000			01711nam a22001577a 4500
999			_c519103 _d519103
008			220127b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aEriksen, Andreas _931997
245			_aAccountability and the multidimensional mandate
260			_aPolitical Research Quarterly
300			_a74(2), Jun, 2021: p.364-376
520			_aPublic organizations are subject to many kinds of control mechanisms and analysts worry that they often suffer from an “accountability overload.” This article argues that such diagnoses are typically set without an adequate demarcation criterion for identifying accountability practices and separating them from other kinds of interaction, such as strategic pursuit of power or reputational standing. In response, the suggestion is that accountability practices should be restricted to procedures that track the mandate of the organization. This requires clarification of how mandates can be seen as more than a mere heap of conflicting considerations. The concept of a “multidimensional mandate” is introduced as a heuristic for thinking about how different perspectives on organizational action can be integrated. The interpretive test for deciding if a procedure qualifies as an accountability practice is whether it is sufficiently sensitive to the intertwinement of the goals and commitments of the organization. Neither account-givers nor account-holders can legitimately refrain from orienting themselves in this broader normative framework. – Reproduced Keywords
650			_aPublic accountability, Multidimensional mandates, Interpretation, Legitimacy _929339
773			_aPolitical Research Quarterly
906			_aPUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
942			_cAR