Accountability issues in PPP

We have been seeing of late in New Public Management (NPM) about the changes required in Government’s role. A number of stages are required to get an approval for a project. Government tends to keep the process intact rather than the end result. All this is done to keep the government machinery accountable.

Accountable to.. (Willems & Dooren, 2011)

1. Political mechanisms – future elections, political debate, questions of opposition
2. Judicial review – questioning by the courts
3. Superior authority – chain of hierarchical command, government auditors, regulatory bodies, ombudsman
4. Groups – Citizens, Interest groups (NGO’s)

In India, the ‘5 C’s and 1 M’ which question government decisions are CBI, CVC, CAG, CJI and CIC. The M is of course Media (governancenow.com)

Now, the account holders (people, judiciary, authority) concentrate on the process and not the performance of accounting. It has become easier to hold someone accountable for a 'failure in finance and fairness' rather than on a 'failure in performance'.

What is required now is a change looking at efficiency and value for money.

Few solutions in this regard as mentioned in (Forrer et.al, 2010) are

1. Cost- benefit analysis -  to show (people, judiciary and authority) that the project is done because of the benefits
2. Get social and political support – by increasing transparency and involving people in decision making
3. Performance measurement – based on implementation and benefit to people

Reference

1. http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/how-get-governance-going-plug-policy-paralysis
2. Willems, T., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 505-530. 
3. Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475-484.