1 / 9

The Management Accountability Framework, the culture of public administration, and transparency

The Management Accountability Framework, the culture of public administration, and transparency. Rebecca Jensen, MA, MPA ( cand .) University of Manitoba Presentation to IPAC, August 24, 2010. What has shaped accountability in theory and practice?.

galvin
Télécharger la présentation

The Management Accountability Framework, the culture of public administration, and transparency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Management Accountability Framework, the culture of public administration, and transparency Rebecca Jensen, MA, MPA (cand.) University of Manitoba Presentation to IPAC, August 24, 2010

  2. What has shaped accountability in theory and practice? • Changes in forces acting on democratic government • Media scrutiny • Decline in public trust • New Public Management • Reduced scope and capacity • Public Choice Theory/Niskanen • New Political Governance • Greater scrutiny and criticism of public service • Greater mistrust between cabinet and senior public service

  3. Factors shaping MAF • Push for more accountability • Recognition that performance measurement should be standardized and coordinated • Desire for a tool for public sector improvement from within • Sequel to the Modern Comptrollership Initiative • Extension of comptrollership beyond finances and physical resources

  4. MAF Today

  5. MAF and the dialectics of accountability

  6. MAF in action • MAF has consequences • “The single most important source of information for deputy heads and the TBS on the general state of management performance within institutions.” – one of MAF’s architects • Access to information not a priority of MAF • What isn’t measured also matters

  7. Access-related performance • 6th round of MAF – IM ratings consistently poor • PWGSC • poor performance in 2005-6 -> negative ratings • better score in 2008-9 -> attributed by DM in part to MAF scrutiny • DFAIT • “needs improvement” in 2007-8 • “acceptable” in 2008-9, due to acting on feedback

  8. MAF through the eyes of ATIP staff • Measures ATIA compliance too narrowly • Creates tension between satisfying MAF and loyalty to department/senior management/minister • Tension between increasing volume requests (and pressure to respond) and constraints on resources • Constricted by political agenda management

  9. Conclusions • Definite specific improvements caused by MAF and its incentives • Increased burden on ATIP officers already constrained by NPM/NPG • Value for money? • Positive and negative changes • MAF competes with NPG -> does this change how the public service behaves?

More Related