Auckland’s council-controlled organisations (CCOs) are bound by accountability provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010. One might question then whether there is really genuine cause for concern about their accountability.
McKinlay Douglas Limited argues that accountability fears are unfounded and that elected members can exert influence over the activities of CCOs through the statement of intent. They contend that elected members need to understand the CCO model and be prepared to exercise the powers which the Act gives them.[1]
But what does accountability really mean in the CCO context? There are probably as many definitions of accountability as there are governance models.
The UK Audit Commission identifies four components of accountability: giving an account, being held to account, taking account and redress.[2] Blackman and Ormston identify five relevant discourses of accountability that have affected current understanding of the concept: democratic control, audit, stakeholding, answerability, and enforcement.[3]
Bovens provides a comprehensive view of accountability from conceptual, analytical and evaluative perspectives. He suggests that the term accountability is over-used and confused with other fashionable terms such as transparency and responsibility before fixing on the following definition: “a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences”.[4]
The OECD describes accountability as “the obligation to present an account of and answer for the execution of responsibilities through the political and constitutional structure”. The World Bank defines accountability as merely the “obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for their actions”.[5] This definition seems to support Boven’s view of the imprecise and interchangeable way such terms can sometimes be used.
[1] McKinlay Douglas Limited, Local Government Options for Northland. 2010, pp. iv, http://www.wdc.govt.nz/resources/13963/Local-Government-Options-for-Northland-final-report.pdf
[2] Audit Commission, Governing Partnerships: Bridging the Accountability Gap. London, UK, Audit Commission, 2005, pp. 33.
[3] Tim Blackman and Christianne Ormston, ‘Discourses of Accountability: Policy Scrutiny of an English Regional Development Agency’, Regional Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, May 2005, pp. 379-480.
[4] Bovens, pp. 6-9.
[5] Joanne Caddy et al., Beyond Public Scrutiny: Stocktaking of Social Accountability in OECD Countries. Washington, D.C., The World Bank, 2007, pp. 5.