PMR — pp. 1-30 2026-08-26 Original Beyond monolithic state logic: how top-down accountability shapes policy implementation
W. G. Will Zhao
Abstract
How does top-down accountability shape policy implementation? Drawing on institutional logics, this paper distinguishes two state sub-logics: ‘high-stakes context logic’ emphasizing centralized control during crises, and ‘routine governance logic’ allowing discretion during day-to-day administration. These sub-logics condition the perceived legitimacy of accountability demands, felt accountability, and behavioural responses. A survey experiment with over 800 public service respondents shows that, under high-stakes logic, intensified accountability progressively improve compliance, whereas under routine logic, moderate accountability produces optimal compliance, with high-intensity accountability yielding diminishing returns. These findings challenge binary views of accountability and reveal how within-logic variations may alter governance mechanisms.
PMR — pp. 1-26 2026-08-01 Original Accountability systems and coping in the bureaucratic environment
Christine H. Roch, Ellen V. Rubin
Abstract
Advocates for strengthening accountability in government assume stronger consequences will change bureaucratic behavior. This study considers whether more strict accountability regimes change bureaucrats’ discretionary efforts. We consider this puzzle using a conjoint experiment with teachers in New York State. Our results show street-level bureaucrats in high accountability settings prioritize low-performing clients, while street-level bureaucrats in moderate accountability settings prioritize clients exhibiting high levels of effort. Overall, teachers demonstrate a weak preference to provide extra assistance to students who are hardworking and low-performing.
JCC — pp. 1-17 2026-07-24 Original When the Mass Line Encounters the Ground: Public-Oriented Accountability and Frontline Coping in China
Huan He
Abstract
While the consolidation of state control in China is well-documented, less attention has been given to the reinforcement of public-oriented accountability, which emphasizes citizen satisfaction with complaint resolution in government performance assessments. Drawing on statistical data and fieldwork interviews, this study finds that while public-oriented accountability can partially promote substantive government responsiveness by imposing institutional pressure on frontline officials, it also fosters a public perception of an omnipotent government and exacerbates the predicament of grassroots incapacity. This not only traps frontline bureaucrats in administrative burden caused by blame-avoidance strategies, but may also fuel frustration among mobilized citizens with heightened expectations. The findings reveal the institutional sources and constraints of government responsiveness and highlight the potential challenges of operationalizing the mass line to consolidate legitimacy.
PMR — pp. 1-30 2026-07-02 Original The promise and performance of social impact bonds
Clare J. FitzGerald, Alec Fraser, Carolyn J. Heinrich, Mikkel Munksgaard Andersen
Abstract
This article examines social impact bonds (SIBs), first scrutinizing early discourse on their promises—increased accountability through competitive public-private partnerships, outcomes measurement, and a learning approach to performance management—drawing on theories of New Public Management and New Public Governance. Then, a structured review of empirical research is used to evaluate SIB performance against their public management reform promises. Findings show that while SIBs sometimes foster intersectoral collaboration, they can also surface power imbalances, institutionalize gaming, and inadvertently reduce public accountability. A faltering commitment to robust outcomes measurement is also demonstrated, with negative implications for effective governance and public value.
PMR — pp. 1-31 2026-05-23 Original Exploring how individual and shared accountability shape risk management approaches in public service delivery
Emily Rose Tangsgaard
Abstract
This article explores how frontline managers (FMs) approach risk management in politically salient public service contexts under individualized versus shared accountability structures, integrating theories of accountability, blame avoidance, and leadership. Drawing on individual and group interviews with 62 FMs in Danish healthcare (individualized accountability) and social services (shared accountability), the analysis shows that anticipatory blame avoidance and perceptions of formal accountability structures shape risk management approaches: FMs engage more closely in decision-making processes when accountability is shared, whereas they focus on structuring decision-making procedures when accountability is individualized. The findings illustrate that FMs actively calibrate their leadership in anticipation of blame, revealing greater individual agency than typically acknowledged in studies emphasizing informal accountability structures such as professional norms or organizational culture. By highlighting how formal accountability shapes leadership in practice, the study offers a novel, empirically grounded perspective on public leadership.
PAR — 2026-05-11
Original Seeking Legitimacy Through Accountability: Is Institution‐Based Accountability More Legitimate Than Campaign‐Based Accountability?
JPART 36/3 pp. 361-377 2026-05-07 Original Who is this for? How felt accountability shapes the enactment of accountability in public service delivery
Margit Ernst
Abstract
Abstract What makes accountability work? To answer this question, public administration research has long focused on formal mechanisms—–rules, audits, and performance indicators—intended to ensure that public employees answer for their actions. Yet these mechanisms alone rarely determine how accountability plays out in practice. Rather, it depends on how they are recognized, internalized, and enacted by those expected to comply. This realization has spurred growing interest in how employees perceive and enact accountability in the context of public service delivery. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, this study unpacks how street-level bureaucrats navigate tensions between formal accountability demands and their internalized perceptions of accountability. The findings reveal how employees weigh, reinterpret, or reframe accountability based on what they perceive to be at stake. To conceptualize this, the article introduces a concentric model of accountability.
PA — 2026-04-07
Original Fighting Corruption Through Accountability? A Survey Experiment
Ming‐feng Kuo, Hsini Huang
Abstract
ABSTRACT Democratic Weberian bureaucracy is facing great challenges upholding public values as we see turbulent party politics disrupt merit‐based systems, causing bureaucrats' goal displacement and conflicting compliance under multiple accountability mechanisms. Using vignette experiment design, 555 Taiwanese public employees were surveyed to explore how legal, administrative, and social accountabilities influence the perception of black, gray, and white corruption. While respondents accurately identified corruption severity, accountability reminders diminish ethical judgments and are ineffective in explaining whistle‐blowing intention. The study revealed that organizational positions interact differently with accountability reminders in a Weberian bureaucracy. Findings highlight the need to cultivate ethical judgment to shift from external controls to trigger greater perceived accountability to combat corruption. This study sheds light on both felt accountability and corruption theories to reflect existing anti‐corruption strategies.
JPART 36/3 pp. 378-392 2026-03-15 Original Reversing the accountability chain: how relational power can shape accountability in public encounters
Sara C Closs-Davies, Koen P R Bartels, Doris Merkl-Davies
PA — 2026-03-11
Original Understanding Accountability in AI Use Within the Public Sector: Insights From State Governments in the United States
Tzuhao Chen, Mila Gasco‐Hernandez, J. Ramon Gil‐Garcia