CC BY
4SOCIAL SCIENCES
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Asagade Shola O.
MA
Master of Arts in Public Administration. Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7408651
Abstract
Governance, though a pale discuss in most society is the cornerstone of every society as it predestines the direction a society takes. Most individuals though disinterested in the dealings of public affairs are faced with the reality to require accountability as regards public activities which in a larger sense has a lot to do with government taking accountability for conducts both as individuals and as a collective within the public spheres. Dwelling in the purview of this pretext, the paper while adopting various methodology intends to investigate the basis, determinants and impact of government accountability in public administration. Data collected for research paper were from secondary sources, scholarly articles and journals and direct observations from informal interviews, questionnaires and document analysis. Data was processed and reviewed from both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
The result of the research shows a correlation between accountability in government and its impacts on the improvement of public administration.
Keywords: Governance, Accountability, Government, Public Administration.
Introduction
As demonstrated by the existence of traces of governance throughout history, the nature of government existence has been normative. It consists, in its most basic form, of organizations and administrations that govern, administrate, and control a society. There is broad consensus that government provides a basis of stability and manages complex institutions within a society.
As civilizations evolve into new civilizations, the role of government within the society has become more sophisticated. Accountability in government is becoming a hot subject since it is viewed as a key challenge in the most complex government. Accountability as a measure of good governance inadvertently strengthens a government's trustworthiness and legitimacy.
Regulation is an important part of governance, and the execution of appropriate policies is said to be connected to improved government performance. Public administration, as the focal point of government policy execution, is burdened with the responsibility of formulating policies as well as government services spanning from activities such as planning to organizing, directing, coordinating, and managing government operations.
The term "government accountability" is frequently used in a somewhat broad sense; for instance, it is sometimes used interchangeably with the idea of "assessment," but its true meaning may be summed up in terms of "responsiveness," "responsibility," and "effectiveness." Examining government accountability in the context of public administration is always fascinating since accountability-related concerns are at the core of government administration practice. Government accountability is a challenging idea that is more difficult to implement than the elimination of corruption. In order to improve organizational circumstances, responsibility must be seen as a continuous, consistent, and transparent process.
Various public administration experts have raised various issues about the connection between the form of governance and the operational capabilities of public administrators. Public administration, as a civic obligation of government officials, might be considered to be dependent on their individual levels of performance. Individualism is important in accountability because it outweighs collective interests and places government at risk.
The aim of this article is to review and study the impact of accountability in government and how it influences public administrations. To achieve this aim, the following task would be require
- assessing the impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration;
- create awareness on the need for public administration and government responsibility in the society through exploring general concepts;
- proffer understanding of government activities and how government manages public resources; and
- improving general awareness by sparking public interest on the need for transparency in government activities through critical thinking, analytical skills and individual participation.
The scope of the discuss centres on government accountability as it correlates with improving the quality of public administration through efficient and accountable management of public resources. It further seeks to affirm the importance of government accountability as a crucial elements in the public sectors that prohibits public officers from engaging in negative acts contrary to the code of conduct of public offices. In order to achieve the aims of this paper, it is important to illuminate the context of government accountability, plausible dimensions and forms in relation to public administration.
Government Accountability: Literature Review
The meaning of the word "accountability" has evolved over time based on many contextual and cultural elements. Dubnick Melvin [7] opined that the term has an Anglo-Norman origin that is largely related to the idea of accounting. Its antecedents can be traced all of the way to King William's reign, which began with the Norman conquest of England in 1066. In 1085, following this victory, King William mandated that all property owners give an account of their possessions, which were to be assessed and recorded in certain volumes known as Domesday books. The concept of accountability in modern politics no longer evokes thoughts of accounting and finance, but instead holds up the prospect of fairness and equity in governance.
According to Boven, accountability is a relationship between an actor and a forum in which the actor is obligated to justify and articulate their actions, the forum has the authority to ask questions and make decisions, and the actor may be subject to repercussions. Conceptually speaking, accountability may be seen as a type of governance that depends on the dynamic social interactions and systems developed inside such a
moral framework. It is a typical decision-making process or decision that has unique consequences for government operations.
Representatives chosen in this scenario are required to be accountable to the electorates for all decisions and deeds. A democratic system is distinguished by accountability. The decision-making process is subject to a variety of restraints due to the awareness that an elected representative will be compelled to justify the reasoning behind certain policy decisions. The weight of these circumstances falls on policymakers.
Public administration is a broad term that refers to the full spectrum of activities involved in running government operations, including the formulation and execution of public policy, the production and distribution of products and services geared toward meeting the demands of the general public, and the management of public agencies. According to Burnell [3], accountability in the context of public administration involves at least three key components. These components are illustrated in fig. 1
Fig. 1. Key Components of Accountability Source: Developed by author based on [3]
In order to be held accountable for the use of their authority, those in positions of power must be answerable. This implies that the person in charge of exercising authority must defend the manner in which those powers were applied and offer an explanation. It also suggests that the person in charge of exercising power must be open and honest about how they do so. Simply put, there is a difference between the responsibility to give openness about actions and the requirement to provide reasons for behaviours.
In order to be responsive, public authorities must behave in a way that appropriately addresses the needs and expectations of the general public. This indicates that a paternalistic interpretation of the public's demands and the imposition of solutions from the top-down are neither necessary nor justified. Participation in public decision-making is necessary for responsiveness because it allows citizens to voice their opinions, contribute to the creation, development, and application of laws and policies, and resolve conflicts.
If the power holder refuses to account for the use of their authority, some sort of consequence must be imposed in order for the commitment to be enforceable. From criminal charges and termination from office to
reprimands, public humiliation, or reputational harm, the consequences or potential penalties range widely.
Being a leader in the field of public administration, America has developed new methods over the years to address the issue of accountability in governance by implementing new management and public administration systems known as New Public Management. The system that was put in place in the past centuries placed a strong emphasis on enhancing responsibility to the public interest while also fostering continuity and common ideals. It also makes sure accountability is operating as intended by continuously evaluating public servants' performance.
The NPM method places emphasis on the need to deliver public services effectively and affordably, and it promotes the superiority of market principles and practices over those of traditional administration. The emphasis on market-oriented policies in NPM stems from the fundamental claims that the Weberian bureaucracy model is no longer consistent with management of contemporary public organizations, that the free market with competition-based discipline is superior at providing services, more effectively and for less money, and that management-style is still necessary to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector.
Typically, public administrators operate in an environment with a wide range of accountability connections, as well as, to put it another way, a web of interactions with various and overlapping accountabilities. Public administrators are in a position to contribute in a significant, relevant, and knowledgeable manner to public policy as a result of this stance.
Governance which refers to a component of government, encompasses a variety of instruments, including systems for internal control and external accountability as well as frameworks that define the obligations of various stakeholders with respect to the organization. The rules of conduct for good governance in the public sector also provide examples of these procedures.
There are several definitions of accountability as a tool for effective governance. It may relate to rewarding good behaviour and requiring it in return, to a stricter approach that stresses the necessity for control (sanction and reward) as a tool to codify the idea, or it may simply be used to describe basic answerability and transparency [1].
Throughout history, as the size and responsibilities of government have grown, so too have the expectations for accountability of that authority. This intricacy led a lot of academics to begin looking at responsibility as a rather nebulous concept that might be used to fit the emerging needs of contemporary nations. Others claim that the functionality of accountability in the public sector is both complex and debatable given the intricacies of government and its attendant varied accountability dimensions and relationships, while some speak of interconnected networks of accountability and the overall accountability burden of modern governance.
Accountability in public administration refers to the requirement that public officials answer for what
has been achieved (or not achieved) with the resource entrusted to their care in accordance with a responsibility granted to them. Accountability guarantees that the activities and choices made by public officials are subject to monitoring in order to ensure that government initiatives accomplish their stated objectives and address the needs of the people they are intended to be helping, contributing to better governance and poverty reduction.
Accountability guarantees that public officials or public bodies are performing to the best of their abilities, providing value for money when providing public services, fostering confidence in the government, and being responsive to the citizens they are supposed to serve. Accountability also provides the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of public officials or public bodies.
Accountability may take many various forms based on the sort of accountability used and the person, organization, or institution the public official answers to. There are five (5) notable types of accountability. These types are illustrated in fig. 2.
Horizontal accountability is when independent public institutions of accountability, such as the judiciary and parliament, examine an official's improper ways of performing their responsibilities and ultimately penalize them. In other words, horizontal accountability refers to the ability of state institutions to monitor violations by other branches of government and public agencies. The judiciary and the parliament serve as the primary instruments of horizontal accountability. While the judiciary holds the executive legally responsible, the parliament holds the executive politically accountable. Together, they offer close supervision to hold the administration responsible for its actions during its tenure in office.
Fig. 2. Types of Accountability Source: Developed by author based on [15, 8]
Vertical accountability is the process through which the general public and civil society work to impose expectations for high performance on public servants. It often happens when there is a traditional top-
down principal-agent relationship, in which the principle delegated to the agent, who then had vertical accountability to their immediate superiors in the chain of command.
In this case, the department head is the public official's superior. The department head reports to the minister of a ministry, who in turn reports to parliament, which in turn reports to the people. While the Parliament offers a platform for public speech, a way for people to challenge the government, and a way to request sanctions from the legislature when necessary, through the use of public hearings, committee investigations, and public petitions.
Social accountability is a method of holding public officials accountable that is based on civic engagement, in which regular persons and/or civil society groups take part directly or indirectly in demanding responsibility. Sometimes, this type of responsibility is referred to as horizontal accountability that is driven by society. While social accountability mechanisms may be started and supported by the government, the general public, or both, they are frequently demand-driven and operate from the bottom up. It is impossible to overstate the importance of lawmakers in social accountability measures. A member of parliament might, for instance, ask a minister a question during question time in parliament or directly ask a government ministry or department for information to reflect the concerns of his or her people.
Diagonal accountability aims to include individuals directly in the operations of institutions that practice horizontal accountability. By challenging the governments' exclusive right to be in charge of official executive monitoring, this is an attempt to improve the restricted efficacy of civil society. There are set principles for adopting this form of responsibility; this principles are as follows:
- Participation in horizontal accountability mechanisms - Instead of establishing discrete and independent institutions of diagonal responsibility, the citizenry participates in institutions of horizontal accountability. Agents of vertical responsibility aim to fit into the horizontal axis more directly in this way.
- Information flow - The general public is given the chance to examine data on government organizations that would often only be available on the horizontal axis, such as internal performance reports, etc. They also have access to the considerations and factors that go into the decisions that horizontal accountability entities make.
- Compel officials to answer - The public uses the power of horizontal accountability mechanisms to compel a government agency to provide information on how it uses public funds.
- Capacity to sanction - The horizontal accountability institution provides the public the power to compel compliance with the conclusions or exert influence over elected authorities.
The entrustment of assets is referred to as financial responsibility, often regarded as stewardship. It entails providing evidence that these resources have been used properly and not inadvertently. Therefore, stewardship accounting requires the creation of an income statement and statement of financial position as well as the certification of these financial statements by an independent auditor who attests to their accuracy and fairness. Publication of comprehensive financial accounts that have
undergone an independent audit by the auditor general is obligatory for all governmental bodies. The majority of public organizations also released operational and strategic plans, which are available for public review and debate.
Although it is common to link Western democracies with accountability in government, the idea of accountability may not always entail such. It is just required to reveal actions and their effects, as well as to defend and justify them. Being answerable to a powerful head of state or dictator or to a hierarchical structure that runs behind closed doors and out of sight is therefore not the same as government accountability. The following are some of the principles that define government accountability:
- transparently carrying out official actions and capturing the interests of many stakeholders;
- utilizing resources as efficiently as possible while paying attention to value for money and cost-benefit analysis and having zero tolerance for waste and corruption;
- following the rules and guidelines for ethics and professionalism;
- prioritizing in order to address community needs as much as feasible;
- putting in place workable methods for informing and updating the general audience; and
- attempting to promote awareness and civil society involvement.
Modern times have made it evident that the demand for accountability, or the necessity to prevent strong institutions from undermining the interests of the people, spans across all spheres of society and is not restricted to the government sector only. However, the scope of this argument is more limited, limited to harm minimization, and does not extend, like the ownership concept, to a broader right to establish broad goals and aims.
In the discussions of modern governance, there is one area where the instrumental and ethical notions of responsibility are profoundly at odds. The main issue in this disagreement is whether accountability should be understood as a carefully planned system to increase production, effectiveness, and efficiency, or whether it refers to moral behaviour that both the evaluator and the accountable should uphold. In reality, there is a clear divide between methods to responsibility that are instrumental and those that are ethical.
The ethical approach invokes a more likely process-focused, intangible, and non-complementary ideals to be idealized sought, whereas the instrumental approach prefers to envision accountability as an applicable instrument to set up a productive, effective, and efficient public management system. The image of an imminent mechanical state system whose organs operate in perfect harmony is typically generated by the instrumentality in accountability.
Considering that ethics is concerned with laws and principles that determine the moral value of people's behaviour, accountability is an ethical virtue. To increase government accountability, ethics must be improved. Ethics are a set of principles, rules, or guidelines that outline what constitutes proper conduct for an
individual or a group. Therefore, it is plausible to assert that responsibility is a moral virtue. This is valid seeing as ethics is concerned with the values and norms that guide how individuals should behave.
Therefore, it is emphatic that improving ethics is essential to elevating accountability, and vice versa. Some of the ethical aspects of public service include responsibility and responsiveness, which also strengthens accountability. Therefore, the core of government accountability is determined by the extent to which professional or value systems are established in the public sector.
Methods of Analysis
The methodology of the study is explained in this section, along with information on the participants, sample, study instrument, tests, and statistical techniques that were used to analyse the data and test hypotheses.
Secondary data from publications such books, journals, master's theses, and conferences was used in this study. These data was used to make the study's theoretical literature more understandable. The data from the study questionnaire, whose items were developed using the relevant and important theoretical framework and previous studies, was one of the primary sources used to test the study's hypotheses about the impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration as well as the contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service.
The faculty members of public universities who specialize in public administration made up the study population to which the questionnaire was administered. Faculty members at private and public universities who were chosen by simple random sampling were presented 600 questionnaires, and when these questionnaires were retrieved, their validity was confirmed. A total of 590 questionnaires were found, but 20 of them were invalid for the study because of missing data or repeated responses. Consequently, a total sample of 570 questionnaires was appropriate for the research and analysis.
The study's primary instrument was a questionnaire that asked about the sex, age, academic rank, and other demographic factors of faculty members at public and private universities in the field of public administration. The survey was divided into two sections: the first dealt with the contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service and comprised 14 questions; the second dealt with the impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration and included 10 items. The Likert Scale - a rating scale with five levels to enable respondents to specify their level of agreement with each item - was used, with respondents selecting (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) moderately agree, (2) disagree, or (1) strongly disagree.
The data from the questionnaire were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) tool, and the study's goals were achieved by testing its hypotheses. A reliability test using Cronbach's Alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the responses relative to the items of the study instrument.
The most significant techniques involved were as follows: Using descriptive statistical methods, general indicators about the demographic characteristics of the study sample were obtained, including the use of frequency distribution and percentages of the frequencies associated with the sample characteristics related to sex, age, scientific experience, and scientific rank; and a one-sample t-test, which was used to compare the mean of the questionnaire items to the test value (M = 3).
Since the scale of trends in the study is 5, the test value that is compared to is 3. The arithmetic mean of the survey items and the test value (M = 3) will differ statistically significantly if the level of significance was < 5%, which will implied adopting the alternative hypothesis and rejecting the null hypothesis. The arithmetic mean of the survey items and the test value, however, did not significantly vary if the level of significance was > 5%. In this situation, the alternative hypothesis would be rejected and the null hypothesis would be accepted.
Results
The analysis of the demographic data is presented in this section. It also shows the outcomes of the investigation of the responses to the survey on the impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration, and the contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service.
The authors calculated the distribution frequency and the percentages of the frequencies associated with the characteristics of the participants of the study sample. It was noted that the majority (86%) of the study sample were male, and most were aged 25-40 (34%) and 40-45 (43%) years old. In all, 86% of the participants had up to three years of professional experience. Regarding their field of study, 15% of the participants were master's level students, 30% were associate professors, and the remaining participants were divided between lecturers and students in the field of public administration. The majority of the participants were of a mature age, had experience, and had educational qualifications that allowed them to evaluate the questionnaire items well and showed their potential to ascertain the impact of government transparency on the dynamics and structure of public administration as well as the role that good governance plays in setting the standards for public service.
The coherence coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha), which was calculated to ensure the consistency of the study instrument. Statistics consider scores above 0.60 to be acceptable, and this measurement also shows how consistently the study sample responded to the study instrument's items [17]. For all questionnaire items, the coefficient of internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was estimated to be 0.752, which is an adequate value and shows the consistency of the questionnaire replies. With scores ranging from 0.79 for transparency questions to 0.71 for accountability items, which together represent statistically acceptable values, this finding supports the high coefficient of stability seen in each questionnaire item.
There are two hypothesis adopted for analysis and discussion in relation to the objective of the study. These hypothesis are as follows;
H0: There is no significant contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service.
From table 1, it shows that all the questionnaire items that tested the first hypothesis obtained an arithmetic mean higher than the test value (M = 3), and a statistically significant difference (a < 0.05). This is an indicator of the contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service. These results show that the item "Creating structure & strategies of administrative mix would permit public organizations and officials to act in the most efficient way." attained the highest mean value (4.25). It is believed that the establishing of structure & strategies of administrative
H1: There is no significant impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration.
The first hypothesis result is represented in table 1.
Table 1
perspective create an avenue for public official to act according as there is a blueprint that defines duties and responsibilities which leads to improved work performance being achieved in the easiest, cheapest, and fastest manner, which reduces excesses or irregularities.
The results of the study also show that the item "Community and civil society involvement in public policy decisions is significant to building trust in governance." has the second place highest mean value of 4.20. This implies that trust in governance is earned through involvement of the public in policy decision
The Contribution of Good Governance to Raising the Standard of Public Service
Ranking Items Mean Standard Deviation t-test Sig
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Government monitors the interplay of networks to assure that principles of accountability are upheld by public officials. 4.11 0.82 11.69 0.00
2 Accountability helps to monitor and control government conduct in order to enhance the effectiveness of public administration through the prevention of misuse of power. 3.97 0.93 8.72 0.00
3 Policy formulation by government officials helps in addressing issues of accountability in public administration. 4.13 0.86 11.23 0.00
4 Ethical shortcomings in the governance have much to do with weak or non-existing systems, weak values, as well as weak consequences in public sector. 3.55 0.97 4.79 0.00
5 Creating structure & strategies of administrative mix would permit public organizations and officials to act in the most efficient way. 4.25 0.93 10.51 0.00
6 Accountability is an instrument that enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of public governance. 3.98 0.89 9.23 0.00
7 Transparency is a symptom of good governance and is a prerequisite for fighting against corruption and improving government accountability. 4 0.81 10.24 0.00
8 Helping to clarify government objectives and responsibilities creates incentives for better performance. 4.04 0.85 10.16 0.00
9 Community and civil society involvement in public policy decisions is significant to building trust in governance. 4.2 0.71 13.54 0.00
10 In realizing good governance, true accountability is not only limited to financial, economic, but also the responsibility of the government and the people 4.07 0.88 10.07 0.00
11 Good governance creates the systemic foundations for openness and transparency in public administration 4.01 0.97 8.74 0.00
12 Applying the performance appraisal mechanism objectively to all officials would enhance the quality of their service. 4.1 0.69 13.46 0.00
13 Accountability in governance is conceived as a well-designed system of moral conduct that improves productivity, effectiveness and efficiency in public management. 3.95 0.93 8.52 0.00
14 Collaborative and complex arrangements in governments stimulates the need for developing more detailed and complex accountability schemes for public officials. 3.78 1.17 5.57 0.00
The contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service. 4.01 0.22 36.77 0
Source: Developed by author based on Questionnaire data
processes that shapes the conducts of public administrators. The item Policy formulation by government officials helps in addressing issues of accountability in public administration", scored a mean of 4.13. This is due to the importance of policy formulation in clearly defining the consequences of decisions by public administrators and in setting guideline that ensure transparency, proper judgments in public affairs.
The results of this study also show that the item "Ethical shortcomings in the governance have much to
From table 2, the results showing the one-sample t-test of the first hypothesis with a mean of 4.01 and a significance level of 0.00 which translates to a lower than the statistical significance level (a < 0.05). Hence, indicating that there is significant contribution of good governance in raising the standard of public service.
do with weak or non-existing systems, weak values, as well as weak consequences in public sector." comes in last place, with a mean value of 3.55. The reveals that even when there is a weak or non-existing system enforcing accountability in good governance, there is still some level of accountability existing.
In order to validate the first hypothesis, a one-sample t-test was used. The one-sample t-test result for the first hypothesis is illustrated in table 2.
This further proves the rejection of the null hypothesis and the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, we can state that: "Good governance contributes to raising the standard of public service. The second hypothesis result is represented in table 3.
Table 3
The Impact of Government Transparency on the Structure and Dynamics of Public Administration
Ranking Items Mean Standard Deviation t-test Sig
1 If the conducts and dealings of public officials are available for public scrutiny, quality of service will improve. 4.11 0.97 9.59 0.00
2 Proper justification of officials; decision and acts not according to the established laws will improve decision making process 3.97 1.07 7.55 0.00
3 Implementing accountability procedures objectively and according to reliable information reduces chances of corruption 4.2 0.86 11.650 0.00
4 Employing the role of the media and civil society institutions would help monitor and supervise the affairs of administrators 3.72 0.96 6.33 0.00
5 Subjecting the government officials to accountability will hamper misconduct in public procurement 4.1 0.96 9.53 0.00
6 A fair and proper election process by the citizenry will boost confidence in the officials and make them more accountable 4.01 1.01 8.36 0.00
7 Objective and honest accountability in governance will improve answerability among officials 4.02 1.04 8.2 0.00
8 If officials are accountable for implementation of regulations it would lead improvement in administrative duties 3.85 1.06 9.53 0.00
9 Adopting a clear system of accountability would enhance the quality of services by public administrators 4.31 0.8 13.6 0.00
10 Declaration of accountability methods for all public administrators would serve as a deterrent on misconduct by officials 4.17 0.94 10.34 0.00
The impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration 4.05 0.31 27.75 0.00
Source: Developed by author based on Questionnaire data
Table 2
One-sample t-test for Items Related to the Contribution of Good Governance to Raising the Standard of Public
Service
The First Hypothesis Mean Standard Deviation t-test Sig
The contribution of good governance to raising the standard of public service. 4.01 0.22 36.77 0
Source: Developed by author based on Questionnaire data
From table 3, the result of the hypothesis shows that all questionnaire items obtained an arithmetic mean higher than the test value (M = 3), and has a statistically significant difference (a < 0.05). This implies of the impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration.
The results show that the item "Adopting a clear system of accountability would enhance the quality of services by public administrators" comes in first place with the highest mean value (4.31). This is because having a clear system of accountability in public and private organizations enhances trust between the public administrators and the citizenry; this also demonstrates the strength of the citizens over government decision making, and reduces the avenue for misconduct.
The results of the study also shows that the item "Implementing accountability procedures objectively and according to reliable information reduces chances of corruption" got the second highest arithmetic mean value of 4.20. This implies that officials of public administration should be accountable objectively and in a non-aligned manner. If procedures are executed using reliable information and due process the chances of malpractice is reduced.
Table 4
One-sample t-test for Items Related to the Impact of Government Transparency on the Structure and Dynamics
of Public Administration
The results of this study also show that the item "Declaration of accountability methods for all public administrators would serve as a deterrent on misconduct by officials" obtained an arithmetic mean value of 4.17. It is believe that the declarations of accountability methods for all public officials ensures the implementation of procedures and activities objectively, thus reducing for misconduct as they are aware of the consequences of such actions.
The results of the study also show that the item "Employing the role of the media and civil society institutions would help monitor and supervise the affairs of administrators" comes in last place with an arithmetic mean value of 3.72. It is perceived that the tasks of monitoring and supervising the behaviour and the ethics of public administrators through the media is not enough to influence decision making as the media holds little sway on the structure and dynamics of public administration.
In order to validate the second hypothesis, a one-sample t-test was also used. The one-sample t-test result for the second hypothesis is illustrated in table 4.
The Second Hypothesis Mean Standard Deviation t-test Sig
The impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration 4.05 0.31 27.75 0.00
Source: Developed by author based on Questionnaire data
From table 4, the result showing the one-sample t-test of the second hypothesis with a mean value of 4.05 and a significance level 0.00 which implies is lower than the statistical significance level (a < 0.05). Hence, indicating that there is significant impact of government transparency on the structure and dynamics of public administration. This further proves the rejection of the null hypothesis and the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, we can state that: "Government Transparency plays a significant role in impacting on the Structure and Dynamics of Public Administration".
Conclusion
Accountability being the core central of good governance as explores in this research work becomes the arbiter for transparency and accountability in the dealings of public administrative functions for both an ethical and legal perspective. The idea encompasses the moral framework for decision-making, the dynamics of social interaction, and the particular effects of various government operations. It consists of three parts that elaborate on its purpose and regulation in the context of public administration.
A review was done on one of the most insightful accountability evaluation techniques. The NPM method promotes the superiority of market ideas and practices over traditional public administration while emphasizing the necessity to offer public services effectively and efficiently. Accountability is measured against good governance, which is the manifestation of morality and ethics. Even though they are elected, the
government is responsible for establishing the rules that will govern the actions of public officials. Accountability guarantees that the activities and choices made by public officials are subject to monitoring in order to ensure that government initiatives accomplish their stated objectives and address the needs of the people they are intended to be helping, contributing to better governance and poverty reduction.
It is clear from the analysis's findings that good governance raises the bar for public administration since it is strongly tied to accountability and highlights the latter's principles. As it encourages continuous development for accountability levels and lowers the likelihood of official misconduct, transparency is also a necessity for the dynamic and efficient structure of public administration.
It is crucial to include the general public in the formulation of policy decisions and to inform officials of the performance evaluation standards and the consequences of deviating from established rules and regulations. All levels of public services should also enact deterrent sanctions. In order to attain integrity in performance and conduct, it is also crucial for the government to pass rules and regulations that apply openness and accountability to all operations and procedures and make them permanent and ongoing.
References
1. Almquist R. Public Sector Governance and Accountability / Roland Almqvist, Giuseppe Grossi, Jan van helden, Christoph Reichard // Critical Perspective on Accounting, 2012. - Volume 24. - P. 479-487.
2. Bovens M. Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework / Mark Bovens // European Law Journal, 2007. - Volume 13. - Issue 4. - P. 447-468.
3. Burnell P. 2008. The Relationship of Accountable Governance and Constitutional Implementation / Peter Burnell // Journal of Politics and Law, 2008. -Volume 1. - Issue 3. - P. 10-24.
4. Cheryl K. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration / King Simrell Cheryl, Feltey M. Kathryn, Susel O'Neill Bridget // Public Administration Review, 1998. - Volume 58. - Issue 4. - P. 317-326.
5. Chirwa D. Accountable Government in Africa: Perspectives from Public Law and Political Studies / Danwood M. Chirwa, Lia Nijzink. - South Africa: UCT Press, 2013. - 319 p.
6. Cordelia O. Genesis of Accountability and its Impact on Accounting / Omodero Onyinyechi Cordelia // International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 2019. - Volume 1. - Issue 1. - P. 47-55
7. Dubnick M. Seeking Salvation for Accountability / Melvin J. Dubnick // In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2002. - Volume 29. - P. 7-9.
8. Eric Adjei Types of Public Accountability in Public Sector [Electronic resource] / Adjei Eric // Public Sector Accounting website. - Access mode: https://thepublicsectoraccounting.com/types-of-pub-lic-accountability-in-public-sector.
9. Eva S. Measuring the Accountability of Collaborative Innovation / S0rensen Eva // The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 2012. -Volume 17. - Issue 1. - P. 1-18.
10. Fauzia R. Impact of Accountability on Public Service Delivery Efficiency / Rana Fauzia, Ali Arfan,
Riaz Waqas, Irfan Asmara // Journal of Public Value and Administration Insights, 2019. - Volume 2. - Issue 1. - P. 7-9.
11. Ilelah K. The Role of State Government Accountability in the Management of Political Violence in Nigeria / Kabiru Bello Ilelah, Adlina Ab Halim, Mohd Mahadee Bin Ismail, Mohd Sabri Md Nor // International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2022. - Volume 12. - Issue 7. - P. 39 -53.
12. Laegreid P. Accountability and Inter-organizational Collaboration within the State / Per Laegreid, Lise H. Rykkja // Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: Public Management Review, 2021. - Volume 24. - Issue 5. - P. 683-703.
13. Lebotsa K. The Effectiveness of Public Accountability Mechanisms in the South African Local Government Context: During and Post Covid-19 Pandemic / Khutso Piet Lebotsa // Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 2022. - Volume 10. - Issue 2. - P. 124130.
14. Mulgan R. Government Accountability for Outsourced Services / Richard Mulgan Australian // Journal of Public Administration, 2006. - Volume 65. -Issue 2. P. 48-58.
15. Reddick C. Horizontal, Vertical, & Hybrid: An Empirical Look at the Forms of Accountability // Christopher G. Reddick, Tansu Demir, Bruce Perlman // Administration & Society, 2020. - Volume 52. - Issue 9. - P. 1-29.
16. Schmidt V. Conceptualizing Throughput Legitimacy: Procedural Mechanisms of Accountability, Transparency, Inclusiveness and Openness in EU Governance / Vivien Schmidt, Matthew Wood // Public Administration, 2019. - Volume 97. - P. 727- 740.
17. Sekaran U. 2013. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. - Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie. - 5th Edition. - Hoboken NJ: Wiley, 2015. - 448 p.
