scholarly journals Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review

Author(s):  
Marija Aleksovska ◽  
Thomas Schillemans ◽  
Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen

The study of accountability in public administration has developed largely in parallel to the study of accountability in the behavioral sciences. In an effort to bridge this divide, we present a systematic review of the experimental literature on accountability in the behavioral sciences and draw lessons for public administration. We summarize the findings of 266 experiments exploring the effects of accountability mechanisms, presented in 211 articles published between 1970 and 2016. These findings are organized in four broad themes: effects of accountability on decision-making, behavior, and outcomes; and effects of the specific characteristics of accountability mechanisms. The review shows numerous desirable effects of accountability on individual decision-making and behaviors. This is of high relevance to public administration studies on accountability as it sheds light on causal mechanisms and allows for a balanced perspective on positive and negative effects of various types of accountability mechanisms. It is however not always possible to translate findings from behavioral research directly to public administration settings. We discuss the meaning and value of our findings for public administration studies and develop an agenda for future behavioral research on public sector accountability.

1989 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.H.B. Radford ◽  
L. Mann ◽  
Y. OHTA ◽  
Y. NAKANE

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Beratšová ◽  
Kristína Krchová ◽  
Nikola Gažová ◽  
Michal Jirásek

Framing bias is an individual decision-making misconception caused by the fact that a person interprets the surrounding world according to a decision frame chosen by her or his subjective opinion. This article aims to review various kinds of factors that cause and affect framing or lead to debiasing, i.e. a decrease in the resulting framing bias. The objective of the study is carried out using a literature review that analyzes recent empirical studies. As a result, numerous factors are identified that according to the studies have an impact on framing. It transpires that four broader groups of these factors can be established – decision situation setup (amount of information, additional presentation of options), experience (knowledge, engagement), effort (attention, complexity, the amount of information to process) and demographics (gender, nationality).


2009 ◽  
pp. 42-61
Author(s):  
A. Oleynik

Power involves a number of models of choice: maximizing, satisficing, coercion, and minimizing missed opportunities. The latter is explored in detail and linked to a particular type of power, domination by virtue of a constellation of interests. It is shown that domination by virtue of a constellation of interests calls for justification through references to a common good, i.e. a rent to be shared between Principal and Agent. Two sources of sub-optimal outcomes are compared: individual decision-making and interactions. Interactions organized in the form of power relationships lead to sub-optimal outcomes for at least one side, Agent. Some empirical evidence from Russia is provided for illustrative purposes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document