Political transitions and commissions of inquiry: the politicisation of accountability in Ghana

Abstract

What role does a commission of inquiry (COI) play in delivering accountability? In theory, when the public delegates power to political leaders to formulate and implement policies, they seek political accountability in return. Using Ghana as a case study, this study examines how the operations of COIs may deliver accountability. Principal–agent theories of accountability and African conceptions of legitimacy are incomplete on their own and need to be integrated into an explanation of political accountability that takes into consideration political transitions and the role of COIs in delivering a minimalist form of accountability. This study argues that a COI is an instrument of regime legitimatisation. The demands by citizens for political accountability in Ghana correlate with political transitions. Accompanying each power alternation was a different model of political accountability. To understand the predominant applications of accountability, we emphasise the politicisation of accountability.     

Book Notes

Encyclopaedia of the Third World. George Thomas Kurian, London: Mansell. 1979. 1694 pp. £40.00.

Year Book of Labour Statistics 1978. International Labour Office Geneva: ILO. 1978. 675 pp. S Fr 95.00.

Documents of the Gatherings of Nonaligned Countries 1961–78. Medjunarodna Politika, Belgrade: Jugoslavenska Stvarnost. 1978. 274 pp.

Strategic Survey. International Institute of Strategic Studies, London :IISS. 1979. 140 pp. £2.25 pb.

The Far East and Australasia 1978–9. London: Europa. 1978. 1311 pp. £26.50.

Britain and Latin America: an annual review of British‐Latin American relations 1979. Latin American Bureau, London: LAB.1979. 189 pp. £2.50 pb.

Latin American Annual Review and the Caribbean 1979. World of Information, Saffron Walden, England: WoI. 1978. 222 pp. £11.50.

Register of Research on Trade and Development Issues. UNCTAD, New York. UNCTAD. 1978. 96 pp.

Register of Development Research Projects in Africa: liaison bulletin. OECD, Paris: OECD Development Centre. 1979. 106 pp. $6.50.

Landsat Index Atlas of the Developing Countries. Washington DC: The World Bank. £6.25.

African Studies: a handbook for teachers. Edited by Margaret Killingray, London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 1979. 81 pp. £2.00.

Women in the Development Process: a selected bibliography on women in the sub‐Saharan Africa and Latin America. S S Saulniers & A Rakowski, Austin, Texas: University of Texas. 1977. 287 pp. £4.90.

Women and World Development: an annotated bibliography. Mayra Buvinic, Washington DC: Overseas Development Council. 1976. 162 pp. $2.50.

Development as if Women Mattered: an annotated bibliography with a Third World focus. May Rihani, Washington DC: Overseas Development Council. 1978. 137 pp. $3.00.

America in Asia: research guide on US economic activity in Pacific Asia. Asia‐North America Communications Center, Hong Kong: ANACC. 1979. 165 pp. $10.00 pb.

Changing Approaches to Population Problems. Margaret Wolfson, Paris: OECD Development Centre. 1979. 193 pp. $9.50 pb.

Planning for Growing Populations. Edited by Robert Cassen and Margaret Wolfson, Paris: OECD Development Centre. 1979. 227 pp. $11.50 pb.

Food Aid for Development. Harmut Schneider, Paris: OECD Development Centre. 1979. 130 pp. $6.75 pb.

Traveller's Guide to Africa 1980. Edited by Richard Synge, London: International Communications. 1979 (third edn). 400 pp. £5.95.

Traveller's Guide to the Middle East 1980. Edited by Richard Synge, London: International Communications. 1979 (second edn). 300 pp. £5.95.

Arabic Historical Writing 1975 and 1976: an annotated bibliography. Fawzi Abdulrazak, London: Mansell. 1979. 210 pp.

Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World. Anthony Welsh, London: Dawson. 1979. 216 pp. £15.00.

Big Business and the Mass Media. Bernard Rubin, Lexington, Massachussets: Lexington. 1977. 185 pp.

Making News: a study in the construction of reality. Gaye Tuchman, New York: The Free Press. 1978. 244 pp. £9.75.

India: resources and development. B L C Johnson, London: Heinemann Educational. 1979. 211 pp. £6.90.     

Inside perceptions of public policy making in france: preliminary analysis

The study, based on interviews in Paris with government officials from the Office of the Pres-identify, Prime Minister's Cabinet, cabinets of five important ministries including that of the Economy, grands corps members, and Leaders of the trade unions, seeks to determine the reality of the process of goverrimentai policy making in the Fifth Republic and, most importantly, the influence of the major participants in policy formulation.

Cumulatively, the responses point out that the president and prime minister are viewed as the top arbiters of public policy, in the general and social and economic areas. They are followed, in decreasing order , by the Minister of the Economy, the ministers of important ministries, National Assembly, higher civil servants (especially members of the grands corps), Senate, and trade unions. Characteristically, all groups of participants interviewed have tended to rate their own part in the policy process more highly than the other groups had rated it.

In general, the preliminary analysis up-holds and corroborates the strength of the executive in the Fifth Republic.     

The Impact of EU Export Refunds on the African Continent: An Impact Assessment

The EU’s export refund policy has long been a source of controversy for its perceived impacts on third country markets. However, the EU Commission maintain that these concerns are largely historic as CAP reforms mean that export refunds are now used infrequently. The purpose of this article is therefore to assess the impacts of refunds in the wake of the 2003 reform of the CAP using two complementary analyses: first, an analysis using a computable general equilibrium model and second, two case studies to assess the potential impact of export refunds in selected African developing countries.     

The challenge of design of intergovernmental relations in economies in transition

The governments of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are at a crucial juncture in their movement from highly centralized command economies to more decentralized market economies. While there is a belief in these countries that decentralization brings greater economic efficiency, the reality is that such a transition is a difficult process. This paper examines what types of administrative reforms are needed for the decentralization process, how far along the countries are with respect to these reforms, and what reforms are missing. As we discuss, many of the necessary administration reforms are missing and we argue that more attention must be paid to these elements for successful decentralization of these governments.

This paper examines the recent experience and reform needs of the key administrative aspects of the design of intergovernmental relations in countries in transition in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. There is a widespread realization in all of these countries that decentralizing government will help increase efficiency in the public sector just as privatization will improve efficiency in their economies. Decentralization of government operations is also attractive as a way to cement a democratic form of government. Despite the appearances of the existence of an already decentralized system, such as in the case of the Soviet Union, this experiment started in practically all cases with a lack of institutions and experience on how decentralized government operations should be organized.

As different as these countries are, there are many similarities in the reform process they are following in order to decentralize government structure. While the basic components of a decentralized system of government are emerging in many of these countries the structure of government has not fully evolved in a manner that can support such a decentralized system. Often, governments remain structured along a vertical hierarchy: information, budgetary authority, and revenue pass from the central government down to subnational levels of government while little communication or interaction exists at a horizontal level. In general, the assignment of revenue and expenditure has not been clearly defined among the two or three levels of government, central government transfers continue to occur in a relatively ad hoc manner, and the entire budgeting system still rests in many cases on more or less formal system of negotiations and bargaining among the different levels of government. There has been some change in this structure in certain countries. Over the last three years, both Poland and Hungary have legally increased the automony of subnational governments. In 1994 in Russia a new and more transparent system of intergovernmental grants has been established between the federal government and the regions. In 1994 also, Latvia introduced a more transparent formula-driven, transfer formula for the regional and municipal governments.

The focus of this paper is to develop a “blue print” for necessary changes in organization and administration of intergovernmental relations in countries in transition. While many experts have recently been discussing the public finance policy components of this new, evolving relationship among levels of government, less attention has been paid to the structural and administrative challenges and the information design issues that must be met in order to develop and support a system of intergovernmental relations.

The paper is organized as follows: First we review the major responsibilities and their allocation among levels of government, the assignment of revenue sources, and the system of transfers. We then turn to a discussion of the current experience of Eastern European and NIS countries in the context of the structural components of an intergovernmental fiscal system. Next, we analyze the organizational reforms that are necessary for the efficient functioning of a decentralized system of government in the economies in transition. Finally we “rate” the transition economies in relation to their current design of the system of intergovernmental relations and support mechanisms.