Constructing a performance‐based accountability system for the Chinese government

• Published date: 01 May 2014
• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1519

■Special Issue Paper

Constructing a performance-based

accountability system for the Chinese

government

XiuXia Tan*

School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Purpose: This study constructs a valid performance-based system to monitor accountability within the Chinese government.

Design/methodology/approach: First, a normative analysis model was constructed to include four factors, which form a

complete accountability system: accountability to whom, accountability for what, how to demand accountability, and

its effectiveness. This normative model was then used to explore existing practices of Chinese government

performance evaluation and accountability.

Findings: Our study revealed the need to accelerate ‘two integrations’in order to develop performance-based account-

ability. This would involve accelerating the integration of government performance assessment and accountability

and accelerating the integration of external control and internal control.

Research Implications: This study is a preliminary study that pointsout the direction of performance-basedaccountability

system reform inChinese government. It will further promote the transformation of government functions and change

the way administration is carried out,promote to achieve the goal of the responsible government, and service-oriented

government. Establishing an effective performance-based accountability system in China may yet require further

research and policyrecommendations.

Originality/value: This article is original in its attempt to construct an accountability index for the Chinese government.

Its specific focus on China increases its originality as no known study has attempted to construct such an index.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

According to Scott (2000), the traditional concept of

accountability encompasses the formal duties of

public bodies in accounting for their actions to

ministers, parliament, and to courts. Following key

and recent administrative reforms, significant

changes to the concept of accountability has seen

key government functionaries stripped of their

‘cover’and held directly responsible for their

personal performance and that of their subordinates

(Barberis, 1998). Behn (2001) defines accountability

as focusing on three main functions of finance, fair-

ness, and performance. He notes that the traditional

administration paradigm places too much emphasis

on finances and fairness and not enough on perfor-

mance. Behn further introduces a fourth function of

personal probity to the accountability framework. In

practical terms, accountability implies that the

actions of administrative organizations and their

members are closely monitored by the legislature,

judiciary, administrative organs, civil organizations,

and the public. When the need arises, public bodies

and public servants may be asked to share details of

their actions with monitoring bodies based on politi-

cal, constitutionalor contractual powers (Scott, 2000).

As China continuesto move towards a transparent

system of democratic governance, the need for

accountability as an essential element of democracy

can no longer be ignored. Under the current social

democratic structure of the Chinese government,

accountability and transparency are indeed very

essential for Chinese citizens to impose reliance on the

*Correspondence to: XiuXia Tan, School of Government, Beijing

Normal University, No.19, Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District,

Beijing, China.

E-mail: xiangzitan@126.com

Journal of Public Affairs

Volume 14 Number 2 pp 154–163 (2014)

Published online 14 April 2014 in Wiley Online Library

(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1519

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.