Locating Accountability

The document examines the conceptual challenges of 'accountability' within global governance, arguing that the term is often conflated with legitimacy, transparency, and democratic accountability. It critiques the 'standard approach'—which focuses on vertical power lines and punitive sanctions—and proposes a shift toward 'accountability to mandate' and 'promise-keeping.' The author emphasizes that accountability should be analyzed through both substantive (meeting objectives) and procedural (how the organization works) lenses. The paper also explores the 'polycentric' nature of global governance, where overlapping accountability regimes can lead to 'multiple accountabilities disorder' (MAD) and a 'regulatory trilemma' between efficacy, responsiveness, and coherency.

• The 'standard approach' to global accountability relies on vertical power lines and a combination of visibility and punishment to limit abuses of power.
• Accountability is frequently conflated with other distinct values, such as legitimacy, transparency, answerability, responsibility, decision-making, inclusion, and democracy, which obscures analytical clarity.
• The author proposes a functional approach to accountability centered on 'promise-keeping' and 'accountability to mandate,' which applies to both horizontal and vertical relationships.
• Transparency is a necessary foundation for accountability but is insufficient on its own; it requires access and engagement to be effective.
• Global governance is increasingly characterized by 'polycentrism,' where multiple overlapping accountability regimes can create conflicting demands on an organization.
• Organizations facing conflicting accountability expectations may suffer from 'multiple accountabilities disorder' (MAD), leading them to please no one while trying to please everyone.
• A 'regulatory trilemma' exists in global governance where institutions must trade off between three desirable but conflicting values: efficacy, responsiveness, and coherency.
• The document distinguishes between substantive accountability (how close an IO comes to meeting its objectives) and procedural accountability (how the IO works and if its processes are transparent).
• Democratic accountability is often wrongly used as a synonym for general accountability, whereas many international organizations are non-electoral and focused on expert-led mandates.
• The author adopts Jerry Mashaw's framework, suggesting that any accountability regime must answer six key questions: who is accountable, to whom, for what, through what processes, by what standards, and with what effects.

APA

Drake, A. (2012). Locating Accountability. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/locating_accountability.pdf

Chicago

Drake, Anna. Locating Accountability. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/locating_accountability.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Drake |first1=Anna |title=Locating Accountability |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=November 2012 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/locating_accountability.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{drake2012locating, author = {Drake, Anna}, title = {{Locating Accountability}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2012}, month = nov, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/locating_accountability.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }