What can we learn on public accountability from non-health disciplines: A meta-narrative review

Abstract

Objective: In health, accountability has since long been acknowledged as a central issue, but it remains an elusive concept. The literature on accountability spans various disciplines and research traditions, with differing interpretations. There has been little transfer of ideas and concepts from other disciplines to public health and global health. In the frame of a study of accountability of (international) non-governmental organisations in local health systems, we carried out a meta-narrative review to address this gap. Our research questions were: (1) What are the main approaches to accountability in the selected research traditions? (2) How is accountability defined? (3) Which current accountability approaches are relevant for the organisation and regulation of local health systems and its multiple actors? Setting: The search covered peer-reviewed journals, monographs and readers published between 1992 and 2012 from political science, public administration, organisational sociology, ethics and development studies. 34 papers were selected and analysed. Results: Our review confirms the wide range of approaches to the conceptualisation of accountability. The definition of accountability used by the authors allows the categorisation of these approaches into four groups: the institutionalist, rights-based, individual choice and collective action group. These four approaches can be considered to be complementary. Conclusions: We argue that in order to effectively achieve public accountability, accountability strategies are to be complementary and synergistic.