Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T05:41:46.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The curse of accountability: Assessing relationships in the delivery of employment services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Ann Nevile
Ann Nevile*
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia
*
Ann Nevile, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: Ann.Nevile@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As governments move from being both a funder and provider of human services to a purchaser of services in private sector markets or quasi-markets, ensuring that providers do what they are supposed to do becomes more difficult. Agency theory and stewardship theory have been suggested as ways of overcoming this problem. This article argues that both are inadequate, particularly because they conceptualise the relationship as bilateral (government funding department and service provider), ignoring the role of clients in achieving organisational objectives. Co-production that recognises the role played by clients in the production of employment outcomes can provide a more useful way of thinking about relationships among key actors involved in the provision of employment services.

Keywords

J080Agency theoryAustraliaco-productionemployment servicesstewardship theory
Type
Articles
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 64 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science 12(2): 215–234.Google Scholar
Alford, J (2002) Defining the client in the public sector: a social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review 62(3): 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J (2009) Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J, O’Flynn, J (2012) Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing with External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Government (n.d.) Disability Employment Services: Flexible, Tailored Employment Assistance. Available at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/Employment/Programs/DES/Documents/DESFactSheet.pdf (accessed 16 March 2011).Google Scholar
Behn, R (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63(5): 586–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvin, J-M (2008) Activation policies, new modes of governance and the issue of responsibility. Social Policy and Society 7(3): 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, V (1995) Games of engagement: postures within the regulatory community. Law & Policy 17(3): 225–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredgaard, T, Larsen, F (2008) Quasi-markets in employment policy: do they deliver on promises? Social Policy and Society 7(3): 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, L (2010) 21st century service delivery reform – it’s a different perspective. Public Administration Today 22: 21–25.Google Scholar
Broadbent, J, Dietrich, M, Laughlin, R (1996) The development of principal-agent contracting and accountability relationships in the public sector: conceptual and cultural problems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 7(3): 259–284.Google Scholar
Brown, P, Calnan, M (2010) The risks of managing uncertainty: the limitations of governance and choice, and the potential for trust. Social Policy and Society 9(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TL, Potoski, M, Van Slyke, DM (2010) Contracting for complex products. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(1): i41–i58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruttel, O (2004) Contracting-out the public employment service and the consequence for hard-to-place jobseekers: experiences from Australia, the Netherlands and the UK. In: Paper for the second annual ESPAnet conference, University of Oxford, UK, 9–11 September.Google Scholar
Considine, M, Lewis, JM, O’Sullivan, S (2011) Quasi-markets and service delivery flexibility following a decade of employment assistance in Australia. Journal of Social Policy 40(4): 811–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, JH, Schoorman, FD, Donaldson, L (1997) Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 20–47.Google Scholar
De Hoog, RH (1990) Competition, negotiation or cooperation: three models for service contracting. Administration & Society 22(3): 312–340.Google Scholar
Department of Employment Education and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2011) Labour Market Assistance Outcomes. Available at: www.deewr.gov.au/labour_market_assistance_outcomes_december_2011-1.pdf (accessed 29 January 2013).Google Scholar
Fowkes, L (2011) Rethinking Australia’s Employment Services: Perspectives 6. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Frey, BS (1993) Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry with trust and loyalty. Economic Inquiry 31(4): 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, BS, Jegen, R (2001) Motivation crowding out theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15(5): 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, JR, Dalziel, T, Lewis, MW (2011) Governing top managers: board control, social categorization, and their unintended influence on discretionary behaviors. Corporate Governance: An International Review 19(4): 295–310.Google Scholar
Marston, G, McDonald, C (2006) The political tensions and street-level dimensions of employment services in Australia. Available at: http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/welfaretowork/Final/paperMarstonandMcDonald.pdf (accessed 28 May 2011).Google Scholar
Mulgan, R (2010) The Moran report: where have all the ministers gone? Crawford School of Economics and Government Policy and Governance discussion paper 10-06. Available at: http://crawford.anu.edu.au/degrees/pogo/discussion_papers/PDP10-06.pdf (accessed 23 June 2010).Google Scholar
Murray, P (2006) A job network for job seekers. Discussion paper, November 2006. Catholic Social Services Australia: Canberra.Google Scholar
National Disability Services (NDS) (2011) NDS Submission to the Senate Inquiry into Disability Employment Services. Available at: http://www.nds.org.au/publications/page/5 (accessed 15 June 2012).Google Scholar
Nevile, A (2008) Human rights, power and welfare conditionality. Australian Journal of Human Rights 14(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Nevile, A (2009) Values and the legitimacy of third sector service delivery organizations: evidence from Australia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations 20(1): 71–89.Google Scholar
Nevile, A, Lohmann, R (2011) ‘It is like they just don’t trust us’: balancing trust and control in the provision of disability employment services. Available at: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/sparc/pdf/2011/20110621_final_report.pdf (accessed 10 December 2012).Google Scholar
Nevile, A, Nevile, J (2003) Work for the Dole: Obligation or Opportunity? Sydney, NSW, Australia: Centre for Applied Economic Research, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Nevile, A, Nevile, JW (2006) Realizing the potential of work for the dole. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 11(1): 73–88.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2002) Independent review of the job network. Report no. 21, 3 June 2002. Canberra, ACT, Australia: AusInfo.Google Scholar
Sabel, CF (2004) Principal-agent governance: experimentalist organisations, learning and accountability. In: Discussion paper prepared for the WWR meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10–14 May.Google Scholar
Struyven, L, Steurs, G (2005) Design and redesign of a quasi-market for the reintegration of jobseekers: empirical evidence from Australia and the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy 15(3): 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Slyke, DM (2007) Agents or stewards: using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(2): 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar