for Preference in Public Management Reform’International Review of Administrative Sciences66(1), 45–55.
2.
Australian Public Service Commission (2003), The Australian Experience of Public Sector Reform, <www.apsc.gov.au/about/exppsreform5.htm> [accessed May 2004].
3.
BachrachP.BaratzM. (1970) ‘Two Faces of Power’, in KarielH.S. (ed.), Frontiers of Democratic Theory. New York: Random House, 263–74.
4.
BarneyJ.HesterlyW. (1996) ‘Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship Between Organizations and Economic Analysis’, in CleggS.R.HardyC.NordW.R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 115–47.
5.
BeerM.EisenstatA.SpectorB. (1990) ‘Why Change Programs Don't Produce Change’Harvard Business Review67(November/December), 158–66.
6.
CooperT. (1990) The Responsible Administrator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
CooperT. (1998) The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role, 4th edn.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
CorbettD. (1992) ‘Accountability and Ethics’Australian Public Sector Management. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin, 191–220.
9.
DavisG. (1993) ‘Public Policy in Australia’, in Public Policy in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, chap. 1, 1–17.
10.
DayP.KleinR. (1987) Accountabilities, Five Public Services. London: Tavistock.
11.
DubnickM. (1998) ‘Clarifying Accountability: An Ethical Theory Framework’, in SampfordC.PrestonN. (eds.), Public Sector Ethics: Finding and Implementing Values. London: Routledge, 68–81.
12.
DwivediO.JabbraJ. (eds) (1989) ‘Public Service Responsibility and Accountability’, in Public Service Accountability: A Comparative Perspective. West Hartford: Kumarian Press, 1–16.
13.
DyeT. (1984) Understanding Public Policy, 5th edn.Englewood: Prentice-Hall.
14.
EisenhardtK. (1989) ‘Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review’The Academy of Management Review14(1), 57–74.
15.
EricsonR. (1995) ‘Media and Account-ability in Criminal Justice’, StenningP. (ed.), Accountability for Criminal Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16.
Federal Transit Administration (2002), Fact Finding Mission to New Zealand (May 29–31, 2001), <www.fta.dot.gov/1184_ENG_HTML.htm> [accessed May 2004].
17.
FieldM. (1999) ‘Constructive Police Discipline’Law and Order47(5), 85–91.
18.
FinerH. (1936) ‘Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government’, in FriedrichC. (ed.) (1940), Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
FinnaneM. (1990) ‘Police and Politics in Australia: The Case for Historical Revision’Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology23: 218–28.
20.
FriedrichC. (1940) ‘The Nature of Administrative Accountability’, in Public Policy. Reprinted in WollP. (1966), Public Administration and Policy. New York: Harper & Row, 221–47.
21.
GarnerG. (1987) ‘Discipline is the Key to Police Discipline’Law and Order87(2), 40–4.
22.
GlynnJ. (1993) Financial Accountability: Public Sector Financial Control and Accounting, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell, 15–38.
23.
GoldsmithA. (ed.) (1991) ‘External Review and Self-Regulation: Police Accountability and the Dialectic of Complaints Procedures’, in Complaints Against Police: The Trend to External Review. Oxford: Clarendon.
24.
GrayA.JenkinsW. (1985) Administrative Politics in British Government. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
25.
GreenbergS.F. (1992) ‘On the Dotted Line: Police Executive Contracts’, in Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 8–11.
26.
GregoryR.HicksC. (1999) ‘Promoting Public Service Integrity: A Case for Responsible Accountability’, in Australian Journal of Public Administration58(4), 3–15.
27.
HagueM. (2000) ‘Significance of Accountability Under the New Approach to Public Governance’, International Review of Administrative Sciences66(4), 599–617.
28.
HarmanE. (1993) ‘The Impact of Public Sector Reforms on Australian Government’, in Weller (eds), Reforming the Public Sector. Melbourne: Macmillan, 16–40.
29.
HealdD. (1983) Public Expenditure. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
30.
HillM. (1997) ‘Bureaucrats and Professionals in the Policy Process’, in The Policy Process in the Modern State. London: Prentice-Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
31.
HirschP.M.MichaelsS.FriedmanR. (1990) ‘Clean Models vs. Dirty Hands: Why Economics is Different from Sociology’, in ZukinS.DiMaggioP. (eds), Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39–56.
32.
HoodC. (1991) ‘A Public Management for All Seasons?’Public Administration69(1), 3–19.
33.
HopeV.HendryC. (1995) ‘Corporate Cultural Change: Is it Relevant for the Organisations of the 1990s?’Human Resource Management Journal5(4), 61–73.
34.
HuntR.MagenauJ. (1993) Power and the Police Chief: An Institutional and Organisational Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
JensenM.MecklingW. (1976) ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’Journal of Financial Economics3: 303–60.
37.
JonesT.NewburnT.SmithD.J. (1994) ‘The Growth of Crime Prevention’, in Democracy and Policing, London: Policy Studies Institute, chap. 2.
38.
LawtonA.RoseA. (1991) Organisation and Management in the Public Sector. London: Pitman.
39.
LewisC. (2000) ‘Civilian Oversight: Democratic Accountability or Lip Service?’, in GoldsmithA.LewisC. (eds), Civilian Oversight of Policing: Governance, Democracy and Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 19–40.
40.
LipskyM. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Sage.
41.
LoveP.GunasekaranA.LiH. (1998) ‘Improving the Competitiveness of Manufacturing Companies by Continuous Incremental Change’The TQM Magazine10(3), 177–85.
42.
ManisonG. (1995) ‘Managing Australia's Police: The Challenge to Identify Who Should Be in Charge: Politicians or Police?’ in Australian Journal of Public Administration54(4), 494–506.
43.
ManningP. (1996) ‘Policing and Reflection’Police Forum6(4 Oct.), 1–5.
44.
MarshI. (1997) ‘Interest Group Analysis’, in WoodwardD.ParkinA.SummersJ. (eds), Government Politics and Power in Australia, 6th edn.Melbourne: Longman. 314–32.
45.
MosherF.C. (1968) Democracy and the Public Services. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
MulganR. (1997) ‘Accountability and Contracting Out’, Australian Journal of Public Administration56(4), 106.
47.
MulganR. (2000) ‘Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?’Public Administration78: 555–74.
OakersonR. (1989) ‘Governance Structures for Enhancing Accountability and Responsiveness’, in PerryJ. (ed.), Handbook of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
OgbonnaE. (1992) ‘Organisational Culture and Human Resource Management Dilemmas and Contradictions’, in BlytonP.TurnbullP. (eds), Re-assessing Human Resource Management. London: Sage74–96.
51.
OliverD. (1991) Government in the United Kingdom: The Search for Accountability, Effectiveness and Citizenship. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
52.
OliverD.DrewryG. (1996) Public Service Reforms: Issues of Accountability. London: Pinter.
53.
O'LoughlinM. (1990) ‘What is Bureaucratic Accountability and How Can We Measure It?’Administrative and Society22: 275–302.
54.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume. xv–24.
55.
ParkerR. (1976) ‘The Meaning of Responsible Government’Politics11(2), 178–84.
56.
PlehweR.WettenhallR. (1994) ‘Policing in Australia: Historical and Machinery-of-Government Perspectives’, in MooreD.WettenhallR. (eds), Keeping the Police: Police Accountability and Oversight. Canberra: Royal Institute of Public Administration, chap. 21: 156–73.
57.
PollockJ. (1998) Ethics in Crime and Justice: Dilemmas and Decisions, 3rd edn.Belmont: Wadsworth.
58.
PowerM. (1997) The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
ReimanJ. (1985) ‘The Social Contract and the Police Use of Deadly Force’, in EllisonF.A.FeldbergM. (eds), Moral Issues in Police Work, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 237–49.
60.
RhodesR. (1997) Understanding Governance: Public Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
61.
RohrJ. (1978) Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values. New York: Marcel Dekker.
62.
RomzekB. (2000) ‘Symposium on Accountability in Public Administration Reconciling Democracy, Efficiency and Ethics: Dynamics of Public Sector Accountability in an Era of Reform’Internal Review of Administrative Sciences66(1), 21–44.
63.
RomzekB.DubnickM. (1987) ‘Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy’Public Administrative Review47: 227–38.
64.
SchedlerA. (1999) ‘Conceptualizing Accountability’, in SchedlerA.DiamondL.PlattnerM.F. (eds), The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
65.
ScottI.ThynneI. (1994) ‘Public Sector Reform: Critical Issues and Perspectives’Hong Kong Asian Journal of Public AdministrationHong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
66.
ShafritzJ.M.HydeA.C. (1992) Classics of Public Administration (contains Weber's ‘The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation’, trans. HendersonA.M.ParsonsT. (1947), Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy), 3rd edn.California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 11–28, 51–57.
67.
SimonH. (1946) ‘The Proverbs of Administration’Public Administration Review6(Winter), 53–67.
68.
ThynneI.GoldringJ. (1987) Accountability and Control: Government Officials and the Politics of Power. Sydney: Law Book Co.
UhrJ. (1998) Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
United Nations Development Programme (2005) 2003–2004 National Human Development Report for Romania, <www.undp.ro/publications/nhdr03–04> [accessed March 2005].
72.
WaldoD. (1948) The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. New York: The Ronald Press.
73.
WalkerD.RichardsM. (1996) ‘A Service under Change: Current Issues in Policing in England and Wales’Police Studies19(1), 53–73.
74.
WalshW. (1998) ‘Policing at the Crossroads: Changing Directions for the New Millennium’International Journal of Police Science and Management1(1), 17–25.
75.
BayleyD. (1994) Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
76.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
77.
CampbellS. (1993) Public service and democratic accountability, Ethics in Public Service, in ChapmanR. (ed.), Ethics in Public Service. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 111–35.
78.
CaseyJ. (1998) ‘The Public Policy Process’, in Non-government Organisations as Policy Actors: The Case of Immigration Policies in Spain. Doctoral Thesis, published in the electronic library, <http://blues.uab.es/mgp/papers/> [accessed April 2004].
CooperD.SchindlerP. (1998) ‘Research in Business’, in Business Research Methods. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 3–53.
81.
CreswellJ. (1994) Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
82.
De VriesM.S. (2002) ‘Legitimacy and Public-Sector Quality: How Citizens Judge the Quality of the Police’The Police Journal75(4), 301–21.
83.
FergusonJ. (2001) ‘Transparency in Central Banking: Rationale and Recent Developments’, <www.bis.org/review/r010424c.pdf> [accessed April 2004].
84.
FinkA. (1998) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the Internet. California: Sage.
85.
GissinerM. (2001) ‘An Overview of Various Police Complaints System in the World’, <www.info.gov.hk/ipcc/engipcc/22.htm> [accessed April 2004].
86.
GrayA.JenkinsW. (1999) ‘Democratic Renewal in Local Government: Continuity and Change’Local Government Studies25(4), 26–45.
87.
HaysomN. (1989) ‘Policing the Police: A Comparative Survey of Police Control Mechanisms in the United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom’, in BennettT.W.DevineD.J.HutchisonD.B.LeemanI.van Zyl SmitD. (eds), Acta Juridica. Cape Town: Juta.
88.
HintonP.WilsonE. (1993) ‘Accountability’, in Public Services and the 1990s. WilsonJ.HintonP. (eds), Sevenoaks: Tudor, 123–42.
LaycockG. (2001) ‘Police Research: Who Needs It?’, Australian Institute of Criminology, No.211, <http://www.aic.gov/au> [accessed May 2004].
92.
LovedayB. (1999) ‘Improving Police Integrity and Accountability to the Community’International Journal of Police Science and Management1 (4, March), 390–402.
93.
MillerS.BlacklerJ.AlexandraA. (1997) Police Ethics. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
94.
MittlemanP. (2000) ‘Community Policing: Building Community Trust Thinking Outside the Box’Police Chief67(3), 50–5.
RohrJ. (1990) ‘Ethics in Public Administration: A State of the Discipline Report’, in NaomiB.WildavskyA. (eds), Public Administration: The State of the Discipline, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 97–123.
101.
SammonsP. (1989) ‘Ethical Issues in Statistical Work’, in BurgessR. (ed.), The Ethics of Educational Research. London: Falmer Press.
102.
SarreR. (1989) ‘Towards the Notion of Policing “By Consent”' and Its Implications for Police Accountability’, in ChappellD.WilsonP. (eds), Australian Policing Contemporary Issues. Sydney: Butterworths.
SmithT. (1991) ‘The Comparative Analysis of Bureaucratic Accountability’Asian Journal of Public Administration13(1), 93–104.
105.
StewartJ.D. (1984) ‘The Role of Information in Public Accountability’, in HopwoodA.TomkinsC. (eds), Issues in Public Sector Accounting. Oxford: Phillip Allan, 13–34.
106.
UhrJ. (1999) ‘Institutions of Integrity: Balancing Values and Verification in Democratic Government’Public Integrity1(1), 94–106.
