Input accountability
A newly emerging concept from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, input accountability might be thought of as a complement to the more traditional output accountability. In the more traditional version, accountability is taken for the quality of services delivered by government. Input accountability takes account of the government’s use of the public’s input into policy making, rule making, and maintenance and monitoring contributions. At its highest level of operation, input accountability presumes “reason for decision” requirements; information management controls requiring a full documentation of reasoning processes made fully available online for the public to see why decisions were made; and a response loop, allowing at least one level of rebuttal if citizens’ groups feel their representation was misunderstood. In this way, input accountability creates the conditions for a dialogue.
Examples:
Reason for Decision Project, Land and Water British Columbia Inc.
Readings:
John Reid, Information Commissioner of Canada, “The information management challenges of developing transparency in a 21st century e-government,” A Symposium on E-Governance for the 21st Century, Regina, Saskatchewan, May 8, 9 & 10, 2003.
Ranjani K. Murthy, “Service accountability and community participation in the context of health sector reform in Asia,”
Brandon, Barbara H., and Robert D. Carlitz, "Online rulemaking and other tools strengthening our civil infrastructure," Administrative Law Review, 54(4) fall 2002, 1421-1478
The authors examine how the Internet could fundamentally change the way that the public participates in policymaking, within the context of the existing civic infrastructure. They argue for the building of a transparent online environment that encourages public input, and that such a project should include innovations in electronic docket rooms and online policy dialogues.
Shapiro, Martin, "The giving reasons requirement," Universit of Chicago Legal Forum, 1991, 179-220
The author reviews how the giving of reasons requirements in the judicial review of administrative discretion in the U.S. since 1980 has grown into a rigorous system of input accountability. This has included how it has developed into the requirement for a record of reasons given; a demand for thorough reasoning; a dialogue requirement – requiring administrators to respond to the input of the public; and eventually an exhaustive dialogue requirement – requiring response to all public input. He warns that such an approach presents the danger of judges overruling laws they disapprove of substantively under the guise of procedural formalities. However, the author acknowledges that the development of this system does provide the public with a far superior system of transparency and accountability. He goes on to argue that overview of administrative discretion in Europe is headed in much the same direction.
IPAC Events
