Search

Abstract This study developed an analytical framework enabling a better understanding of the relationship between accountability and public trust through the moderation effect of public participation. To test the relationship empirically, a cross‐sectional survey was conducted in three local governments of two provinces in Nepal. The results demonstrated that the constructs of transparency, responsiveness, and public participation were significant predictors of public trust in Nepal, whereas liability and controllability were not significant predictors. These findings suggest that trust in the government depended on the governmentʼs performance and cultural aspects of people in Nepal, with performance aspects being more influential. These findings have theoretical and practical implications. The study contributes to the “performance‐trust model” presented in the existing literature by adding the moderating effect of perceived public participation.

The external control of public organizations and their members, commonly referred to as accountability, is an enduring theme in public administration. This article shifts attention from a traditional focus on accountability as a macro-institutional matter to the psychology of accountability, that is, whether and how employees internalize accountability systems. The internalization of rules and expectations varies by individual, which, in turn, has significant consequences for accountability outcomes. We theorize that the micro-foundations of employee accountability are affected by five factors: attributability, observability, evaluability, answerability, and consequentiality. These five dimensions are conceptually distinct but interrelated, representing a deeper common psychological construct of employee accountability. Incorporating the psychological approach of accountability advances the potential of public accountability research. We conclude with a discussion of future research and practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often assumed that a greater level of accountability will positively affect the performance of public organizations; however, this relationship has not been studied extensively in public administration. This study provides quantitative evidence regarding the impact of accountability on organizational performance in the U.S. federal government. Specifically, we examine the association between the levels of organizational performance and accountability in three functions of human resource management (HRM)--staffing, performance evaluation, and compensation--as perceived by employees of public organizations. Further, we test whether the level of autonomy perceived by the employees influences the association between accountability and performance. The findings suggest that the levels of accountability manifested in staffing, performance evaluation, and compensation all positively and significantly affect organizational performance. Moreover, employee autonomy tends to amplify the positive impact of accountability on performance in two HRM functions--staffing and compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public employees are required to manage multiple accountability requirements by investing in the relationship with those who demand accountability, making a commitment to the given tasks and anticipating what might happen. The purpose of the study is to explore how social caseworkers manage multiple accountability requirements compared to public managers. The analysis from child welfare caseworkers' interview data highlights a number of ways on how social caseworkers respond to multiple accountabilities. Although most of acts from caseworkers are exposed within the public managers' strategies, talking or discussing with coworkers and supervisors seems the caseworkers' contextual and endemic response. Discussions followed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]