Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform

Administrative reform has enjoyed significant support in Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand during the past decade (Campbell and Peters, 1988; Christoph, 1992; Stone, 1993; Campbell and Wilson, 1995; Kettl and DiIulio, 1995); it has also 'permeated Latin America, entered Asia, and most recently penetrated Africa' (Kearney and Hays, 1998). In contrast to this widespread support at the nation-state level, the adoption of reforms at lower levels of government is more uneven (Brudney et al., 1999). These reforms have been manifested in various ways and under numerous labels, depending upon the national context. In western democracies these reform efforts have gone under the labels of reinventing government, new public management, and managerialism, with the avowed intent of increasing efficiency, responsiveness and accountability of public managers. While being in favor of efficiency, responsiveness and accountability is a popular rhetorical stance, the reality of public sector reform represents substantial challenges, not the least of which is how reforms impact the accountability of public administrators. These reforms have implications for the accountability relationships of government agencies and public managers; Olsen (1988) notes that the patchwork of administrative reform can result in administrative apparatus that are more complex and render accountability more obscure. The long-term success of such reforms requires consideration of the accountability dynamics and recognition of appropriate changes in the culture of accountability (Blanchard et al., 1998). Yet many reforms have been proposed and undertaken with the presumption that, once the reforms are in place, accountability will somehow take care of itself (Moe, 1994; Garvey, 1995). Using the experience of government reform in the United States as illustration, this article examines the accountability implications of contemporary administrative reform.