Auditing governable space—A study of place-based accountability in England

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Laurence Ferry, Henry Midgley, Aileen Murphie, Mark Sandford
{"title":"Auditing governable space—A study of place-based accountability in England","authors":"Laurence Ferry,&nbsp;Henry Midgley,&nbsp;Aileen Murphie,&nbsp;Mark Sandford","doi":"10.1111/faam.12321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The governance of territories has become increasingly fragmented and complex, challenging the accountability arrangements for “governable spaces.” Tension between central and local governments is a perennial feature of their relationship, but few analyses have explored the implications of this tension for accountability relationships. This article assesses policy initiatives within England aimed at increasing accountability in localities, by establishing governable spaces that include territorializing, mediating, adjudicating, and subjectivizing. During the 2010s, the UK government sought to introduce a form of place-based accountability within the context of reduced central government funding to English local authorities. This meant that local government faced new forms of accountability while adapting to considerable financial shocks. Accounting methods—assessing what phenomena can and should be governed—underpin audit and orthodox concepts of accountability in the United Kingdom. These have driven a narrow finance-focused narrative of local audit and local accountability. However, we also argue that developments in England in the 2010s have undermined <i>political accountability</i> in the localities, because they have worked against critical components within it for making governable space auditable: interpretation of data, judgments on service quality and the impact of cross-public sector relationships on local authorities’ “decision space.”</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12321","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

The governance of territories has become increasingly fragmented and complex, challenging the accountability arrangements for “governable spaces.” Tension between central and local governments is a perennial feature of their relationship, but few analyses have explored the implications of this tension for accountability relationships. This article assesses policy initiatives within England aimed at increasing accountability in localities, by establishing governable spaces that include territorializing, mediating, adjudicating, and subjectivizing. During the 2010s, the UK government sought to introduce a form of place-based accountability within the context of reduced central government funding to English local authorities. This meant that local government faced new forms of accountability while adapting to considerable financial shocks. Accounting methods—assessing what phenomena can and should be governed—underpin audit and orthodox concepts of accountability in the United Kingdom. These have driven a narrow finance-focused narrative of local audit and local accountability. However, we also argue that developments in England in the 2010s have undermined political accountability in the localities, because they have worked against critical components within it for making governable space auditable: interpretation of data, judgments on service quality and the impact of cross-public sector relationships on local authorities’ “decision space.”

审计治理空间——英国地方问责制研究
领土治理变得越来越分散和复杂,对“可治理空间”的问责安排提出了挑战。中央政府和地方政府之间的紧张关系是它们关系的一个长期特征,但很少有分析探讨这种紧张关系对问责关系的影响。本文评估了英格兰内部旨在通过建立可治理的空间来提高地方问责制的政策举措,包括属地化、调解、裁决和主观化。在2010年代,英国政府试图在减少中央政府对英国地方当局的资助的背景下,引入一种基于地方的问责制。这意味着地方政府在适应巨大的金融冲击的同时,面临着新形式的问责。会计方法——评估哪些现象可以治理,哪些现象应该治理——是英国审计和正统问责制概念的基础。这些因素导致了对地方审计和地方问责制的狭隘的以财务为重点的叙述。然而,我们也认为,2010年代英格兰的事态发展破坏了地方的政治问责制,因为它们违背了其中使可管理空间可审计的关键组成部分:数据解释、对服务质量的判断以及跨公共部门关系对地方当局“决策空间”的影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信