Process Accountability and the Creative Use of Intergovernmental Resources

1hile the national government has been collecting more revenues, it has been spending proportionally less. This is a major reason why state and local units of government constitute a major economic, social, and political force in the U.S. governmental system. Because of their massive expenditure of resources they have the potential for impeding and/or facilitating economic growth, stability, and the distribution of public goods and services. This is perhaps a main reason why Congress set up the Intergovernmental Science, Engineering and Technology Panel (ISETAP) to solve or ameliorate and speed the introduction of innovation into state and local governments.3 State and Local Governments: Public Concern About Cost and Performance. As more public resources shift to the state and local levels of government, public concerns about curbing cost and promoting effective performance have become issues at these levels. The recent tax revolt, commonly associated with the passage of Proposition 13 in California,4 has contributed to heightened public concern about spiraling inflation, the rising tide of public employee strikes, the continuing rise in public budgets and payroll, increasing taxes, and the perceived wastefulness in the spending of tax resources and the low level of government performance (productivity).' A number of innovative techniques such as cost effectiveness analysis, program analysis, planning-programming-budgeting systems (PPBS), zero-base budgeting (ZBB) and program evaluation have been introduced to minimize public expenditure and achieve greater cost effectiveness, program impact, and responsiveness to publicly articulated demands. In many of the governmental units, agencies, and programs where application of these techniques have been introduced, there is still public clamor and demand for greater congruence between planned and achieved objectives. There is a credibility gap about the efficacy of public programs. The view is held that waste, mismanagement, and corruption are rampant in public service programs. Additionally, the difficulty in achieving the appropriate accountability for intergovernmental funds makes them especially vulnerable to mismanagement. When Congress and/or the state legislature make funds available, recipient governments or private agencies tend to adopt a spendthrift syndrome believing that when funds are available they must be sought and when obtained they must be spent.6 To improve and/or overcome the conditions that give rise to these practices, this paper briefly examines the definition of accountability and explores the potential and creative uses of process accountability in the intergovernmental setting. Understanding process accountability may be a key to maximizing responsiveness and effectiveness in the management and delivery of public goods and services

Accountability · Business · Political science · Process (computing · Process management · Computer Science · Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth · Law · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Public Administration

• The Changing Nature of Accountability in Administrative Practice

  Lawrence L Martins, Lawrence L Martin et al.•The Journal of Sociology & Social…•2010

  Add to list

• Pathologies of Accountability

  Open Access•Jonathan G S Koppell, Jonathan Gs Koppell•Public Administration Review•2005

  Add to list

• A Tangled Web of Principals and Agents

  Open Access•Katharine A Neill, John C Morris•Politics & Policy•2012

  Add to list

• Grant monitoring by charities

  Open Access•Ken Ashford, Julia Clarke•Voluntas Revista Internacional de…•1996

  Add to list

• Mapping accountability

  Open Access•Staffan I Lindberg•International Review of…•2013

  Add to list