This article covers a study on arrangements that apply to accountability. The author, Thomas Schillemans is an expert on accountability and he has made numerous literary contributions on this subject. The article uses the situation in Netherlands to describe how horizontal accountability could be applied in the administration of agencies. Nevertheless, the author of this article makes a clear distinction between horizontal and hierarchical accountability. One of the most radical views in this article is that horizontal accountability often operates in the shadows of a hierarchy. The article also offers several explanations and definitions of relevant terms and concepts. This essay is a critical review of the article titled “Accountability in the shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies”.
One of the most prominent concepts in this article is horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy. The author did a good job when explaining this point. From the article’s context, the main idea is that quality of accountability is influenced by much more than just reporting. Therefore, the shadow of hierarchy as described by the author is in reference to an entire mechanism of accountability. This is a farfetched concept in the study of accountability but the author does a good job in breaking it down. According to the article, horizontal accountability is not a ‘one phase undertaking’, but it involves three distinct phases. These phases are the information phase, the debating phase, and the consequences phase (Schillemans, 2008, p. 180). This hypothesis makes a lot of sense as opposed to the traditional horizontal accountability, which only concerns itself with the consequences. Through this model, the element of hierarchical shadows is exemplified through the exchange of information between partners, their subsequent deliberations, and the manner in which they are accountable to their decisions. The concept of horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy provides new insights in the nature of accountability as it applies to agencies.
The article has also added on the overall understanding of how partners should be held into account in agency settings. According to the author, the parties who are part of the hierarchical shadow of horizontal accountability should be held to account for their various forms of input. Therefore, partners who take part in providing the necessary input, delivering on promises, and achieving projected results should all be accountable. Furthermore, Schillemans argues that partners should also be accountable for how responsive or unresponsive their services are to recipients, maintenance of quality-standards, proper use of power, and fulfillment of partnership goals.
The author’s overall definition of horizontal accountability is not as straightforward as the article puts it. After going through the entire article, the most viable definition of horizontal accountability is ‘what is not hierarchical’. In the article, this definition can be drawn for the statement that says, “Horizontal accountability then in contrast refers to forms of accountability where the accountee is not hierarchically superior to the accountor” (Schillemans, 2008, p. 179). Consequently, this statement reiterates the simplification of horizontal accountability in this article to: ‘what is not hierarchical’.
Schillemans’ article is an insightful account on horizontal marketing and the shadowy elements that come with hierarchical connotations. The author is also quite successful in his juxtaposition of the concepts of horizontal accountability versus shadow of hierarchy. Through the article, it is also possible to decipher how accountability should be distributed within a partnership. There is also the possibility of simplifying the overall definition in this article after gaining a full understanding of the subject matter.
Reference
Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review 8: 175-194.