官员问责制度化:困境与出路

官员问责是我国政治文明建设过程中的一项制度创新。但是,在推进官员问责制度化建设过程中,明显地存在着异体问责缺位、问责客体责任标准模糊不清、问责范围过于狭窄、问责标准不统一、问责程序非制度化、问责结果不科学等一系列问题。针对这些问题,今后应该进一步规范问责主体、强化异体问责的力度,将问责客体的职责制度化、法定化,全面界定官员问责的范围及标准,完善官员问责程序,完善被问责官员的救济制度。     

官员问责制度化:现实困境与制度设计——对"问责风暴"的深层思考

继2003年"问责风暴"之后,随着重大突发事件接踵而至,在中国掀起新一轮"问责风暴".虽然迈出了问责制度化的重要一步,但面临的诸多现实困境仍需要进行深层次思考.其普遍存在四种现实困境:重"自上而下",轻"自下而上";重"火线问责",轻制度问责;重问责行动、结果,轻问责理念、过程;重"轻"责任,轻"重"责任.解决其现实困境,对其进行制度设计,理念先行是前提,绩效问责是突破口,"问题官员"复出机制是重要环节,统一立法是关键.     

官员问责制度化：现实困境与制度设计——对“问责风暴”的深层思考

继2003年＂问责风暴＂之后,随着重大突发事件接踵而至,在中国掀起新一轮＂问责风暴＂。虽然迈出了问责制度化的重要一步,但面临的诸多现实困境仍需要进行深层次思考。其普遍存在四种现实困境：重＂自上而下＂,轻＂自下而上＂;重＂火线问责＂,轻制度问责;重问责行动、结果,轻问责理念、过程;重＂轻＂责任,轻＂重＂责任。解决其现实困境,对其进行制度设计,理念先行是前提,绩效问责是突破口,官员复出机制是重要环节,统一立法是关键。     

行政无为问责:一种亟待制度化的权力监督

在整治"行政不当行为"的同时,需要对"行政不作为"或说"行政无为"有清醒识别,实施行政无为问责应是一条重要途径。行政无为比行政作为更难以界定,行政无为的责任亦难权衡,但如果没有行政无为问责,就可能无法很好推进行政问责制度。行政无为问责可以理解为问责主体针对行政机构及公职人员应当作为却无所作为而产生不良后果,并要求其承担相应责任的做法。明晰行政无为问责的主体、客体、程序与具体责任,有助于行政无为问责制度化,真正发挥其监督功能。     

行政问责的理论依据新探

契约理论主要阐述权力行使与责任担当的双向依存关系,责任伦理则强调了对行为过程及其结果负责的伦理诉求,契约理论与责任伦理相结合共同构筑了行政问责的理论基础。"人民主权"是"政府治权"的逻辑前提,当政府行为违背"公意"时,政府的权力就是"非正义"的,人民有权追究政府的责任,这是行政问责最直接的理论资源。责任伦理所蕴涵的"尽己之责"使命、恪尽职守"敬业"和行为后果担当是行政问责的直接理论依据。     

我国政府问责的制度性障碍及其消解

完善的制度是政府问责规范的必要条件.我国政府问责虽已有所进步,但总体而言还未实现制度化和法律化.只有通过制度设计来实现问责的刚性化,才能确保政府问责的有效性.     

论我国行政问责制度化的内外动因及体系建构

行政问责作为责任行政的制度保障．是防止行政权力异化的重要工具。我国的行政问责从行动风暴到制度建立正历经着关键的过渡期。近来，国内又发生了一系列由于行政责任缺失所酿成的重大事故，为此有必要探究行政问责制度化的内外动因与巩固机制，以便更好地推进行政问责向系统化、制度化方向发展，实现行政问责制度化，推动责任政府建设。     

论我国行政问责制度化的内外动因及体系构建

行政问责作为责任行政的制度保障，是防止行政权力异化的重要工具。我国的行政问责从行动风暴到制度建立正历经着关键的过渡期。近来，国内又发生了一系列由于行政责任缺失所酿成的重大事故，为此有必要探究行政问责制度化的内外动因与巩固机制，以便更好地推进行政问责向系统化、制度化方向发展，实现行政问责制度化，推动责任政府建设。     

我国行政问责制度及其对问责程序机制影响的研究

行政问责并非只是单一的制度,而是一种机制,它涉及行政决策、行政过程、行政结果的问责控制,需要多个方面的行为主体以相应的法定方式予以完成.完善的行政问责机制需要清晰具体的行政问责制度和可以将行政问责制度有效执行的行政问责程序机制.在国内行政问责理论研究明显不足的情况下,行政问责的制度设计呈现出实践先于理论的特点.实践先于理论的特点决定了行政问责制度还处于不成熟状态,存在明显的局限性:问责发起程序的缺失导致问责发起存在障碍,问责启动主体的制度缺陷加大了行政问责程序的随意性和不确定性,责任标准的缺乏影响制度严谨性、公正性,等等.     

关于行政问责法制化的几点思考

我国行政责任定性不明晰、定量不合理,导致行政问责普遍存在重权力轻责任、重有过轻无为、重"风暴"轻制度的弊端,特别是一些地方和部门的行政权力实际上处于无过即无风险、"无为"胜"有为"的状态.研究如何推进行政问责的制度化、法治化,完善我国行政问责制度,必将有助于提高行政执行力,提高政府公信力,巩固政府的合法性基础.     

Reputation and Accountability Relationships: Managing Accountability Expectations through Reputation

Accountability is said to be about the management of expectations. Empirical studies reveal considerable variation in organizational interest, intensity, and investment in accountability relationships. Less is known, however, about what explains these observed variations. Drawing on accountability and reputation‐concerned literatures, this article argues that a reputation‐based perspective on accountability offers an underlying logic that explains how account‐giving actors and account‐holding forums actually manage these expectations and how organizations make sense of and prioritize among accountability responsibilities. Reputational considerations act as a filtering mechanism of external demands and help account for variations in degrees of interest in, and intensity of, accountability. The resulting accountability outcomes are coproduced by the reputational investment of both account‐giver and account‐holder, resulting in distinct accountability constellations and outcomes.     

重新思考NGOs问责

NGOs问责的涵义可以从控制-交待、外部-内部、过程-机制三个不同的视角来理解。这就形塑了不同的NGOs问责型态,如等级问责和整体问责、功能问责和战略问责、外部控制和内部回应为基础的问责矩阵等等。这些问责型态不仅在理论上存在瑕疵,而且导致不合理的NGOs问责实践。可以根据问责的来源和问责关注的期限这两个维度建立一个整合的NGOs问责框架。该框架包含四种问责型态:效益问责、使命问责、结果问责和发展问责。这个新的理论框架进一步发展了NGOs问责的涵义,同时能够帮助利益相关者调整观察NGOs活动的关注点以提升NGOs的问责性,也有助于NGOs看清不同的问责力量,并判断怎样才能对自身的行为负责。研究的主要局限在于,提出的理论框架是一般意义上的,在实际应用中需要根据不同的NGOs类型及其运行的外部环境对框架的内容和侧重点进行调整。     

Delimiting Democratic Accountability

This article discusses the concept of accountability in relation to those holding public office in democratic states. It argues that the concept of accountability requires careful specification and that it is frequently distorted when put to the service of theoretical models and normative principles. The article develops a definition of accountability and a range of distinctions between forms of accountability, asks what forms of accountability might be appropriate to modern democratic systems and argues that some combinations of democracy and accountability can have serious negative consequences for politics. The article concludes by discussing the types of accountability that are pertinent to recent claims that international institutions should be made more democratically accountable. In each case, the common tendency to inflate the concept of accountability is associated with demands for accountability that threaten both democratic consolidation and the distinctive character of accountability itself.     

Contracting Out and Accountability

Governments are increasingly moving to contract out the provision of public services which have previously been delivered by public service departments. Contracting out typically implies provision by private sector contractors. However, it may also include in-house provision by public service departments or other public agencies where the right to provide is won through competitive tendering and is governed by contract. At the Commonwealth level, the trend has been given added impetus by the Coalition government elected in 1996 (Reith J 996; National Commission of Audit 1996).
The main rationale for contracting out is to improve efficiency in service provision by harnessing the virtues of competition, in particular the superior productivity engendered among competitive providers (Industry Commission (IC) 1996, B3.4; Appendix E). At the same time, there is a legitimate expectation that providers of public services paid for by public funds will be publicly accountable (IC 1996, BI). However, contracting out has the potential to reduce the extent of public accountability by transferring the provision of public services to members of the private sector who are generally not subject to the same accountability requirements as public officials. Indeed, reduction in such accountability requirements may be one of the reasons for the greater efficiency of the private sector.     

Promoting Accountability in Municipalities

Local government financial reporting reforms in Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s were promoted on the basis of usefulness for decision making and for enhanced accountability purposes. Persistent criticisms of these reforms continue to be made, including those made by councillors and other ratepayers who often appear to find such information to be too narrow, too complex and often bewildering. A case is made for rethinking the present mentality, requirements and practices, especially with respect to the contrived recognition of ‘community assets’. Instead, an emphasis is placed on advancing broad‐scope accountability and meaningful financial reporting. To this end, the disclosure of a set of factual, reliable and interpretable indicators is proposed to enable a broader, more functional notion of accountability to be applied in Australian local government within prevailing social and organisational contexts. This contribution seeks to present a series of views, questions and proposals that are strictly concerned with ‘promoting accountability in municipalities’ (PAM).     

Reflections on Moral Accountability

As patron of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation(CSVR), I am both proud and excited that this organization hastaken the lead in initiating an international publication ontransitional justice in partnership with the Human Rights Centerat the University of California, Berkeley. By creating a spacefor dialogue and the sharing of knowledge and research, theInternational Journal of Transitional Justice will no doubtcontribute to the growth of the field of transitional justiceand to its ultimate     

Equity and Accountability: The Impact of State Accountability Systems on School Finance

Using an 11‐year panel data set containing information on revenues, expenditures, and demographics for every school district in the United States, we examine the effects of state‐adopted school accountability systems on the adequacy and equity of school resources. We find little relationship between state implementation of accountability systems and changes in school finance equity, though we do find evidence that states in which courts overturned the school finance system during the decade exhibited significant equity improvements. Additionally, while implementation of accountability per se does not appear linked to changes in resource adequacy, states that implemented strong accountability systems did experience improvements.