Accountability manages the power relations between actors which interact or affect each other directly or indirectly. It can be understood as 'giving an account' to another party who has a stake in what has been done. It evokes a sense of taking responsibility, but it also holds the meaning of being held responsible by others - being 'held to account' (Cornwall et al., 2000: 3). Accountability is not only the means through which individuals and organisations are held responsible for their decisions and actions, but also the means by which they take internal responsibility for shaping their organisational mission and values, for opening themselves to external scrutiny and for assessing performance in relation to goals. Accountability has beneficial effects not only for an organisation's stakeholders, but for the organisation itself. Amongst others, it promotes a culture and practice of compliance with organisational policies, it advances learning and innovation, and enables the organisation to maximise its potential in relation to internal and external actors.

Accountability refers to a chain of relationships in which actors are accountable upwards (to donors and other actors that have formal authority over the organisation), downwards (to target groups and beneficiaries but also to other groups and individuals that the organisation might affect directly and indirectly) and inwards (to organisational missions, vision and values). Through a participatory approach, the Global Accountability Project (GAP) developed an accountability framework which can be applied in partnership arrangements. It captures the current thinking on issues of accountability and proposes a model which contains four core dimensions that increase an organisation's accountability to its stakeholders (Blagescu, 2004). These must be integrated into an organisation's policies, procedures and practices, at all levels and stages of decision making and implementation, in relationships with both its internal and external stakeholders. The core dimensions are: (i) transparency; (ii) participation; (iii) evaluation; and (iv) complaints and redress.

The higher the quality and level of embeddedness of these dimensions in all organisational policies, processes and practices, the more accountable the organisation is. GAP acknowledges that these four dimensions are connected and impact on each other. Effective accountability requires that all parties in an accountable relationship fully understand and agree their obligations and rights, and believe that the other will act accordingly.

Accountability in North-South Partnerships
'Who is responsible to whom and for what?' is a critical question for any organisation to ask in relation to both internal and external affairs. In the context of partnerships, the issue of accountability is critical and significantly more complex.

Most of the literature on accountability and capacity building in North-South partnerships reviewed for this paper focused on (i) research partnerships or research/practice partnerships in the health sector between Northern governments or government agencies and Southern NGOs or think tanks; or (ii) partnerships between Northern and Southern NGOs.

As mentioned above, the need for accountability in North-South partnerships is mainly driven by the Northern partner's control over resources which skews the distribution of power (Brehm, 2001: 2). The Southern partner becomes dependent on the Northern partner (a vertical, dependency relationship) and is unable to maintain horizontal relations with other actors as equals.

The partnership idea is closely interlinked to notions of capacity building, ownership and participation (Hauck and Land, 2000). Yet many Northern organisations have difficulty sharing decision making with partners, leaving partnerships generally imbalanced in favour of the North (Brehm, 2001). Ideally, North-South partnerships are driven by the needs, priorities and potentials of both partners and the project users/beneficiaries are involved in the project design.

If the partners are not accountable to each other (i.e. a genuine partnership in which the two partners share decision making and responsibility has not been ensured), it is likely that the Southern partner will be unable to remain accountable to its own local stakeholders. If the Northern partner assumes a control function, the Southern partner risks becoming donor driven and shifts all its accountability towards the North and away from its own stakeholders. Northern partners must recognise that they are not the only ones rendering accountability; Southern resources, such as local knowledge and capacity, relationships with local stakeholders, etc., are equally valuable resources for which both Southern and Northern partners need to be accountable.

A three level accountability relationship is therefore required in partnerships: accountability of partners to their own stakeholders; accountability of partners to each other; and accountability of the partnership to its stakeholders. The chain of accountability mentioned in the section above applies at all these three levels. The ability of partners to be accountable to their stakeholders will strengthen their role in the partnership and affect the way in which the partnership as a whole becomes accountable. In the context of this discussion, though, the accountability of partners to each other requires special attention. It is here where the power imbalance needs to be addressed. Based on work carried out by the GAP, the list below suggests the type of questions that the two partners need to tackle as they embark on working together.

Key questions for equitable and accountable partnerships

• Access to timely and accurate information
  • How do partners share information?
    
  • What type of information is provided? Where and when is it made available?
    
  • Do all partners and relevant stakeholders have access to it?
    
• Terms of engagement
  • Are the terms on which the partnership is to be undertaken clearly understood by all parties?
    
  • What are the objectives, strategies and expected outcomes of the partnership?
    
  • Are the parameters of what is subject to negotiation (and what is not) clearly defined and understood?
    
  • Do all partners have a say in decision making, particularly to ensure that needs are met and capacities used in the most fruitful way?
    
  • How will the partnerships be formalised?
    
  • How do partners share responsibility and profits?
    
  • Are partners open to scrutiny and willing to revise the terms of engagement? Is there a mechanism in place for this?
    
  • How can other potential partners initiate engagement?
    
• Legitimacy of engagement/partnership
  • How are partners selected?
    
  • What process is used to ensure legitimacy and accountability of partners to their own stakeholders? (Is there a process to verify that partners represent the interests of those they claim to speak on behalf of?)
    
  • What review process is in place to ensure competence of the partners?
    
  • Is there a process in place to ensure commitment of the various partners?
    
• Procedural Review and Evaluation Mechanisms
  • What mechanisms exist for partners who have a grievance regarding the engagement process?
    
  • What mechanisms are in place to monitor and evaluate the partnership and its impact?
    
  • What processes are in place to ensure correction/improvement?
    

Handing over more control to Southern partners should not imply that they are charged with the sole responsibility of project implementation. It is the decision making structures and control over resources which must shift (Cornwall et al., 2000: 8), as well as ensuring a shift of leadership, responsibilities, decision making power and resources from the Northern to the Southern partners (Smith in Maselli et al., 2004: 40). This entails a move from a relationship which runs along clear hierarchical lines to a more complex one. This in turn requires a clearer specification of roles and responsibilities between the various stakeholders and within the various organisations involved in the partnership.

Other points for consideration

• The extent to which organisations are able to contribute to the overall accountability of the partnership will depend not only on their own accountability mechanisms but also on the nature of the partnerships they enter and the dynamics between the various partners involved.
  
• It is important to consider the impact that the choice of partner might have on the relationships amongst various groups in society, particularly when aiming to reach vulnerable populations and the partner choice might reinforce structural injustices. There is a need to ensure that the partnership will not give the Southern partner an unfair competitive advantage over similar organisations which will be affected as a result of the partnership.
  
• Mutuality implies fairness and equity to maximise responsiveness to each partner's stakeholders and organisational needs (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2004). There is a need to ensure that partnership accountability is not going to put a strain on accountability of partners to their respective stakeholders.
  
• Last and not least, issues such as health risks of the target group, the right to privacy, gender equity issues and environmental protection (likely to be incorporated in organisational policies and practice of partners) will affect the success and effectiveness of the partnership. Partners should discuss and agree on these in the early stages of the partnership, before an agreement is formalised.
  
  

Click on the links below for further information:

• Introduction and Current Thinking
• Partnerships
• Annotated bibliography
• Organisations
• Key Websites

Back to Partnerships and Accountability index