The article by Schillemans (2008) addresses the emergence of the phenomenon of horizontal accountability in response to the accountability deficit of agencies. The author aims at differentiating between the different types of horizontal accountability forms, determining its contribution to the accountability of the agencies, and, most importantly, providing the means for evaluation of its influence on the agencies’ accountability regime.
The article features a number of important definitions that are used as a framework for the study. Accountability is broadly defined as the interaction between an accountor and an accountee in which the actions of the former are subject to evaluation by the latter (Schillemans, 2008). However, such definition contains an apparent presence of the hierarchy in that the accountor is likely superior to the accountee in a certain sense. For this reason, the author provides the definition of horizontal, or non-hierarchical, accountability based on the review of the literature. According to Schillemans (2008), it can be viewed as a result of the situation where different accountees demand accountability and the resulting sum of accountability arrangements forms a complementary regime that exists independently from the ministerial responsibility.
Based on these definitions, the author formulates the range of criteria pertinent to a subset of Dutch agencies. The criteria include the existence of informal and social aspects of accountability, independence from ministry, and the formalization of relationships between the stakeholders. The results suggest that while horizontal accountability is a necessary component of the contemporary agencies characterized by the increased complexity and autonomy, it cannot serve as a substitute for the ministerial responsibility.
The information presented in the article is important for several reasons. First, the author offers a comprehensive review of the phenomenon of horizontal hierarchy and provides a set of criteria for the definition. This information can be utilized in further research on the topic as well as related fields of public service administration. Next, Schillemans (2008) offers convincing arguments in favor of adopting the studied concept by other agencies and outlines the benefits of its usage. Each stage of accountability process is exhaustively studied and supplied with relevant examples in order to enhance the understanding of the concept. Third, and, perhaps, most importantly, it adds to the knowledge base on the effects of horizontal accountability for the agencies that adopt it. Specifically, Schillemans (2008) suggests that the richness of information created by additional mechanisms at the initial phase of the process stimulates the agencies’ learning capacity. This assertion allows us to reframe accountability as a source of data that triggers the improvement of the agency rather than a mere instrument of control. The complex social underpinnings of horizontal accountability serve as a starting point for internal improvement and provide information that may be used for self-reflection. Finally, it should be pointed out that the structure of horizontal accountability opens up the opportunity to gain access to priorities and interests that differ from those of the ministry. Therefore, the article may be viewed as both the source of arguments in favor of the horizontal hierarchy adoption and the tool for evaluation of the chosen structure.
Overall, the article contains no knowledge that is fundamentally new. Therefore, it should not be viewed as a reason to review the existing frame of reference. Instead, the author successfully decreases the ambiguity surrounding the relatively non-traditional concept and outlines several ways of applying the studied issue into practice. Thus, the goals set out by the author can be described as both fulfilled and useful for a broad range of applications in the public service sector.
Reference
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175-194.