Administrative

Accountability

Public Administration and

Accountability
There seems to be a paradox in the
development of the democratic welfare
state. As the state grows more and more
powerful in order to serve the people,
paradoxically more and more people feel
that they have been pushed into the
background by the growing powers of the
social service sate. As the public
administration machinery expands and
becomes more complex, the need for
holding it properly accountable is more
acutely felt.

 In a democratic government, the

assumption is that the civil
servants work in the government
for the people. Therefore, the
problem of locating accountability
becomes acute because of the
nature of the job performed and
exercised by the public officials.

 Administrative accountability
means making the civil servants
answerable for their actions.
Administrative accountability has
to be understood in relation to
making of public policies and their
implementation. It means
accountability of those
administrators who in some ways
or the other contribute to the
decision making process. And this
accountability is to the political
system as a whole.

In general, the public officials are

found to be guilty of 3 kinds of
breaches means that civil servants have not
-Nonfeasance

done what law or custom requires them to do

owing to laziness, ignorance or want of care for
their charges or corrupt influence.
-Malfeasance means that a duty is carried out
with waste and damage because of ignorance,
negligence and technical incompetence.
-Overfeasance occurs when a duty is undertaken
beyond what law and custom oblige empower---it
may occur out of dictatorial temper, vanity or
genuine public spirited zeal.
The public officials must be held accountable for
any of these three activities.
5

The concept of administrative accountability

has multiple dimensions. Accountability can
derive from the 3 branches of government:
1. Executive accountability:
The administration in a democratic state is
accountable to the political executive in the
first instance. If accountability of any
individual administrator is to be insured, the
practice is to criticize the political executive
to whom he is attached. The bureaucracys
main functional role is to act as advisors to
the political executive on matters connected
with policy execution and policy formulation.

 By virtue of their enormous

expertise they gain through long
period in office and specialised
training the bureaucrats know
better about the subject matter
than the political executive does.
The political executive is
accountable to the legislature but
the administrator is politically
accountable to the political
executive.
7

 2. Legislative accountability:
The dimension of administrative
accountability becomes larger if we take
into account the parliamentary
institution of interpellation. It is the
basic right of the members of
parliament to ask questions about the
state of public administration. When the
minister is asked to answer a question
put by MP, the questions are really
directed to the department concerned.
Every top administrator knows that
whatever policy decision his department
takes is likely to be questioned in
parliament.

 The principal function of questions

in parliament is not to inform
ministers of public reaction to
policy but to discipline
administration. Administrative
responsibility therefore indirectly
means accountability to
parliament. In modern times, every
legislature has developed the
practice of functioning through its
various committees.
9

 Apart from standing committees, public

accounts committee and public
estimates committee, there are host of
other committees like committee on
subordinate legislation, committee on
government assurances etc where the
government officials have to meet the
queries made by the legislators.
Administrative accountability becomes
very much meaningful in the
proceedings of these committees as
public administrators are put hard to
defend their policies and actions on
grounds of laws, rules and their own
perception of public interest.

10

 Judicial Accountbility:
In a democratic political system, citizens
are provided with the necessary legal
means to challenge the policy decisions
as well as administrative decisions of
the government. In most democracies
the machinery of public administration
includes organisations for adjudicating
on disputes between citizens and the
administration in matters like taxation
and compensation. If dispute still
persists, citizens can approach regular
courts of law challenging the decisions
of the government.

11

 In Bangladesh, for example,

Supreme Court and high courts can
issue a variety of writs challenging
the decisions of the government.
The public administrators,
therefore, have to advise on policy
formulation and policy
implementation keeping in view
the probable reaction of the court,
if and when their policies or
actions are challenged in the court
of law.
12

Besides, a quasi-judicial institution,

like the ombudsman, has been
rendering useful service for
insuring administrative
accountability in a large number of
democracies. The ombudsman is
basically an agent of parliament
for defending the public interest
and public morale against any sort
of deviational behaviour of public
servants. This institution can
successfully defend the public
interest by enforcing
administrative for policies and

13