nach oben

Journal of Management and Governance

Erschienen in:

01.05.2011 | Original Paper

Accountability and value for money: a theoretical framework for the relationship in public–private partnerships

verfasst von: Istemi Demirag, Iqbal Khadaroo

Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There is an implicit assumption in the UK Treasury’s publications on public-private partnerships (PPP)—also more commonly known in the United Kingdom as private finance initiative (PFI)—that accountability and value for money (VFM) are related concepts. While recent academic studies on PPP/PFI (from now on as PFI) have focused on VFM, there is a notable absence of studies exploring the ‘presumed’ relationships between accountability and VFM. Drawing on Dubnick’s (Dubnick and Romzek in American public administration, politics and the management of expectations. Macmillan, New York, 1991, Research in public administration. JAI, Greenwich, 1993; Dubnick in Public service ethics and the cultures of blame, 1996, Public sector ethics: finding and implementing values. Routledge, London, 1998, Int J Org Theory Behav 6(3):405–441, 2003, Public Perform Manage Rev 28(3):376–417, 2005; Dubnick and Justice in But can you trust them to be ethical, 2002) framework for accountability and PFI literature, we develop a research framework for exploring potential relationships between accountability and VFM in PFI projects by proposing alternative accountability cultures, processes and mechanisms for PFI. The PFI accountability model is then exposed to four criteria—warrantability, tractability, measurability and feasibility. Our preliminary interviews provide us guidance in identifying some of the cultures, processes and mechanisms indicated in our model which should enable future researchers to test not only the UK Government’s claimed relationships between accountability and VFM using more specific PFI empirical data, but also a potential relationship between accountability and performance in general.

Vorheriger Artikel The outsourcing of primary activities: theoretical analysis and propositions

Nächster Artikel Comment on ‘A political economy of accounting standard setting’

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

We are aware that a well established theory of accountability and performance is not available or certainly, not in forms that have a wide level of support and recognition. In this paper, we aim to explore the presumed relationship between these two problematic issues and recognise that it is difficult to achieve a definite understanding of the relationship. It is also beyond the scope of this study to establish the direction of the relationship between these two concepts. We recognise the phenomena which Dubnick (2005, p. 396) terms as ‘accountability paradox’ where an inherent tension between accountability and performance at the operational and logical level exists: Increased efforts to improve performance through accountability tends to have the opposite effect.

For the purpose of this paper however, we are not interested in ‘measuring’ VFM.

We are grateful to Melvin Dubnick for directing us to these four assumptions which he also used for his accountability culture model adopted in this paper. However these assumptions are used and interpreted here in the context of PFI projects and can also be used to test the robustness of any other management models.

ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants). (2002). ACCA members’ survey: Do PFI schemes provide value for money? Available at: http://www.acca.co.uk/news/, Accessed 30 January 2004.

Audit Commission. (2003). PFI in schools ([WWW]URL: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk).

Baker, R. (2003). Investigating Enron as a public private partnership. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 446–466.CrossRef

Ball, R., Heafey, M., & King, D. (2001). Private finance initiative—a good deal for the public purse or a drain on future generations? Policy and Politics, 29(1), 95–108.CrossRef

Barberis, P. (1998). The new public management and a new accountability. Public Administration, 76(3), 451–470.CrossRef

Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 363–399.CrossRef

Behn, R. D. (1992). Management and the neutrino: The search for meaningful metaphors. Public Administration Review, 52(5), 409–419.CrossRef

Behn, R. D. (1998). The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1(2), 131–164.CrossRef

Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon? Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5–25.CrossRef

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173–182.CrossRef

Bolton, M. (2003). Public sector performance measurement: Delivering greater accountability. Work Study, 53(1), 20–24.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., Gill, J., & Laughlin, R. (2003). Evaluating the private finance initiative in the National Health Service in the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 422–445.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., Gill, J., & Laughlin, R. (2004). The private finance initiative in the National Health Service. CIMA Research Report. CIMA, London.

Broadbent, J., Gill, J., & Laughlin, R. (2008). Identifying and controlling risk: The problem of uncertainty in the private finance initiative in the UK’s National Health Service. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(1), 40–78.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (1997). Developing empirical research: an example informed by a Habermasian approach. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(5), 622–648.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (1999). The private finance initiative: Clarification of a future research agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 15(2), 95–114.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2003). Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: The private finance initiative in the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1/2), 23–48.CrossRef

Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2005). The role of PFI in the UK’s Government’s modernisation agenda. Financial Accountability and Management Journal, 21(1), 75–97.CrossRef

Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3&4), 243–267.CrossRef

Chandler, D. (2001). Active citizens and the therapeutic state: The role of democratic participation in local government reform. Policy & Politics, 29(1), 3–14.CrossRef

Cochrane, A. (1993). From financial control to strategic management: The changing faces of accountability in British Local Government. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 30–51.CrossRef

Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2006). The actual implementation of accruals accounting: Caveats from a case within the UK public sector. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(2), 272–290.CrossRef

Demirag, I. (Ed.). (2005). Corporate social responsibility, accountability and governance: Global perspectives. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Demirag, I. (2009). Keeping PFI on course. AgendaNI, Issue 28, June, pp. 54–55.

Demirag, I., Dubnick, M., & Khadaroo, I. (2005). A framework for examining accountability and value for money (VFM) in the UK’s private finance initiative (PFI). In I. Demirag (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility, accountability and governance: Global perspectives. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Demirag, I., & Khadaroo, I. (2008). Accountability and value for money in school PFI contracts. Financial Accountability and Management Journal, 24(4), 455–478.CrossRef

Dubnick, M. J. (1996, August 5–9). Public service ethics and the cultures of blame.In Paper presented at the fifth international conference of ethics in the public service.

Dubnick, M. (1998). Clarifying accountability: An ethical theory framework. In C. Sampford & N. Preston (Eds.), Public sector ethics: Finding and implementing values. London: Routledge.

Dubnick, M. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405–441.

Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.

Dubnick, M. J., & Justice, J. B. (2002, March 23). But can you trust them to be ethical. In Paper presented to the 63rd annual conference of the American society for public administration, Phoenix, AZ.

Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, S. B. (1991). American public administration, politics and the management of expectations. New York: Macmillan.

Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, S. B. (1993). Accountability and the centrality of expectations in American public administration. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public administration. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Edwards, P., & Shaoul, J. (2003a). Controlling the PFI process in schools: A case study of the Pimlico project. Policy and Politics, 31(3), 371–385.CrossRef

Edwards, P., & Shaoul, J. (2003b). Partnerships: For better, for worse? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 397–421.CrossRef

Edwards, P., Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Arblaster, L. (2004). Evaluating the operations of PFI in roads and hospitals. ACCA research report, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, London.

English, L., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Driving privately financed projects in Australia: What makes them tick? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 493–511.CrossRef

English, L., & Guthrie, J. (2006). State audit of public private partnerships in Australia: A lack of public accountability? Dublin, Ireland: European Accounting Association.

Farrell, C. (2000). Citizen participation in governance. Public Money and Management, 20(1), 31–37.CrossRef

Feltham, G. A., & Jim, X. (1994). Performance measure congruity and diversity in multi-task principal/agent relations. Accounting Review, 69(3), 429–453.

Fowles, A. J. (1993). Changing notions of accountability: A social policy review. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 97–108.CrossRef

Francis, J. R. (1990). After virtue? Accounting as a moral and discursive practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 3(3), 5–17.CrossRef

Freeman, M. (1996). Scientific management: 100 Years old; poised for the next century. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 61(2), 35–41.

Froud, J. (2003). The private finance initiative: Risk, uncertainty and the state. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(6), 567.CrossRef

Froud, J., & Shaoul, J. (2001). Appraising and evaluating PFI for NHS hospitals. Financial Accountability & Management, 17(3), 247–270.CrossRef

Gendron, Y., Cooper, D., & Townley, B. (2001). In the name of accountability State auditing, independence and new public management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(3), 278–310.CrossRef

Gittell, J. H. (2000). Paradox of coordination and control. California Management Review, 42(3), 01–117.

Glynn, J. J. (1985). Value for money auditing in the public sector. London: Prentice-Hall.

Glynn, J. J., & Murphy, M. P. (1996). Public management: Failing accountabilities and failing performance review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(5&6), 125–137.CrossRef

Greener, I. (2003). Performance in the National Health Service: The insistence of measurement and confusion of content. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(3), 237–250.CrossRef

Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2005). Are public private partnerships value for money? Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345–378.CrossRef

Grizzle, G. A. (2002). Performance measurement and dysfunction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 363–369.CrossRef

Halachmi, A. (2002a). Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 370–374.CrossRef

Halachmi, A. (2002b). Performance measurement and government productivity. Work Study, 51(2), 63–73.CrossRef

Halachmi, A. (2002c). Performance measurement: A look at some possible dysfunctions. Work Study, 51(5), 230–239.CrossRef

Halachmi, A. (2002d). A brief note on the methodology of measuring productivity of services at the local level. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behaviour, 5(3&4), 215–218.CrossRef

Hartley, J., Butler, M. J. R., & Benington, J. (2002). Local government modernization: UK and comparative analysis from an organizational perspective. Public Management Review, 4(3), 387–404.CrossRef

Heald, D. (2003). Value for money tests and accounting treatment in PFI schemes. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 342–371.CrossRef

Heald, D., & Dowdall, A. (1999). Capital Charging as a VFM Tool in Public Services. Financial Accountability and Management, 15(3/4), 209–228.CrossRef

HM Treasury. (1996). Treasury and CBI join forces in PFI alliance for progress. News Release 147/96, 21 October.

HM Treasury. (1997). Partnerships for prosperity. Treasury Taskforce guidance. Available at: http://www.ogc.gov.uk/, Accessed 09 January 2004.

HM Treasury. (2000). Public private partnerships: The government’s approach. London: HMSO.

HM Treasury. (2003a). PFI: Meeting the investment challenge.London: HMSO.

HM Treasury. (2003b). The Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government. London: HMSO.

HM Treasury/Cabinet Office. (2004). Devolving decision making: Delivering better public services: Refining targets and performance management. London: HMSO.

HM Treasury. (2008) Performance Information Strategy. http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/performance_info/index.html, Accessed 4 June 2008.

HM Treasury. (2009). Budget 2009: Building Britain’s future. London: The Stationery Office.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRef

Hood, C. (1995). “The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93–109.CrossRef

Humphrey, C. G., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological themes theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: Limitation or liberation? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86–106.CrossRef

Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16, 65–79.CrossRef

Hyndman, N., & Anderson, R. (2001). Rational management, performance targets and executive agencies: Views from agency chief executives in Northern Ireland. Public Administration, 79(3), 579–598.CrossRef

Ijiri, Y. (1983). On the accountability-based conceptual framework of accounting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2(2), 75–81.CrossRef

Jenks, L. H. (1960). Early phases of the management movement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(3), 421–447.CrossRef

Leeuw, F. (1996). Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: Questions and answers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 92–102.CrossRef

Lehman, G. (2005). “A critical perspective on the harmonisation of accounting in a globalising world’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(7), 975–992.CrossRef

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.CrossRef

Mayston, D. (1993). Principals, agents and the economics of accountability in the new public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 68–96.CrossRef

Mayston, D. (1999). The private finance initiative in the National Health Service: an unhealthy development in new public management? Financial Accountability & Management, 15(3/4), 249–274.CrossRef

Mwita, J. I. (2000). Performance management model A systems-based approach to public service quality. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(1), 19–37.CrossRef

NAO (National Audit Office). (1999). The United Kingdom Passport Agency: The passport delays of Summer 1999, HC 812. HMSO: London.

NAO (National Audit Office). (2001). The Re-negotiation of the PFI type deal for the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, HC 103. London: HMSO.

NAO (National Audit Office). (2002a). Ministry of Defence: Redevelopment of the Ministry of Defence main building, HC 748. London: HMSO.

NAO (National Audit Office). (2002b). Annual report. HMSO: London.

National Audit Office. (1997). The contributions agency: The contract to develop and operate the Replacement National Insurance Recording System, HC 12. London: HMSO.

Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(2), 205–228.CrossRef

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Ken, P. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International journal of operations & production management, 15(4), 80–116.CrossRef

Noordegraaf, M., & Abma, T. (2003). Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration, 81(4), 853–871.CrossRef

Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

O’Neill, O. (2002). The philosophy of trust. BBC Reith Lecture. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/.

PAC (Public Accounts Committee). (2000). The passport delays of Summer 1999, HC 208. London: HMSO.

PAC (Public Accounts Committee). (2001). The renegotiation of the PFI-type deal for the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, HC 359. London: HMSO.

Pallot, J. (2003). A wider accountability? The audit office and New Zealand’s bureaucratic revolution. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1&2), 133–155.CrossRef

Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367–379.

Pollock, A., & Price, D. (2008). Has the NAO audited risk transfer in operational private finance initiative schemes? Public Money and Management, 28(3), 173–178.CrossRef

Pound, R. (1997). Social control through law. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Roberts, N. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658–669.CrossRef

Robinson, P. (2002). Government accountability and performance measurement. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1/2), 171–186.

Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, May–June, pp. 227–238.

Schuck, P. H. (1999). The limits of law: Essays on democratic governance. Boulder, CO: West View.

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.CrossRef

Serco Plc. (2002). Our approach to PFI. Annual report.

Shaoul, J. (2005). A critical financial analysis of the Private Finance Initiative: Selecting a financial method or allocating wealth. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(4), 441–471.CrossRef

Shapiro, M. (2001). Administrative law unbounded: Reflections on government and governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 8, 369–377.

Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: From the for-itself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), 541–573.CrossRef

Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 20(2&3), 219–237.CrossRef

Stewart, J. (1984). The role of information in public accountability. In A. G. Hopwood & C. R. Tomkins (Eds.), Issues in public sector accounting. Oxford: Philip Allan.

Stone, M. (2002). Can public service efficiency measurement be a useful tool of government? The lesson of the Spottiswoode report. Public Money & Management, 22(3), 33–39.CrossRef

Talbot, C. (2001). UK public services and management (1979–2000) evolution or revolution? The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(4), 281–303.CrossRef

Taylor, F. W. (1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: W. W. Norton.

Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 632–640.CrossRef

UNISON. (2003). What is wrong with PFI in schools (2 September, [WWW] URL: http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/13672.pdf).

Winston, J. A. (1999). Performance indicators—promises unmet: A response to Perrin. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), 95–99.

Titel: Accountability and value for money: a theoretical framework for the relationship in public–private partnerships
verfasst von: Istemi Demirag
Iqbal Khadaroo
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2011
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1385-3457
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-963X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9109-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Comment on ‘A political economy of accounting standard setting’: a reply

CEO successor compensation: outside versus inside successions

Comment on ‘A political economy of accounting standard setting’

The outsourcing of primary activities: theoretical analysis and propositions

State ownership and listed firm performance: a universally negative governance relationship?

Is corporate governance different for the Lebanese banking system?