At risk of focusing too much on transparency, rather than accountability, I have not made the csse that more accountability is neatly related to improved outcomes or that it 'magically' happens. But I do argue that it is helpful or even a necessary pre-condition for better policy-making and that does improve outcomes (some of the meta analyses in the articles I link to make a similar case for it, from memory).
Any increase in accountability has to be balanced against ensuring it does not lead to bureaucratic paralysis.
The sheer weight of complaints handling and requests for information has hardly improved service delivery across the sector. If anything it consumes disproportionate resources without really satisfying the customer.
I agree we need proportionate transparency and accountability, but the sector as a whole tends to be more resistant than it should, in my view. I recognise that there are incentives (e.g. financial) for that approach. And of course any new burden will require New Burdens funding (there is an issue with New Burdens funding never actually covering the cost of delivering what it was supposed to do, but that’s a much wider issue than accountability).
On your point about complaints handling, aren’t there some things that are central to the functioning of public institutions, or democracies more widely? Giving people a way of redressing their grievance is an established principle. I am personally suspicious of issues of that nature given that spending on complaints and requests for information would cost far, far less than 1 per cent of a council budget.
Not everyone has decided to go the way we have with complaints and redress. Try and make a complaint to a French council and you’ll be laughed at, the concept doesn’t exist in the same way.
Returning to my point we’ve decided to focus on the process by which decisions are made and offer routes to change this eg ombudsman, JRs, maladministration. None of this actual solves the problem being complained about, the decision made or not made, instead it mostly focuses on how the complaint was responded to.
Your suggestions for more transparency are in this vein. It doesn’t tackle whether the outcomes are the right ones. Or if there’s even an appetite from the public for this. It is one thing to say you want transparency from your council and quite another to sit through scrutiny committee meeting month after month.
Picking on highways, creating a pothole metric will not magically lead to better road conditions, the asset maintenance backlog is so entrenched now it’s becoming insurmountable, but it will make good copy for the minister in saying they’ve filled x million potholes. And that’s where my concern lies. The reporting and monitoring regime won’t change things locally, will absorb capacity and resources, and the glory as always will drift upwards to the centre.
At risk of focusing too much on transparency, rather than accountability, I have not made the csse that more accountability is neatly related to improved outcomes or that it 'magically' happens. But I do argue that it is helpful or even a necessary pre-condition for better policy-making and that does improve outcomes (some of the meta analyses in the articles I link to make a similar case for it, from memory).
Any increase in accountability has to be balanced against ensuring it does not lead to bureaucratic paralysis.
The sheer weight of complaints handling and requests for information has hardly improved service delivery across the sector. If anything it consumes disproportionate resources without really satisfying the customer.
I agree we need proportionate transparency and accountability, but the sector as a whole tends to be more resistant than it should, in my view. I recognise that there are incentives (e.g. financial) for that approach. And of course any new burden will require New Burdens funding (there is an issue with New Burdens funding never actually covering the cost of delivering what it was supposed to do, but that’s a much wider issue than accountability).
On your point about complaints handling, aren’t there some things that are central to the functioning of public institutions, or democracies more widely? Giving people a way of redressing their grievance is an established principle. I am personally suspicious of issues of that nature given that spending on complaints and requests for information would cost far, far less than 1 per cent of a council budget.
Not everyone has decided to go the way we have with complaints and redress. Try and make a complaint to a French council and you’ll be laughed at, the concept doesn’t exist in the same way.
Returning to my point we’ve decided to focus on the process by which decisions are made and offer routes to change this eg ombudsman, JRs, maladministration. None of this actual solves the problem being complained about, the decision made or not made, instead it mostly focuses on how the complaint was responded to.
Your suggestions for more transparency are in this vein. It doesn’t tackle whether the outcomes are the right ones. Or if there’s even an appetite from the public for this. It is one thing to say you want transparency from your council and quite another to sit through scrutiny committee meeting month after month.
Picking on highways, creating a pothole metric will not magically lead to better road conditions, the asset maintenance backlog is so entrenched now it’s becoming insurmountable, but it will make good copy for the minister in saying they’ve filled x million potholes. And that’s where my concern lies. The reporting and monitoring regime won’t change things locally, will absorb capacity and resources, and the glory as always will drift upwards to the centre.