000			01622pab a2200157 454500
008			180718b1999 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aWeber, Edward P.
245			_aThe question of accountability in historical perspective: from Jackson to contemporary grassroots ecosystem management
260			_c1999
300			_ap.451-94
362			_aSep
520			_aGrassroots ecosystem management (GREM), and the reinventing government movement, more generally suggest that the American polity is on the verge of redefining a broadly acceptable system of democratic accountability. The problem is: What does an effective system of accountability look like in a world of decentralized governance, shared power, collaborative decision processes, results-oriented management, and broad civic participation? This article examines how the theory of accountability has been reconfigured to fit the new paradigm for governance and places accountability in historical context to gain perspective for contemporary discussions of bureaucracy in a democracy. It finds that the conceptualization of democratic accountability varies dramatically over time. The Jacksonian, Progressives/New Deal, public-interest-egalitarian, neoconservative efficiency, and GREM models are all distinct conceptualizations of accountability. Each emphasizes different institutions and locates the authority for accountability in differing combinations and types of sectors (public, private, intermediary), processes, decision rules, knowledge, and values. - Reproduced
650			_aEcosystems
773			_aAdministration and Society
909			_a43080
999			_c43080 _d43080