|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
If corruption is the most damaging disease that any
organization must confront, as discussed in the preceding section, then
accountability and transparency are the major cures. This subsection
explores the dimensions and significance of accountability and
transparency concepts and actions , beginning with the very useful
introductory quotes below, and then exploring their evolution in the
general administrative literature, followed by a compilation of quotes on
accountability and transparency issues and problems in the United Nations
over the years. In 2001 the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the
Organization of American States (OAS) organized a forum in Brazil on the
common aim of building accountable and transparent public administrations
that serve their citizens' needs (as already noted in the introductory
material to this section on UN management accountability struggles.) The
OECD: "
uses the term 'governance' --
and public governance in particular -- to describe how authority is
distributed in the governmental system and how those who hold such
authority are held to account.
When it comes to the notion of good governance, we recognize a
number of generally agreed principles,
including: ?
Accountability, meaning that it is possible to identify and
hold public officials to account for their
actions. ?
Transparency, meaning that reliable, relevant and timely
information about the activities of government is available to the
public. ?
Openness, meaning governments that listen to citizens
and businesses, and take their suggestions into account when designing and
implementing public policies.
To conclude, two key points are
worth emphasizing: ?
First,
the success of public governance will ultimately be judged not by
governments or international organizations, but by citizens. It is citizens who are demanding
greater transparency and accountability from government as well as greater
public participation in shaping policies that affect their lives.
?
Second,
good governance and the fight against corruption should not just be catchwords in
international co-operation.
They represent the keys for successful reform and for equitable and
sustainable development.
" Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it happen, OECD, Paris, 2002, pp. 3, 7, and 10. A
further paper in the OECD volume highlights an important followup point
(which is returned to in
The International "Right to Know"
subsection of this archive): "Public scrutiny of
state affairs and access to information are key phases in the current
debate on the development of democracy
The two concepts are
interdependent, since one cannot play its part under the rule of law
without the other. There can
be no public scrutiny without access to information.
It is even possible
to conclude
that the
level of democracy attained by a country should now be measured in terms
of the volume and quality of the information in circulation.
it should now be
clear that it is not possible to fight corruption in the absence of a
culture of transparency.
Building such a culture can begin with a legislative commitment to
the public that breaks with the many years of concealment and the
persecution of those who take an interest in public affairs.
Legislation of this
type must overcome the huge temptation to control access to information as
a means of maintaining the conditions under which an authoritarian state
can achieve its objectives.
It must also overcome a culture of blatant isolation, behind which
administrations have long sheltered in an effort to avoid 'undesirable'
interference in their affairs." Alfredo Chirino Sαnchez, "The
right of access to information and public scrutiny: Transparency as a
democratic control instrument," in Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Public sector transparency and
accountability: Making it happen, OECD, Paris, 2002, pp. 163-166 [163, 166]. The
multiple dimensions of the accountability concept should also be mentioned
here: "
The fundamental
element in improving organizational performance
is the quality of
overall management. Managers
are people who get things done by working with other people to obtain
organizational objectives.
They must not only
set an example through their own performance, but encourage employees
throughout the organization to commit themselves to results, service, and
quality work. 'Oversight' is fairly readily
understood under the dictionary definitions of
'supervision' and
'watchful care'
'Accountability' essentially means responsibility to someone for
one's actions taken
to ensure that programmes have maximum impact and
results
While accountability is primarily
concerned with effective performance and results, recent research observes
that it also involves systematic efforts to strengthen organizations in at
least four different dimensions: (a) compliance
accountability -- the narrowest aspect, involving enforcement of standards
of performance or procedure; (b) negotiated
accountability -- improvement
of management and governance in response to changed conditions and demands
from those to whom the organization is
accountable; (c) professional/discretionary
accountability -- voluntary initiatives taken to enhance the professional
standards, management systems and technologies, and services of the
organization; and (d) anticipatory accountability
-- helping shape and prepare for new accountability standards.
" Joseph
G. Jabbra, and O. P.
Dwivedi, eds., Public service accountability: A comparative
perspective, Kumarian, West Hartford, Conn., USA,
1989, Kevin P. Kearns, "The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework," Public Administration Review (USA), 54, no. 2, March/April 1994, pp. 185-192, and Samuel Paul, Strengthening public service accountability: A conceptual framework, Discussion paper No. 136, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1991, all as discussed in Joint Inspection Unit, "Accountability, management improvement, and oversight in the United Nations System", Parts I and II, UN document A/50/503, 1995, Part I, paras. 9-11. These accountability
and transparency concepts are not unknown in the United Nations. They were succinctly and
eloquently stated by the UN's top manager, Patricio Ruedas of Spain, in
response to Member States' sharp criticisms of defective UN monitoring,
evaluation, and reporting processes far back in
1985: "Member
States have
stressed the need to be told, more clearly and more extensively
. what has been the programmatic
performance of the Secretariat, which outputs have been delivered, and
with which result
. Let
us strengthen the monitoring and evaluation functions
Let
us say clearly and dispassionately what has been done and with which
result, and equally what has not been done and why
. Let
us produce more analytical performance reports
.
I find the essential problem one of better and more transparent
information,
thus "Statement", in the statement by UN Under-Secretary-General for Management Patricio Ruedas 12 November 1985, as quoted in the Joint Inspection Unit report, "Reporting on the Performance and Results of United Nations Programmes: Monitoring, evaluation and management review components"", UN document A/43/124,1988, p. 5.
Unfortunately, and
almost two decades later, the United Nations has made little progress
toward meeting these clear-cut standards, as discussed throughout the rest
of this IO Watch archive. |
|||
