Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:31:48.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accountability through public participation? Experiences from the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2021

Yanwei Li Open the ORCID record for Yanwei Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Xiaolei Qin  and
Joop Koppenjan
Yanwei Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration, Nanjing Normal University, China
Xiaolei Qin
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration, Nanjing Normal University, China
Joop Koppenjan
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this contribution, we report on an in-depth case study of the ten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing, an initiative to deal with the accountability deficit with which many Chinese governments have to cope. Nanjing Municipality invited citizens to evaluate officials’ performance, and their reviews influenced the scores of officials’ remunerations and even their careers. On the basis of theory, in this study, we develop a typology that is used to analyse how the introduction of this new horizontal practice of “letting citizens judge” influenced the existing accountability relations and how these relationships evolved over time. Our findings show that citizens’ involvement initially resulted in a practice in which types of accountability were mixed and resulted in a situation of multiple accountabilities disorder. Only gradually were accountability characteristics aligned and the accountability deficit and overload reduced. This demonstrates the difficulties and challenges of introducing horizontal accountability arrangements in existing accountability systems.

Keywords

accountability relationsChinahorizontal accountabilityten-thousand-citizen review in Nanjing
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 43 - 62
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aleksovska, M, Schillemans, T and Grimmelikhuijsen, S (2019) Lessons from Five Decades of Experimental and Behavioral Research on Accountability: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almén, O (2018) Participatory Innovations Under Authoritarianism: Accountability and Responsiveness in Hangzhou’s Social Assessment of Government Performance. Journal of Contemporary China, 27: 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aucoin, P and Heintzman, R (2000) The Dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behn, RD (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bovens, M (2007) Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13 (4): 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M, Schillemans, T and ’T Hart, P. (2008) Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool. Public Administration, 86(1): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, HS and Gao, J (2009) Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Accountability or Performance? The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T and Lægreid, P (2011) Changing Accountability Relations - The Forgotten Side of Public Sector Reforms. Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies, Working paper 5.Google Scholar
Dubnick, M (2005) Accountability and The Promise of Performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 28: 376–417.Google Scholar
Eriksen, A (2020) Accountability and the Multidimensional Mandate. Political Research Quarterly, doi: 10.1177/1065912920906880.Google Scholar
Hupe, P and Hill, M (2007) Street-Level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration, 85(2): 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantz, B and Jann, W (2013) Mapping Accountability Changes in Labour Market Administrations: From Concentrated to Shared Accountability? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2): 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jos, PH and Tompkins, ME (2004) The Accountability Paradox in an Age of Reinvention. Administration & Society, 36(3): 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klijn, E and Koppenjan, J (2016) Governance Networks in the Public Sector. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koliba, Chr, Meek, J and Zia, A (2010) Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Koppell, JGS (2005) Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “Multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1): 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J (2012) The Rise of Social Accountability in China: The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2): 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, R (2003) Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overman, S, Schillemans, T and Grimmelikhuijsen, S (2020) A Validated Measurement for Felt Relational Accountability in the Public Sector: Gauging the Account Holder’s Legitimacy and Expertise. Public Management Review, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254.Google Scholar
Qin, XL and Li, YW (2020) The Institutionalization of the Nanjing Ten-Thousand-Citizen Review initiative. Chinese Governance, 4 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Romzek, BS and Dubnick, MJ (1987) Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(93): 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romzek, BS and Ingraham, PW (2000) Cross Pressures of Accountability: Initiative, Command, and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, C (2000) Accountability in the Regulatory State. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillemans, T (2008) Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies. Public Organization Review, 8, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillemans, T (2015) Calibrating Public Sector Accountability: Translating Experimental Findings to Public Sector Accountability. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1400–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillemans, T and Busuioc, M (2015) Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, KF (2012) Further Understanding Accountability in Public Organizations: Actionable Knowledge and the Structure – Agency Duality. Administration & Society, 44(3): 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R (2008) Case Study Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar