Repowerment beyond empowerment: collaborative accountability of citizens, corporations and civil servants

• Date: 30 April 2024
• Pages: 571-592
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2023-0340
• Published date: 30 April 2024
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management
• Author: Junesoo Lee

Repowerment beyond

empowerment: collaborative

accountability of citizens,

corporations and civil servants

Junesoo Lee

KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Sejong, South Korea

Abstract

Purpose –This article conceptualizes and constructs a comprehensive framework that can better help to

answer that question –Who is accountable for social and public problems? –theoretically and practically.

Design/methodology/approach –Tracing the drivers behind two phenomena “accountability hole”and

“accountability black hole”, stemming from “pushing power game”and “pulling power game”, respectively,

this study considers (1) the three actors of society: citizens (civil society), corporations (market) and civil

servants (government), and (2) the principal-agent relationship between the three actors in the face of social and

public problems. As a result, the 4CAs framework that contains the three actors’collaborative accountabilities

to one another is presented.

Findings –The 4CAs model emphasizes (1) all three actors function as agents that are accountable to one

another, (2) collaborative accountability beyond collaborative governance and (3) repowering citizens and

corporations beyond just empowering them, i.e. returning their inherent rights and obligations to serve one

another.

Originality/value –The 4CAs model may function as a descriptive and prescriptive lens through which the

trilemma between market failure, government failure and citizen failure can be re-assessed and balanced. The

model can also be used as a set of indicators for assessingand helping a society to better resolve the social and

public problems collectively.

Keywords Collaboration, Accountability, Governance, Empowerment, Repowerment

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

The issue of accountability in addressing social and public problems, a topic widely debated

by public management scholars and practitioners, often centers around the concepts of

market and government failure (Weimer and Vining, 2011). In the market system,

corporations are expected to be socia lly responsible, yet often require gov ernment

intervention for effective operation (Economides and Lianos, 2021;Moriarty, 2020;Tirole,

2015). Similarly, while governments aim to compensate for corporate shortcomings, they face

their own inherent challenges (Keech and Munger, 2015;McConnell, 2010).

However, existing discussions in the field of public management typically overlook

several key factors: the under-examined role of citizens, who, despite their responsibility

towards society, often fall short (Levinson, 2014;Nordensv€

ard, 2014;Villalobos et al., 2021);

the lack of responsibility-sharing (beyond power-sharing) in collaborative efforts among

citizens, corporations, and civil servants; and a biased perspective in viewing these groups

through the principal-agent lens, with limited focus on their mutual accountabilities in public

problems.

Repowerment

beyond

empowerment

571

The author sincerely thanks Professor Heungsuk Choi of Korea University and Professor Seungjoo Han

of Myongji University for their invaluable insight and advice on this research. This research was funded

by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea

(No: NRF-2016S1A3A2924956).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3558.htm

Received 25 November 2023

Revised 7 January 2024

20 February 2024

Accepted 1 March 2024

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 37 No. 4, 2024

pp. 571-592

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-11-2023-0340

This article reexamines the roles of these three societal actors –citizens, corporations, and

government –within the principal-agent framework, aiming to achieve balanced analysis of

and solutions to public problems. It introduces “repowerment,”complementing traditional

empowerment, to reinvigorate ownership and stewardship among all actors. A proposed

framework of “collaborative accountability”aims to provide a comprehensive understanding

and improvement of accountability dynamics among these actors. This framework offers

both a retrospective analysis and prospective guidance for enhancing mutual accountability,

laying a foundation for addressing current accountability challenges in public management

and governance.

Basis of the collaborative accountability framework

Hole and black hole of accountability

Public problems are increasingly complex, often overwhelming governments that lack the

resources to tackle them alone. This complexity is compounded by an interesting paradox:

the growing demand for government intervention alongside a decreasing trust in

government (Hood and Dixon, 2015;Huntington, 2000). In detail, the issue arises from the

dual aspects of power game among societal actors: the “pushing game”of power, which

involves competition to avoid risks and shift burdensome responsibility, and the “pulling

game”of power, centered around competition for gaining more authority and recognition.

These games result in an accountability gap and an accountability overlap, respectively. This

phenomenon is illustrated by two concepts: the “accountability hole”from the pushing

(power) game; and the “accountability black hole”based on the pulling (power) game.

The “accountability hole”reflects a scenario where citizens and corporations fail to meet

their societal responsibilities,leading to a greater demand for government action. This gapis

partlydue to citizens’declininginterest in publicaffairs and a decrease in socialcapital (Putnam

et al., 2000). Moreover, citizens’participation in policy processes is often overshadowed by

political experts and lobbyists (Maloney and Jordan, 1997;Mathews, 1999;Skocpol, 1998;van

Til, 2000), leading to representational issues and a form of “citizen failure.”In the market

system, corporations involved in public services sometimes exercise power without adequate

accountability(Durant, 2019;Freeman and Minow, 2009;van Bavel, 2016;Verkuil, 2007).

The “accountability black hole”describes the concentration of societal accountabilities in

the government, which struggles with the complexity of public problems, leading to declining

public trust. This issue is exacerbated by governments’competition to gain more authority

and power (Priks, 2012), and the public’s unrealistic expectations of government capabilities

(Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2002;Putnam et al., 2000). As a result, governments face

challenges such as the complexity of issues (Kalesnikaite and Neshkova, 2021;Noto et al.,

2023), the helplessness of citizens or corporations in addressing these problems (Head, 2023;

Reinecke and Ansari, 2016), and the difficulty of managing intersectoral networks (Scott and

Thomas, 2017;Sowa and Lu, 2017).

To gain a clearer understanding of the relationship between the growing accountability

gap (accountability hole and black hole) and the decline in trust, an interesting comparison

can be made. Consider famous Hollywood superhero movies featuring characters like

Superman and Spider-Man. There are two notable similarities between superheroes and

governments. First, both possess extraordinary capabilities and vast resources (endowed by

nature to superheroes and by citizens to governments), enabling them to solve complex

problems. Second, although not depicted in the movies, these extraordinary capabilities

present another set of issues: the public tends to rely on and demand more from their

interventions than what they can feasibly manage. Consequently, when demand exceeds

supply, there is a tendency for people to express more complaints about the services that were

not provided, rather than appreciation for those that were.

IJPSM

37,4

572