Administrative accountability

1. Administrative
Accountability
Debbie Nell G. Geronimo

2. Constitution of the Philippines
1973, Article XIII, Section 1
An office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees shall serve with
the highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall
remain accountable to the people.

3. This study is an attempt to realize the
partnership not only on public
administration and auditing but also of
public administration and democratic
theory where people have self governing
principles.
If indeed people are the masters of
the society, their means of maintaining
that supremacy must be scrutinized and
sharpened.

4. This means are embodied in the
forms and standards of accountability
which, have not remained static over
time rather they have undergone an
evolution so that one can contrast
“traditional” accountability with new
variants.

5. The changes are responsive to the
social and political forces that vary
with a country’s development.
As Foster (1981) states: as the
public becomes better educated, they
also become more aware, more
demanding, less understanding, and
less willing to accept average
performance

6. ACCOUNTABILITY
is a central problem for governments
which are or claim to be democratic. The
activities of civil servants and public
agencies must follow the will of the people
to whom they are ultimately responsible.
The publicness of their employment and
goals thus prescribes their behaviour and
circumscribes their choices.

7. Three Phases of Classical Cycle
of Public Administration
1. Planning
received disproportionate attention in
traditional public administration
2. Implementation
came into its own much later.
3. Evaluation
is more of under thought sometimes
taught along with survey methods and rarely
transferring from the realm of methodology
into substance.

8. 4 Standard questions
are central to accountability
1. Who is considered accountable?
2. To whom is he accountable?
3. To what standards or values is he
accountable?
4. By what means he is
made accountable?

9. TYPES OF
ACCOUNTABILITY

10. 1. Traditional Accountability
• Focuses in the regularity of fiscal
transactions and the faithful compliance as
well as adherence to legal requirements and
administrative policies.
• Concerns with efficiency and economy in
the use of public funds, property and
manpower (Tantuico 1982:8 as cited by
Cariño 2003:808);

11. • As its name implies, the administrator is
responsible to his superiors, and external
controllers which provides the resources for
the operation of the agency;
• It recognizes that government officials are
responsible for more than just compliance but
the need for the constant concern to avoid
waste and unnecessary expenditures and to
promote the judicious use of public resources
• This promoted by programs which cut the
“red tape” of government procedures;

12. 2. Managerial Accountability
• These programs range from attempt at
work simplification and revision of forms all
the way to systems improvements and agency
reorganization;
• Operational audits had long been done by
agencies concerned with management under
such names as management analysis,
methods (O and M) studies and systems
improvements;

13. • All calling attentions to how government
agencies can reduce waste and effect savings
in their operation
• The main values are economy and
efficiency. Leo Herbest 1982 as cited by
Carino:2003 provide a useful definition of
and differentiation between two standards:

14. 2 Standards:
1. Economical operation
is the elimination or reduction of needless
costs.
2. Efficient operations include
• holding the costs constant while increasing
the benefits
• holding the benefits constant while decreasing
the costs
• Increasing the costs at a lower rate than
benefits and
• decreasing costs at a lower rate than benefits

15. 3. Program Accountability
• is concerned with the results of government
operations.
• Accountability is the property of units as
well as the individual bureaucrats whose
activities together make the effectiveness of a
program
• To secure its attainment, a comprehensive
performance audit on the financial and
operational performance using the standard
3Es.

16. • A complete performance audits involves
inquiry into the following:
1. Whether the government unit is carrying out
only authorized activities or programs in the
manner contemplated and whether they are
accomplishing their objectives.
2. Whether the programs and activities are
conducted and expenditures are made in an
effective, efficient and economical manner and
in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.
3. Whether resources are being adequately
controlled and used effectively, efficiently and
economically

17. 4. Whether all revenues and receipts from the
operations under examinations are being
collected and properly accounted for
5. Whether the entity’s accounting system
complies with applicable accounting
principles, standards and related
requirements ; and the entity’s financial
statements and operating reports properly
disclose the information required (Tantuico
1982:12 as cited by Cariño 2003:810).

18. 4. Social Accountability
• the main inquiry is whether the
administrative activities inspire general
confidence and secure what are widely
regarded as desirable social ends (Normanton
1981:34 and cited by Cariño 2003:911)
• Recently the program manager’s arsenal
has been augmented by such tools as human
recourse accounting, social accounting, and
the analysis of economic and social impact of
programs

19. 5. Process Accountability
• It implies emphasizes on procedures and
methods of operation and focuses on the black
box inside systems which transforms inputs
(the concern of traditional and managerial
accountability).
• This type of accountability recognizes that
some goals may not be measurable directly
and surrogates, representing how goal
directed activity may be performed, are used
instead.

20. • Accountability can then be asked to both
provider and recipient and standards of
judgment are themselves products of the
mutual agreement. Each side may with hold
its part of the bargain when the other fails the
accountability test.
• Program accountability adds the 3rd E
which means effectiveness.

21. Comparison of Different
Kinds of Administrative
Accountability
&
The Varieties of Public
Administration
Alex B. Hermogeno

24. The notion of administrative
accountability has clearly changed. Much
more is expected of the accountable official
since his responsibilities is not for individual
activities but for related sets as these are
divided into programs and projects at the
same time the means to be used for insuring
his proper behavior have become less rigid,
and more negotiable.

25. THE VARIETIES
OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The discipline of PA has changed overtime
both as response to changing currents of
thought within the social science community
as well as the events in the country and the
world which press on both our understanding
of the discipline and on its practice.
Each of the four varieties of Public
Administration offers a distinct emphasis and
relates to the people and the society in a
different way. They may be identified as:

26. 1. Traditional Accountability
Traditional accountability practically
demands doctrine of politics administration
dichotomy, where decisions are made
elsewhere by policy makers who were not in
the bureaucracy

27. 2. Development Accountability
The variety that gained currency when
colonies called the Third World got political
independence and set their sights on the
development of the economy following the
examples of the west. With the western
experience as the model, DA became involved
in looking for tools that can improve the
planning process and the performance of staff
functions.

28. 3. New Public Administration
NPA was born in the 70’s in United States where
restive scholars found traditional PA largely irrelevant
to a turbulent technological society crying for equity
and social justice.
NPA advocated project management and the
modular organization in lieu of the bureaucracy It
either moved away from economic to philosophy, or
sought a blending of both. Just prior to the birth of
NPA, PA scholars discovered implementation and
service delivery as just as worthy of attention as
planning and the merit system. These blended to make
responsiveness and effectiveness of programs as the
main foci of concern.

29. 4. Development Public Administration
The product of the 1980’s with emphasis
on the goals of social justice, equity and the
centrality of the human person and its focus
on the problems of the third world. NPA was
born in the 70’s in United States where restive
scholars found traditional PA largely
irrelevant to a turbulent technological society
crying for equity and social justice

30. Accountability
&
Public Administration
Cherry Andrea G. Lucero

31. 1. Traditional PA and Accountability of
Regularity
Traditional accountability demands the
doctrine of the politics –administration
dichotomy where decisions are made outside
the bureaucracy and compliance is compelled
all through the hierarchy but has its ultimate
arbiter in bodies external to the bureaucracy
like the legislature and the court. Rules and
procedures are set elsewhere and are rigid,
thus receiving the checks on performance on a
line-by-line and strict pesos-and-centavos
accounting

32. 2. Traditional Public Administration,
Development Administration and Managerial
Accountability
The first variety of PA has encouraged the start of
managerial accountability through its emphasis on
the economy and efficiency of organizations.
A number of management tools developed in the
United States under the DA period still tended to
focus on inputs and the staff functions. Their
applicability to a third world country at the first stages
of development was hardly addressed. The techniques
were regarded as capable of being useful regardless of
social conditions

33. 3. New Public Administration and
Program Accountability
The shift of development goals from
simple economic growth to more humanly
appropriate objectives.
A better suited technique is program
evaluation. A better suited technique can also
fulfil the NPA need for equity to the extent
that social impact especially on income
distribution and poverty alleviation is made
part of the framework.

34. The project checks out its program
accountability at the evaluation stage of its life.
Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it
embraces a learning process rather than a blue
print approach (Korten 1980:450-511 as cited
by Cariño 2003: 819).
Its effectiveness and responsiveness as it
embraces a learning process rather than a blue
print approach (Korten 1980:450-511 as cited
by (Cariño 2003: 819.

35. Unfortunately, few managers have regarded
these works from the perspective of accountability
and have not used them for the purpose of
pinpointing responsibility for bottlenecks or
failures and for improving program attainment.
The shortcoming maybe blamed on both sides: on
the evaluator or researcher for his inability to
disseminate his findings to the appropriate
administrator and to write actionable
recommendations based on the findings and on
the administrator for his tendency to shy away
from critiques of his agency and not pass up
learning points from the criticisms

36. 4. Development PA and Process
Accountability
Process accountability has practically the
same building blocks a lot in common with
DPA where the features are reacceptance of
the necessity of bureaucracy as long as it is
oriented to include the participation of client
and recipients in the process of
administration and the decentralization of
decision making to local areas.

37. Example ate the LGUs an experiment to
classify them according to their
administrative capability and which will be
the basis for providing funds and technical
assistance
Process accountability is not a new concept
since it is not a radical departure from
previous procedures. What is new is the
participation and negotiation by units and
the provision of resources based on need,
capability and promise, the last backed up by
recipient individuals.

38. The requirement for each local area would
differ according to the results of the process and
therefore what one will ask from each would be
attainable. Each negotiating party can be held
responsible for the results and beneficiaries may
even participate in the evaluation of performance
of the officials.

40. The Process of
Regulating Behavior
#1 & #2
Junior Hilario

41. 1. SOURCE OF POWER
The source of power may be external to
or internalized by the regulated. External
sources may be laws or bureaucratic rules
which are imposed as standards of conduct of
subordinates. Disobedience to these rules
may result in sanctions by the controllers.
Control and influence are often
contrasted in relation to the source of power.

42. 2. KINDS OF RULES
PROMULGATED BY REGULATOR
A regulator may make the actual
command whish should be complied with, or
provide the regulated with options for action,
through the issuance of general guidelines on
what action is expected or how a particular
result may be generated.

43. Four Major Processes of
Regulating Behavior
1. Control
May be external to or internalized by
the regulated.
External sources may be laws or
bureaucratic rules which are imposed as
standards of conduct of subordinates.
Disobedience to these rules may result in
sanctions by the controllers.
Kernagham (1973:581-584) defines
control as the authority to command and
direct

44. 2. Supervision
is more open minded allowing officials
greater latitude of their actions
Its both regulatory and assistory
dimensions
The concept can be applied to any pair
of agencies where one sets the guidelines
within which the other formulates its rules
of action Sosmeña :1982:9

45. 3. Influence
When A is molded by and conforms to
the behavior of B without the issuance of a
command
The implicit source of influence seems to
lie outside the bureaucracy and may be rooted
in one’s profession, ethical commitments and
organizational affiliations

46. The influence is predicated not so much
on his commands and orders as on the
congruence of the commitments of his
subordinates and himself which is exerted
through moral and other extra bureaucratic
modes

47. 4. Management
The regulator take action as a
hypothesis with certainty ruled out and allow
the regulated some discretion in his approach
to the program.
This would mean an accountability that
would face up errors and even embrace them
as learning points for later growth

48. THE PROCESS OF
REGULATING BEHAVIOR

49. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TYPES OF
BURAUCRATIC POWER

50. The Process of
Regulating Behavior
#3 & #4
Nacer Ferreras

51. 3. BUREAUCRATIC VERSUS
PROFESSIONAL NORMS
In the computer age, year of the blog,
routine cases are machine programmed, the
computer being uninfluenced by specific
character traits of a client which the rules do
not recognize as material and relevant.
The treatment of exceptional
circumstances can not be programmed since
the rules wood generally provide for the
exercise of a discretionary rather than a
ministerial function

52. When bureaucratic rules are deficient ,
the bureaucrat may be forced to choose
between the criteria of his agency or those of
his profession.
Ex of bureaucratic rules on punctuality,
eight hours days as well as targets, and
persons to be served per week. While
professional norms as well as individual
conscience as appropriate judges of a person
or agency’s performance

53. LEGAL AND MORAL DECISIONS
Moral Decisions
are value-based decisions that are
content- and context-specific;
Legal Decisions
are just the opposite; procedure-based
decisions that are dependent upon historical
precedent.

54. 4. EXTRABUREAUCRATIC
STANDARDS AND IRRESPONSIBLE
BEHAVIOR
There would be fewer problems if the
entrance of extra-buraucratic values into agency
decision making were always an unmixed
blessing. In many cases however, this result does
not obtain. Cultural values such as pakikisama
(getting along), utang na loob (debt of gratitude)
and regionalism may also lead to decisions
which are grossly unfair to people who are not
beneficiaries of the particularistic allocations.

55. However, with all these problems and the
possibility of value conflict which the
bureaucrat may find difficult to resolve, why
then should I continue to press for more
discretion by the bureaucrats? There are
several answers to this question
1. Nature of the human being
when a person wants to please a person not
qualified to receive a service, he may disregard
these rules or go around them in order to suit
this person (accommodation).

56. 2. The complexity of the society
its no longer a homogenous mass. The
demands and pressures on government can
not be easily transformed to SOPs which
brook no exceptions.

57. 3. Inefficiency of the legalistic Approach
A third answer leads to the empirical
record: the enactment of one of the strictest
sets of laws on record has not been able to
hold down the incidents of graft and
corruption. The inefficiency stems from
a) the systemic nature of corruption,
b) the formation in the laws (a society has
formalistic laws they are not expected to be
fully implemented, and
c) lack of political will to implement law
vigorously and fairly.

58. Thank you
for listening!

59. Administrative Accountability
Administrative Accountability & Types of Accountability
Debbie Nell G. Geronimo
Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative
Accountability & The Varieties Of Public Administration
Alex B. Hermogeno
Accountability and Public Administration
Cherry Andrea G. Lucero
The Process of Regulating Behavior # 1 & 2
(Source Power & Kinds of Rules Promulgated by Regulator)
Junior Hilario
The Process of Regulating Behavior # 3 & 4
(Bureaucratic versus Professional Norms &
Extrabureaucratic Standards and Irresponsible Behavior)
Nacer Ferreras
MPA 1A - Camarin