Creative accounting or creative accountability? – Discussant comments
The paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic in the relationship between
accounting practices and accountability relations in the context of public policy. The
paper seeks to analyse why ‘governments worldwide face increasing levels of
distrust’ despite increasing numbers of ways (forums) by which they can be held
accountable. To achieve this, the authors draw on two key concepts in the
accountability literature – the accountable self and the limits of accountability.
To illustrate the manner in which these concepts are utilised in the exercise of
(public) accountability, the authors examine a change in Australian government
policy and funding with regard to international aid and support of onshore refugees.
In December 2012 the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced the reprioritisation of
AUS$ 375 million from the foreign aid budget to the processing of refugees arriving
in Australia.
The idea to look at the change in government funding/policy as not just a creative
accounting practice (the
Australian
government
attempted to
portray the
reprioritisation as a legitimate activity for a foreign aid budget aimed at meeting the
Millennium Development Goals) but also as a practice of creative accountability is
insightful and potentially fruitful. In this respect the paper follows in the tradition of
Roberts and Scapens (1985) and Roberts (1991) of trying to better understand
accounting by understanding the context in which it operates (i.e. the form of
accountability relations). Here though the approach is in the opposite direction by
looking at the accounting (reprioritisation of public funding) to better understand the
nature of (public) accountability.
In this respect the paper has the potential to make an interesting contribution; but to
do so a number of issues would need to be addressed.
1) The literature review is well constructed and comprehensive. However, it can
still be improved by one bringing out more clearly the distinction between the
accountability literature in general and the public accountability specifically;
2) There is limited discussion or evidence presented of the increasing levels of
distrust of governments;
3) There is a need to for a linking paragraph at the end of the literature review
that outlines which concepts from all those introduced will be utilised in the
rest of the paper and how they link back to the paper’s aims/objectives;
4) In the case/example, the sub-section on Not-for-profit Sustainability appears
out of nowhere and really does not add to the arguments in the rest of the
paper. I think the authors should consider removing this section or at least
better integrating it into the case and the literature review;
5) The discussion needs further work especially with regard to analysing the
case and drawing on the literature review. At times it feels repetitive of the
case (e.g. second paragraph on page 10);
6) The discussion also highlights a potentially more fundamental issue with the
analysis and use of the literature. The discussion refers back to the work of
Roberts (1991) and seeks to apply it to the motivation of the Australian
government in the form of the account they rendered. Here there is a concern
that using Roberts (1991) is not appropriate or at least not justified. Roberts’
(1991; 2001) work is firmly rooted in understanding the relationship between
accountability relations and the individual. However, the authors apply his
work to a whole government, as if the government was one single individual.
Roberts is also concerned with the individualising affects of the hierarchical
accountability relations within an organisation. This raises the question
whether, or in what way can, his work be applied to a government for example
is it in a hierarchical relationship? If so, with whom? Classical representative
democratic theory would answer in the affirmative with the people being the
peak of the hierarchy - see the work of Mulgan (2003) and Smith (1971). But
these points need to be addressed in the paper.
7) By way of suggestion, the emerging literature on social/civil/critical public
accountability
that
specifically
addresses
the
relationship
between
government (the state) and civil society may provide a more fruitful framing for
analysing the case. Here the emphasis would be on bringing out the
actions/responses
of
the
N-f-P
and
refugee
organisations
to
the
reprioritisation and how or indeed if they held the government to account on
this issue;
8) As would be expected of a working paper there are a number of typos and
references that need to be tidied up – for example:
a. There appears to be a stray ‘the’ in the second last line on the first
page;
b. There is no ‘e’ at the end of Johnston, as in Cooper and Johnston
(2012);
c. Page 5 second paragraph the Smyth reference should be 2012;
d. The following are present in the paper but missing from the
bibliography:
i. Manne (2012)
ii. Peruzzoti and Smulovitz (2010)
iii. Salamon (1987)
Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper and commend the authors for developing an
interesting and insightful paper that can make a contribution to the debate on the
nature of public accountability relations. I hope they will find the above comments
useful in further refining the paper.
References:
Mulgan, R. (2003), Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern
Democracies, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Roberts, J. (2001), “Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate
governance: The individualising and socializing effects of processes of
accountability”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1547-1572.
Smith, B.L.R. (1971). “Accountability and Independence in the Contract State”, in
Smith, B.L.R. and Hague, D.C. (Ed.s), The Dilemma of Accountability in Modern
Government: Independence vs. Control, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., London, pp. 3-68.