This chapter demonstrates the utility of adopting a ‘systemic’ view of accountability mechanisms by analysing the operation of the mechanisms which were brought to bear in three real-world scenarios of government wrongdoing and maladministration. So, for example, this chapter notes that anti-corruption commissions and the criminal law can operate in a staged and co-operative manner, and that judicial review and tort law can operate in an interdependent manner. This chapter makes clear that any potential deficits and overloads identified using an accountability benchmark may be resolved or ameliorated by mapping out the ways in which accountability mechanisms interact with one another.

Part one of this book introduces readers to the concept of accountability, setting out the range of current theoretical debates on the meaning and scope of the concept. It further introduces readers to the concepts of accountability deficits (ie too little accountability) and accountability overloads (ie too much accountability), explaining the role that these concepts play in the context of discussions about public governance. Ultimately, it is argued that more theoretical work needs to be done to give shape to these ideas.

Accountability is often referred to as an essential feature of modern democratic society, said to underpin the legitimacy of government. In this context, it is common to hear claims of accountability ‘deficit’ (ie that a particular mechanism or area is lacking in accountability) and ‘overload’ (ie that a particular mechanism or area over-delivers on accountability). Despite the frequency of references to these concepts, their precise content remains undeveloped. This book offers an explanation of the concepts of accountability deficit and overload, as well as a framework for future discussion and exploration of these ideas. It outlines the scale of the challenges of defining an accountability benchmark and developing a picture of accountability mechanisms as a system. While difficult, if accountability is indeed a foundational concept underpinning our system of government, there is merit in meeting these challenges head-on.

This chapter explores the first key idea that must be considered in order to understand accountability mechanisms as a system, which is to appreciate that the system strikes a delicate balance of features as between mechanisms. In many cases, claims about accountability deficits or overload rest on assumptions about particular ‘strengths’ or ‘weaknesses’ of a mechanism. For instance, the high costs of legal proceedings might be cast as a ‘weakness’ of that accountability mechanism and therefore as an accountability deficit. The argument made in this chapter is that these features must be contextualised within the system before such a claim can be made, as the ‘weaknesses’ in one mechanism might be ameliorated by the ‘strengths’ in another. The features reviewed include accessibility, cost, flexibility, coerciveness, autonomy, independence and permanence.

Part three of this book unpacks the second hidden assumption underpinning claims of accountability deficit and overload, which is that the claimant has considered all available accountability mechanisms and identified either a gap or overlap in the operation of that system. The chapters in this part explore the ideas that must be addressed in order to conceive of accountability mechanisms as a system.

There is an extensive body of literature addressing the concept of accountability, replete with overlapping definitions. This chapter introduces readers to this wide body of cross-disciplinary literature to provide a picture of areas of agreement and disagreement amongst theorists. Though accountability remains a contested concept, there is general agreement that accountability refers to a relational mechanism that can be analysed within the framework of the questions: who is accountable, to whom, for what, and how? One of the largest unresolved questions about accountability, as explored in this chapter, is whether it is simply a mechanical concept (ie a description of a mechanism with certain attributes) or more broadly reflects a value or ideal (ie the notion of being an accountable person). The conclusion drawn here is that it is particularly difficult to divorce the concept of accountability from a normative background in discussing concepts of accountability deficits and overloads. Each of these concepts rests on the normative assumption that it is possible to identity an ‘ideal amount’ of accountability.

This chapter explores the second key challenge in mapping out accountability mechanisms as a system, which is to appreciate the nature of the relationships between them. Often, claims of accountability deficit and overload presuppose that mechanisms operate entirely independently from one another. However, on closer inspection it is possible to see that there is a range of dynamics in play. In addition to independent mechanisms, this chapter canvasses situations where mechanisms may operate in a mutually exclusive, staged, interdependent and co-operative manner.

Accountability is often referred to as an essential feature of modern democratic society, said to underpin the legitimacy of government. In this context, it is common to hear claims of accountability ‘deficit’ (ie that a particular mechanism or area is lacking in accountability) and ‘overload’ (ie that a particular mechanism or area over-delivers on accountability). Despite the frequency of references to these concepts, their precise content remains undeveloped. This book offers an explanation of the concepts of accountability deficit and overload, as well as a framework for future discussion and exploration of these ideas. It outlines the scale of the challenges of defining an accountability benchmark and developing a picture of accountability mechanisms as a system. While difficult, if accountability is indeed a foundational concept underpinning our system of government, there is merit in meeting these challenges head-on.